That's the title of an editorial in the Saturday edition of the Dallas Morning News. LINK
A bill filed by Sen. Rodney Ellis would change that. It would require the Board of Pardons and Paroles to hold a meeting with the condemned prisoner in attendance. The meeting can be in person, by phone or through videoconference.
This bill, SB 166, is a good one. It grants access to a person whose life is at stake and allows for a last-ditch plea that may, someday, avert the rare tragedy of a fatal error.
Today's system has safeguards built in, but it's hard to have too many. Upon request, an inmate is now afforded an interview with a parole board member in response to a clemency application. That member makes a report to the full board. At decision time, however, members may inform the chairman of their votes by phone or by fax. That means the business of death is decided remotely and in relative isolation.
Final judgment by this deliberative state body should occur with the subject of the proceeding and his attorney as witnesses to votes cast by each member. We would make one fundamental change in the bill and require that the meeting be open to the public. The state has the technology to make that manageable.
The board,
which makes reprieve recommendations to the governor, is in a position
to weigh factors that courts haven't. For example, the execution of
Larry Swearingen of Montgomery County was stayed by federal court in
January based on information that a key forensic prosecution witness
changed her mind and concluded he could not be the killer. State courts
didn't consider that new evidence. Another worthwhile
Ellis measure, SJR 7, would allow Texans to vote on changing the state
constitution to give the governor more than the one 30-day reprieve he
can now grant without a parole board recommendation. We repeat: It's
hard to build in too many safeguards when it comes to taking a life in
the name of the state.
Comments