I respect Lawson Lamar and his service, in every
capacity. I respect his experiences and
can understand why he favors the death penalty.
However, I believe his reasoning for his support is specious at best,
and his call for the removal of the current State's Attorney is wrong and not
good for anyone.
His basic argument for the death penalty is that if we don’t
impose it, or at least threaten to, people who commit crimes of all sorts will
have no reason not to just kill witnesses, or the cops trying to arrest
them. This reasoning is hogwash and has
no basis in fact. The murder of
witnesses is a rare occurrence, for people facing the death penalty, as well as
for those who are not facing the death penalty.
And the motive for elimination of the witness may or may not have
anything to do with whether the accused is facing the death penalty or
not. Most accused who are facing the
death penalty are facing life imprisonment without parole as the next best
option if they are convicted. Most of
the people I’ve represented facing these options do not find the life penalty
option to be more favorable.
As for whether the threat of the death penalty increases the
safety of cops is once again a specious argument. It is doubtful that a person who shoots a cop
considers that he or she may be punished by the death penalty. They do it to escape or in the heat of the
moment. The penalties for the crime(s)
they are committing are not running through their minds before they commit
them. Currently, and sadly, the murder
of cops is on the rise. One reason is
for the motives I’ve already discussed.
The other is that we are undergoing a cultural shift in some communities
where cops are felt to be an enemy and need to be eliminated. Fortunately, few ascribe to this kind of
thinking and such murders are still rare.
I would also suggest that people who commit cop killings for reasons
other than escape or wanting to commit suicide by cop, are the type of thrill
seekers who would do such a crime in any case, or are criminals anyway who will
use any excuse to kill a cop. Again,
fortunately, there are few of these people out there.
The threat of the death penalty only keeps those who are not
likely to ever be facing it honest.
Those who are facing it, who are already sitting on death row or who
have committed a crime for which it is a penalty, didn’t care about the penalty
for the crime when they committed it and still do not. Some may have thought they could get away
with it, but not many. The death penalty
is State retribution for a crime.
Sometimes, the prosecutors seeking it couldn’t care less what the actual
victims of the crime or their family members would have wanted or want. Some victims do not cry out for the death
penalty. The State seeks it anyway. So, if you are going to defend it, defend it
as a moral and legal State sanctioned retribution for the crime committed. It cannot be defended as a crime reducing
instrument nor as being less costly to the government. We have seen how many times juries,
prosecutors, and cops have gotten it wrong.
There is no telling how many innocent people have been murdered, excuse
me, executed, in the name of the State.
So, justify it as revenge or as retribution, but not as a deterrent to
crime.
Lawson Lamar also calls for governor Scott to remove Aramis
Ayala as the duly and lawfully elected State’s Attorney for Orange and Osceola
Counties. It is my opinion that it would
be unlawful for him to do so. The
Governor is authorized to remove a State’s Attorney from a case when such
attorney is disqualified to try a particular case (the accused or victim is a
relative, the attorney is a witness, etc.) or for any other good and sufficient
reason. See
27.14 Assigning state attorneys to other circuits.—
(1) If any state attorney is disqualified to represent the
state in any investigation, case, or matter pending in the courts of his or her
circuit or if, for any other good and sufficient reason, the Governor
determines that the ends of justice would be best served, the Governor may, by
executive order filed with the Department of State, either order an exchange of
circuits or of courts between such state attorney and any other state attorney
or order an assignment of any state attorney to discharge the duties of the
state attorney with respect to one or more specified investigations, cases, or
matters, specified in general in the executive order of the Governor. Any
exchange or assignment of any state attorney to a particular circuit shall expire
12 months after the date of issuance, unless an extension is approved by order
of the Supreme Court upon application of the Governor showing good and
sufficient cause to extend such exchange or assignment.
Many people seem to believe, Lawson Lamar included it seems,
that the Governor can remove a State’s Attorney from a case, or even from
office, anytime that State’s Attorney displeases the Governor, the law
enforcement community, or a friend. If
that were so, our State’s Constitution would not call for and allow for the
election of the various State’s Attorneys.
The Governor would just appoint them.
If we acquiesce to Lawson Lamar’s call, that could be just what we could
have. Is that what Lawson Lamar
wants? Surely, if it were he under fire,
he wouldn’t think so.
If the Governor removes a State’s Attorney from one case or
from office, the Governor then chooses who gets to replace him/her from among
the other elected State’s Attorneys. Who do you think he’s going to
choose? Someone who may still think the
death penalty should not be on the table, or someone he is assured will seek
the death penalty? The death penalty is
not requested in many cases, even in many where most people think it should
apply. Whether or not the death penalty
is sought is discretionary with the presiding State’s Attorney. Just like the Governor has discretion to do
or not do many things, the State’s Attorney, just like the Governor can use any
lawful reason for acting or not acting.
Is what the Governor or the State’s Attorney does in a certain case
always pleasing to the electorate or a certain constituency? Certainly not. Does that make it wrong, illegal, removable,
or impeachable? No, not if it was otherwise
lawful.
What Aramis Ayala did in the Markeith Lloyd case is
distasteful and is the wrong decision for the Governor, the legislature, his
victims, and, probably, most of her constituents. But, is what she did unlawful, removable, or
impeachable? No, so long as she can aggressively
pursue a conviction for the crimes he is alleged to have committed. I believe she can do this. Was her reasoning for not pursuing the death
penalty politically wrong?
Probably. But, did she have the
authority to make the decision? I think
yes.
I do not believe in the death penalty and believe it should
be taken off the books. Still, I think
Ms. Ayala made the wrong decision here.
Nonetheless, she had the discretion to do so and I do not believe the
Governor has, or should have, the authority to remove her from the case or from
office as long as the law is what it is.
It would set a very bad precedent.