Tears from Heaven: Voices from Hell: The Pros and Cons of the Death Penalty as Seen Through the Eyes of the Victims of Violent Crime and Death Row Inmates Throughout America.

By Diane Robertson

In Tears From Heaven; Voices From Hell capital punishment issues are discussed from the viewpoint of the victims of violent crime and from those condemned to die on America's death rows. Explore the pros and cons of this controversial issue from those who have experienced the pain first hand: victims and death row inmates.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Mar 5, 2002
• ISBN: 9781469721903

Diane Robertson

Diane Robertson lives in Price, Utah with her husband of 27 years. Fiction publications include "Hannah's Promise" a Historical Romance available by the author, "Fourteen Pieces of Gold," an anthology of short stories by the authors of Port Town Publishing. Under contract for publication is a Contemporary Women's Fiction manuscript, "Cry For The Child." You can comment on Tears From Heaven; Voices From Hell by contacting her website: http:www.dianerobertson.homestead.com/Index.html

Book preview

Tears From Heaven; Voices From Hell

The Pros and Cons of the death penalty as seen through the eyes of the victims of violent crime and death row inmates throughout America.

Cover Design by James Anderson

Diane Pitts Robertson

Writers Club Press

San Jose New York Lincoln Shanghai

Contents

Foreword

Introduction

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Arguments For the Death Penalty

Religious Voices on Capital Punishment

Existing On Death Row

Voices From the Victims of Violent Crime

Official Opinions For Sake of Argument

How do Americans feel about the death penalty?

Questions and Answers from Death Row

But We’re Innocent!

Mentally Retarded on Death Row

Life Without the Possibility of Parole

Poetry, Art and Prose from Both Sides of the Coin

Death Row Statistics

Afterword

About The Artist

APPENDIX

About the Author

References

Tears From Heaven; Voices From Hell

The Pros and Cons of the death penalty as seen through the eyes of the victims of violent crime and death row inmates throughout America.

All Rights Reserved © 2002 by Diane Pitts Robertson

No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping, or by any information storage retrieval system, without the permission in writing from the publisher.

Writers Club Press

an imprint of iUniverse, Inc.

For information address:

iUniverse, Inc.

5220 S. 16th St., Suite 200

Lincoln, NE 68512

www.iuniverse.com

Editor: Diane Robertson

All contributors have provided a signed permission to publish acknowledgement prior to publication.

ISBN: 0-595-21572-6

ISBN: 978-1-4697-2190-3 (ebook)

Printed in the United States of America

My gratitude goes out to my father, my proof-reader who has proven phenomenal in providing me with loving critique and guidance. To my mom who encouraged my writing from the moment I could hold a pen. To my husband, whose patience and love keeps me going. I love you all. Diane Robertson

Foreword

This book came together by the grace of God and through the contributions of many devoted individuals whose hearts and souls have been broken and tortured. I would like to thank first of all the victims who showed me their pain even though it was often difficult. Those who have assisted in the subject matter of this book include religious groups, congressmen, attorneys, students and professors of notoriety. I would personally like to thank Sister Helen Prejean for giving the world her prayer. Lastly I would like to thank the inmates in various prisons throughout the United States whose lives are not merry, whose past regressions haunt them continually. I would like to thank society in general for having the interest and guts to face this problem head on.

Lastly I would like to thank iUniverse for making this book available to the public. Editors who have taken the proverbial red pen to hand in order to put forth a viable, well written piece of literature that I hope will end up in the hands of our youth throughout secondary and college classrooms worldwide. It is through them that we can only hope to end this outrage of violence upon violence upon violence…

Please stop the madness, murder and mayhem.

Diane Robertson

Introduction

Over the course of two years I have corresponded with death row inmates throughout the United States in order to enlighten the public about the controversy regarding the pros and cons of the death penalty. Although my intent was not to voice my opinion regarding this issue, rather to let the reader decide through the following words, I became more and more perplexed as to what exactly the solution to the problem of serious crime should be. I believe that in a civilized society, such as ours, that there should be a more effective solution than lock ‘em away and throw away the key, or fry ’em. On the other hand I do not believe we as a society should tolerate violent crime and believe that those who impose abusive acts upon us should be severely punished. In one commentary I read, the speaker suggested that if our penal system did not improve, we would have to build geriatric prisons.

