Sue Hartigan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi Terry:
Dr. L. brought up something, and Jackie and I wonder too, there was not
a 100% vote by the Supremes on this. And from reading their decision it
looked to me like one of the reasons was that they didn't really have
time to look into the "international" problem before he was executed.
They did state that they hoped that the state would hold off. But
obviously the state didn't listen. :(
So my question is why couldn't they have held off executing him, until
all these questions could be answered. And shouldn't there be a 100%
decision with the Supremes before they decide that a person should be
executed as there is with a jury?
Hope you can help us with this?
Sue
> Hi Ron,
>
> We disagree about the death penalty but that is beside the point. Maybe the
> lives of American citizens abroad matter little. But is the rule of law of
> so little concern to you?
>
> What "clemency people" are there BTW?
--
Two rules in life:
1. Don't tell people everything you know.
2.
Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues
