Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 25, 2006 0:31:58 GMT -5
Yeah, death is cruel sometimes
Reader Elaine Forte writes: "Why all of the concern over Vernon Evans
feeling pain at his execution? Did he worry about the pain his victims
felt when he killed them? This is the reason killers get the death penalty
- to pay for their crimes. It is not the state's fault that he was a drug
user with messed-up veins. Any thoughts on this subject, Dan?"
Yeah, thanks for asking, Elaine. I think the death penalty is barbaric and
immoral. The state has no business killing people, even killers. So, for
me, the debate about how someone is put to death -- arguments about
methodology and whether one type of killing is more torturous than another
-- is beside the point, a ghoulish sideshow. We should just not be in this
business.
If I were in public leadership -- say, a governor or senator -- I would be
saying these things as frequently as possible. People who agree with me,
who are in elected office, refrain from speaking out against the death
penalty because they fear being labeled soft on crime. Hillary and Bill
support the death penalty -- or so they say. Michael Steele says he
opposes it but, as lieutenant governor in Maryland since 2002, has neither
said nor done anything to stop it, again probably in fear of being labeled
soft.
I am not soft on crime -- I think killers should be locked up and put
away, for good. The state, our government, should not lower itself to the
stature of the killer.
Here are excerpts from earlier columns on the subject:
I'd like to respond to some of the many assertions I heard people make -
or I read in their e-mails - in the days before and immediately after the
Steven Oken execution. There were recurring themes, so I picked the quotes
that best sounded them.
"I believe the death penalty should not be looked at as a means to deter
crime. Rather, if you are willing take the life of another the state
should require your life in return."
Supporters of the death penalty have been saying this for years, without
regard to the calculus. We'd have to put to death hundreds of Marylanders
- and thousands of Americans, in time - to kill every killer and meet that
eye-for-an-eye imperative. We'd have to buy lethal chemicals by the barrel
and establish a state crematorium just to keep up with demand.
"I am certain that if the appeals process was shortened and convicted
felons didn't sit in jail for years earning their degrees, the death
penalty would be a deterrent."
Yes, and if history is any guide, we'd probably execute some innocent guys
along the way. But what's one or two mistakes when we're talking about the
expeditious eradication of killers? The people who argue this point never
seem to acknowledge the deterrent quality or punitive power of life
sentences without parole.
"For better or worse, execution absolutely guarantees that the murderer
will not murder again."
Of course. But life without parole approaches the same promise without
forcing the state to load up a syringe with succinylcholine chloride.
"How many of those who live in ivory towers and are opponents of capital
punishment have ever been the victim of a violent act or know the loss of
someone who has been tortured and killed by another human being?"
Ever get called for jury duty? Ever notice the number of hands that go up
during voir dire, when the judge asks prospective jurors who have been the
victims of crime - or the relatives of victims of crime - to identify
themselves? It's startling. But it's also irrelevant. What the state does,
it does in all our names. What the state does is everyone's business. I'm
tired of hearing that the victims of violent crime - or the relatives of
victims of crime - have the exclusive say in this matter and that the rest
of us aren't qualified to render an opinion because we can neither claim a
homicide in the family nor appreciate horrific tragedies endured by
others.
"It was poor judgment on the part of the Attorney General to make such a
public pronouncement [against the death penalty] on such a controversial
issue."
Someone said this about Joe Curran, even as the attorney general's
assistants rushed off to various courts to argue for the execution of
Oken. Apparently, there was concern that Curran, a Democrat who opposes
the death penalty, might keep his staff from making the state's case.
Obviously, he didn't. Nor did he stand in the way of three other
executions that occurred earlier on his watch. By contrast, no one seemed
overly concerned about the Republican governor's bias in support of the
death penalty, or his myopia. He's been dismissive of questions raised
about racial and jurisdictional disparities in the application of capital
punishment in Maryland; he made it clear during his 2002 campaign that he
wasn't going to hold up executions despite claims that the system was
terribly flawed.
"How about we build the new prison to house all the murderers next to your
house?"
Sorry, I don't think we have the right zoning. Besides, there's no need.
We've got space, assuming the governor doesn't tear down Super Max.
Housing murderers for life - and not putting them to death - is what a
civilized society does. It's a measure of our decency. There's nothing
uplifting about state-sanctioned murder. For proof, I offer the next
statement, from a reader:
"One day Channel 11 asked if lethal injection was `cruel and unusual.' My
response was, `Well, it's pretty much like putting your dog to sleep,
which makes it way too humane.'"
Look, I hate the death penalty. It's barbaric. It's homicidal retribution,
and homicidal retribution breeds and feeds violence in a society. The good
society wouldn't tolerate this. The good society would view human life as
inviolate to the extent that the state may not kill in cold blood. You
can't accept the proposition that the state has the right to take a life
in cold blood and call yourself civilized. You can't have it both ways.