Writing a non-fiction piece of this magnitude has opened my eyes to the perplexing judicial system we have created from centuries of decision makers. In this author’s opinion everything is not rosy with the situation. Because of my fiction background and love of the imaginative process, I came upon the idea of this book through a brainstorm about a futuristic science fiction book that ended prisons as we know them. In my dream world, perpetrators were proven guilty by the simple process of Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) extractions, surveillance cameras, (such as the Big Brother process) and then, after a truth serum has been administered to all involved in the crime process, (including attorneys, police officers, jurors, and judges as well as the perpetrator and all witnesses) then a volatile chip is surgically implanted deep within the heart muscle of the accused.

In my dream world, the guilty party is reintroduced to the free world. Unlike California’s Three Strikes Law there are no warnings for re-offenders. The subject is continually monitored via this chip and when a vicious act occurs, the computer, (not a human being with a conscience) explodes the chip, immediately terminating the life of the offender. This is pure fiction, a fantasy world straight from the keyboard. But in the real world, I received an essay from a death row inmate whose logic makes sense. I believe Robert Fratta wrote this essay sometime in 1998.

A SOLUTION WE’LL NEVER SEE

By Bobby Fratta

Let’s face it, probably every U.S. citizen complains one way or another about our judicial system, and/or our means of punishment. These systems and the people working them are far from perfect. Our jail populations increase every year. There are no deterrents; including the death penalty. If a person wants to commit a crime, he/she will commit it regardless of the consequences of our current system.

There is a solution, in three phases:

Phase I–Instill Morals–This is achieved by putting the teaching of the Bible back into our school systems. Our country has fallen apart since its removal. Our children have since grown up into being the heaviest drug users, most widespread lawbreakers, and most sexually promiscuous generation in our country’s history. If we are to call ourselves a Christian nation, we must teach our children about Christ, and be Christ-like and follow God’s Word. We must teach our children the scriptures all throughout the education system, starting in elementary school. As our children grow up with the love of Jesus in their hearts, and the desire to follow God’s commands, all crime and immorality will drastically decline. God commands us to preach the Gospel to every creature (Matt.16:15), so let’s follow God’s command.

Phase 2–Change Our Laws–The first law to amend is the 5th amendment. If a person is suspected of a crime, he should have to testify. This is almost 1999. Our technology is phenomenal. We need to develop some sort of drug, or machine that can be hooked up to the brain somehow, to where, when the person who takes this drug, or is put on the machine, CANNOT tell a lie. He can say ONLY THE TRUTH. This way we will know right away if a person is innocent or guilty. There will be no need for an expensive trial using taxpayer dollars, and no need to worry about an innocent person being falsely convicted.

This testifying against oneself would be a tremendous deterrent also. A person would think twice before committing a crime, knowing that he would only need to be a suspect of that crime and he would have to undergo this technology, and would be caught by his own testimony. Plus, as an example, picture a person being caught for possession of illegal drugs. He not only testifies against himself, but also reveals whom he bought the drugs from. That person is then apprehended and testifies against himself and his seller. His seller is then apprehended and testifies against himself and his seller, and so on up the line to the main source… all possibly in a day’s work for law enforcement officials.

Phase 3–Revamp Our Punishment System and Instill Rehabilitation–. First of all, we need to get back to rehabilitation instead of simple revenge. Rehabilitation must be part of our punishment system. Everyone makes mistakes (sins), and anyone can change (repent). Whereas we can implement our punishment system to be initially more harsh for someone who has committed a violent crime (such as a year of solitary confinement prior to the rehabilitation process), we then need to implement a rehabilitation period with an evaluation of the person. This evaluation (after the punishment and a specified rehabilitation period) would be based primarily on how the person responds when the technology described in Phase 2 is again applied to the person to determine if he or she is any longer a threat to society.

If the person is no longer a threat (rehabilitated), then they should be released back into society (and tested periodically for a period of time for precautionary measures). If instead, the person testifies he still has the desire to commit acts of violence, then he is not released unless he is determined as rehabilitated by means of this technological process.

