Sunday, March 01, 2009

Decisions. Decisions. And Community Values.

"Gallegos, who said he is not personally a fan of the death penalty, said the process being driven by a local elected official may have its benefits. (☛ TS Death penalty: a DA's decision)

”There's a certain amount of justice which is uniform, and there's a certain amount of justice which responds to particular values and cultures of the particular community,” Gallegos said, pointing to judicial discretion in sentencing as an example."


And what are the values of our particular community? Do we put more value on the life of Andrew Pease than on the two men accused of killing (stabbing to death) Pease during a string of attempted robberies, ...(who) have pleaded not guilty to charges of murder, attempted robbery and robbery... at knifepoint?

Gallegos said this week that, in order to make the decision, he plans on waiting until all the case evidence is collected, before having each of the about 10 senior attorneys in his office review it.

”Everyone will individually reach their own opinion,” Gallegos said, “then we will get together and discuss it.”

Gallegos said his senior attorneys will then take a vote. If there's not a unanimous decision among his attorneys to pursue capital punishment, Gallegos said it's unlikely he would opt to pursue it.

”If there's not a unanimous decision in our office, then it's not likely we're going to get a unanimous verdict,” he said.
Gallegos said he only supports pursuing the death penalty in the most heinous of cases.

”In my opinion, the death penalty should only be something that should be sought in the most egregious circumstances,” he said. “Justice and retribution can't be the same, therefore, it has to be something where it serves a purpose other than retribution.”


Bizarre. I didn't know he HAD 10 senior attorneys left, so that's comical. Maybe he really has learned something after all, and WILL listen to others in his office this time. But that is another of his odd statements that don't quite jibe.

What will he do? Death penalty or not? I vote not.

18 comments:

Anonymous said...

Last I checked, these "ten senior attorneys" were not elected to make such a decision. This way Paulie gets off the hook for having to make a decision that will, either way, be unpopular with a large segment of the HumCo population. Grow some stones, Gags, and pull the trigger. This case is a death penalty case. Ongoing crime spree, multiple innocent stranger victims, armed with weapon(s), homicide committed in furtherance of a robbery, conspiracy, multiple eyewitnesses and co-conspirator testimony for ID of suspects, c'mon even Arnie Klein could do this one.

Rose said...

Maggie and Max qualify as senior Deputy DAs, and both have the experience, knowledge and ethics to evaluate the case.

But Gallegos does not have a history of listening to wise counsel. If he did, he wouldn't be in the mess he is today.

I'm betting the reporters now recognize when he is flat-out lying to them, though for now they still have to report his statements as fact. Because the fact is, he did say that.

Anonymous said...

You left out Wes Keat.

The only possible argument against the death penalty is the cost. Once a person gets sentenced to Death he/she gets almost unlimited appeals and is assigned appealate lawyers. I have read in the past that it costs more to go for the death penalty than it does to house someone in prison for 30 years. I do not know if this is, or even was, accurate. That could be one reason not to go for the death penalty.

I personally think life in prison, without parole, would be a horrible thing for a young person to live with.

This particular case is worthy of the death penalty. The DA should suck it up and make the decission w/o putting it off on any of his staff. Whatever happened to "the buck stops here" ?

Humboldt Heretic said...

"Cost?" Since when did a "progressive" politician calculate "cost" when it was to be borne by the taxpayers?

Rose said...

Since when did a "progressive" politician calculate "cost" when it was to be borne by the taxpayers?

Only when it is a. an excuse for something they don't want to do, or b, a device to get you to do something that they want you to do.

Anonymous said...

Ten senior attorneys? That may indeed be the funniest thing he has said yet.
LWOP is good enough, no need to put the County through a death penalty trial.
Oops, I'm not a senior member of the Pauliban. Never mind.

Anonymous said...

Well, surely it would be reasonable for him to consult the DDA who put those last two mooks on Death Row. Oh no wait, he fired that guy.

Anonymous said...

"The only possible argument against the death penalty is the cost."

Hey, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THE STATE THE POWER TO KILL PEOPLE. PERIOD.

That's why the death penalty has been outlawed in every civilized country but this one.

Rose said...

"Lost, fired, or drove off" (Hank's words, I think)

Question is - who's left...

Anonymous said...

Gags doesn't have 10 senior DDA's in his office. At best he has 3 maybe 4.

You know what is really funny? Everytime he quits screwing the pooch and is not in the press looking and sounding like an idiot, he feels the need to open his mouth again. Guess he feels left out if he's not in the press looking like a total boob. But, everytime he opens his mouth he sticks his foot in it and sounds even stupider than we originally thought. Guess that is why he is called "the gift that keeps on giving!"

mresquan said...

