Legal Expert: Victim Forgiveness Doesn’t Erode State’s Right to Seek Death Penalty in Charlie Kirk Murder Case
In a recent legal analysis, a retired Navy JAG officer, Cully Stimson, has dismissed the notion that Erika Kirk’s public display of forgiveness toward Tyler Robinson, the alleged murderer of her husband Charlie Kirk, would influence the state’s decision to pursue the death penalty. Stimson, deputy director of the Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, emphasized that the state’s legal obligations to pursue capital punishment are independent of the victim’s personal sentiments, including forgiveness or grace.
Stimson explained that while Erika Kirk’s willingness to forgive has garnered widespread admiration, this personal choice does not automatically affect the legal process. He noted that state victims’ rights statutes require prosecutors to consider the views of victims or their families, but this does not mean the state must comply with those views. The case, he said, ultimately hinges on the state of Utah versus the suspect, rather than the victim’s family versus the suspect.
Stimson elaborated on the legal framework, pointing out that in many rape cases, victims have expressed forgiveness after convictions, yet the state has still proceeded with the full legal process, including potential capital punishment. He used these examples to illustrate the independence of the prosecution’s role, stating that the state’s legal accountability is not swayed by the victim’s personal choices.
Additionally, Stimson addressed the broader context of Utah’s unique death penalty procedures, including the continuation of the firing squad method of execution. He rejected arguments that the firing squad is unconstitutional, asserting that it meets the Eighth Amendment’s criteria for punishment due to its instantaneous nature. He compared the firing squad with older methods, such as the electric chair, which may have been deemed more unusual or less in line with constitutional standards, yet have been historically accepted.
The discussion also touched on the historical use of the firing squad by the U.S. military, with the last execution by firing squad occurring in 1916 at Fort Leavenworth for the rape of a private by Pvt. John Bennett. Stimson underscored the legal precedent supporting the firing squad as a constitutionally valid method of execution, aligning it with legal standards since 1976 in U.S. jurisprudence.