I also feel that if a person cannot seem to be rehabilitated (through their own testimony), then there may be, or should be, some technology to perform some type of brain surgery that will permanently take away the person’s violent nature, without leaving him a vegetable. The person can then be released back to his loved ones and/or society. This can be an alternative to life imprisonment, and a definite alternative to the death sentence!

This Phase would not only save taxpayer dollars, but should also eliminate repeat offenders from being released into society.

This is just a brief synopsis of the three phases of my solution, (which encompasses prevention, deterrent, and rehabilitation), but the key points have been outlined. The solution would work for the benefit of our entire society in more ways than one.

The technology I described in Phases two and three perhaps already exist, but have not yet been made public. We will probably never see this solution come to pass. Can you imagine all the corrupt police officers, attorneys, judges, wealthy businessmen, and politicians that would be caught and punished?! It would force many people to be honest!

I would like to thank the victims of violent crime, the quiet voices who bury their loved ones and attempt to continue down the path of life, empty, devoid of someone they loved. Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinions in the following chapters and to baring your hearts and souls to us. Your voices do count.

A Prayer

by Sister Helen Prejean

God of Compassion, You let your rain fall on the just and the unjust. Expand and deepen our hearts so that we may love as You love, even those among us who have caused the greatest pain by taking life. For there is in our land a great cry for vengeance as we fill up death rows and kill the killers in the name of justice, in the name of peace. Jesus, our brother, you suffered execution at the hands of the state but you did not let hatred overcome you. Help us to reach out to victims of violence so that our enduring love may help them heal. Holy Spirit of God, You strengthen us in the struggle for justice. Help us to work tirelessly for the abolition of state sanctioned death and to renew our society in its very heart so that violence will be no more. Amen

Arguments Against the Death Penalty

Coretta Scott King once said, Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder. This statement, taken into context with the death penalty, mirrors the stance of the American Civil Liberties Union. They believe capital punishment is an intolerable denial of civil liberties, and is inconsistent with the fundamental values of our democratic system. Therefore, through litigation, legislation, commutation and by helping to foster a renewed public outcry against this barbarous and brutalizing institution, we strive to prevent executions and seek the abolition of capital punishment.

The American Civil Liberties Union believes the death penalty inherently violates the constitutional ban against cruel and unusual punishment and the guarantees of due process of law and of equal protection under the law. Furthermore, we hold that the state should not arrogate unto itself the right to kill human beings–especially when it kills with premeditation and ceremony, in the name of the law or in the name of its people, or when it does so in an arbitrary and discriminatory fashion.

Throughout history, wrongdoers have been subjected to harsh punishments, as medieval torture devices secured them to their deaths. Today the world is divided in the opinions and practices of capital punishment. Interestingly enough, the United States stands with 90 countries upholding the death penalty, including Viet Nam, China and Egypt to name a few. Seventy countries have abolished capital punishment, while some countries utilize the death penalty for exceptional crimes only.

The purpose of this book is to examine capital punishment issues including the subjects of innocence, fairness and vengeance. Names have been changed to protect the innocent, to eliminate the need for vengeance and to protect the incarcerated and victims from acts of retaliation from questionable acquaintances.

The pages that follow include essays, letters and statements from the victims of violent crime and from inmates on death rows from various prison systems throughout the United States.

Beginning with the American Civil Liberties Union, an essay by Diann Rust-Tierney discusses the complexity of capital punishment issues.

THE DEATH PENALTY EXPERIMENT HAS FAILED

A society that respects life does not deliberately kill human beings. An execution is a violent public spectacle of official homicide, and one that endorses killing to solve social problems–the worst possible example to set for the citizenry. The benefits of capital punishment are illusory, but the bloodshed and the resulting destruction of community decency are real. Hugo Bedau, in The Case Against the Death Penalty

Background-

Capital punishment has existed throughout most of the course of our nation’s history. By the mid-1960’s, however, public opposition to the death penalty had reached an all time high. In the 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision the Supreme Court overturned the practice. The Court held that then existing death penalty statues were devoid of any standards, and that they therefore gave too much discretion to individual judges and juries to exact the ultimate punishment.

