OP/ED: Canadian on U.S. death row is right where he belongs
by Rob Leggett on 10 Mar 2010
Ronald Allen Smith has the distinction of being the only Canadian on death row in the U.S. and, thanks to the resent rejection of his appeal by the U.S. Appeal Court, he is one step closer to execution.
Smith, from Red Deer, Alta, admitted to and was convicted of killing two young men in Montana in 1982. He marched the two young men into the woods by the side of the road and shot them both in the head at point-blank range. Two days later, he was arrested along with two others after a botched robbery in California.
He pleaded guilty to the murders of the two Blackfoot natives and was offered a deal where he would get life in prison; however, he turned it down and asked the court to give him the death penalty. He testified in court that he killed the young men because he wanted to know what killing someone felt like.
In March 1983, he was sentenced to death.
Smith then changed his mind and told the courts he really didn’t want to die.
Really?
Smith doesn’t want to die.
Sadly, that is probably what Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit said while they were begging for their lives, just before Smith shot them both in the back of the heads.
Nevertheless, Smith is hoping for a clemency deal that would have his sentence commuted to life in prison, and that he would be transferred to a Canadian prison so he could be closer to his family and possibly even eventual release.
I really hope that I am not the only one who is outraged by the idea that he wants to be transferred to Canada … because he misses his family. After taking the lives of those two young men, whose families will never get to see them again, he would like us to believe he is rehabilitated and deserving of sympathy.
I, for one, do not have any sympathy for Smith.
If there was any doubt to his guilt, I would full-heartedly endorse his bid for clemency, however there is no doubt. He admitted to the callous execution of two young men and even described to the court the events that took place; he even admitted that he wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone; and the final straw, after being shown undeserved mercy and offered a deal, he chose to ask for the death penalty instead.
The only reason that Smith would be granted a reprieve from his death sentence would be because he is a Canadian citizen, and I believe Canadian politicians are meddling where they don’t belong.
Canadian politicians repeatedly proclaim that the U.S. is interfering with Canadian sovereignty, yet it amazes me that they don’t view this as an interference of American sovereignty. If an American commits murder and flees to Canada, we will not return him to a state that has the death penalty without prior assurance that the death penalty will not be enforced. Yet a Canadian has committed double homicide in the U.S. and we are insisting that he does not have to face the verdict of the court, a verdict he insisted on. This is bleeding-heart diplomacy at its finest.
Whether we find the death penalty palatable or not in Canada is not the issue. The issue is, we have to realize that once we step outside of Canadian borders we are subject to other countries' laws. Smith CHOSE to commit two murders in a state that has the death penalty; he CHOSE to ask for the death penalty; and we have a duty (in this instance, at least) to allow the law to give those families the justice authorized by the U.S. court.
Whether we agree with the form of justice or not.
Other News Stories
-
Donovan Hoggan -
Contributor
-
Contributor -
Contributor -
Contributor
Comments
Online Legal Research
Online Legal Research, Civil litigation check, Legal research, Litigation check and Assessments At D-Law.
Still waiting on your correction
Dear Mr Leggett,
I sent a direct message to you last week requesting you make a correction to the above - you haven't done so therefore I'm posting it here.
Yes I am involved with Amnesty International as a volunteer but my comments on your article were entirely from my own personal position.
While I see that you have looked at some of my material online (thank you for your feedback), you have erred in taking my name to be feminine. I am Mr Aubrey Harris - it's not a mistake I would expect you to make if you had met me in person or seen any of my interviews on national television or had looked into my recreational activities - but it is an error that I would have hoped you would have corrected here by now.
Yours truly,
Mr. Aubrey Harris
Oops! Sorry!
I must sincerely apologize Mr. Harris. I really did mean to offer the correction and no disrespect was meant, but I am faced with some very rigid time constraints and I must admit it had slipped my mind.
Again sorry for the misunderstanding.
Yours truly,
Rob
Correction offered
More details
I am and have been speaking in a personal capacity, which is why I have not included information on work I do as a volunteer for Amnesty International. If you would like to see information on Amnesty's position with regards to this case please see Amnesty International's websites or articles quoting Amnesty International in an official capacity.
