蜜桃影像AV

I appreciate Tim Steller bringing the issues behind the Julio Cesar Aguirre case to the fore in a thoughtful piece, though I do disagree with the conclusion drawn in the headline. It鈥檚 鈥減rosecutorial politics鈥� only in the sense that the federal government wants to make political hay out of this case, using Aguirre as the poster child for all that is wrong with the immigration system ... as proof of the dangers 鈥榯hose people鈥� pose.

Once their publicity goals have been achieved, my guess is the federal prosecutors will use the death penalty as a bargaining chip so he鈥檒l plead guilty to a lesser charge to secure life in prison 鈥� the same result County prosecutors would seek.

As for County Attorney Conover鈥檚 decision not to pursue the death penalty, to me it boils down in many ways to basic humanity. Whether the case of Julio Cesar Aguirre is tried in County or Federal court, the victims deserve to see justice for the heinous crimes he鈥檚 alleged to have committed. The question is where and how that is achieved.

Many years ago, I produced a documentary on the death penalty. During the research and interview process every belief I had long held relating to the death penalty was challenged. My takeaway was that whether you support the death penalty or not, pursuing it, rather than natural life in prison without possibility of parole, is harder on the survivors: the family members and friends of those killed. A death penalty conviction results in years and years of appeals, which means years and years of hearings and possible retrials ... all of which bring survivors鈥� pain and loss to the fore again ... and again ... and again. From the interviews I conducted with survivors many years ago, that peace of mind was invaluable.

And let鈥檚 not forget: Arizona was a pioneer in 1990 when voters enshrined victim rights into the state鈥檚 constitution. Next of kin have no constitutional rights in federal court.

As for using Aguirre as their example, it鈥檚 important to look at the hard facts: According to the Migration Policy Institute, 鈥渢here is no clear relationship between violent crime and immigration.鈥� According to Jacob Stowell, an associate professor of criminology and criminal justice at Northeastern University, 鈥淣ot only is crime not going up, it鈥檚 not even remaining static. It鈥檚 continuing this downward trend as immigration continues to grow.鈥� And TPD Chief Chad Kasmar has said the Aguirre case is his first experience with a criminally deported suspect returning to commit murder.

It鈥檚 clear that Ms. Conover would pursue the finality of natural life in prison with no possibility of parole, bringing closure to all involved 鈥� and protection to society if a violent criminal is put away forever.

I doubt that if Aguirre remains in federal court, as now seems likely, the result will be any different. As Mr. Steller said in his editorial, 鈥渢he federal government is pursuing a narrower, five-count indictment against Aguirre while Conover explores how to pursue the broader, 12-count case, including a first-degree murder charge and aggravated assault charges for holding a multi-generational family at gunpoint.鈥