Soon after the Furman decision, states began passing new laws that were supposed to address the Court’s concerns about unfairness by provided sentencing guidelines for juries. When the Supreme Court was asked in 1976, in Gregg v. Georgia, to squarely address the question of whether the death penalty invariably violated the United States Constitution, it ruled that it did not, so long as the punishment was administered according to procedures designed to guard against error and discrimination. The Gregg decision thus, set in motion this nation’s modern experiment with capital punishment.

The Federal government did not reinstate the death penalty across the board until 1994 when it authorized capital punishment for more than 60 crimes. Later, in 1996, the Congress made it more difficult for prisoners to have the lawfulness of convictions and death sentences reviewed by a federal court when it enacted the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act.

To date, approximately 750 men and women have been put to death by the state. More than 430 of these executions have taken place since 1996. The death row population in the United States has experienced an annual increase over the past 25 years, with 2001 being the first year where there has been a slight decline. The death row population has grown from 420 in 1976 to 3,726 in 2000.

We are now in the midst of a debate that is essentially an evaluation of whether the promise of Gregg is being fulfilled in the administration of the death penalty today. Do current procedures adequately protect the system against the dangerous problems of arbitrariness, discrimination and error?

Revelations about innocent people released from death row, sleeping and incompetent lawyers, and condemned prisoners whose mental capacity is in question have fueled public concerns and driven down support for the death penalty.

In October of 2001, a Gallup Poll found that 67% of Americans supported capital punishment, signifying that no statistical change occurred following the terrorist attacks against America on September 22, 2001. A February 2001 Gallup Poll also found that 65% of Americans agree that a poor person is more likely than a person of average or above average income to receive the death penalty. Sixty-four percent of Americans support a moratorium on executions until issues of fairness in capital punishment can be resolved.

Moreover, opposition to the death penalty and concerns about its fairness are being expressed from new quarters. Staunch death penalty supporters such as Pat Robertson and George Will have expressed concerns about the process. Justice Sandra Day O’Connor added her voice to the growing numbers of jurists expressing concerns about fairness and accuracy in the administration of the death penalty when she said before the Minnesota Women’s Lawyers Association, Serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being fairly administered in this country.

A growing appreciation of the inequities in the system including the risk of taking an innocent life is leading to a new consensus that the system is seriously broken.

What’s wrong with the current system?

Inadequate Representation During Capital Trials-

The American Bar Association and many scholars have found that what most often determines whether or not a death sentence is handed down is not the facts of the crime, but the quality of the legal representation. The overwhelming majority of death row inmates receive substandard legal representation at trial. Almost all capital crime defendants are indigent when arrested, and are generally represented by court appointed lawyers, who are inexperienced and underpaid. The National Law Journal, reviewing capital cases in six southern states, reported that defense lawyers are often ill trained, unprepared…[and] grossly underpaid.

Defending a capital case is time-consuming, taking about 700–1000 hours. In some jurisdictions the hourly rates for appointed attorneys in capital cases are less than the minimum wage, and usually much less than the lawyer’s hourly expenses. Moreover, courts often authorize inadequate funds for investigation and experts–or refuse to do so altogether. This is in the face of the seemingly limitless funding for the prosecution. Wealthy people who can hire their own counsel are generally spared the death penalty, no matter how heinous their crimes. Poor people do not have the same opportunity to buy their lives.

Horror stories involving incompetent counsel during the course of capital trials are commonplace. Indigent clients facing the death penalty have been known to be represented by lawyers who habitually sleep through crucial points of trials, display public drunkenness in the courtroom, and lawyers who have been disbarred. Indigent clients receive little relief from courts upon raising appeals on the grounds of incompetent counsel. In 1984 the Supreme Court created an exceptionally high bar for proving incompetent counsel in Stickland v. Washington. As a result of this high standard defendants who receive representation from inept counsel often have little hope of receiving relief from courts.

Racial Bias Permeates the System-

Death row in the U.S. has always held a disproportionately large population of people of color relative to the general population. Whereas 13% of the U.S. population is African American, African Americans constitute 43% of those on death row. The race of the victim is oftentimes a more important factor than the race of the defendant in determining whether a sentence of death will be imposed. Of those executed since 1976, 163 are black defendants who were convicted of killing a white victim, compared to 11 white defendants convicted of killing African American victims. In general those who kill a white person are significantly more likely to receive the death penalty than those who kill an African American.

