BREAKING: Governor Markell Commutes Sentence
Governor Markell, for the first time in Delaware history, has commuted the death sentence of Robert Gattis to life in prison without parole.
The Governor is to be commended for this brave decision.
“I realize my decision may cause pain to the family and friends of Shirley Slay. For that, I deeply apologize.” Markell said in a statement. However, as a condition of the commutation, Markell said Gattis must agree to surrender all future legal appeals and instead spend the rest of his natural life in prison. This was a condition recommended by the Pardons Board. […]
“This commutation in no way relieves Mr. Gattis of his moral or legal guilt, and I am mindful of the fact that an innocent victim lost her life on the night of May 9, 1990,” Markell said, adding the decision to spare Gattis life was “among the most difficult I have had to make in all my years in public service.”
That “any minute” has now turned into 40 minutes.
Here is the screen grab of the original notification from the News Journal.
Breaking news, Governor Markell apparently condones murder.
The Governor made the right decision. Pointless to argue with Anon, but requiring someone to spend the rest of his life in prison is not condoning murder.
Anon, no he condemns murder, which is why he is not going to murder Gattis.
ok.
Some Republican tomato can will no doubt run on anon’s proposed campaign theme. Markell gets the benefit of being the human being in the race.
Yep, Jason. Here is the Governor’s commutation message in its entirety:
“Statement of Governor Jack Markell
Regarding the Commutation of Sentence of Robert Gattis
Pursuant to my authority under Article VII, Section 1 of the Delaware Constitution, I have decided to commute the sentence of Robert Gattis to life in prison without the possibility of parole, subject to the conditions set forth below.
I realize my decision may cause pain to the family and friends of Shirley Slay. For that, I deeply apologize.
In reaching this conclusion, I give great weight to the decision of the Board of Pardons. In the exercise of its constitutional duties, the Board thoroughly reviewed Mr. Gattis’s application for clemency and the State’s response. The Board studied the entire historical record of this case, carefully listened to the statements made by parties on both sides, and had the opportunity to look Mr. Gattis in the eyes and question him. Having done so, the Board took the unusual and perhaps historic step of recommending, by a 4-1 margin, that Mr. Gattis’s death sentence be commuted to life without parole. I take the Board’s considered decision seriously.
Over the last two decades, executions pursuant to death penalty sentences imposed by the State have proceeded only in the absence of an objection from the Board of Pardons and the multiple courts having jurisdiction over the case. In essence, the multiple checks and balances that are in place have historically been in alignment before the extraordinary action of executing a criminal defendant proceeds. While I have supported the imposition of the death penalty in the past and I consider Mr. Gattis’s crimes to be heinous, I am not prepared to move forward with imposition of the sentence in this case.
I undertake this commutation after thorough review of the record presented and substantial contemplation. I have read Mr. Gattis’s application for clemency, the state’s response, and Mr. Gattis’s reply. I have reviewed the many affidavits submitted. I have spent substantial time considering the harm endured by Ms. Slay and her family, Mr. Gattis’s history, and the merits of the clemency application. I have prayed. At the end of the day, although I am not free from doubt, I believe moving forward with the execution of Mr. Gattis is not appropriate under the totality of the circumstances. After my review, I find myself in agreement with the four members of the Board of Pardons who concluded the mitigating evidence here is sufficiently substantial that an act of clemency on my part is warranted. In doing so, I am committed to the fact that Mr. Gattis will spend his remaining life in prison and will pose no threat to public safety.
Even if one were to discount certain of the allegations of sexual abuse recently alleged by Mr. Gattis (as the Board did), the fact remains that Mr. Gattis’s family background is among the most troubling I have encountered. As one of his former attorneys stated in an affidavit, the additional evidence about Mr. Gattis’s childhood “puts Mr. Gattis, his case, and his potential defenses to capital murder in an entirely different light.” This substantial dysfunction, abuse and neglect Mr. Gattis experienced as a youth does not in any way excuse the cowardly murder of Ms. Slay.
This commutation in no way relieves Mr. Gattis of his moral or legal guilt, and I am mindful of the fact that an innocent victim lost her life on the night of May 9, 1990. That is why I have conditioned Mr. Gattis’s commutation on the following: (1) Mr. Gattis shall forever drop all legal challenges to his conviction and sentence, as commuted; (2) Mr. Gattis shall forever waive any right to present a future commutation or pardon request and agree to live out his natural life in the custody of the Department of Correction; (3) Mr. Gattis will be housed in the Maximum Security Unit of the James T. Vaughn Correction Center for the remainder of his natural life, unless constitutionally required medical care is necessary; and (4) Mr. Gattis, after consultation with counsel, shall knowingly, willingly and voluntarily accept these conditions, as determined by the Superior Court. With these conditions, Ms. Slay’s loved ones can at least know that they will never have to go through the painful process again of trials, hearings or requests for release.
