It is perfectly fine for John Kitzhaber to have an opinion about the death penalty. However, it is not okay for him to go against the people he is representing. If the people of Oregon are in support of the death penalty, the death penalty should be carried out. No questions asked.

As a whole, Oregon has been on the fence about the issue concerning the death penalty over the years. Voters have outlawed and legalized capital punishment twice. The State Supreme Court has even “struck it down once.” However in 1984, Oregon legalized the death penalty with a 56-44 vote.

Since the legalization of the death penalty in 1984, two executions have been made. Kitzhaber said he should have never allowed Douglas Wright and Harry Moore to be executed in 1996 and 1997. It is not his responsibility to allow or prevent executions. A judge and/or jury are responsible for those decisions. Kitzhaber has described the death penalty system in Oregon as “an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice.”

Since this recent ban on the death penalty, Kitzhaber has preventing the upcoming death sentence for   Gary Haugen who was scheduled to be executed later this month. Haugen is a twice convicted murderer and has spoken directly of his opposition to this ban. He hired a legal team to express concern that “leaving an inmate uncertain of his execution is psychological torture.” Maybe this argument will prove to be effective and allow the death sentence to be carried out.

John Kitzhaber’s moral opposition and duty as a physician to “do no harm” are not legitimate reasons for him to ban the death penalty. According to the vote in 1984, Oregon wants to utilize capital punishment. Personal beliefs aside, the wishes of these people should be carried out. Kitzhaber stated his duties as a physician, what about his duty as governor to represent the wishes of the people of Oregon?

The post Oregon Governor Bans Death Penalty appeared first on Crime Museum.

This infographic takes you from the exile of poachers in colonial Australia to the prison sentences for Somali pirates a few years ago. You’ll see how the world’s crimes and punishments have changed, yet also stayed the same, throughout the years. Here is a thorough explanation of crime through the ages.

The post Crime Through the Ages appeared first on Crime Museum.

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”  Regardless of whether you’ve heard them on TV or have been read them directly, most everyone knows what the Miranda warnings are.  These warnings are designed to protect a person’s right against self-incrimination and their right to have a lawyer. You must speak up in order to stay silent.

On June 1, 2010, in a 5-4 decision during the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to invoke one’s right to silence, one must first explicitly say that they want to invoke that right.  For instance, Thompkins, the accused in this case, decided to remain silent during his interrogation.  At some point, one of the investigators asked a question to which Thompkins simply responded “yes,” thereby implicating himself in the crime.  Because Thompkins did not tell the investigators that he was invoking his right to stay silent, his affirmative response to the questions could legally be used against him in court.  The statement was used, and a jury came back with a guilty verdict for Thompkins.  So, the lesson to be learned here is that if or when you are ever interrogated by the police, it is now legally assumed that you have waived your Miranda rights unless you speak up and say otherwise.

To read more about the Berghuis v. Thompkins case, click here or here.

The post Speak Up in Order to Stay Silent appeared first on Crime Museum.