Eric Rudolph

So perhaps someone can explain this one to me.

Our current attorney general is of the opinion that the death penalty is not used enough. He interjected himself personally (and many in the legal community -- prosecutors and defense alike -- believe inappropriately) into the decision to seek the death penalty in a particular case, a decision that traditionally has been within the sole purview of the local US Attorney, regularly overruling the decisions of local prosecutors against seeking capital punishment in particular cases. He has made it harder for prosecutors to enter into plea agreements with defendants by mandating the pursuit of stricter sentences. He has instructed that judges that issue more lenient sentences be "monitored".

Yet this terrorist, Eric Rudolph, the olympic and abortion clinic bomber, is allowed to plead guilty and avoid the death penalty. I'm not aware of any significant weaknesses in the government's case against him (in any of the FOUR bombings of which he was accused, by the way) that would seem to weigh significantly in favor of a plea.

At first blush, this smells bad. I haven't figured out what the second blush is yet. Anyone?

[Dead]

It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[xadrez]

The thing I find strange about Eric Rudolph is that not once have I heard one person call him a "terrorist", which he most clearly is.

[Dead]

I've called him a terrorist before. Not on here, but he certainly is one- a domestic terrorist, to be exact. People who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists. They are trying to effect change through violent intimidation.

[ QUOTE ]
It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I foolishly referred to our "current" AG in my original post. I was referring to John Ashcroft, who should have of course been identified as the predecessor to Mr. Gonzalez.

But the question still remains. Why was Mr. Rudolph allowed to escape death while this administration, through Mr. Ashcroft, required the pursuit of the death penalty in much less egregious cases? Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh, let alone the murderers and drug dealers that Mr. Ashcroft insisted get death?

[Dead]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument, because I would guess that McVeigh would have voted Republican.

He detested Clinton and he detested big government. Lots of Republicans still gripe about Waco.

Bush didn't care bout his history. He didn't pardon him. he let the execution go through. I respect Bush for that.

Of course, Rudolph should die. It was good that McVeigh died. Terry Nichols should have to die as well, but he won't.

The death penalty is not used enough.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's not because Eric Rudolph is anti-abortion and anti-gay. I doubt it was even a decision that Gonzalez made. It was probably made by a subordinate.

[/ QUOTE ]


I foolishly referred to our "current" AG in my original post. I was referring to John Ashcroft, who should have of course been identified as the predecessor to Mr. Gonzalez.

But the question still remains. Why was Mr. Rudolph allowed to escape death while this administration, through Mr. Ashcroft, required the pursuit of the death penalty in much less egregious cases? Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh, let alone the murderers and drug dealers that Mr. Ashcroft insisted get death?

[/ QUOTE ]

Niss,

MY understanding is that the death penalty was not sought in exchange for information on the locations of several large caches of explosives, some of which were apparently very close to some inhabited areas.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why is he worthy of a lighter punishment than Timothy McVeigh

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a bad argument, because I would guess that McVeigh would have voted Republican.

He detested Clinton and he detested big government. Lots of Republicans still gripe about Waco.

Bush didn't care bout his history. He didn't pardon him. he let the execution go through. I respect Bush for that.

Of course, Rudolph should die. It was good that McVeigh died. Terry Nichols should have to die as well, but he won't.

The death penalty is not used enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not intended to be a referendum on the death penalty. Please don't turn this thread into that.

Nobody said McVeigh did or did not deserve the death penalty. The question is that, if McVeigh deserved it, and was not allowed to plead in order to avoid the death penalty, then why was Rudolph allowed to do so?

I think a reasonable question to discuss is whether the administration feared that his execution would alienate or offend a portion of its base constituency.

Thanks vulture, I hadn't heard that. If there's a legitimate reason for letting him escape the death penalty, then I've got no problem with letting him plead.

[Dead]

I hadn't heard that VR said, but I'm sure that he is correct.

I guess that I understand the logic behind a life sentence in this case, although that is very unfortunate.

Your comments that the administration didn't want to kill Rudolph because they feared alienating their constituency is ridiculous. Most anti-choice people did not support Rudolph and his extremism. Most realize that you cannot call yourself "pro-life" while supporting the bombing of clinics.