http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/07/opini ... D88C73E601
On Monday, a state trial judge found there was enough evidence to justify a hearing about Mr. Awkal’s sanity but that he could not hold one immediately because witnesses were not available. The Ohio Supreme Court should have granted a stay of execution, which it wrongly denied shortly before the governor stepped in because of the trial court’s finding.
So the thinking was that since it was a problem to assemble witnesses we ought to just kill a human being because otherwise it is inconvenient or something. Is that it?
Yep, sounds like it. Plus if they go ahead and execute the guy it makes all the politicians involved look tough on crime. So there was no downside to killing him and no upside to not killing him. Of course they were going to deny his stay. What's a man's life if it advances one's political career?
To be honest, I am surprised that the governor granted him a stay. He would have benefitted too.
"You see things aren't sequential. Good doesn't lead to good nor bad to bad. People steal, don't get caught. Live the good life. Others lie, cheat and get elected. Some people stop to help a stranded motorist and get taken out by a speeding semi. There's no accounting for it. How you play the cards you're dealt, that's all that matters." - Jigsaw