Oh don't worry,if Rose and the anti-Paulities get to see him hand over a death penalty,they'll find something about it that he did wrong,even though now they seem to support that.
Anyways,the state should have no right to kill.A lifetime sentence is punishment enough.

Rose said...

I expect it will not be a death penalty case, mresquan.

My criticism of him has to do with his inability to identify this as a heinous crime - the contradiction in his persecution of Sean Marsh and Penny O'Gara, while making excuses for baby beaters, plea bargains all over the place, then pretending to be such a "consensus" guy when we know that in fact he has not listened to the counsel of his Senior DDAs at all in the past.

As for the death penalty, the poor victim got the death penalty, and he had done nothing to deserve it whatsoever. His family now suffers his loss at the hands of these wretched evil, depraved worthless creatures who have your compassion.

Anonymous said...

Rose, They don't have my compassion, you do. I'm going to do everything in my power to prevent you and your hateful friends from using this an excuse to give the government the power to murder people.

Because, as never tire of reminding us, the government can't do anything right.

Anonymous said...

What 2:27 - Rose isn't hateful, she is just pointing out that Gags can't make a political decision. This "lets round table it with his 10 senior (and non-existent) deputies is really a dumb statement from the DA.

Ain't he the boss? Then let him just say, no death penalty. If I were you, I would be attacking the DA for not making a decision.

mresquan said...

"What 2:27 - Rose isn't hateful, she is just pointing out that Gags can't make a political decision. This "lets round table it with his 10 senior (and non-existent) deputies is really a dumb statement from the DA."

And if he did(he sometimes does),he'd be attacked by his haters for not invloving them).
It's another example of him being damned no matter what he does.It's bummer really,as I don't like him all that much,but seem to be more wary of those who find any reason to go after him,even though I'd agree on some assesments against him.He'll be in for another term if the unnecessary nitpicks continue.He thrives on that.

Rose said...

Well, it is an open forum, mresquan, so you are free to post your version - how his remarks should be viewed. In this way, both views get aired.

It's the nature of reporting today, especially locally, to report "Gallegos said 'this'..." and that is a true and accurate statement as far as it goes. Gallegos did say 'this.'

But what the truth is is not necessarily included in the report. To include the observation that he has virtually no Senior DDAs left is something apparently, that can only be done by the likes of Hank.

To even understand that there are various levels of experience and expertise required to qualify one for senior status, it isn't just tenure, is not within the thought processes of most reporters. Why, I do not know. Time and energy? Maybe.

Thus, they are not offended when someone like a Jeffrey "yougofree.com" Schwartz throws a fit and demands that he be raised up a notch or two, and it goes unnoticed when Gallegos files for a raise for Schwartz claiming he had special duties as Child Abuse prosecutor, yet no cases were being filed.

It is part of what is wrong with the way Gallegos runs the office.

During the last election, he spoke at great length about his supposed philosophy in running the office, covering his mistakes with the assertion that he intentionally moved his DDAs around, out of their area of expertise, so as to (he claimed) make them better lawyers. Though ludicrous on its face, the statement raised no alarm bells, no recognition that specialized training and in depth knowledge has value, it seemed perfectly rational that people be kept in a constant state of chaos and be intentionally rendered inexpert. The truth was actually something else entirely.

This happens over and over again.

I take the stand I do here because, if you will look back you will see that in fact he was given advice from all of the people in his office that his precious Palco case was a non-starter. That is only one such instance. He did not take it.

Tell me WHEN he has taken the advice of those he now suggests he consults with.

My other reason for raising red flags here is his repetitive schizophrenic charging practices - O'Gara and Marsh v the Whitethorn Rapists and the baby beater for example... here we have another case of a horrible crime, the end result in a string of crimes in his community, and he once again seems to be in his peculiar way, leaning towards the criminal's side. It's a habit he seems to find hard to break, like his hatred for cops.

Anonymous said...

MR E.

You might remember that almost every one of the "haters" once upon a time recognized that PVG won election fair and square and hoped he would prove up to the job. If it seems to you that he gets second guessed these days no matter what he does, maybe it's because what's happened is that over time, he's shown that he almost always makes the wrong choice, for the wrong reasons, and then lies about it. So he comes in for a fair amount of criticism and skepticism, because he's earned it,
in spades.

Anonymous said...

Brava 9:09 - well said.