Pennsylvania Governor Says He Won't Sign Execution Warrants

"This is a fundamental statement of morality, of what's right and wrong," Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro said Thursday. "And I believe Pennsylvania must be on the right side of this issue."

On Thursday, Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro announced that he would not grant any execution warrants during his tenure as governor—continuing a trend set by his predecessor. He also called on Pennsylvania lawmakers to pass legislation banning the death penalty in the state.

"I will not issue any execution warrants during my term as Governor," Shapiro wrote on Twitter. "When one comes to my desk, I will sign a reprieve every time—and I'm asking the General Assembly to send me a bill abolishing the death penalty in Pennsylvania once and for all." He added, "This is a fundamental statement of morality. Of what's right and wrong. And I believe Pennsylvania must be on the right side of this issue."

Shapiro was sworn in as governor in January. During his campaign, he voiced support for abolishing the death penalty, though he previously supported capital punishment for the most "heinous crimes."

"For more than a decade, including when I assumed office as Attorney General, I believed that the death penalty should be reserved for the most heinous crimes – but that it was, indeed, a just punishment for those crimes," Shapiro said in a Thursday press release. "However, when the first capital cases came to my desk in the AG's office, I found myself repeatedly unwilling to seek the death penalty. When my son asked me why it as OK to kill someone as a punishment for killing someone, I couldn't look him in the eye and explain why."

The governor noted that his decision to not allow for executions during his tenure was not a "statement on the integrity of individual capital convictions in Pennsylvania." However, he said that during his tenure as the state's attorney general, "two critical truths became clear to me about the capital sentencing system in our Commonwealth: The system is fallible, and the outcome is irreversible."

The announcement comes in the wake of increasing pressure for states to drop the death penalty entirely. Even in states like Alabama and Oklahoma, where support of the death penalty has long been high, a moratorium and a slowdown on the pace of executions, respectively, have been ordered in recent months. So far, 23 states have abolished the death penalty, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. 

This is not the first time Pennsylvania's governor has placed a moratorium on executions in the state. In 2015, Shapiro's predecessor, Gov. Tom Wolf (D), declared a formal moratorium on any future executions. Pennsylvania has not had an execution since 1999.

"Pennsylvania should do what 25 other states have done in outlawing the death penalty or refusing to impose it – including many of our neighbors such as New Jersey, Maryland, and West Virginia," Shapiro said. "We shouldn't aim to just fix the system. The Commonwealth shouldn't be in the business of putting people to death. Period."

Comments

[Chumby]

Capital punishment should be reserved only for government employees committing heinous crimes.

[Jefferson's Ghost]

Or, life sentence to subsistence farming... on Alcatraz.

[Chumby]

Government messes things up daily. Accidentally and sometimes intentionally. They should not be in the business of ending a life. For those employed by the government, they are part of the beast and can be subject to said punishment if they conduct themselves that rises to that.

[DanielWilson]

I am making $162/hour telecommuting. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $21 thousand a month by working on the web, that was truly shocking for me, she prescribed me to attempt it simply

COPY AND OPEN THIS SITE____ https://salarybez4.blogspot.com

[Jefferson's Ghost]

Yeppers.

[JesseAz]

We could solve the debt crisis by just having prisoners go on Survivor and streaming it.

[Chumby]

We could try to convince Dee that ENB were there so she’d go there to rescue her.

[Fats of Fury]

He means election deniers and J6 protesters.

[rev-arthur-l-kuckland]

So... Gov employees?

[JesseAz]

And Ashley Babbitt.

[juliajame]

Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link—————————————>>> http://Www.JobsRevenue.Com

[I, Woodchipper]

Right answer, wrong reason.

It’s NOT because it’s immoral to kill someone in retribution or that no one deserves to die.

It’s because the government should not have that power. it will be abused, used erroneously, and misapplied. And that has been the case.

[A Thinking Mind]

100% agree, but I'll allow that people can also hold the moral position that killing is wrong, regardless of reason.