A 1998 report by the Death Penalty Information Center summarizes the findings of several scholars that illustrate this point. In 96% of the studies examining the relationship between race and the death penalty there was a pattern of race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both. For example, in Florida, in comparable cases, a defendant’s odds of receiving a death sentence are 4.8 times higher if the victim was white than if the victim was black. In Illinois the multiplier is four, in Oklahoma it is 4.3, in North Carolina, 4.4, and in Mississippi, it is 5.5.

The state of Kentucky presents a particularly egregious example of race-of-victim discrimination: despite the fact that 1,000 African Americans have been murdered there since the 1975 reinstatement of the death penalty in that state, as of spring 1999, all of the state’s 39 death row inmates were sentenced for murdering a white victim; none were there for murdering an African American.

Several studies show the effects of outright racial discrimination. A 1998 University of Iowa study of sentencing in Philadelphia, showed that the odds of receiving a death sentence are nearly 3.9 times greater if the defendant is African American.

These patterns of racial disparities are partly explained by conscious and unconscious racism that seeps its way into the criminal justice system. Despite the Courts attempt in Gregg, to channel the discretion of the judge or jury to focus on objective factors to prevent discrimination, racial disparities remain. In large part because the source of the greatest discretion–whether to bring a capital charge or not–is within the complete and unfettered discretion of the individual prosecutor.

Where You Live Determines Whether You Die-

Whether someone convicted of a capital crime receives a death sentence depends greatly on the state or county in which the trial and conviction takes place. In some states, a death sentence is rare. Connecticut had seven people on death row in the fall of 2001; New York had six and Kansas, only four. Southern states, particularly Texas (454 death row inmates in 2001), hand down significantly more death sentences than those in the rest of the country. California, the state with the largest penal system, had 602 inmates on death row. Such state-to-state disparities exist because death penalty statutes are a patchwork of disparate standards, rules and practices and the consequence is the difference between life and death. Furthermore, some prosecutors are more zealous in seeking the death penalty than others–particularly if they are running for re-election.

The Death Penalty Is:

In some states, inmates can be executed for crimes they committed at the age of 16; in others, only those who committed murder at age 18 or older are eligible for the death penalty. Some states include felony murder (unpremeditated murder committed in the course of another crime such as robbery or burglary) as a capital crime; others do not. In the 29 states that have a sentence of life without parole, 23 have statutes that bar judges from letting jurors know they have that sentencing option. Some prosecutors have traditionally opposed efforts to enact life without parole sentences and laws that would require jurors to be informed that true life without parole is a sentencing option. The apparent concern being, as some studies have demonstrated, that juries will fail to vote for prized death sentences when they understand that viable options exist.

People With Mental Retardation Face the Death Penalty-

The United States’ current legalized practice of killing the mentally retarded is particularly abhorrent. The Supreme Court held in 1989 in Penry v. Lynaugh that the execution of the mentally retarded did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment as prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but that mental retardation was a factor when deciding whether to impose a death sentence. At the time the case was decided only two of the 38 death penalty states had banned the execution of the mentally retarded, and thus the court found that a national consensus against executing people with mental retardation had not emerged. That consensus has now emerged. Today 18 states prohibit the execution of people with mental retardation. Furthermore, many of the 23 states that do not ban the execution of the mentally retarded are currently considering state legislation to ban this inhuman practice. It is clear that when the Court revisits this issue in 2002 in the case of Darryl Atkins they will find little support for the proposition that the public currently finds the practice of executing the mentally retarded acceptable.

Mental retardation is a commonly misunderstood disability that can have profound effects on an individual as they maneuver their way through the legal system. It is not always apparent to an untrained professional that they are dealing with an individual who is mentally retarded. Furthermore, people with mental retardation are at a higher risk of being convicted of and sentenced to death for crimes that they did not commit. The particular vulnerabilities of individuals suffering from this disability often lead them to supplying false confessions and to be incapable of supplying their lawyers with adequate information to assist in the preparation of their defense.

Less capable of understanding the consequences of their actions and unable to properly weigh the importance of their encounters with the legal system, people with mental retardation are even less likely than other defendants to be able to protect their legal rights and to secure a fair trial.

