A Month of Killing, More on the Way?

Today, if I stare off into the middle distance and let it happen, images of homicide victims queue up, most of them cops I knew, and children. It's been a bad month for both.

"Bam, bam, bam," begins New York Times reporter Timothy Egan's April 8 must-read blog, "The Guns of Spring." Each interjection represents a dead cop: the three Pittsburgh officers recently lured to a residence and gunned down by a man with an AK-47 and several handguns. The second of Egan's paragraph starts with four bams (the Oakland cops slain on March 21), the third with five bams (for each child murdered by their own father here in Washington State), the fourth with 13 bams (the Binghampton, N.Y., immigrants and their teachers).

Fifty-seven people gunned down in mass murders in less than a month.

I'll always have a visceral reaction to the killing of a police officer, especially in ambush; how many times during my career did I stop a car or knock on a door not knowing whether there was a bullet waiting for me? Too many of my own colleagues met precisely that fate. And I have a special, dreaded place in my memory for all the dead kids I saw in my former line of work, many of those young lives taken by a parent.

All this carnage over the past month raises once again the question of what to do with cold-blooded killers. In the logic of 36 states, the answer: kill them.

I have no trouble understanding the urge to kill a killer. He has it coming, doesn't he? Take a man, for example, who kidnaps, rapes, tortures, and kills a child -- how can we possibly justify punishment other than the death? His execution provides closure to loved ones, it sends a message to other would-be killers, right? The rationale for capital punishment is essentially reducible to these two reasons. An eye for an eye, and death as deterrent.

But pressure to end the death penalty is mounting, and reasons for it are compelling.

More and more loved ones of homicide victims are speaking out against executions. As Azim Khamisa told a reporter following the shooting death of his son, Tariq, "I know the pain of losing a child. It's like having a nuclear bomb detonate inside your body, breaking you into small pieces that can never be found. This violence scars the soul forever." But he also had this to say: "...forgiveness is a surer way to peace than an eye for an eye. The more we role-model the death penalty, the more violence and revenge there will be." A similar argument was made by Matthew Shepard's parents in Wyoming, Matthew's father adding that he wanted the men who tortured and killed their son to think each and every day, for the rest of their lives, about what they had done.

This philosophical/spiritual argument is at the heart of many abolitionists's opposition to the death penalty. But there are numerous other reasons why the movement to end executions is scoring successes and building momentum.

Obviously, if the state kills a killer that killer will kill no more, but will his or her death dissuade others? No. Murder rates in the 13 states that have rejected the death penalty (soon to be 14, thanks to Governor Richardson and the New Mexico state legislature) are consistently lower than in states that continue to embrace capital punishment. While it's hardly a representative sample, it's worth noting that three of the four states where last month's mass homicides took place are death penalty states.

Other reasons for opposition to the death penalty? It's extravagantly expensive. The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice estimates annual costs of the death penalty system at $137 million in that state alone ($232.7 million if recommended reforms intended to assure fairness are enacted) vs. $11.5 million for a system whose maximum penalty is lifetime incarceration. By any measure, it costs far more to maintain the death penalty than to replace it with a sentence of true life imprisonment.

I shared a panel with Sam Millsap in San Jose last year. Sam's an eloquent former Texas district attorney who tours the country advocating for the abolition of the death penalty. Unlike Azim Khamisa, this former prosecutor doesn't oppose executions on moral grounds. His opposition is rooted in his conclusion that all human systems are vulnerable to mistakes. He made one such mistake himself, sixteen years ago. It led to the execution of Ruben Cantu, a man later proven to be innocent.

Capital case prosecutions based on a sole witness; jail house snitches; willful or unintentional mistakes by police investigators; compromise or destruction of key physical evidence; disregard of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors; shoddy and/or underfunded defense work; race and class discrimination (not a single rich person sits on death row) -- any of these can affect the quality of a death penalty case. And lead to the execution of the wrong person.

How in God's name can we continue to put people to death, knowing as we do that innocent people are on death row? Or have already been gassed, injected or fried to death?

Lest there be any doubt, I am an abolitionist, a member of Death Penalty Focus which, along with many other fine organizations is working to end executions. The death penalty is -- as most other civilized countries in the world have been trying to tell us for years -- barbaric.

