TheJournal.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more »
Dublin: 5 °C Saturday 25 May, 2013

Mitchell defends letter seeking clemency for Death Row inmate

Gay Mitchell tells RTÉ that he sought clemency for Paul Hill simply because he thinks the death penalty “is barbaric”.

Image: Laura Hutton/Photocall Ireland

FINE GAEL’S PRESIDENTIAL candidate Gay Mitchell has defended his 2003 letter seeking clemency for an anti-abortionist man who was on Death Row in Florida.

Mitchell’s letter – written in 2003 when he was Fine Gael’s spokesman on foreign affairs – asked that Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister, be taken off Death Row for the murder of two people outside an abortion clinic in 1994.

That letter has come under scrutiny in the aftermath of David Norris’s withdrawal from the Presidential election over a letter of his own, seeking clemency for his former partner when he was to be sentenced for the statutory rape of a 15-year-old.

In a wide-ranging interview broadcast on RTÉ Radio 1′s ‘Today with Pat Kenny’, Mitchell said he had “no doubt whatsoever” that previous Irish governments had received pleas for clemency when inmates were being put to death.

“It is a perfectly civilised thing to do. What you’re saying is that the Secretary General of Amnesty International wouldn’t be safe to run for election. Mary Robinson wouldn’t be safe to run for election. It wouldn’t be safe to run for election.

“To ask for somebody not to be put to death… that’s something I do all the time… I think the death penalty is barbaric.

“Do you know what it’s like to watch someone who’s injected, and poisoned to death, gassed to death, hanged to death? … I’m against it, full stop. And if I have to stand up to people and fight for it, I’ll fight for it.”

Mitchell told Myles Dungan that the circumstances of Hill’s conviction had nothing to do with his plea for clemency.

‘Anything that weakens marriage’

Facing other questions from listeners who pressed him on his political ideology, Mitchell said he didn’t “want to do anything that weakens marriage,” and said he had supported the laws allowing for civil partnership in Ireland.

“I want to take our time about this – I supported civil partnership, on the basis that this was going to solve a problem. People asked for it, and I supported it. I had no misgivings about supporting it.

Asked about the prospect of adding to civil partnership by giving gay couples the power to adopt, or to enter into full marriages, he commented:

Let’s just see how this works out, and we’ll talk about how we go from here. But let’s do it calmly, let’s do it respectfully, let’s do it by discussion.

Questioned on whether he would refuse to sign laws allowing for such rights, Mitchell insisted his “sworn duty, with my hand on the bible, will be to uphold the constitution and the law. And I will do that without fear or favour.”

Mitchell also defended his proposal that Dublin seek to become a host city for the Olympic games, describing it as “one of the best ideas I ever put forward”.

“I don’t agree with this idea that we start by saying things couldn’t be done… It’s a matter of whether we want to, or we don’t want to… I believe in being inclusive, in being innovate, in being energetic.”

Mitchell began the interview by saying he wouldn’t “take a mortgage out” based on any political opinion polls, dismissing suggestions that his performance in yesterday’s Red C poll – which put him on 13 per cent of the public vote – meant he could not perform well.

“These polls will wax and wane,” he said, citing Mary Banotti’s performance as FG’s candidate in 1997 as an example.

“Mary Banotti was on somewhere in the teens, and she ended up polling just under 30 per cent – a very good performance,” he said.

Read next:

Comments (43 Comments)

  • If you oppose the death penalty, you oppose it completely. You don’t just do it for so called “pro-lifers”. That, to my mind, is the issue.

    Reply
  • The problem wasn’t him pleading against the death penalty, that’s fine, it was the fact that be only pleaded on behalf of one ultra-conservative, anti-choice terrorist, if his whole argument is to hold up about him being against the death penalty altogether, where are his other letters on behalf of other death row inmates?

    Reply
  • He’ll strengthen the Vatican’s position in Irish politics again if he is elected. I think Mr Mitchell was being very misleading in the answers he gave in that interview. He is not as he claims a person of inclusion but a narrow minded Religious fanatic.

    Reply
  • Did he write seeking clemency for other death row prisoners? Perhaps ones who weren’t conservative Christians inspired to murder by their anti-abortion views?

    Reply
  • What’s with the gays always seeking clemency…

    Reply
  • kate bh 12/08/11 #

    oh and why do you have to be condescending with calling me sunshine?

    Reply
  • kate bh 12/08/11 #

    hi tony, where did i say i want a president that represents only my views? i said i would like a president to represent all Irish citizens. not just one small section. i can’t believe i have to say that! of course everybody’s entitled to their own opinion but our president should be representing ALL Irish citizens. anyway its not like gay Mitchell is going to be elected!

    Reply
  • There is reasonable justification for his actions. Down with the death penalty. Remember the Guildford 4 and Birmingham 6…… Enough Said I think !!!

