Now, as the Judiciary is to interpret the law, it seems somewhat amiss that one of the highest ranking justices would deliberately choose to ignore something as weighty as appeals for an individual's life. Following the execution, questions arose about the injustices the Justice called for.
Keller was issued a warning, though no formal punishment was decided upon. Recently, however, the case has moved to a three-judge panel for further review.
The State Commission on Judicial Conduct (SCJC) has been called upon for review of the case. In the Grits For Breakfast article, we learn that the three-panel review process was a disappointment for many. The ruling
- dismissed the Ethics Rebuke to Judge Sharon Keller
- Neglected to formally Censure her, though that is clearly what Texas Law deems is appropriate punishment for something like this
- Publicly tarnishes the image of the SCJC because of their inability (or perhaps deliberate choice not to uphold the law)
Many are appalled to learn of the SCJC's inaction. It is shattering to think about the consequences of her decision: an inmate lost his life because of her refusal to stay an additional hour, something that undoubtedly would help her pocketbook in the long run. Furthermore, as a liberally minded individual, it is astonishing that the government has this much power.
I thought that the Executive was the only one in power to pardon individuals for serious crimes? It is clear, however, that Attorney McKetta, the principal representative of the SCJC, is content with dismissing the case. He has the option to dismiss Keller, an option which would please many Texans. However, rather than dismissal, the SCJC issued an unthinkable sentence: unscathed dismissal of the case.
The author of Grits for Breakfast examines Texas Criminal Justice and sat in on this case. I agree that it is disappointing to see such a blatant disregard for order in a commission intended to preserve just that.
No comments:
Post a Comment