I would certainly interrogate some people on their moral foundations if they claimed it was a 100% proposition-for instance, their stance on the military, on sending weapons to Ukraine, on killing Osama Bin Laden, etc.

For me, it's a matter of balancing the scales. You need to define some boundary that is sufficiently evil that people cannot cross and live. School shooters are the most obvious, but the serial killers, people like Jeffrey Dahmer or Darrel Brooks (what is it with Wisconsin!?). You reach a point where you've done so much damage that your humanity is forfeit and the only just response is to bury you.

I just don't trust the government with the power to make those decisions and enforce those policies.

[Ersatz]

in those instances you just mentioned how much doubt can you conjure about the guilt of the person in question so make you conclude you dont trust the govt to make those decisions. Plus, I thought the decision is made thru a jury of peers.

Not saying every death penalty case is a slam dunk - but the ones you mention sure appear to be.... in which case I'd let the govt sanction the determination of the judge and jury.

Again, you can spin a more nuanced scenario for these that clouds the certainty - I'm not talking about those. There are some cases that are not in doubt and govt incompetence or not these monsters have earned their reward.

[Fats of Fury]

Like the government abusing, use erroneously, and misapply life without parole?

[I, Woodchipper]

At least that can be rectified.

[swillfredo pareto]

It’s because the government should not have that power. it will be abused, used erroneously, and misapplied. And that has been the case.

Agreed. Having said that, as an executive, Shapiro’s job is to execute the laws duly passed by the Pennsylvania legislature. If he objects to those laws and is unwilling to do the work necessary to change them, perhaps Governor is not the job for him. Especially if a question from one of his children stymies him. He spends a lot of time flaunting his faith and Judaism has a rich history of endorsing the death penalty for a lot more than just murder.

[Presskh]

Agree. Israel has no problem killing Palestinians for much less egregious actions.

[Ersatz]

what's a few missiles, pipe bombs and school bus massacres between friends right?

[I, Woodchipper]

Also: ironclad proof that there should never again be anyone in a position of power to implement "public health" measures on us again.

https://twitter.com/MichaelPSenger/status/1626249718706868225

This whole thread is heartbreaking and infuriating and hilarious all at once.

This one may be my favorite:
Replying to
@MichaelPSenger
Snowmobile trails were closed. If you're unfamiliar, it's an activity that takes place outside in the winter, on your own machine, while wearing a space suit and helmet, balaclava underneath, while travelling on remote trails, at 50Km/hr.

tRuSt tHe gOveRnMeNT!

[Longtobefree]

A tidbit from the Penn constitution:
Section 12.
No power of suspending laws shall be exercised unless by the Legislature or by its authority.

[Longtobefree]

Of course, he is defying the Pennsylvania constitution, but that's OK for a democrat.

[Minadin]

That's my question, or related to it. Why defy the judicial system by refusing to do a part of your elected job?

Could he not, as governor, issue clemency to all of the Penn. state convicts on Death Row? Convert their sentences into Life w/o Parole or some year total (20, 30)? That is within the power of most state's governors. Is Penn. any different?

If he just issues reprieve after reprieve, or refuses to sign, then those people remain on Death Row, and the next governor can sign all those execution warrants that this one refused. It's not really even a solution; it's ineffectual grandstanding.

[DRM]

Could he not, as governor, issue clemency to all of the Penn. state convicts on Death Row?

No. Over a century ago, in reaction to abuses of clemency and pardons by governors, Pennsylvania established a requirement that all commutations first be recommended in writing to the governor by the majority of the Board of Parole. Without their recommendation, the governor cannot act.

Further, in 1992, one Reginald McFadden, who had been serving a life sentence was granted clemency under this system, and subsequently went on to commit two murders and an additional rape. After that, the Pennsylvania Constitution was amended so that a recommendation of clemency in the case of someone under a sentence of either death or life imprisonment requires the unanimous consent of the Board of Parole before the governor may grant it.

[Minadin]

Well, that answers my questions. Thanks.

