A recent edi­to­r­i­al in The Washington Post praised Indiana Governor Mitchell Daniels for com­mut­ing the death sen­tence of Arthur Baird, who suf­fers from severe men­tal ill­ness. The editorial noted: 

Indiana Gov. Mitchell E. Daniels Jr. (R) act­ed wise­ly and humane­ly this week in com­mut­ing the death sen­tence of one Arthur Paul Baird II. There is no ques­tion that Mr. Baird killed his par­ents and his preg­nant wife back in 1985. There is also lit­tle ques­tion that he is seri­ous­ly men­tal­ly ill and was so then. His men­tal ill­ness was clear­ly a sig­nif­i­cant fac­tor in the killings and just as clear­ly led direct­ly to his death sen­tence. Because of his delu­sion­al state, Mr. Baird inex­plic­a­bly reject­ed a plea deal the state had offered him that would have spared his life. Jurors in his case have indi­cat­ed that had life in prison with­out parole — not an option in Indiana at the time — been avail­able, they would have cho­sen that rather than death. Family mem­bers were sim­i­lar­ly inclined. Yet the state parole board rec­om­mend­ed against clemen­cy on a 3 to 1 vote, and the Indiana Supreme Court, also divid­ed, like­wise declined to step in. Mr. Daniels deserves cred­it for tak­ing respon­si­bil­i­ty for pre­vent­ing Mr. Baird’s execution.

…

Still, oth­er gov­er­nors in recent years, faced with severe­ly men­tal­ly ill inmates on death row, have avert­ed their gaze and let them die. The Supreme Court has held that it is uncon­sti­tu­tion­al to exe­cute the men­tal­ly retard­ed or those who were not of age at the time of their crimes. That it is still some­how okay to put to death a florid psy­chot­ic is a strange and amoral anom­aly of con­tem­po­rary American law, one that cries out for reform. Until that hap­pens, how­ev­er, exec­u­tive clemen­cy is the only viable pro­tec­tion. It is refresh­ing to see a gov­er­nor will­ing to step up to the plate.


(Washington Post, September 1, 2005). See Mental Illness, Clemency, and Editorials.

Citation Guide