Canada's obligation to assist Mr Smith does stem from a court order to do so. It is not simply that the government did not inform Smith of the change in policy (or rather abandoning of the policy - what the government had 'put in place' was described by the federal court as not even a policy at all). Mr Smith had been assured of government support for his clemency appeal even a few days before the announcement which was dramatic and opportunistic.
Let's look at this case in a little more detail shall we?
- For more than 20 years Canada supported Smith's efforts at clemency (i.e., requesting mercy from the Governor of Montana)
- There has never been any suggestion that Canada's previous efforts belittled the nature of the original crime, in fact in a letter to the Governor of Montana, the appeal states "The Government of Canada does not sympathize with violent crime and this letter should not be construed as reflecting a judgement on Mr. Smith’s guilt or innocence. The practice of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade to seek clemency for Canadian citizens sentenced to death in foreign countries is based on humanitarian considerations."
- The last actual policy recognised, that of principled opposition to the death penalty in all cases, pertains to Smith's case "According to Mr. Graham, a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, this policy allowed for no exceptions and was founded on Canada’s principled objection to the death penalty – a view which evolved since the practice of execution was ended here in 1962. This is also a position that is consistent with Canada’s long-standing international policy to support the universal abolition of the death penalty. In the absence of any other policy, this is the policy that the Government must continue to apply in good faith to Mr. Smith’s case."
- Abolitionist countries recognise that even the sentence of death is inhumane and cruel. Canada should be speaking up for Smith just as it should speak up for a Canadian facing any other form of torture (let alone a form of mental torture that has gone on for 30+ years)
Smith's Co-Accused:
- Both transferred to Canadian prisons and later paroled years ago.
- Smith's co-accused testified to having voluntarily participated in the murders - Smith's own testimony (when he was seeking death) was that he threatened them in order to get them to take part in the crime. It is reasonable to believe that had Smith not actively sought a death penalty in the first trial and even without having taken the plea deal, he could have already been released on parole in Canada like his coaccused.
Smith's original trial:
- Smith's first defence lawyer, who was quite inexperienced at the time, had apparently spent just 6 hours preparing the capital case.
- The recent 9th Circuit decision held that "Smith’s defense attorney’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness because he
failed to investigate the facts of the crime, failed to investigate Smith’s mental state at the time of the crime, and failed to discuss possible defenses before Smith pled guilty. ...A lawyer’s duty to fully investigate the circumstances of a crime—even when his client has admitted guilt—is especially pronounced in the death context, where consequences of the lawyer’s inaction can be particularly severe. Despite this duty, Smith’s lawyer neither reasonably investigated Smith’s mental state at the time of the murder not did he reasonably investigate the factual circumstances of the murders."
- Smith himself was coming down from a long history of alcohol and drug abuse and had decided at that point that life was not worth living.
- Smith sought the death penalty. Later testimonies from Smith are that he said whatever he could in the worst way possible as he did not want to live and wanted the court to take his life. According to the recent 9th Circuit Court decision: "Soon after the 1983 death sentence ... [Smith] conceded that his previous testimony had been exaggerated to increase the chances that he would receive the death penalty."
Legal relativism:
- Leggett claims that Smith is where he belongs because of the local laws. International law is entirely about universal principles.
- The Vienne Convention on Consular Rights is one such example.
- To ignore this is to ignore the same law that gives us some ability of defence, especially in areas where we (Canadians) have no local ties. Clemency is available to citizens of Montana just as it is available to foreign nationals, but there is no one local to speak up for Smith who is entitled to an appeal for clemency.
- Smith's co-accused, who pled guilty of the same crime, are already living free in Canada.
ELIGIBILITY
- Smith could not honestly be said to have decided to seek death at the time of his crime. During the spree Smith and his two co-accused went on, they were taking "between 30 to 40" hits of LSD daily. (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2010/03/05/94-99003.pdf)
- Smith's prison psychologist testified that "never
seen a case that [she] worked on in 15 years in a capital case [had she seen] anyone making this much . . . impressive change in real, significant . . . rehabilitation.”
