Let Ohio killer live, says surviving victim

[The Straight Story]

Let Ohio killer live, says surviving victim
Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:52 PM


COLUMBUS -- An Ohio man says the state should set aside the death sentence of a hitchhiker who attacked him in 1983 and later fatally shot another man.

Bruce Graham tells the Ohio Patrol Board in a letter that he does not think one more life taken would solve anything.

Graham was driving to Cincinnati in June 1983 when he stopped to pick up Michael Beuke. Beuke pulled out a gun, ordered Graham to drive him to a secluded area, and shot him when he stopped the car.

Almost three decades later, Beuke faces execution next month for a related fatal shooting. Graham has forgiven his attacker and wants him spared.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2010/04/29/let-ohio-killer-live-says-surviving-victim.html?type=rss&cat=&sid=101

[madokie]

1. One more life taken won't solve anything,

Too easy to find jaysus while on death roll and then to be looking forward to the dying. Lock 'm up and throw away the key and keep them alive as long as possible. I would see that as a detriment more than frying their ass.

[Lance_Boyle]

2. I oppose the death penalty, but equally importantly I oppose victims having any say

in the punishment of those who victimized them. The law has no room for emotion. This is why crimes are tried as *state* v accused, not *victim* v accused. Graham is entitled to his opinion, but that doesn't mean that his opinion is worthy of legal consideration.

[paulsby]

3. i like victims having their say

and under the victim's bill of rights they do

their say is not dispositive

that holds in the polanski case, too

[Lance_Boyle]

5. I believe their only say should be testimony of facts.

Instructing a jury that they are only to decide a case on the facts, but then permitting purely emotive testimony from victims, is problematic. Of course in the case we're discussing now no jury is involved. Presumably the victim is appealing to the Governor or someone else with the ability to alter the sentence? Still, I find it troubling that a victim's testimony on anything but the facts is allowed. Even in this case - the victim who survived gets to say "please let him live." The victim(s) who died get no such say. That's fundamentally unfair.

[paulsby]

6. not really

becaused the victims don't get their "emotional" say during the finding of fact, the trial

we are talking about POST conviction testimony. it's not there for probative value.

it's not "cosmically" fair, but that's not the law.

and fwiw, when the victim is DEAD, the victim's FAMILY often gives testimony, further diminishing your point

[Lance_Boyle]

8. I, of course, disapprove of victims' families being permitted to provide any testimony

beyond facts as well. I don't think that diminishes the validity of my opinion on the matter. I just don't think that application of justice under the law should be allowed to be swayed by emotion.

Is this sort of testimony allowed in sentencing? I'd find that possibly *more* problematic than allowing it pre-conviction.

[paulsby]

9. yes

because victim impact is relevant

i don't believe, for example, in prosecuting (or criminalizing) victimless crimes a la drugs, prostitution, etc.

most people believe that a crime's impact on a victim is relevant to sentencing

i agree

[Lance_Boyle]

13. Glad you and I can disagree respectfully on the issue.

I am of the opinion that the punishment should fit the crime, not the victim's irrational assessment of the crime's impact on himself. Murder one person? Serve x number of years. Murder 2? Serve x times 2. I have a problem with the potential for sentencing to vary based on how well the victim (or his survivors) can emotionally sway a jury (or a judge, or a Governor). Doesn't that have the potential to undermine justice for particularly non-sympathetic victims? Even if the victim is a horrible person, the person who victimized him/her should be punished the same as if the victim was a saint.

[paulsby]

16. i have seen personally the impact of crimes

and i think it helps juries and judges come to a better conclusion as to sentencing

i don't agree with cookie cutter sentencing, because the reality is that just because the same crime occurred, in many respects its not the same

imo, it's PART of justice that a victim has their say

we can and do disagree respectfully on this, and i appreciate that

[Deep13]

10. They have a say, but the final decision is the governor's.

They have a chance to talk before the judge pronounces sentence. If they can provide testimony relevant to aggravating or mitigating circumstances, then they can talk to the jury before they decide whether or not to authorize a capital sentence. But the jury makes that decision based on standardized legal considerations.

So victims in Ohio have a say, but they don't make the decisions.

[paulsby]

11. i agree

as i said, under the victim's bill of rights, they have a right to give a victim impact statement

it is NOT dispositive, as i said.

and that works either way

prosecutors try cases all the time where the victim doesn't want prosecution (see: domestic violence)

[proteus_lives]

20. The Polanski case isn't a great example.

He paid her off.

[MicaelS]

4. Your attitude is precisely why victim's rights movements and laws

Have been so successful. People are of the opinion that no one is cares or is interested in the victim. It's just an intellectual exercise between lawyers decided by a judge. It's not about the victim's rights being violated, not about an actual human being being hurt, it's only about the state's laws being broken. What you're really saying is the state is more important than human beings.

[Lance_Boyle]

7. Nobody is 'more special' under the law than anyone else. Victims included.

And I am, in fact, saying that impartial application of justice under the law is more important than allowing an individual victim to state his or her opinion. Victims' rights movements are successful *in spite of* this being a nation of laws.

[Deep13]

12. So, everyone has a right to speak except victim?

How is that fair? The victim's statement before sentencing is a reminder that a criminal sentencing is not an academic exercise. Under Common Law victims had a right of petition to the grand jury. They were not required to wait on the prosecutor's discretion like they are now. This right to speak before sentencing is the last vestige of that they have.

And that no-one is more special stuff is bullshit. As long as decisions are not made based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity, the courts have wide discretion to consider anything they want.

[Lance_Boyle]

14. The only people who need to speak at a trial are those who can provide facts

on which to decide the case. Victims can often provide facts. But I don't believe that their emotional assessments belong in court alongside those facts.

[Deep13]

17. They don't speak at trial unless they are witnesses.

They speak after the verdict and before sentencing to explain the damage that the offense has caused them.

[paulsby]

19. also, let's remember crimes are about... wait for it... PEOPLE

and victims, not just abstract laws.

that's why, for one reason, i support getting rid of victimless crimes like drugs, prostitution, etc.

lawyers, and many others tend to lose sight of the fact that there is a VICTIM when there is a crime (at least in regards to "real" crimes) and that the VICTIM matters.

[MicaelS]

15. Please....

If you're rich you CAN afford more "justice" than the average person. Many rich people skate on crimes that would see the average person do hard time. A blue collar thief who steals $1,000,000 with a gun will do much harder time than a white collar thief who steals $1,000,000 by cheating people. And if you're famous, or has a lawyer who can successfully play the race card, you CAN get away with murder in this country. OJ Simpson and Robert Blake both proved that.

You can peddle that "impartial application of justice under the law" somewhere else, because I'm not buying it for one second.

[paulsby]

18. fwiw, this is a great argument against hate crime laws

fwiw, *i* am against hate crime laws, but your argument is ONE of the arguments used against them