Too Great A Risk That Innocent People Will Be Sentenced To Death-

Since 1973, 98 persons in 22 different states have been released from death row because they were not guilty of the crime for which they had been condemned to death (38 of these releases have occurred since 1995). These lucky interventions occurred almost always as the result of the efforts of students, journalists or pro bono lawyers, often only hours before a scheduled execution, and usually after the condemned had been on death row for over ten years.

DNA Testing and the Death Penalty-

The importance of ensuring the availability of DNA testing to help confirm the innocence or guilt in capital cases is incomparable. As long as state sanctioned death is to remain the law of the land every available effort needs to be made to eliminate all possibilities of doubt prior to imposing the ultimate punishment upon a member of our society. As of June 2001, 91 persons in 22 states, including ten death row inmates, have been exonerated by the use of DNA tests. These numbers testify to the incomparable importance of making DNA testing available to all.

Improper collection of evidence at the crime scene, improper preservation of samples, unavailability of the necessary technology, and the nature of the crime in question all have the possibility of eliminating the availability of DNA testing. However, for many inmates the most significant obstacle to DNA testing is the fact that in many jurisdictions officials refuse to enable inmates to have evidence tested using modern DNA testing methods. The rational for denying these individuals this potentially crucial tool is that it would mean reopening too many old and concluded cases. Considering the proven inadequacies of our criminal justice system and the high number of wrongfully convicted individuals this rational is completely insufficient.

A recent Gallup Poll found that 92% of Americans are in favor of making DNA testing available to any death row inmate to whom the tests were not previously available.

A Barbaric Practice-

Although it is commonly thought that the death penalty is reserved for those who commit the most heinous crimes, in reality only a small percentage of death-sentenced inmates were convicted of unusually vicious crimes. The vast majority of individuals facing execution were convicted of crimes that are indistinguishable from crimes committed by others who are serving lengthy prison sentences, crimes such as murder committed in the course of an armed robbery.

Our nation exacts capital punishment in five ways: by hanging, electrocution, gas chamber, firing squad (still authorized in Idaho and Utah), and the most common method, lethal injection. The United States is the only Western industrialized nation that practices the death penalty, and is by far the nation with the largest death row roster in the world. In comparison, al of Western Europe has abolished the death penalty, either by decree of law, or by practice. Seventy-five nations and territories outlaw the death penalty for any crime, fourteen more allow it only for exceptional crimes such as military law or wartime crimes. Another twenty countries and territories are abolitionist de facto, meaning they have not executed anyone during the past ten years or more, or that they have made an international commitment not to carry out executions. In numbers of people executed annually, the United States trails only China and Saudi Arabia. Executions that took place in the United States, China, the Democratic of the Congo, Iran, and Saudi Arabia accounted for 85% of the worldwide executions in 1999.

Increasingly, the United States is finding its standing to champion human rights in other countries challenged because of our use of the death penalty. The U.S. government’s failure to mandate that states comply with the requirements of international law in seeking capital convictions and death sentences against foreign nationals has resulted in rulings against the United States by the International Court of Justice. The diplomatic fallout of the continued use of the death penalty in the United States is just beginning to be evaluated. The interdependent nature of the global economy and the staunch opposition to the death penalty from our political and economic allies is bound to be felt.

Not a Deterrent-

Careful social science research has failed to demonstrate that capital punishment deters murder. The majority of murders are committed in the heat of passion, and/or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, when there is little thought given to the possible consequences of the act. Hit men and other murderers who plan their crimes beforehand, intend and expect to avoid punishment altogether by not getting caught. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime rates or murder rates than states without such laws. And states that have abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in either crime or murder rates.

Discrimination Among Victims-

Although some families and loved ones of murder victims approve of the death penalty, many others do not. Some survivors of homicide victims say that the death penalty prolongs their pain, and makes healing more elusive. Even more disturbing, some who oppose the death penalty report that they are treated with less respect and support from the system than others because they oppose the death penalty.

The death penalty is pursued overwhelming when the victim is white but infrequently when the victim is a person of color.