[Longtobefree]

And yet another fun fact about the PA constitution.
A constitutional amendment was found unconstitutional:
Amendment of 1999
*Amended language found unconstitutional in Bergdoll v. Kane (Pa., June 15, 1999.)

[SusanGrosse]

I remodelled $700 per day exploitation my mobile partly time. I recently got my fifth bank check of $19632 and every one i used to be doing is to repeat and paste work online. This home work makes Pine Tree State able to generate more money daily simply straightforward to try and do work and regular financial gain from this are simply superb.

Here what i’m doing. strive currently………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[Naime Bond]

'....I couldn't look him in the eye and explain why....' What a poor excuse for a father.

[A Thinking Mind]

I think it's fair to hold the position that killing is wrong, regardless. I did find that statement to be very self-congratulatory. "I'm so good I couldn't even try to argue the moral difference between aggression and punishment, because it's all violence to me."

It's a little bit too...trite isn't the word I'm looking for, but it's along the lines of the "My 8 year told a stranger about racial injustice and the whole bus clapped," trope.

[Mickey Rat]

So is it good or bad for executive branch government officials to refuse to implement the law because of their personal morality?

[Longtobefree]

Bad.
Because if he actually had personal morality, he wouldn't have run for governor knowing he would violate his oath to faithfully uphold the laws.
Instead he would contribute his personal fortune (and all PA politicians seem to have one of those) and time to an existing group that opposes the death penalty.

[NOYB2]

"This is a fundamental statement of morality, of what's right and wrong,"

If his morality conflicts with his duties as an elected member of the executive branch, the proper thing for him to do is to resign.

Failing to execute the laws faithfully is a violation of his oath and itself morally wrong.

[A Thinking Mind]

That's perhaps an interesting take on it. My question is if you campaign on a promise to refuse any executions, are you then failing to execute the duties of your office? You're probably enacting the will of the voters if that's the case.

[DRM]

The system is supposed to be the rule of law, not the rule of an elected dictator.

[A Thinking Mind]

Is it really a dictator when they are using their constitutionally explicit powers to have the state NOT do something?

[DRM]

What constitutionally-explicit power are you imagining?

1) Constitutionally, Pennsylvania governors may only issue pardons or commutations on death sentences on the unanimous recommendation of the Board of Parole.

2) There is nowhere in the Pennsylvania Constitution an explicit power to refuse to sign a warrant of execution, and Title 61 of the Pennsylvania Code does not grant the governor any discretion about issuing them.

The governor is in plain and explicit violation of the law. Period, end story, no further discussion. He has no power of any kind to prevent executions without the prior unanimous consent of the Board of Parole.

[DRM]

My mistake; he can unilaterally grant reprieves under that article of the Pennsylvania Constitution.

[NOYB2]

He can grant reprieves but not pardons.

Refusing to sign death warrants because of a moral objection to the death penalty is not a "reprieve". A reprieve needs to serve a specific, limited purpose related to the criminal and his case.

[hahob]

Google pays a $100 hourly salary. For a 40-hour work week, my most recent online earnings were $3,500. My younger brother’s buddy claims that he at-90 works for about 30 hours per week and makes an average salary of $12,265. I’m amazed at how straightforward things used to be. More details may be found
.
.
More information→→→→→ https://dollarwork9.blogspot.com

[JesseAz]

Yes.

All selectively enforced laws are amoral and leas to abuses.

[A Thinking Mind]

I would say it's not selective enforcement since he's unilaterally granting reprieves. It's not showing prejudice or favoritism.

[NOYB2]

Refusing to sign death warrants because he objects to the death penalty is not a "reprieve".

A reprieve is temporary and for a specific purpose related to the legal or personal situation of an individual criminal, not to the preferences of the governor.

[NOYB2]

That’s perhaps an interesting take on it. My question is if you campaign on a promise to refuse any executions, are you then failing to execute the duties of your office? You’re probably enacting the will of the voters if that’s the case.

