Alberto Gonzales on Executions

I think this is the right forum, if not, my apologies.

The nomination of Alberto Gonzales has got me more than slightly concerned, so I did some digging...

Alberto Gonzales has quite the track record. From 1995-1997, Gonzales acted as legal counsel when then-governor Bush decided whether to grant clemency in death penalty cases. His job was to write a memo briefing the governor about the background of the person requesting clemency. Usually included in that memo would be a discussion of the inmate’s history and a run down of how his/her case proceeded through the court system. According to a 2003 article in The Atlantic Monthly, Gonzales, “repeatedly failed to apprise the governor of cases of ineffective counsel, conflict of interest, mitigating evidence, even actual evidence of innocence.” These memos to the governor also excluded some kinda important factors, for example, “mental illness or incompetence, childhood physical or sexual abuse, remorse, rehabilitation, racial discrimination in jury selection, the competence of legal defense, or disparities in sentences between co-defendants or among defendants convicted of similar crimes.” These factors are ROUTINELY looked at, and dare I say, rather important.

Take for example, the case of Terry Washington. He was a 33-year-old mentally retarded man with the communication skills of a 7-year-old. He was executed in Texas in 1997. Gonzales’ clemency memo to Governor Bush did not even mention his mental retardation or his lawyer’s failure to call for the testimony of a mental health expert at his trial. Also missing was any mention of Washington’s history. As a child, he was regularly beaten. In 1997, the execution of the mentally retarded (yes, I hate that term too, but it’s legally correct), was being strongly questioned. By 2002, the Supreme Court held that executing the mentally retarded is “cruel and unusual” punishment prohibited by the 8th Amendment. And yet, Gonzales didn’t find that fact to be important enough to include in a memo that would decide the man’s fate?!

As if that weren’t bad enough, apparently the memo sent to Governor Bush in this man’s case completely lacked a concise and coherent summary of the man’s best argument against execution. Wouldn’t you think, if you were deciding whether or not to execute someone, it might be helpful to hear the legal case against doing so?

So what did the memos include? An extremely detailed and gruesome description of the crime. I don’t get it. The question was not whether the crime was committed or how it was committed. The question at a clemency hearing is whether or not the person charged deserves to die for the crime. First and foremost, you might want to know if the person is actually guilty.

For more on the Gonzales execution memos, feel free to read the rest of the article.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20030620.html.

Edit: more descriptive title