Do You Think Leonard Peltier Should Ever Be Pardoned?

[JimBoy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZsQzepS5MQ

If you're not familiar with this case.. here it is.

Leonard Peltier is a Native American activist who is currently serving two consecutive life sentences for gunning down two F.B.I. agents on his Indian reservation, The Pine Ridge Reservation, in 1977.

Still today, debate over his guilt/innocence and the fairness of his trial goes on. Some people even say at this point that even though he may be guilty he deserves to be released because of the treatment at his trial and for all of the Native American injustices committed by the white government.

Allegedly what happened was that the 2 agents were at the Pine Ridge Reservation to follow up on a theft of local farmhands committed by indians at the reservation. They came under fire from a high-powered .233 caliber rifle that the agents' .38 pistols were no match for. The wounded agents tried to get away and protect themselves but the bullets wound up going through their blocking hands and arms killing them. It is said that Leonard Peltier was the one who fired the shots and he and other activists fled right away after the incident.

A thumb print of Peltier's was found on one of the agents' pistols and it was discovered he was already wanted for another crime and a manhunt was issued right away. Peltier fled to Canada and was arrested there. He fought his extradiction and as a result he could not be tried with the other captured activists; who were acquitted of the murders on grounds of self-defense.

Leonard Peltier was found guilty and sentenced to two life sentences upon his return to the states. It is reported that when President Clinton was about to leave office that he had considered pardoning Peltier. This led to a huge protest outside the White House of F.B.I. agents and their families and Clinton did not grant it.

Leonard Peltier admits that he did fire shots at the agents but that he did not kill them. The fact that he will be pardoned and released remains highly unlikely but possible.

What do you think?

 

[RedMan01]

I think he should, but I could be biased

Being of Native American ancestry myself, but the question is, is all this accurate and how did they treat him, could they maybe have tried to assault him, etc.

I remember something similar happening in the UK when people accused the Guildford Four for bombing, only to find out about 20 years later that they indeed were innocent despite "evidence" (they were coerced to lie as the police threatened to kill their families).

 

[Violetta]

I don't believe he should. Parole? Maybe. But a pardon? Assuming that he wasn't framed or something, I could see how mistreatment during his arrest or trial could merit parole. But if it was him, the he not only fired on FBI agents, but also continued to fire even after they tried to get away. The notion that he should be pardoned because of the things the US government has done gets under my skin, too. Quite literally, it sets a precident that lets him get away with murder because of something someone's great-great-grandparents did to someone else's great-great-grandparents. Not that it shouldn't be swept aside, but it shouldn't be used as an excuse either.

 

[august spies]

yes

 

[Frowg]

no rules

A game with no rules is called hockey, and a government with no rules is called anarchy, but a government that makes it's own rules is called oppressive. Free Leonard Peltier.

 

[SilverleafLycan1]

If they want to go over the trial and see if anything was planted, forged, whatever, sure...if he's innocent. They have his fingerprint on one of the agents guns, he was close enough to pick it up after they died? And he didn't turn anyone in? Honestly, whether he did and lied, or saw it happen and didn't turn someone in, he's just as guilty.

It comes down to who shot first, and we can't very well ask the agents. If he did it, let him rot...if not, set him free.

Hockey has rules, and a gov't without rules is redundant. An oppresive gov't is one that freely makes it's own rules with a small group of people in power that look to benefit only themselves. Our congress constantly pass new rules (<sarcasm> I believe we call them laws </sarcasm>). I see no freely changed laws that happened for this case. Canada extradited him, we accepted and put him in jail for murder.

 

[the_jimmy_james]

After doing a bit of reading into the case, following several other avenues, including the Anna Mae Aquash murder, I can't find a reason to support this guy. People say that someone had it out for him, but the truth is that there's a burden of evidence that he was a violent criminal to start with. At the time the alleged shootings occurred, did any of you know that he was a fugitive?

He was accused of the murder of a police officer in Milwaukee. He was later acquitted, but that just sounds... questionable. I don't think that Mr. Peltier is quite as innocent as a lot of you folks would like to believe.

Is it possible that he was mistreated? Yes. Does he deserve recompence for that? Definitely.

Do I believe he's an innocent man? No.

 

[Wade1]

A pardon doesn't mean you're innocent. In fact, the very act of accepting a pardon implies you're admitting you're guilty.

In other words, whether or not Peltier is innocent doesn't have any bearing on whether he ought to be pardoned.

 

[JimBoy]

This case is very interesting to me...

Myrtle Poor Bear was intimidated into signing affidavits, which got Peltier extradited from Canada. She had claimed to be his girlfriend, although they did not even know each other. It was never proven that Peltier killed the agents. Numerous Native Americans were harassed and threatened during this case; nobody jumped or did anything when they were killed but since "two white boys" were murdered blood was to be demanded.

The government attorney conceded at the hearing, "We had a murder, we had numerous shooters, we do not know who specifically fired what killing shots...we do not know who shot the agents." Peltier has admitted that he was one of the shooters.

Prosecutor Lynn Crooks stated, "Your honor, the government does not know who killed our agents nor do we know what participation Peltier may have had in it. We don't know if he was the actual participant or just an aider and abettor." The question is does Peltier being only an aider and abettor make him any less guilty for what happened?


Peltier is not only eligible for parole, but is long over due. In 1994 the U.S. Parole Commission examined Mr. Peltier's conduct since his imprisonment, factored severity rate of the crime he was convicted of, and determined to be eligible for release after 188 months (16 years) of imprisonment under Parole Commission guidelines. Since then Mr. Peltier has undergone one full parole hearing and three interim parole hearings and has been arbitrarily denied. Mr. Peltier's next full hearing is scheduled for 2008. According to law, the Parole Commission is required to justify their reasons for denying a prisoner parole beyond what the guidelines set forth. However, the commission has failed to articulate any rational reasoning for doing so, and have demonstrated bias and discrimination towards Peltier.
According to those guidelines, shouldn't he have been released in 1993?