    Reply
    • There were many in F.G. in the 80′s that were strongly against the Bermingham 6/Guildford 4 campaigns. Also recall how they harassed the families of victims and survivors of the Dublin-Monaghan bombings by setting the Special Branch on them for years, for daring to ask for a full investigation in to the biggest killing in the history of the troubles, rather than the 6 weeks that FG gave it before closing it down.

      Reply
  • kate bh 12/08/11 #

    meant to say weakens marriage, not dilute!

    Reply
  • Who is criticising him for being anti-death penalty? I would expect those who oppose it and our in politics to have written to governors and states in specific cases (regardless of how odious the criminal was). (Mitchell’s objection on whether he was related to George ‘the penguin’ Mitchell was comical however).

    Reply
  • Gavin this link maybe of interest to you http://www.politicalworld.org/showthread.php?t=9139

    Reply
    • A Catholic fundamentalist who lies on national radio about his membership of a grubby little group of fanatics doesn’t deserve to be President.

      Reply
    • Actually, that link is quite interesting! What’s the big scandal- a Catholic going for the presidency? I thought the Youtube clip was really good- protecting human dignity seems like a very laudable aim. Can’t see what the big fuss is about? I don’t know much about that Institute, but I did agree with this statement from them -

      “A key motivating factor for the institute is that Christians in the public square are now expected to keep their faith private and yet this isn’t expected of anyone else. “No one would suggest to an atheist, Freemason, socialist or capitalist that they should put the principles most important to them behind them,” says Harnwell, “but unlike Christians, these — and other belief communities — are not expected to become ‘neutral actors.’”

      Reply
    • Mitchell will obey his superiors in The Vatican,that in my opinion is not serving the Irish people. Enough is enough the Roman Catholic church has done enough damage to the people of this country.It has blocked progress and poisoned peoples minds with silly superstitions raped children shown a total disregard for the law of the land. Why on earth would we want a person that supports this sort of organization as President of our Country?

      Reply
    • There are over one billion Roman Catholics in the world, Joe. You can’t tar them all with the same brush! There seems to be a suggestion that practising Catholics should be excluded from holding any role in public life with spurious attempts to link their religion to gross failing on the child abuse issue. I see this as a poor attempt to blacken anyone who has different views on a range of issues.

      Reply
    • Indeed Maria I am not tarring them all with the one brush,this argument does not stand. What I’m saying is this:
      The Vatican is a corrupt vile and totally perverted organization.It has no respect for the laws governing our country or that of any other country. What I do take issue to is those who govern that “Church” along with its enablers to stop interfering with state matters. How many more “reports” do people like you need so as that you can form an honest opinion about this organization? They all knew about the Child Rape from Priest to Pope.

      Reply
  • i think its ridiculousl that people are debating Norris when that ship has sailed. this debate is regarding gay Mitchell., i don’t really see an issue with sending a letter if that’s what if believes, politicians do that all the time. i do take exception to the " dilution" of marriage that he is speaking about, who wants a president that is not in favour of equal rights? that is only in favour of human rights when it falls on the catholic side of human.. gay people want to be treated equally and what on earth is the problem with that? gay people don’t want catholic marriage – they want full state marriage. Gay Mitchell has proved with his various comments that he has one agenda- the catholic agenda. i believe that our president should be representing all Irish citizens not just catholic ones.

    Reply
    • I can’t believe I have to do this but…
      He is entitled to his views, you want a President that represents only your views. How is that democratic, is differing opinion now to be opposed, is every President potential that does not tick all your boxes be unrepresentative of all Irish citizens.

      Open your mind sunshine.

      (feels queasy after standing up for Mitchell, even if it is in the interests of free speech and the right to have your own opinion)

      Reply
  • I actually agree with him. He wasn’t asking them to go easy on the guy, just spare him the death penalty and incarcerate him instead. There have been so many instances where the wrong person has been put to death, and if you want to get fiscal about it, it costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them. For a lot of people prison is a fate worse than death.

    Reply
    • Two points Jane…

      Paul Hill was not the wrong person caught for the crime.

      The reason for the increased costs is down to lawyers riding a gravy train in a case like this. Fair enough if there is a doubt about a conviction then I’m all for exhausting all avenues of investigation. In this case however Paul Hill was definitely guilty of the crime so there would have been no fear of executing the wrong man.

      Reply
    • I know what you mean, and I wasn’t talking about this case specifically, I absolutely agree and understand they got the right man in this instance. I just mean in general I don’t agree with putting someone to death because there can be instances that the wrong person is accused. If life really meant life I feel prison is a far greater punishment.

      Reply
    • The issue here is Death Penalty or Not… There is absolutely no in between on this one !!!

