Even from only viewing the first half of Clifford Boggess's story, it was evident to me that he should not have been executed. Of course, it is necessary to look at the aggravating and mitigating factors in Boggess's case, but it is also important to consider the time during which each event occurred. In other words, what was considered relevant during the time of the murder may have changed over the 9 years that he was on death row.
Many people would want to execute Clifford Boggess themselves just by glancing at the aggravating factors. Not only did he murder 2 men, but he did it just for the sake of hurting someone. This was not a conclusion that was drawn from the film; he shared his sadistic intentions in the film. After confiding in his girlfriend, Phoebe, he threatened to kill her and the judge if she ever told anyone about what he had done. When he stood during his trial to accept his sentence, he was described as having absolutely no feelings or emotions. Clifford really appears to be a man who is just out to kill for no reason, why shouldn't he be put to death?
I admit that none of this evidence reassured me of my opinion to keep Boggess alive. He seemed like such a deranged man. But when I weigh those factors with the mitigating factors, I am sure that I would have kept Boggess alive. The simple fact that Boggess was the only prisoner on death row who was able to openly and honestly talk about what he had done is a major sign that he has changed. He has come to terms with the two murders and he accepts the consequences. The video also touched on Clifford's past, which I believe should be considered in a life or death matter. People described him as always having a positive attitude and that killing him now would just kill the little boy within. He has the potential to change back into the pure soul that he was before. The video also claimed that there was always something "wrong" with Clifford, even at a young age. This makes me believe that if there was always something "wrong" with him, then the judges should consider the fact that maybe his actions were biologically prompted. Maybe he is not the bloodthirsty savage that his actions accuse him of being, and maybe he can still be the innocent boy from his past.
Just one look in Clifford's jail cell demonstrates that he has changed. He has a lot of artwork of his own, pictures of family and friends (even his victim's graves =/ ...), and he was willing to show anyone his personables. When a prisoner of conscience is left to ponder what they have done to put them in jail, there is a large possibility that they will change, or at least accept what they have done. But if they are killed, they will never receive the chance to make peace with themselves and others. They will never get the chance to make things right. And they will never get the chance to change. If you give people the opportunity, they CAN change.
Although I did not view Clifford's victim's family's reactions to his death, I can assume how they must have felt. I think they would have a SMALL sense of closure in the fact that they will never see or hear from him again. But if they were never going visit him in jail and he was sentenced for life, then why do families really want the murderers killed? Because Clifford's story has now been made famous, these families will have to answer questions for the rest of their lives. Killing Clifford will not and will never bring their loved ones back. They have now continued the cycle of killing. Would that bring you justice? Does killing Clifford outweigh the possibility that he could change and bring justice to the families? Well they will never know because they never gave him the opportunity...
No comments:
Post a Comment