I'm not sure that "redemption" in prison should have anything to do with clemency, especially 30 years later. Suppose the process only took 5 years and the person didn't have time to "redeem" himself. Is there a difference?

Also, when there is a foreknown punishment for a crime, "redemption" doesn't really seem fair. It would seem to me that consistency is vital in punishing violent crime. It's hard not to let the sweet sound of "writes children's books" tug at your heartstrings. But two innocent men did not have the chance to write children's books of their own, let alone have children of their own.

Don't you suppose that, if he had gotten clemency based on the fact that he wrote children's books, that there would be a sudden surge of children's book authors coming from Death Row?

The exception I make is where there is doubt as to whether someone actually did commit the crime or not.


I really don't know if we as a society have the right to put people to death for their crimes or not. I'm still up in the air about that one. I suppose my opinion would depend strongly on whether I knew the accused or the victims. If my child was sentenced to death row, would I be against the death penalty? If my child was murdered, would I be a supporter? I don't know.

If *I* was wrongly convicted and sentenced, would I be against it? (Of course!)

But I guess I come down on the side of supporting authority to be responsible for those decisions.