We don't live in an ochlocracy (mobocracy), we live in a system with a division of powers and limited, representative government.

Think of it this way: if the Shapiro promised during his campaign to send all Trump voters to concentration camps and he actually got elected, does that mean he could legitimately do so? Of course not.

It doesn't matter how popular a politician is, he is first and foremost constrained by our laws, our constitutions, and the checks and balances of our system of government.

[A Thinking Mind]

Well, the scenario you described is outside the powers of the governor, or indeed, any politician. The governors’s power to grant a reprieve is, presumably, unlimited, so that’s an exercise in his constitutional authority.

If an execution order requires the signature of the governor, it is presumed that it is legal for governor to decline to sign it, for the same reason that a President can exercise the power of a veto. If a President campaigned on promising to exercise the veto on literally every bill to reach his desk, I do not think that is an abuse of authority. But it’s arguable, which is why I find this discussion interesting.

[NOYB2]

“Reprieve” has a specific meaning; this is not a reprieve.

Governors have to sign lots of things for government to function. That doesn’t give them a personal veto over everything. The conditions under which they can refuse to sign are limited to those allowed under the law.

[Flush that fetus!]

All governors have the right to issue clemencies and commutations. It's an important part of our system of checks and balances.

[A Thinking Mind]

Well, the power is granted to issue pardons and commutations, but the presumption is that it's on a case-by-case basis. A blanket refusal is arguably a violation of oath of office, especially if it's against the expectation of the public. A refusal to execute your duties to the best of your ability is violating an oath and grounds for impeachment.

I think there's a feasible question. What if the country was attacked and the President refused to sign a declaration of war because of a moral objection to war? Obviously, Congress can override a veto but if the President refuses to command the armed forces, that would be violative of his oath of office.

[NOYB2]

Under Pennsylvania law, the governor can order a reprieve. A reprieve is a temporary suspension of a sentence for a purpose specific to that criminal and case. If he wants to do that, he needs to be able to specify a timeframe and a reason for each case.

He cannot issue clemency, commutations, or pardons unilaterally; he needs the approval of the Board of Pardons.

[heraclitus]

Just because you keep saying the same misinformation in half a dozen comments doesn't actually make it true.

You keep stating things like: "A reprieve is a temporary suspension of a sentence for a purpose specific to that criminal and case," as if it were PA law. It's NOT. The PA Constitution, which grants this power for reprieves, gives no definition of what constitutes a valid "reprieve." Nor does the PA Constitution put any limitations on the reprieve power of the governor.

The PA Supreme Court ruled on all of this back in 2015. As the PA Constitution provides no definition of a "reprieve," they were forced to consult the Common Law tradition to find the appropriate definition. There were three types of "reprieves" at Common Law: ex mandato regis (proceeding from the Crown), ex arbitrio judicis (based on a the decision of a judge), and ex necessitate legis (based on a requirement of law). The latter two required specific legal reasoning in Common Law. The first one (ex mandato regis) did not and could be asserted by the Executive (at that point in England, by the Crown) for whatever reason, be it legal, personal, whatever. Like a plenary pardon power, the power to grant reprieves "ex mandato regis" did NOT require a specific justification for a specific case. Nor, in fact, did it require a specific timeframe.

As the PA Supreme Court ruled, absent any clarification in the PA laws about the definition of this governor's "reprieve," the Common Law definition holds. Since the PA Constitution does not specify any restrictions, the reprieve power is apparently plenary.

Now, you might argue that granting a reprieve without timeframe effectively usurps the power of the Pardon Board (also explicitly in the PA Constitution) to grant actual pardons or clemency in these cases. The PA Supreme Court considered this issue, and there are several problems with this logic in the PA case.

I'm not going to go over it all, because you can read it in the actual ruling for Commonwealth v. Williams (2015), which I found within 3 minutes of Googling to find the relevant caselaw in PA, which apparently you couldn't be bothered to do before making uninformed assertions over several hours in comments here.