And cowardly. Shooting an armed, hostage-holding assailant can be a life-saving act of heroism, as those extraordinary Navy seals proved off the coast of Somalia. But there's something fundamentally wrong with taking the life of someone in the state's custody.

Or in killing people to demonstrate that killing is wrong.

Comments

[KillTheMessenger]

Guns are good. God, err... Moses... err... Charlton Heston said so. Of course, then he also shot and burned his way through hordes of mutants in "The Omega Man". And a few years later he stole towels and soap from a crime scene in "Soylent Green", not to speak of eating human flesh made into algae cookies.

Guns are good. Never forget!

:-)

[Norm Stamper - Huffpost Blogger]

Apologies for those dead-end links. I'll get it figured out someday.

[Norm Stamper - Huffpost Blogger]

I'm indebted to pro-death penalty activist dudleysharp for the Cantu report. I checked it out with Sam Millsap who, while pleased that the report vindicates his actions at the time, makes clear that it does not change his beliefs. Watch this honorable man's explanation his position. You can catch a short clip at www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIWq4-im4Bo.

Deterrence issue? Witness dueling claims of two experts, a proponent and an opponent who, jointly, offer this statement: "In short, the best reading of the accumulated data is that they do not establish a deterrent effect of the death penalty" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901476.html).

Costs? Sorry, but evidence across the country, state by state, shows that death penalty cases cost far more than life in prison. A Los Angeles Times study of 11 executions in 27 years showed that Californians spent more that $250 million per execution. Fully loaded costs? Sure, but not padded. It's what the state's residents actually ponied up. Death Penalty Focus offers this startling finding and others at: www.deathpenalty.org/article.php?id=42.

Murderers being paroled, only to kill again? Not if they're sentenced to a true life term. If in a death-free sentencing structure if you are convicted of a crime that would have gotten you executed under the old system you will, indeed, be sentenced to die. In prison.

[Shaff]

There is another aspect to this....mental illness. There have been 60 mentally ill or mentally disabled persons executed since 1983.

(http://www.aclu.org/capital/mentalillness/10617pub20050131.html)

Our prisons have become the warehouses of the mentally ill since federal funding for mental institutions was eliminated by the Reagan administration.

Mental illness is just that an "illness". Our court system has a very strict interpretation of mental illness and, for that reason, I fear there are many more who were executed that had no control over their actions.

[bbbtmenw]

Oh, and thank you for mentioning Mathew, but also remember that EVERY 6 HOURS in the U.S. there is a HATE CRIME AGAINST A GAY PERSON.

All this hate speech is leading to crime, continued harassment, and showing that these conservatives are a horrible bunch for the most part.

[n4m]

If you're in favor of capital punishment, you should be willing to be tried for manslaughter for every innocent person executed.
Capital punishment is human sacrifice, plain and simple.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Great essay.

I hesitate to ask the Chief's position on the 2nd Amendment, let alone the NRA.

[gdogs]

We don't kill enough of them, or anywhere near fast enough. They sit for years and years in death row, burning up tax payer dollars. They have nothing to offer the world, keeping them in it is the real crime. Nothing good comes from keeping them alive.

[noralou]

What about those who are innocent. If that doesn't bother you, it should.

[ProudAmerican23]

what about those who ARE guilty, released on parole and kill yet again?

I wont claim to know the numbers, but Id bet there are more cases of "paroled repeat offenders" than there are "innocent" people on death row.

[fredamae]

Repeal Death Penalties.
Thank you,
good article!

[howcome]

as a Libertaria­n-Republic­an leaning Pro Life Catholic... End the death penalty now.... but tell the ACLUers that hard labor is not cruel and unusual punishment

[DMEEPhD]

As a long time ACLU card-carrying Liberal, I support the idea of the death penalty, but not the way it is practiced and implemented in this country.

I would support the death penalty given these conditions:

1 - The Defendant has the right to any legal counsel of his or her choosing, paid for by the State. Not an underpaid and overworked Public Defender.

2 - The Rules of Evidence and Procedure must allow for any valid evidence to be admitted by the Defense.