My decision is among the most difficult I have had to make in all my years in public service. But in light of the Board’s unprecedented decision and the reasons set forth above, I believe it is the correct one under the circumstances. My thoughts and prayers are with the loved ones of Shirley Slay during this difficult time.”
What I see is a human being struggling with a decision, recognizing the impact that his decision will have, and doing what he believes to be the right thing. I don’t only have respect for the decision, but for the process that the Governor used to make the decision. Humanity is a trait that I want in my elected officials, and Gov. Markell demonstrated it today.
Campaign Theme: Coward Lately?
Coward? This was a brave decision.
“Governor Markell apparently condones murder.”
Yes, life in prison is certainly evidence of condoning a behavior. You just undid what little point you previously had. Emotionally lashing out is exactly what got Robert Gattis in trouble.
Here, let me add an emotional aside: You’re a bloodthirsty asshole, and hiding it behind “compassion for victims” proves you’re the coward in this discussion.
It’s always a hilarious Scanners moment when death penalty proponents say they are followers of Jesús and are asked to justify the obvious conflict.
But nevermind that. What’s important is the purpose of capital punishment. Is it supposed to be a deterant or retribution? One thing’s for sure, the way the death penalty’s been applied since the 70s has not been in a way to make it a deterant, meaning the penalty’s swift, severe and certain.
This was an excellent decision by the Governor. Thank you, sir.
Anon, would you have the “courage” to kill Gattis yourself?
I dont have a definite opinion on this. Someone who rapes, tortures and kills with no guilt… letting them live off the state with free health care doesnt seem just to me. . should the state kill them? i dont know, maybe not? Should the state keep them in good health and protect them from other prisoners who might have their own idea of punishment? I doubt that even more. Throwing a child rapist into gen pop is a sure bet they are going to get “punished”….. why is that a bad thing?
We know that the death penalty does not work as a deterrent. We know it costs more to put someone down… we also know that if we are going to execute someone, we go through the insane steps of making sure they are healthy enough to kill. we do it “painlessly”…. (which is alot more humanity than they afforded their victem(s) )
What WOULD work as a deterrent? and for that matter what should i use as a detergent?
“letting them live off the state with free health care doesnt seem just to me”
You’re kidding, I hope. Ever tried any of that “free health care” you speak of so glowingly?
“Throwing a child rapist into gen pop is a sure bet they are going to get “punished”….. why is that a bad thing?”
Because we’re supposedly civilized.
of course not. that was hyperbole.
if you ask me, about 60% of the people in prison right now didn’t do anything worthy of that punishment. I cant however square the protection that some prisoners get…. especially when you consider what they did. is it “civilized” to not wish for justice? how about recognizing that some people will never feel regret or remorse and living with the knowledge they caused pain is a positive for them…. wherever they are living. I think it is possible to be for some sort of extreme punishment while not being a right wing teabagger….. maybe not.
you follow this logic to it’s inevitable conclusion, and all of a sudden you could say that using stun-guns in battle is inhumane (forget lethal force) But if you are OK with “enemy soldiers” being killed…. who never have any say in whether there should even be a war and might have never killed anyone…. than how can you be against the killing of someone who has chosen to be an enemy of society?
At the same time, it has never been shown to deter crime…. so what do you do?
It’s why i have never been able to take a definite stance for or against capital punishment. good thing i live in America where you can have complex and open ended opinions.
SB,
no, you are not allowed to differ from the ideologues here at DL, which is their right.
Of course you are allowed to differ from us, Anon. However, we are allowed to criticize a differing opinion and point out the ways it is wrong. Socialistic Ben is more than holding his own in this debate.
Of course he is. I am just a conversation spark, not even real.
SB–you raise a good line of questions, regarding the morality of waging war (often spun as fighting against an aggressor).
I do see quite a line between a society raising an army, and directing that army to fight armed opponents (hopefully those who are agents of another society, which has directed them to oppose ours), and a society putting criminals to death.
I think that it is much greyer to justify the bombing of nagasaki and hiroshima.
capital punishment can have a few justifications–deterrent (insufficient supporting evidence), revenge (I see this as the most honest justification–I don’t agree that it is just, however), public safety (again, there is insufficient supporting evidence, given the alternative a life without parole), and savings (it’s cheaper–geez, I hope that this argument doesn’t win the day, or else I guess that my Mom on Social Security should start worrying–bring on Palin’s death panels!)
Im not willing to go along with what i think would be the solution to the death penalty not serving to deter crime. and that is relaxing our definition of what is “cruel and unusual”. Most murderers (for the sake of this argument, the State and executioners should not be considered “murderers”) do not give their victims a final meal of their choosing, ensure they are in good physical health, let the speak with clergy, give them a sedative (sterilized needle) and then, after they are alseep, painlessly administer lethal drugs than just make that sleep permanent. That is an awful lot of care to make sure someone who, for the sake of argument is guilty of a heinous crime, feels no pain. BUt like i said, I’d never support the “torture rapists to death” idea.. even if it could be shown to be effective.