But I think the most relevant point to consider is that the court noted that other states DO put restrictions on the power to grant reprieves (such as a 90-day time limit). The PA Constitution doesn't do that.

And one might argue then that perhaps those who put restraints on the governor's pardoning ability in PA in the 1800s never imagined a governor who would use such blanket authority in reprieves.

That may have been true in the 1800s, but this governor is not the first PA governor to grant a universal moratorium on signing death penalty warrants. He is the FOURTH. In 1961, Governor Lawrence instituted a moratorium on the death penalty. In 1971, Governor Shapp said he would not permit executions during his tenure. Neither of these were even challenged in court. And, of course, in 2015, Governor Wolf also instituted a moratorium. This was challenged, which resulted in the ruling I cited.

The remedy is clear: if the legislature believes that the governor's authority should be limited for reprieves, they can amend the constitution to make this clear. Despite three prior governors doing this, the legislature has not so acted. And we can't say they weren't paying attention, because as recently as 1997, there was an amendment to the PA Constitution specifically on death penalty cases changing the Pardon Board procedure. Again, that occurred after two previous unilateral moratoriums by governors. If they wanted to close the "reprieve loophole," why not do it then?

As the PA Supreme Court noted, we can't just "divine" what might have been implied by those who wrote or amended the Constitution and that they might not be happy with this plenary reprieve power. Instead, we can only go on the definitions we have (which, in PA, there are none, hence resorting to Common Law) and what the laws/Constitution explicitly state.

The court did note that, logically, a "reprieve" should have a limited time. Wolf got around this issue by saying initially that he was waiting for the death penalty administrative report in the state that was under review in the 2010s. Officially, that was his rationale: he thought it was important to review the findings of that report before authorizing executions. One can argue whether such a timeliness constraint was good policy, but it certainly seems like a reasonable legal stance to take, given the governor's plenary power in the Constitution and two prior governors' moratoriums that went unchallenged.

In this case, I will agree with you that it's more problematic if the governor is simply asserting he will not sign any death warrants, rather than placing a condition that has at least an implicit timeline. One of the PA Supreme Court justices did write a concurrence (rather than simply agreeing with the UNANIMOUS decision upholding the plenary power for reprieves in 2015) in which he expressed concern that there should really be a more explicit timeline.

Wolf, again, got around this a bit by declaring he was awaiting the report of the Task Force. That report was completed in 2018, I think. So, what's the new governor's justification?

That matters legally. Unfortunately, I can't find any sources actually reporting what the governor is going to give as his LEGAL justification, only this public announcement. I do think it could/should be challenged again in court, but given the legislature's failure to act previously in restraining the "reprieve" power, I'm not sure it will go anywhere. Last session, the PA legislature had something like 70 amendments to the PA Constitution under consideration, with over 20 of them directly aimed at curtailing governor's powers (since some of former governor Wolf's actions were obviously objectionable to a lot of people). I tried searching those proposed amendments and couldn't immediately find one dealing with "reprieves."

It's possible I missed something. But it's also quite possible that this is more of a public relations battle rather than something the legislators care about enough to actually do anything. Again, they explicitly amended the death penalty procedure in the Constitution as recently as 1997. If they actually want to define what a "reprieve" is (as other states have done) or restrict it in some way, that's been a clear potential remedy available for decades. So far... it hasn't been restricted.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is Josh Shapiro one of those tough-on-crime types who feel that the death penalty per se goes too far?

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Shapiro was sworn in as governor in January. During his campaign, he voiced support for abolishing the death penalty, though he previously supported capital punishment for the most "heinous crimes."

They all do... especially after witnessing the heinous events that unfolded on January 6.

[CDRSchafer]

Like making Nancy Pelosi and AOC crap their panty hose?

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD]

Careful, that kind of talk will summon SQRLSY. With knife and fork in hand.

[LostGenXer]

Maybe, It is because of my Libertarian inclinations that I am ambivalent about the death penalty. On the one hand, I don't like to see the government with that kind of permanent, irreversible power. On the other, If I had to chose between life in a cage with no hope of getting out or death, I would be inclined to say, "Give me liberty or give me death!"