CONCLUSION:
Smith is only on death row because of his mental state at the time of trial and because he received substandard legal advice. If Smith had been in a 'normal' state of mind, there is no reason to believe he would be where he is now. He has shown regret and has reformed his life in prison. US legal appeals are based on procedural issues and do not consider the humanitarian considerations that are part of a clemency appeal. For that reason legal revelations even if dismissed on legal reasoning are still open to consideration for the application of mercy.
Smith is an example of someone who should be considered for clemency. Canada commited an extremely inhumane action when it publicly abandoned him for what I can only perceive as unprincipled political gain.
Not this simple
Mr Leggett does not present this case fairly - especially in relying on the testimony given by Smith when he was very likely mentally unfit for trial and actively seeking to get himself executed - making this testimony completely unreliable.
Canada has a legal obligation to actively support Smith's appeal for clemency. An appeal for clemency is not to diminish the seriousness of the original crime. There are however many factors that should contribute to his eligibility for clemency - an appeal for clemency is an appeal to show mercy and such an appeal is not unusual - whether by an American or by a Canadian facing death. In fact international standards on the death penalty require that an appeal for clemency be available.
The death penalty is no longer practised in 2/3 of the world. The USA is one of the few countries that executes regularly. It is time the world recognised that the death penalty is not only cruel and inhumane but also unusual.
Smith committed this crime while on a severe combination of drugs and alcohol. Significant evidence that should have been presented at his original trial regarding whether he should have been sentenced to death was not heard at the trial.
If one thinks that this was all sorted out through appeals, one does not understand the American appeals process in capital trials. People are not freed from death row BY the system, they are freed from death row IN SPITE of the system.
The crime was awful - but so is keeping a human being in solitary confinement for several decades under sentence of death. So is denying a mentally unstable man due care in a trial for his life. So is declaring any human being unfit to live. Appealing for clemency is the absolute minimum that must be done. If our government does not appeal for clemency, it is essentially signing a death warrant and Canada, like 2/3 of the world, does not sign death warrants.
Please Mr Leggett, read up more on this case before you make up your mind that someone 'deserves' death.
Simple enough
Thank you Ms. Aubrey Harris (at this point I am assuming this is Aubrey Harris from Amnesty International) for taking the time to respond to my column. Ms. Harris has written several very good articles for Amnesty International and has her own web page devoted to Human Rights Philosophy and the death penalty.
As you stated, “Canada has a legal obligation to actively support Smith's appeal for clemency”, this is true but the legal obligation stated by the Supreme Court was “While the Government is generally free to change its policies there must still be a tangible and intelligible articulation of any policy before it can be applied to a case like Mr. Smith’s. Mr. Smith was entitled to know precisely what the new clemency policy was before it was applied to his situation.” The government was not wrong in withdrawing its bid for Smith’s clemency, but rather that they didn’t inform Smith of the government’s new policy before it was applied to his case.
The government then issued a new policy: Clemency Intervention – Statement of Procedures which allows Canadians facing the death penalty abroad to apply in writing for clemency intervention by the Canadian government. It also lists examples of “Factors that May be Considered” by the government before it decides whether to intervene.
Smith may have committed this crime while on a severe combination of drugs and alcohol, but that does not negate the fact that he executed those two young men – for the sole purpose of wanting to know what it felt like. He was aware enough to cross the Canadian border on foot with a sawed-off .22 rifle, he was aware enough to take the men into the woods to shoot them, and he was aware enough to reject a term of life in prison and actively seek the death penalty.
Smith stated “I always had kind of a morbid fascination to find out what it would be like to kill somebody,” if not the two men in Montana, then surely he would have killed someone sooner or later. The idea that he did it only because he was “on a severe combination of drugs and alcohol” is a cop out, he wanted to kill, pure and simple.
It is also important to note that Smith has never once denied that he has committed his horrible act.
As I stated in my original column, we need to realize that once we leave the safety of our borders, we become subject to the laws and punishments of other countries, whether we agree or not with those laws and punishments.
We may view that keeping a prisoner in confinement awaiting a death sentence as awful, but I can not equate this with what the victims must have went through in the last moments prior to their death or what the families went through finding out their sons were callously executed for the ecstasy of one person.
Smith may not want to die now, but he made his choice to do what he did, those two men he killed did not ask to die and they certainly did not deserve to die.
Smith made his decision to end his life