 A Clarification Regarding the Use of the Word “Clemency” by Alabama Governor Don Siegelman, to Misrepresent the Petition for Reprieve of Lynda Cheryle Lyon The most common understanding of the word “clemency” is that such constitutes an act of leniency or mercy – as a lessening in severity of sentence would be termed an act of clemency (Webster’s New World Dictionary of Thesaurus, 1996, “clement:” 1. lenient; merciful) – while the word “reprieve” is readily understood to mean a postponement. In the Constitution of Alabama of 1901, Article V, Sec. 124, and in the 1939 Amendment No. 38 to that Constitution the powers of reprieve and commutation are separately and distinctly stated. My beloved wife, Lynda Cheryle Lyon, petitioned Don Siegelman, in his capacity as Governor of Alabama, for repreive, during which postponement our case could be investigated by an independent panel, to prove our innocence. Even though the words “clemency” and “reprieve” are most commonly recognized as different and distinct, I’ve found a reference in the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United State related to the case Hererra v Collins, Vol. 122 of Lawyers’ Ed., 2nd series, p. 203 (1993),at p. 224, footnote 12, which shows that some legalists regard the word “clemency” to technically embrace reprieve as well as commutation, though the basis for seeking repreive differs. Don Siegelman, a lawyer, seized upon this lesser-known legalistic enlargement of the term “clemency” to obscure the fact that Lynda asked for postponement, and by his reference to “mitigating circumstances” – the basis for granting commutation, but not reprieve – did convert his technically-correct legalism to a lie, a lie which also falsely inferred that Lynda, by asking for what he falsely called “clemency,” tacitly admitted guilt by asking for mercy. Nor did Siegelman tell you why there are “absolutely no mitigating circumstances in the record”: Lynda, after the sham trial which resulted in a verdict of conviction, realizing that the “sentencing phase” of the trial could at best result in life in prison without parole, refused to legitimize the farce by her participation, refused to submit a “pre-sentence report,” and at the sentencing hearing attacked the fraud perpetrated upon her. Don Siegelman, by his devious arrangement of words, did make a lie about Lynda’s petition for reprieve, so he could avoid discussion of details of her petition, so he could have her killed with minimum public outcry. October 21, 2002
George Everette Sibley Jnr. Links Disclaimer |