Columnist Steve Blow (DMN) said that Karla's struggle was stirring up so much emotion because people got to know her and it's difficult to kill someone you know.  I strongly agree with this assertion.  Many people have claimed Karla's worldwide notoriety was due to her being a woman and/or a born-again Christian.  I think these were red-flag issues but, as I got to know the Karla, it became obvious that she was a nice person.  Certainly her crime was most henious and brutal and cried for justice. But that had been 14 years ago.  Today, she was not a threat to society.  So why did we execute her? (Mind you, I didn't think she must be released back to society; that would have been a different issue.)

This question (why execute her?) and it's implications (that we are killing someone who might well have a positive, not negative, influence on our society) weighed heavily on me.  As Karla's options for life disappeared, I felt growing shame.  I will never shake the knowledge that we/Texas killed a good person.  Karla's death has exposed every possible flaw in the Texas capital punishment system and, probably, in capital punishment everywhere.

Here are some of the main players in Karla's execution (at the time of her execution) and my complaints about them.

The Parole and Clemency Board

• It's members do not publicly or privately meet to determine clemency.  They receive information by mail and consider their decisions individually.  IMHO, this review mechanism makes it very difficult (impossible) for the public to understand how Clemence Board members making their decisions.  Thus, it is impossible to the public to effectively gauge the board's process.  This is an example of government behind closed doors... a very scary scenario.
• The 18 members of the Clemence Board do not meet with the death row prisoner.  I should note that the Board chairman, Victor Rodriguez, did meet with Karla.  He only discussed her trial.
• Their guidelines appear to be to determine if the jury was fair about passing the death sentence.  This is my interpretation since, alas, there are no guidelines.  I infer this from published statements by the Board chairman.
• They do not take into account, in any way, anything that happens between when the death sentence was issued and the present: i.e., everything the prisoner does or says on death row is immaterial.  Again, this is from statements made by the Board chairman.  IMHO, this means that the board members will not or can not judge whether an inmate is rehabilitated.  This seems very strange to me since I always thought the whole purpose of Parole Boards was to determine if prisoners were rehabilitated and could re-enter society. Okay... this is the Clemence Board but if prisoners can be paroled early (actually released back into society) for good behavior then why can't a prisoner on Death Row be removed from Death Row for good behavior.
• In effect, the Board members only determine if the trial and sentencing were fair.  But isn't that what the lengthy appeals process does between sentencing and execution?  It seems redundant to me: ie, stupid and useless.
• Again, there are no guidelines for them to follow when processing pleas for clemency.  Without these guidelines, there is no quantitative standard to judge their work.
• There is a history of "lack of mercy" by this Board.  All 76 clemency requests in Texas from 1993 to 1998 have been rejected... all of them. Of the 16 condemned inmates who sought commutations in 1997, none received even a single favorable vote from the Texas parole board.  IMHO, this seems extremely odd.  That's a total of 288 votes and they were all nay.
• I believe the Clemency Board's job should be to seriously review clemency pleas and not rubber stamp the original death sentence.  It's a tough job and that's why they're paid $70,000 a year.
• The Board chairman stated that the Board has not had anyone before them who was good candidate for clemency.  IMHO, if Karla Tucker was not a good candidate then there are no good candidates.  Thus, the entire clemency process is a farce.

• While the Governor needs a majority of the Board to recommend clemency before bestowing it, the Governor can issue a one-time 30-day stay of execution.  Considering the immense public scrutiny of Karla's pending execution and the many issues it raised, it puzzles me why Gov. Bush didn't take this option.  Not only would it have given Karla 30 more days of life, but would have given more time to public debate on this serious issue.
• As you read Gov. Bush's statement denying Karla a 30-day stay, you will note that he passes judgement of Karla's "heart and soul of an individual" to a "higher authority" (meaning God).  To me, this is a shirking of Governor Bush's responsibilities.  It is his job to make this judgement (a judgement that determines if a person lives or dies) and he simply ignored his responsibilities.
• I speculate that Gov. Bush denied Karla a 30-day stay of execution because to do otherwise would be to look "soft on crime": after all, he is a Republican.  Thus, Karla Tucker was literally sacrificed on the altar of political posturing.
• This has lead me to conclude that Gov. Bush is a coward.

I can characterize the reasoning of people who supported Karla's execution in 3 catagories:

Vengence for her crimes

    Vengence is not a rational reason for executing anyone.  It's merely society-sanctioned murder.

Her crimes were so brutal that she must die

    Yes, Karla's crimes were brutal but I believe that "the Karla" who committed those crimes no longer existed and was not present at the execution.  I truly believe that Karla Tucker was rehabilitated.  In fact, I think anyone would see this if they truly took the time to read about Karla's life on death row.
    Also, Karla was only asking that her sentence be commuted to life in prison, not that she be released.  Karla wanted to live but she wasn't asking for her freedom.

She should not be specially treated because she's a woman and born-again Christian
 
    In general, I agree with this.  Still, I think a person's history of behavior while on death row is very relevant to whether they should receive clemency.  I mean, we're not psychic.  We can't read an inmate's mind and, yet, we need some way to judge the inmate's state of mind.  All information is helpful and it would be stupid to ignore an inmate's history while on death row.
    The Parole and Clemency Board specifically ignored this history.  In Karla's case, her record showed more than a decade of kind and caring service to her fellow inmates on death row (her only contact with the prison population), remorse for her crimes, compassion for the families of her victims, and a commitment to being a good person.  To me, it is abundantly clear that Karla Tucker had turned her life around and was no longer a threat to society.
    If you don't believe me then read about Karla yourself.  I'm confident you will see that I'm correct.
 
 

Basic immoralities of the death penalty
Why do we execute people rather than put them in jail for life without parole?  I don't have all the answers.  I have always been against capital punishment.  Still, I have an open mind.  Here are some of the answers I've read about and my thoughts about them.

It is a deterrent to crime
    Many murderers, such as Karla 14 years ago, are truly despicable characters: amoral or permanently psychotic.   I doubt the threat of a death sentence will have any effect on their actions.  Still, there are a lot of studies on this and I'm not an expert.
    Also, I can't help feeling that it is unfair to kill a person as a warning to others.  Life is so precious and death is so permanent.

The families of the victims need the execution to feel that justice has been served
    In the particular case of Karla Tucker, this was not the case.  Ron Carlson (the brother of the woman Karla killed) actually needed to forgive Karla of her crime before he could get on with his life (and he did so in person).  On the other hand, the husband of this same woman remained quite bitter towards Karla to the very end... even making cruel comments towards Karla in the death chamber during her execution.  Just my opinion, but I doubt anything will ever relieve his anger.
    Although I can't, in general, discount the above claim it sounds like a fascinating subject for study... and it probably has been studied.

The criminal, once executed, will never kill again
    Well, this is certainly very true.  I could ask "If the inmate were not executed and eventually freed, would they kill again?"
    There have been studies that show death row killers, when freed on technicalities, do not kill again.  I suppose looking death in the face is a life-altering experience for these people... I don't know.
    Anyway, the same could be said for a killer sentenced to "life in prison without chance of parole".  At the time of Karla's execution, this sentence did not exist Texas; Texas has it now.

My take on the death penalty and how it applies to Karla Tucker
     Capital punishment should be reserved for those people who would continue to be a threat to society even from within prison.  Anything else is simply vengeance.
Examples of the moral use of the death penalty:
1) A prisoner arranges for the murder of a civilian.
2) A prisoner murders another prisoner.

Karla Tucker, of all inmates, was NOT a threat to society.  If her execution had been commuted to a life-term, I have no doubt that she would have continued to serve her fellow inmates.