[The Margrave of Azilia]

There’s one slight wrinkle in the Pennsylvania Constitution:

“no pardon shall be granted, nor sentence commuted, except on the recommendation in writing of a majority of the Board of Pardons, and, in the case of a sentence of death or life imprisonment, on the unanimous recommendation in writing of the Board of Pardons, after full hearing in open session, upon due public notice. The recommendation, with the reasons therefor at length, shall be delivered to the Governor and a copy thereof shall be kept on file in the office of the Lieutenant Governor in a docket kept for that purpose.”

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=4&sctn=9&subsctn=0

The governor can grant reprieves unilaterally (without the Board of Pardons), so I guess that’s why he’s doing it the way it is.

Reprieves postpone the punishment but can’t cancel it – that’s the job of a pardon or commutation.

So the real story is why the Board of Pardons, or at least one of the members (since any member has veto power), doesn’t want to empty Death Row?

And why, to the best of his ability, will he try to do an end-run around the Board?

The whole point is that it’s the Board’s job to decide whether death sentences will be carried out. So cautious is the Constitution in this point that setting aside the death penalty requires unanimity (and a long explanation).

Is it really in the spirit of the Constitution to use the reprieve power to keep extending the life of Death Row inmates, just because you disagree with the Board’s members about the death penalty?

The icing on the cake, of course, is the governor is publicly congratulating himself at the thought of his own exalted morality in pulling this stunt. He should get a room to be alone with himself and his moral superiority.

[CDRSchafer]

His predecessor was one of the most enthusiastic COVID lockdown proponent and swallowed every other "expert" recommendation - and the people of PA elected his handpicked successor. They get what they deserve.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

Perhaps so, but let those voters weaken the Board of Pardons if they’re inclined to do so – if they don’t, this remains an end-run around the state charter.

[jimc5499]

Philadelphia and Pittsburgh elected him, not the rest of us.

[CDRSchafer]

What would Shapiro say to the family of a prisoner or a prison staff member who was murdered by a convicted murderer? “Take one for the team?”

[Longtobefree]

No problem. He would never meet with them.

[Earth-based Human Skeptic]

OK, gov, now what about fetuses?

[CDRSchafer]

The virtue signaling brigade considers them non-persons. Maybe if they were able to vote Democrat he'd care.

[bobby oshea]

Kill innocent unborn babies - this is a fundamental right that must be protected.

Kill convicted criminals on behalf of the society - No can do partner, that would be immoral. I'm a man of principals [sic].

[Technomad]

It isn't a "baby" until it is born. Or at least able to survive outside the womb, which happens much later than almost all abortions.

[Dillinger]

I don't want any state killing anyone but Shapiro is nullifying juries.

[The Margrave of Azilia]

If he had the pardon power he wouldn't be, but he doesn't have the pardon power. It's an abuse of power to grant reprieve after reprieve just to get around the Board of Pardons.

But then, I could always be wrong.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

You know who else refused to sign and certify official state documents over a moral objection while believing they were on the right side of history?

[swillfredo pareto]

You know who else refused to sign and certify official state documents over a moral objection while believing they were on the right side of history?

Was it the clerk in Kentucky who refused to sign same-sex marriage certificate? Here’s what Reason said then:

By adding her own requirement and using the force of law to enforce that requirement, she is frustrating the ruling of the Supreme Court…and violating her oath to uphold the Constitution, the final interpreter of which is the Supreme Court.

Change Supreme Court to Pennsylvania Legislature and see how well that article has aged .

[Bill Falcon]

wrong issue. For Nick and Matt and the pedo friendly staff at Reason..the only issues that matter are abortion, open borders, and sexually mutilating confused kids. Everything else is not important.

[Chumby]

Lumps Rumps & Bumps

[Ersatz]

didn't you forget butt sex and weed?
those are also ones the commentariat come up with here I thought.