3 - The Prosecution and/or the police must stand to suffer the same fate as they intend for the Defendant if they are found to be guilty of prosecutor misconduct. (After all, they are attempting judicial murder.)

4 - All Defendants are allowed an Appeal to the appellate court and the state supreme court.

5 - Death Penalty is imposed on all whom are found guilty, regardless of race, color, creed, or sex.

6 - The definition of Insanity follows the definition as laid down by the American Psychiatric Association, not the current legal fiction of insanity.

7 - The Death Penalty is imposed on Murder, Attempted Murder, Treason, Rape, armed Robbery, and Child Abuse.

[Kaviraj]

YOU MAY ADD ARSON

[mg moore]

As a lifetime NRA member AND ACLU supporter (yes you CAN be both) as well I agree with your points except #3.

I think the repercussions are a little to assymetrical.

Otherwise... Nice coherent post.

[Borborigny]

While some people clearly need killin', giving that power to the state guarantees that dissidents and innocents will be unjustly executed, that is, murdered. It has happened, and it's happening right now.

If the loved one of a murder victim kills the perpetrator, who cares? If the vengence-seeker makes a mistake and kills the wrong person, he's guilty of murder.

[GardenerNorCal]

If murder is wrong then state sponsored murder is even more wrong. I for one don't want to be even indirectly responsible for taking a life. Can I specify that none of my taxes are used for this purpose?

[overd0g1]

Once you have murdered, you are no longer alive and can't be murdered. You have killed yourself by killing another. The state is merely liquidating you.

[kgb999]

Or liquidating someone else for the crime you committed - if they can't figure out it was you and there's a handy poor person available.

[ElitistWhitePerson]

And what bizarre religious doctrine does that spring from?

[Borborigny]

You can when I can specify that none of my taxes may be used for illegal war or the maintenance of our unconstitutional global empire.

[RedneckDem]

I'm sorry if this offends anyone, but I dont care if the DP isnt a deterent or "closure" to the victims families. What the DP does with 100% accuracy is guarantees that this person will never harm anyone else again. They lost their rights the second they took an innocents life. Giving them 3 squares, books, TV, healthcare, etc... for life while law abiding citizens struggle to make ends meet is a travesty. Also, anyone who thinks that a convicted murderer (i.e. the truly evil ones) sits in jail thinking about what they did as opposed to fantasizing about it is naive. I would go out on a limb and say fantasizing about what they did to your child, mother, sister or daughter is the only thing keeping them going as they lay there waiting for their next meal or favorite TV show to come on.

I'll caveat this with the doubt theory. Several cases from days gone by have had all sorts of errors, which resulted in potential innocents being convicted and killed. With todays technology the chances of someone being given the death penalty with minimal evidence is growing smaller and smaller. We're basically trying to eliminate the DP based upon outdated mistakes and lack of technology from 20+ years ago.

[AntiSocialite]

So RedneckDem, how many wrongful executions does it take before the death penalty becomes a bad idea in your eyes? Ten? One hundred? I can tell you that for me even one is too many, and since it costs LESS to jail people for life there is no good reason for continuing this practice, unless blood lust is your thing, that is.

Peace

[RedneckDem]

I believe I addressed that issue in my post. Most of the wrongful convictions were made many years ago before the advent of superior CSI. Nowadays, with the technology at hand, proving someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is possible and those that leave a shred of doubt will be dealt with in the court ssytem or jails.

I have no blood lust. Maybe I have more empathy for victims families than the perpetrator, but you're entitled to your opinion. I harbor you no ill will, but I have zero empathy or tolerance for thrill killers who may actually enjoy prison instead of the dirt nap they deserve.

[robadeaux]

Kill Kill Kill... in the end, those who support state sponsored killing are morally NO different than any other killer. Kill Kill Kill

[Dolmance]

Easy to say, when you've never experienced the awful news of your own child being raped and murdered.

[Borborigny]

Clearly, those who support state sponsored killing are morally superior to some killers, and morally inferior to others. Lumping the guy who supports the death penality into the same basket with the guy who kills in self defense and the guy who torture-murders for thrills does nothing to illuminate or advance the debate.