The legal decision facing Harvey Bryant - and every other chief prosecutor weighing whether to pursue the death penalty in a murder case - cannot be made in a vacuum when the choice is fraught with moral, political and practical ramifications.
In the 2006 murder at Hilltop Shopping Center, for example, Bryant, Virginia Beach's commonwealth's attorney, had to consider not just whether the crime met the 15 legal criteria for a death case. He also looked at the strength of the case (no eyewitness, but strong circumstantial evidence). He considered the heinousness (the killer had shot his victim in the back as she tried to escape) and the number of victims (one). He listened to the wishes of the victim's family (one wanted death).
Bryant's decision to forgo the death penalty against Christopher Hagans - guaranteeing with Hagans' guilty plea that he spends the rest of his life in prison without possibility of parole - was the right call. He told The Pilot's Duane Bourne that last month's plea agreement brought some finality to Elisabeth Kelly Reilly's family. And it greatly lessens the chance of extensive, costly, time-consuming appeals.
These are gut-wrenching decisions. Bryant acknowledges that. But they're also arbitrary. In another case recently in court - Marcus Garrett, convicted of killing three people at an Oceanfront condominium in 2005 - Bryant sought the death penalty.
That choice was much easier, he said. Three murder victims, not one. Garrett methodically shot five people, two of them mothers. A judge ultimately sentenced Garrett last month to life in prison, but the questions remain:
Is it fair to weigh how many people died? Is it right to look at who the victims were? Is it fair to consider the strength of the evidence and the time and resources required to pursue the death penalty, a costly process? Does it make a crime less important, a victim's life less memorable, if prosecutors decide that life in a tiny prison cell is punishment enough for the killer?
The shortcomings of this justice system are numerous and obvious. Even if we assumed that all those convicted are guilty - and in many states, including Virginia, that hasn't been the case - deciding whether to pursue an execution is a judgment call. Sometimes, whether a defendant is sentenced to die depends on how well his attorney represented him. Sometimes, it depends on how much publicity the crime received. Sometimes, it depends on race.
As Elisabeth Reilly's mother wisely pointed out, killing Hagans can't change what happened, and it wouldn't make it right. Only two things might have helped her feel better: erasing her daughter's agony and that of her family - which no punishment can do - and knowing the state would never give the man a chance to hurt anyone again.
Virginia has that option. Bryant exercised it in accepting Hagans' guilty plea. He's going to prison for the rest of his life. That's enough for Reilly's mother. It should be enough for the rest of us, too.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Don't Use Mother
You quoted, "Elisabeth Reilly's mother, Nancy King, was not among those clamoring for Hagans' execution." How do you know?
She was quoted, "I'm not in the business of judgin anyone else." I bet she would have the same attitude if Hagan's were sentenced to death. She's not God and doesn't work in the court system.
"I THINK in this case, he got punished to the fullest extent the law allowed." What if this is what Mr. Bryant told her? She didn't say, "I KNOW."
"There is nothing that can change what happened or make it right." What does this have to do with the death penalty? Life in prison doesn't change what happened either.
POINT HERE....leave the mother and family out of the editorial! How can people not be sensitive to this.
I did go back and read from 10/31/08
The quotes from the mother were:
Elisabeth Reilly's mother, Nancy King, was not among those clamoring for Hagans' execution. "I'm not in the business of judging anyone else," King said.
" I think in this case, he got punished to the fullest extent the law allowed," she said.
"Frankly," she said, "there is nothing that can change what happened or make it right."
A terrible tragedy, to be sure.
Go Back and Read
This could have been written without mentioning the perceived thoughts/statements of the mother. How does the author know the mother's thoughts from Mr. Bourne's articles?
I fully understand the intent. The problem is they used the mother in the case to help drive home the point (WHICH IS WRONG). The article on 10/15 states the mother said the guilty plea brings a "small, discernible amount of closure." How can this be used to help drive this point: "That's enough for Reilly's mother. It should be enough for the rest of us, too."
The victim's mother in law is quoted to say, "I hope that every day of your life you remember the choice you made. I can only hope that you find no peace. I hope your life is a living hell."
This was not a letter nor an article
This was an editorial position of the Pilot. And it references the statements to an article that was written about a month ago concerning this trial. I did not read the article myself, but it is definitely mentioned:"(Bryant) told The Pilot's Duane Bourne that last month's plea agreement brought some finality to Elisabeth Kelly Reilly's family". I would assume the quote was from the article and so would the reference to the mother's statements at the end of the opinion piece. The title of the editorial was "imperfections of the death penalty". And although it was wrapped around the life sentence of Hagans, it also drove home the point that the death penalty is full of problems.
I Know What the Point Is
but...that's not the point here! This article is speaking for the victim's mother. My question, how did this writer find these quotes? Go back and read Mr. Bourne's articles surrounding this case. He NEVER quotes the mother!
I'm upset because this letter to the editor is speaking for the victim. How does this writer know what this mother feels without ever being quoted by the Pilot? How can the Pilot even allow this to be published?
The point of the editorial was not about
sparing the life of this particular murderer, but about a justice system rife with injustice. With hundreds of convicted people set free on DNA evidence, it is pretty obvious that the wrongfully convicted were executed before the advent of DNA testing. And please remember, these overturned convictions were just the cases that actually had intact DNA evidence. If the death penalty were just a moral issue, arguments could be made either way for its fairness or efficacy. But to have an irreversible penalty in a very imperfect justice system is tantamount to murder by the state, which is exactly the definition of the execution of an innocent person. Life in prison without parole is a death sentence, but one that can be reversed should exculpatory evidence reveal a wrongful conviction.
I'm Confused
How did this make it to the paper? The author has no clue what the mother in the case said. None of the articles from Mr. Bourne come close to quoting the mother. How can this letter begin to make an attempt at what this mother or family feels?
I don't usually get angry at letters, but this is a farce! I encourage everyone to go back and read Mr. Bourne's articles surrounding this case. See if you can find where this author found any room to assume the victim's role and come up with these conclusions. I'm sorry, but this is 100% wrong!!!
Closure
Pursuing Hagen's death will bring no comfort to anyone. Allowing Hagen to live will bring no comfort to his dieased criminal mind and the pathetic quality of his life. Closure is the best course and I admire Elisabeth's mother and the Commonwealth Attorney for recognizing this.
Who Are You......
and how do you know what this mother said? I've read Mr. Bourne's articles surrounding the Hagan's case and none come close to giving a quote like this from the victim's mother. In fact, Mr. Bourne never quotes her. Where did she say executing Hagans "wouldn't be right?" Or, "Only two things might have helped her feel better: erasing her daughter's agony and that of her family - which no punishment can do - and knowing the state would never give the man a chance to hurt anyone again."
Where did you get these? You have taken things out of context from an article. What a joke!
we come to expect this of the pilot
Lefty pablum, nothing more. My taxes will feed and clothe that monster for the rest of his and my life.