Maurice Clemmons and the death penalty
OK, here we go again. Anyone that knows me knows what I’m about to do. It’s happened too many times in the past. Someone who should never have been allowed to repeat violent crimes is allowed to and someone gets hurt because of it. In this case, it’s pretty amazing actually. Everyone wants to blame Mike Huckabee, but he has a lot of assistance.
In 1989 or so, Clemmons was sentenced to 48 years for a variety of felonies. In 1990 Maurice Clemmons was convicted of burglery and sentenced to sixty MORE years. That seemed a bit harsh at first appearance, but maybe the prosecutors and judge knew something else was going on. They seemed to think he was rather unstable. Now, the death penalty does seem a bit harsh for robbing something. However, one hundred and eight years at eighteen years old pretty much is a death sentence. That didn’t happen. Maurice was left to chance luck. That happened in 2000.
In 2000, Mike Huckabee issued Clemmons a pardon. Given a second chance, he committed robbery. The legal system dicked around until he finally went back to prison in 2004.
He was released in 2008, again. Given a third chance, he assaulted an officer and raped a child.
Released again when he made bail, he shot four officers before confronting a fifth and getting himself killed.
This guy is the poster child for the deathe penalty. Repeated violent crimes, repeat convictions for violent crimes, repeatedly let go against the will of the jury that convicted him. You can’t blame this all on Huckabee. The parole board recommended his release. Now, if I were governor, there would be no consideration for violent offenders. So, I do have issues with Huckabee. However, it’s society in general that feels people who are fubar upstairs deserve repeated opportunities to inflict violence on innocent people. Until that attitude changes, this will keep happening,
Now, my logic is it is more cruel to lock a human being up in a prison for 108 years than it is to simply end their life.
My logic also is that all intentionally violent crimes against innocent people is “crazy”. Therefore, insanity is not a defense.
Maurice Clemmons proved at a very young age that he was a threat to society. That includes me and my family. I’d appreciate it if when a violent crime is sentenced that the jury consider the well-being of those who might be subjected to the violent offender than the consideration of the violent offender. Make sense? And the only way you can guarantee something like Maurice Clemmons will not rape small children and shoot cops having dinner is to end their life. Period.