Prosecutor Who Opposed a Death Sentence Is Rebuked (New York Times, September 15, 2007)
Robert E. Owens, an Alabama prosecutor, was criticized by the state attorney general for arguing that a man on death row should not be put to death because the gunman in the execution he was a part of was not put to death. Marcus Presley was convicted with LaSamuel Gamble for the murder of two people at a pawn shop in 1996. A security camera shows that Presley was the gunmen in the crime and Gamble only checked the victims’ vitals and picked up the shell casings. Both men were sentenced to death before an amendment ruled it unconstitutional to sentence anyone under 18 to capital punishment. Presley, the gunman who was 16 at the time, was then put to life without parole. Gamble, who didn’t pull the trigger, was 18 so he was still on death row until winning his appeal to convert his sentence to life in prison just last week. The state attorney general says he will try to reinstate the death penalty on Gamble.
I do not think that Gamble should be put to death since the gunman in the crime wasn’t even put to death. The state attorney general is wrong in criticizing Robert Owens. Owens makes a very good point when he says, “I couldn’t lay my head on my pillow at night if I stood by and let a person who didn’t kill somebody be executed when the person who did kill somebody was not.” The evidence was there that Gamble didn’t kill the victims so why was he sentenced to death in the first place? Even if Presley was executed, Gamble should not be. However, if Gamble is executed, Presley definitely should be too. Presley was the one that pulled the trigger and should not be able to get away living if Gamble does not.
4 comments:
In a case like this, I see no difference between the two men. It does not matter to me whether one of them pulled the trigger and one of them didn't. Both men knew what they were doing, and should be punished equally. I am not qualified to say whether they should both be put to death, or both spend life in prison, but they both should share the same fate. I agree with Owens when he says he cannot allow one of the criminals to be put to death, but not the other. Watching a crime and not acting, is just as cowardly as committing the crime, but in this case the other man was even involved in the crime.
I think the death penalty doesn't really teach anything and its hippocritcal because the government is killing someone for killing. In this case both the men should be sentenced to the same. By letting the other man do the shooting he was just as much in the wrong as the guy with the gun. Its sad that this is the case but if you do nothing about the shooting then you let it happen and deserve the punishment. Finally, I think the death penalty doesnt give the killer many years to think about what he did wrong and defeats the purpose so life in jail would teach more of a lesson.
I think this is a really interesting article and is something I have never heard of before. I had no idea that by accompanying a murderer, you yourself could also be put to death. I agree with Bryanna that Gamble should not be given capital punishment since Presley, the actual shooter, is not being put to death. I also agree that it is wrong that Gamble was even sentenced to death in the first place. Although I do believe Gamble should be heavily punished for his involvement in the crime, I do not think he should be to be sentenced to death because he did not kill anyone. I agree with Robert E. Owens arguments in favor of Gamble’s life. The state attorney general is being cruel and inhumane for criticizing Owen and trying to reinstate the death penalty on a man who did not kill anyone.
Post a Comment