[Gaear Grimsrud]

Here in Illinois, many years ago, our Republican governor declared a moratorium on executions which I guess might be equivalent to a blanket reprieve as a practical matter. He did this in response to revelations that the state had executed numerous individuals in cases that evidence later revealed were corrupt prosecutions of people who had been framed by corrupt cops. Those facts were never in dispute. The law and order lobby screamed their heads off. The governor ultimately went to federal prison for crimes committed when he was Secretary of State and Illinois abolished the death penalty. Like every other government racket in Illinois our criminal justice system is thoroughly corrupt. But at least they aren't killing people anymore. Except for no knock raids and SWAT team shit.

[Bill Falcon]

fine but let citizens conceal carry..

[A Thinking Mind]

Corrupt cops? And prosecutors? In Illinois? Surely you jest.

[SusanGrosse]

I remodelled $700 per day exploitation my mobile partly time. I recently got my fifth bank check of $19632 and every one i used to be doing is to repeat and paste work online. This home work makes Pine Tree State able to generate more money daily simply straightforward to try and do work and regular financial gain from this are simply superb.

Here what i’m doing. strive currently………………>>> http://www.jobsrevenue.com

[John C. Randolph]

I support the death penalty for spammers.

-jcr

[CE]

So how can the governor fulfill his oath to "faithfully execute his duties" if he won't even faithfully execute people the legal system has condemned to die? Shouldn't he just pardon them, or resign if it weighs on his conscience?

Some people deserve to die for their crimes. But the state often makes mistakes, which is enough reason to eliminate the death penalty. But it shouldn't be the governor's call on his own. Personally, I would make it a law that no one sentenced to death could be executed until there had been a change in the governor's office, and the new governor's staff reviewed all the pending cases. Just to make sure some corrupt governor wasn't getting rid of his enemies.

[Bill Falcon]

And yet this bolshie is against allowing citizens to protect themselves with firearms in public. You can't protect yourself when the thug kills you for your stuff or maybe if you are the wrong "group" based on equity and then gets the rest of his or her life with good food, exercise, no rent and hell "visits" from their girlfriends. Get rid of the death penalty..fine but allow citizens to defend themselves.

[RAHeinlein]

Emma - it's DEMOCRAT - not DEMOCRATIC.

I truly wish Reason had a legit editor and stopped hiring idiots - I thought ENB and Robby (to be sure) were bad enough back in the day, but Emma writes like a teenager.

[Elmer Fudd the CHUD]

She’s 22. So you’re not far off. She’s fresh off the red diaper baby college assembly line. Class of ‘22.

[John C. Randolph]

The man has announced his refusal to enforce the laws of Pennsylvania, which should result in his impeachment and removal from office for dereliction of duty. If he doesn't want to obey the decisions of juries, he has every right to resign in protest of the death penalty.

-jcr

[Liberty Lover]

Pennsylvania Governor Declares Himself Dictator and Above the State's Law, Legislator and Court

[Fist of Etiquette]

...not a "statement on the integrity of individual capital convictions in Pennsylvania."

That's unfortunate, because it should be.

[Technomad]

The only problem I have with the death penalty is the decades in which convicts wait on Death Row, while endless mostly-frivolous appeals are filed. Even in cases where guilt is proven beyond any doubt* (and no, "reasonable doubt" does not mean "maybe the Alien Space Bats did it") these appeals are filed by people wanting to throw sand in the gears of the machine.

*Case in point: John Wayne Gacy. Twenty-seven corpses under his crawl space, many of them identifiable as young men who'd worked for him, means "no doubt exists, period." But it was over a decade before he got what he had coming.

[IdahoMan]

I'm not surprised a liberal is so confused about morality. It is immoral for the government to NOT execute murderers. The government's job is to punish evildoers and, because human life is so valuable (being made in the image of God), the death penalty is the only just penalty for the premeditated taking of a human life. It can and has been applied unequally in the past, but the solution is to apply it equally in the future, not get rid of the correct punishment.