If any case deserved the application of the penalty of death, it was this one. The rub, however, is that this poor excuse for a human being was sentenced to die not by a jury empaneled by the State of New York, but a federal one instead. The feds took over the case because, at this writing, the State of New York does not currently permit capital punishment.
This raises a number of important points, not the least of which is states' rights. But the central question - for me, anyway - is "Why do we continue to have a death penalty?"
Just because there is no doubt as to the guilt of a person accused in a specific case - and there seems to be none in the case of Mr. Wilson - does not change the overarching issue: the morality of the death penalty itself. There are a number of reasons why I believe the death penalty should be abolished:
- Civilized nations do not execute their own citizens. Of the so-called "first world" countries, those with the most advanced societies and economies, only two, the United States and Japan, permit executions and continue to carry them out. This puts the United States in such illustrious company as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Cuba, and the two remaining members of the "Axis of Evil", Iran and North Korea, as well as sixty-five other countries. According to Amnesty International, Russia, of all places, has not executed a prisoner since 1999.
- There are no absolute guarantees in the guilt of the accused. Sure there are some cases in which there is no doubt as to who is responsible for a murder. There are, however, some cases, more than you might realize, which have been overturned because of DNA evidence. According to the Innocence Project (www.innocenceproject.org) 188 persons have had convictions overturned on DNA evidence since 1989, including 51 murder convictions. In 2000, then-Governor George Ryan of Illinois instituted a moratorium on the death penalty after thirteen people on death row were exonerated on new evidence.
- The Death Penalty is applied unevenly. By some accounts, minority defendants are two-to-five times more likely to be sentenced to death than non-minority defendants in similar circumstances, with the likelihood increasing in cases where the defendant is a minority and the victim is white. Economics is also a factor: persons with public defenders for their attorney are much more much more subject to conviction than those who can afford their own lawyer. The better the lawyer, the lower the chance of a sentence of capital punishment.
- Capital Punishment does not act as a deterrent. If that were the case, you would expect murders, especially the most heinous, would drop off dramatically. Statistically, in states that employ the death penalty with vigor, such as Texas and Florida, the murder rates are often no different, or in some cases higher, than those without capital punishment. Additionally, it can be argued that those who commit murder, either out of revenge or for other cold, calculating reasons - a category in which Mr. Wilson belongs - are not exactly tethered to reality to begin with. So how can you expect such individuals to stop short of killing someone because they thought, "I could die for this"?
- Cost. Because of the expenses associated with Death Penalty cases, including the numerous lawyers involved, lengthy searches for "impartial" (yeah, right) jurors, the length of the trials themselves, the mandatory post-trial reviews and automatic appeals on behalf of the convicted, to say nothing of the long pre-trial and pre-execution incarceration as well as the execution itself, the total cost of the death penalty can run into the tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars. An eight-by-eight cell and three squares a day for the rest of the convicted's life looks pretty economical by comparison.
- Being "Pro-life" and "Pro-Death Penalty" at the same time. All I will say about this is the obvious conflicts of those who will rail against the murder of the unborn, and say that all life is sacred, while at the same time citing Biblical passages in justification of capital punishment. Can you really be "Pro-life" and "Pro-death" at the same time?
This is not often a stance that is politically very popular, but the death penalty raises more problems than it solves. Does anyone really think that executing someone years after the original crime brings "closure" - to employ a very popular and very overused term - to the aggrieved parties?
And what do you say to the family of someone who was put to death, only to later be found innocent of the crime?
2 comments:
Yes, I did change the colors. Trying to find something new, but its a little tough.
I would agree that in MOST cases, with the availability of DNA evidence, that it is tougher to put innocent people to death, but in some cases, such as rape, there are often more than one set of DNA at a crime scene. In others, there is no DNA evidence, and then we are back to square one. In still others, there is a question of handling that could work in both directions. Remember OJ?
At that point, it becomes a question of who has the better resources, the accused or the government. And as I have pointed out, the poor and minorities usually get the short end of the stick.
For the very reason that the death penalty is not applied uniformly, which is nearly impossible, it should not be used.
As far as the pro-life, pro-death penalty is concerned, even devout Catholics such as Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, are edging away from it.
And, according to the Catholic church, you cannot be a good Catholic if you support the death penalty.
A point about the appeals process: it does not solely exist as a venue for the accused to overturn their conviction. Appeals in death penalty cases are mandatory for the simple reason to be sure all the rules of the trial were followed, and that the rights of all involved - accused, victim, and family = weren't violated. This is the case even in those few instances where the convicted tell their lawyers not to appeal.
In other words, its called "due process" which is guaranteed under section one of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
If you do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent, what is the point in having one? "Closure" (to employ a very-overused term) for the families of the victim? How does putting those families through the appeals process bring anybody "closure"?
It has been shown, repeatedly, that those who are in an economically disadvantageous situation are more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death as those who have the means to properly defend themselves. This means that those with money are likely to be sentenced to something like life in prison. No cash? Sorry, to the gallows you go. And this has nothing to do with DNA evidence.
Even speaking of DNA evidence, it is always possible for such evidence to be "lost". In 2003 outgoing Republican Governor George Ryan of Illinois commuted the death sentences of 156 inmates. This after students at Northwestern University investigating the case of Anthony Porter in the '90s found evidence that exonerated him after he spent 17 years on death row. Governor Ryan cited this in his speech.
As far as the Bible is concerned, it is full of inconsistencies, owing to numerous authors involved. Doesn't the ten commandments say "Thou shalt not kill"? It doesn't say "thou shalt not kill except in cases where the government thinks its appropriate."
How is this a "secular matter" where abortion isn't? Both involve the ending of life by something other than natural or non-governmental means. You can't pick and choose which is moral and which isn't. Government-sponsored death is either moral or it isn't.
Finally, except for Japan, the United States is the only Western country, and certainly the most powerful, that still employs the death penalty. For all our talk of human rights and freedom, we are keeping company with some pretty unsavory characters in a lousy neighborhood.
My point is this: There is tremendous amounts of emotion involved on this issue, both for and against. Emotion, of all things, does not belong in the law, especially when the life of a person accused of a heinous crime is concerned. When you get to the death penalty phase, a jury of your so-called peers is not the most rational form of decision-making.
Post a Comment