      Reply
    • I hear what you are saying Jane and normally I would be against the death penalty unless somebody is caught with a smoking gun over a body, which in this case Paul Hill was. I looked into the background of Paul Hill and the Army of God ( religious nut cases that he was affiliated to) and it seems that most of these people actually became more radicalised in jail by coming into contact with others. Hill’s manifesto is published online and is seen as a rallying call for further attacks. In a case like this it is far better off to let him meet his maker rather than let him spread his poisonous hate for the next 20 to 30 years.

      Reply
  • This one is a storm in a tea cup. Ther’s no comparison between Norris supporting the right of child rapists to get away with it and Gay Mitchell opposing the death penalty.

    Unless of course you’re a supporter of the death penalty, in which case you might criticise Mitchell.

    Reply
    • I disagree Michael. Norris was put under scrutiny for his letter writing so I don’t see why Mitchell shouldn’t also come under the same spotlight. If he wrote letters on behalf of a wide range of prisoners then fine lets move on. If he wrote letters only on behalf of a certain grouping or ideology as has been suggested then perhaps that needs to be explored further. The simplest way out of it is for Mitchell to produce any clemency letters that he has written and just be done with the whole thing. It’s the easiest way to clear the whole matter up and I don’t know why he hasn’t done so. The longer he lets this run the more people will think that he is hiding something.

      Reply
    • While that is a valid point regarding Norris’s comments, Mitchell it seems has only made an intervention in to this case. I’m not going to tell the man what to do or think, I;m not Gay Mitchell but in this case it does seem that there was a political sympathy for the man and his actions. Just call a spade a spade Gay and get on with the campaign.

      Reply
  • Typical gombeens see the Norris debacle as nothing more than a badly thought out letter sending exercise and try to smear another candidate with the same charge. Laughable really.

    Let’s get this straight. It was Norris’ perverted ideologies that brought him down. It is Norris’ perverted ideologies that should have him removed from politics.

    The whole Norris thing is a child abuse / child protection issue not a letter writing mistake.

    Reply
  • @Maria

    I am specifically talking about personal intervention and clemency pleas from politicians in individual cases.

    Ethnic cleansing, basic human rights and genocide are different matters altogether, no, I do not approve of people sitting back and doing nothing, hence we have institutions like the UN that we are a member of, pretty much that every country is signed up to. I am trying to stick to this particular debate, so please do not try and twist my words into something else.

    Which politician here send a letter to Iraq against the death penalty handed down to Saddam Hussein? What was the difference?

    Reply
    • Eamonn, you feel that no politician has the right to intervene in foreign jurisdictions. I don’t agree, especially in the case of the death penalty. If we can speak out for a particular ethnic group or nation, why should we ignore the plight of any individual who’s facing such a barbaric death? Yes, we have bodies like the UN, but this doesn’t stop any individual politician from taking a stand. Gay Mitchell spoke very eloquently on this topic on yesterday’s Pat Kenny Show.

      Reply
  • Extract from a letter I sent to FG’s Peter Mathews. These are my views on the whole issue regardless of who the person is, and by that I mean and focus on the words ‘intervention’ and ‘clemency’

    “Will the Deputy ask for the resignations of Fianna Fáil TD Tony Killeen (letter sent for early release of a double rapist / Labour TD Kathleen Lynch wrote a letter to a judge in 2008 to tell him that a convicted rapist of two children came from “a good family”., if not, then it is a double standard from the Deputy in my opinion. If ‘intervention’ and ‘clemency’ letters are wrong for Norris, they are wrong for all and must be applied to any sitting Deputy in Dail Eireann across the board. A precedent has been started with Senator Norris and cannot end with Senator Norris.

    Will the Deputy ask the FG Candidate Gay Mitchell to also withdraw from this Presidential Election as he asked for Florida Governor Jeb Bush for clemency in the case of a double murderer? Whilst the majority maybe against the Death Penalty, no politician here has the right to intervene in foreign jurisdictions unless the person involved is an Irish Citizen, otherwise we are interfering with the justice systems of foreign countries no matter how barbaric their systems may appal anyone with a sense of dignity and decency. I personally am against the death penalty and Sharia law if my opinion counts on this matter.

    If the Deputy is not going to call for the resignations of the aforementioned current TD’s and call for the withdrawal of FG MEP Gay Mitchell from the Presidential election then I again I would suggest double standards are at play and we the People of the Republic of Ireland are being dictated to by the Oireachtas and it appears we cannot as the electorate decide who is best fit to run for our Presidency.”

    Reply
    • So “, no politician here has the right to intervene in foreign jurisdictions unless the person involved is an Irish Citizen, otherwise we are interfering with the justice systems of foreign countries no matter how barbaric their systems may appal anyone with a sense of dignity and decency.”

      “All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” Of course governments and politicians should speak out when basic human rights are being breached! What kind of people would sit back and say nothing when they see their fellow human beings being tortured, murdered or executed?

      Reply

Add New Comment