Conclusion-

It is becoming increasingly clear that we can no longer administer the death penalty as we do now, and remain true to our principles. We cannot be a society committed to equality and justice for all and continue to apply the death penalty on the basis of race and only to the poor. We cannot be a society committed to the rights of the individual and remain indifferent to the risk of executing innocent people. We cannot be a nation committed to international human rights and stand outside of the international community on an issue as central to human rights as the government’s authority to kill its citizens.

As we continue to examine the death penalty more and more of us will be forced to conclude as Justice Harry Blackmun did in Callins v. Collins, that the death penalty experiment has failed.

References: American Bar Association, "http://www.abanet.org/irr/rec107.htm"

Amnesty International, " http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/index.html"

Death Penalty Information Center, "http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org"

The Gallup Organization, "http://www.gallup.com:

NAACP–Legal Defense Fund’s Death Row USA, "http://www. deathpenaltyinfo.org/DEATHROWUSArecent.pdf"

2

Arguments For the Death Penalty

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, Morality can not be legislated but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless. In direct opposition to Mrs. King’s statement in Chapter One, the debate over capital punishment was well at hand during the turbulent time of the 1960’s.

Through dedication to the victims of violent crime, the innocent victims of murder, I offer Wesley Lowe’s essay, another side of the coin, a subject intended to invoke deep thought and discussion.

The following political cartoon was provided by artist, Chuck Asay.

Image344.JPG

WESLEY LOWE’S PRO DEATH PENALTY ESSAY

This essay is dedicated to the innocent victims of murder, may they always be remembered.

Introduction

Putting to death people judged to have committed certain extremely heinous crimes is a practice of ancient standing, but in the United States in the latter half of the twentieth century, it has become a very controversial issue. Changing views on this difficult issue led the Supreme Court to abolish capital punishment in 1972 but later to uphold it in 1977, with certain conditions.

My state of New York is a state that practiced capital punishment since its colonial days, then abolished it in 1965. But now, as of September 1, 1995, the death penalty is back in the books in accordance to Governor Pataki’s campaign promise. As a staunch supporter of the death penalty, I consider this to be a good thing for my state and its citizens.

Indeed, restoring capital punishment is the will of the people, yet many voices are raised against it. Heated public debate centers on questions of deterrence, public safety, sentencing equity, and the execution of innocents, among others. I have listened and read the arguments opposing the death penalty and I find that they are not at all convincing. Here’s why:

The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment

One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime.

Others say that states which do have the death penalty have higher crime rates than those that don’t, that a more severe punishment only inspires more severe crimes. I must point out that every state in the union is different. These differences include the populations, number of cities, and yes, the crime rates. Strongly urbanized states are more likely to have higher crime rates than states that are more rural, such as those that lack capital punishment. The states that have capital punishment have it because of their high crime rate, not the other way around.

In 1985, a study was published by economist Stephen K. Layson at the University of North Carolina that showed that every execution of a murderer deters, on average, 18 murders. The study also showed that raising the number of death sentences by one percent would prevent 105 murders. However, only 38 percent of all murder cases result in a death sentence, and of those, only 0.1 percent are actually executed.

On occasion, circumstances have led to meaningful statistical evaluations of the death penalty’s deterrent effect. In Utah, for example, there have been five executions since the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume in 1976:

Gary Gilmore faced a firing squad at the Utah State Prison on January 17, 1977. There had been 55 murders in that state during 1976. During 1977, in the wake of the Gilmore execution, there were 44 murders, a 20 percent decrease.

A decade later, on August 28, 1987, Pierre Dale Shelby, who in 1974 forced five people to drink liquid drain cleaner, kicked a ballpoint pen into the ear of one, then killed three, was executed. The count for January through August was 38 murders, a monthly average of 4.75. In the aftermath of the Shelby execution, there were 16 through the months of September to December, a monthly average of

4.0.

Arthur Gary Bishop, who sodomized and killed a number of young boys, was executed on June 10, 1988. For all of 1988, there were 47 murders. During January-June, there were 26; for July-December, the tally was 21, a 19 percent difference.

In the wake of those three Utah executions, there have been notable decreases in both the number and the rate of murders within the state. The figures are there but abolitionists have chosen to ignore them.

During the temporary suspension on capital punishment from 1972-1976, researchers gathered murder statistics across the country. Researcher