I don't know how much press or interest this story has received outside of Oregon so I'll give a quick rundown:
Gary Haugen was convicted of murder and given life in prison, while in prison he killed another inmate. He was convicted of this murder and was sentenced to death.
Haugen waived his appeals in protest of a" legal system and what he described as the arbitrary and vindictive nature of the death penalty" and because he would rather be dead than live on death row.
Our current governor stayed the execution saying he would not sign any death warrants while in office. (I don't know if "death warrant" is the correct term -- I'm talking about whatever the Gov. signs to let the execution takes place.)
In a letter to the editor of our paper yesterday, Haugen writes:
Rumor has it that Kitzhaber's reprieve (one that I did not request) carries with it no appellate rights to challenge this intrusive intervention. As in the early days at Guantanamo Bay when enemy combatants could be held indefinitely without due process, Kitzhaber (by virtue of his reprieve) has declared me an enemy combatant to his conscience. Like the folks at Guantanamo I have been stripped of any due process or due course of law for the duration of this moratorium. Ironically, my rights have been taken away in favor of this war on an "inequitable system" and an "unworkable system that fails to meet the basic standards of justice." I am not able to appeal or challenge this reprieve. Perhaps the governor was referring to some other basic standards.
(Full letter: http://blog.oregonlive.com/myoregon/2011/12/letters_gary_haugen_on_the_dea.html
Can a stay of execution be a due process violation?
Isn't a stay part of the process?
Can any of you legal eagles help me sort this out?