(source: Baltimore Sun)
Reader Elaine Forte writes: "Why all of the concern over Vernon Evans
feeling pain at his execution? Did he worry about the pain his victims
felt when he killed them? This is the reason killers get the death penalty
- to pay for their crimes. It is not the state's fault that he was a drug
user with messed-up veins. Any thoughts on this subject, Dan?"
Yeah, thanks for asking, Elaine. I think the death penalty is barbaric and
immoral. The state has no business killing people, even killers. So, for
me, the debate about how someone is put to death -- arguments about
methodology and whether one type of killing is more torturous than another
-- is beside the point, a ghoulish sideshow. We should just not be in this
business.
If I were in public leadership -- say, a governor or senator -- I would be
saying these things as frequently as possible. People who agree with me,
who are in elected office, refrain from speaking out against the death
penalty because they fear being labeled soft on crime. Hillary and Bill
support the death penalty -- or so they say. Michael Steele says he
opposes it but, as lieutenant governor in Maryland since 2002, has neither
said nor done anything to stop it, again probably in fear of being labeled
soft.
I am not soft on crime -- I think killers should be locked up and put
away, for good. The state, our government, should not lower itself to the
stature of the killer.
Here are excerpts from earlier columns on the subject:
I'd like to respond to some of the many assertions I heard people make -
or I read in their e-mails - in the days before and immediately after the
Steven Oken execution. There were recurring themes, so I picked the quotes
that best sounded them.
"I believe the death penalty should not be looked at as a means to deter
crime. Rather, if you are willing take the life of another the state
should require your life in return."
Supporters of the death penalty have been saying this for years, without
regard to the calculus. We'd have to put to death hundreds of Marylanders
- and thousands of Americans, in time - to kill every killer and meet that
eye-for-an-eye imperative. We'd have to buy lethal chemicals by the barrel
and establish a state crematorium just to keep up with demand.
"I am certain that if the appeals process was shortened and convicted
felons didn't sit in jail for years earning their degrees, the death
penalty would be a deterrent."
Yes, and if history is any guide, we'd probably execute some innocent guys
along the way. But what's one or two mistakes when we're talking about the
expeditious eradication of killers? The people who argue this point never
seem to acknowledge the deterrent quality or punitive power of life
sentences without parole.
"For better or worse, execution absolutely guarantees that the murderer
will not murder again."
Of course. But life without parole approaches the same promise without
forcing the state to load up a syringe with succinylcholine chloride.
"How many of those who live in ivory towers and are opponents of capital
punishment have ever been the victim of a violent act or know the loss of
someone who has been tortured and killed by another human being?"
Ever get called for jury duty? Ever notice the number of hands that go up
during voir dire, when the judge asks prospective jurors who have been the
victims of crime - or the relatives of victims of crime - to identify
themselves? It's startling. But it's also irrelevant. What the state does,
it does in all our names. What the state does is everyone's business. I'm
tired of hearing that the victims of violent crime - or the relatives of
victims of crime - have the exclusive say in this matter and that the rest
of us aren't qualified to render an opinion because we can neither claim a
homicide in the family nor appreciate horrific tragedies endured by
others.
"It was poor judgment on the part of the Attorney General to make such a
public pronouncement [against the death penalty] on such a controversial
issue."
Someone said this about Joe Curran, even as the attorney general's
assistants rushed off to various courts to argue for the execution of
Oken. Apparently, there was concern that Curran, a Democrat who opposes
the death penalty, might keep his staff from making the state's case.
Obviously, he didn't. Nor did he stand in the way of three other
executions that occurred earlier on his watch. By contrast, no one seemed
overly concerned about the Republican governor's bias in support of the
death penalty, or his myopia. He's been dismissive of questions raised
about racial and jurisdictional disparities in the application of capital
punishment in Maryland; he made it clear during his 2002 campaign that he
wasn't going to hold up executions despite claims that the system was
terribly flawed.
"How about we build the new prison to house all the murderers next to your
house?"
Sorry, I don't think we have the right zoning. Besides, there's no need.
We've got space, assuming the governor doesn't tear down Super Max.
Housing murderers for life - and not putting them to death - is what a
civilized society does. It's a measure of our decency. There's nothing
uplifting about state-sanctioned murder. For proof, I offer the next
statement, from a reader:
"One day Channel 11 asked if lethal injection was `cruel and unusual.' My
response was, `Well, it's pretty much like putting your dog to sleep,
which makes it way too humane.'"
Look, I hate the death penalty. It's barbaric. It's homicidal retribution,
and homicidal retribution breeds and feeds violence in a society. The good
society wouldn't tolerate this. The good society would view human life as
inviolate to the extent that the state may not kill in cold blood. You
can't accept the proposition that the state has the right to take a life
in cold blood and call yourself civilized. You can't have it both ways.
(source: Baltimore Sun)