As an admitted liberal democrat, it might come as a shock to some people that I'm actually pro death penalty. It's my belief that when someone takes another person's life, he or she has basically forfeited their own life. If that person shows so little value in someone else life, why should they have one?
I recently read that convicted killer Richard Ramirez, the serial killer known as "The Night Stalker" was just linked to yet another murder in San Francisco. He is the perfect example of the type of person that the death penalty was created for.
Texas loves to execute people. They execute more people here than all the other states in the U.S. combined. I'll be the first to admit that most of them probably deserve it, but recent events have shown that Texas has probably executed an innocent man.
Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in 2004 over charges that he set fire to his home, killing his three children. There was no motive. Supposed arson experts claimed that there were pools of flammable liquid found in the crime scene, which suggested lighter fluid was used. These claims were later debunked by numerous other experts, including an acclaimed scientist, Dr. Gerald Hurst. The majority opinion was now that the fire was accidental, not arson.
Prior to the execution, Texas governor Rick Perry was presented with this new evidence, but he refused to hear it. Even now, in 2009, Perry won't even acknowledge that maybe a mistake was made. Instead, he just refers to Willingham as "a monster."
I can't tell you how much this case really bothers me. Perry could easily have given the guy a little more time to try and prove his innocence. Would it really have cost him any clout in the Republican party by showing a little mercy? Would commuting his sentence to life in prison really cost the guy any votes?
Since 1976, 130 innocent people have been released from death row due to new evidence being presented, many of these because of DNA tests. I think when there is some doubt about a person's guilt, and in this case there was a LOT of doubt, the death sentence should be put on hold indefinitely until the truth can finally come out.
I'm not calling for an all-out abolishment of the death penalty. Certainly, if someone murdered someone I love, I wouldn't want mercy for them. But then, on the other hand, this case could happen to any one of us. Imagine if you or I were accused of something we didn't do, based on faulty evidence, or the fact that you listen to Iron Maiden or Led Zeppelin (which Willingham did, and was used against him).
The system as it is, is screwed up, and it needs to be fixed.
I recently read that convicted killer Richard Ramirez, the serial killer known as "The Night Stalker" was just linked to yet another murder in San Francisco. He is the perfect example of the type of person that the death penalty was created for.
Texas loves to execute people. They execute more people here than all the other states in the U.S. combined. I'll be the first to admit that most of them probably deserve it, but recent events have shown that Texas has probably executed an innocent man.
Cameron Todd Willingham was put to death in 2004 over charges that he set fire to his home, killing his three children. There was no motive. Supposed arson experts claimed that there were pools of flammable liquid found in the crime scene, which suggested lighter fluid was used. These claims were later debunked by numerous other experts, including an acclaimed scientist, Dr. Gerald Hurst. The majority opinion was now that the fire was accidental, not arson.
Prior to the execution, Texas governor Rick Perry was presented with this new evidence, but he refused to hear it. Even now, in 2009, Perry won't even acknowledge that maybe a mistake was made. Instead, he just refers to Willingham as "a monster."
I can't tell you how much this case really bothers me. Perry could easily have given the guy a little more time to try and prove his innocence. Would it really have cost him any clout in the Republican party by showing a little mercy? Would commuting his sentence to life in prison really cost the guy any votes?
Since 1976, 130 innocent people have been released from death row due to new evidence being presented, many of these because of DNA tests. I think when there is some doubt about a person's guilt, and in this case there was a LOT of doubt, the death sentence should be put on hold indefinitely until the truth can finally come out.
I'm not calling for an all-out abolishment of the death penalty. Certainly, if someone murdered someone I love, I wouldn't want mercy for them. But then, on the other hand, this case could happen to any one of us. Imagine if you or I were accused of something we didn't do, based on faulty evidence, or the fact that you listen to Iron Maiden or Led Zeppelin (which Willingham did, and was used against him).
The system as it is, is screwed up, and it needs to be fixed.
One thing to bear in mind about the death penalty is that keeping inmates on death row-- which is often for years, even decades--costs A LOT of taxpayer money. We're talking millions of dollars per year. Many of the death row inmates continually repeal their sentences through the court system for the longest possible period of time, and all of these judicial transactions cost a lot of money as well.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the executions themselves are sometimes horribly botched, as in a recent case cited by the New York Times in which a man's arms were so bruised and scarred from drug abuse that the executioner could not successfully inject a needle. Even after 2 hours. The prisoner had to try and help them find a suitable vein, and that prisoner eventually had to be returned to his cell (alive and traumatized).
Is this really a smart use of taxpayer dollars? I believe the US is only one of a small handful of first-world democracies that still uses the death penalty. What does this say about our commitment to human rights?
Why not just lock someone up for life? It's cheaper and more humane.
You're absolutely right about the cost. I too read somewhere that the cost of an execution is 3 times that of locking someone away for 40 years.
ReplyDeleteThere's a great article in the New Yorker that discusses this case. If you haven't seen it, check it out.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/09/07/090907fa_fact_grann
I think the death penalty is wrong. Granted, if someone killed one of my family or friends, I'd want them dead, and would probably want the death penalty for them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, that doesn't negate the fact that I think it is wrong for the state to take a life. It lowers all of us to the level of that murderer. Just because it's legal to kill someone, doesn't make it the right or moral thing to do.
The cost, like Alex points out, is prohibitive, IMHO. We could use that money to go towards feeding families who are out of work right now. That would be a moral and good use for that money.
Getting rid of the death penalty would save a lot of money, would prevent botched executions, would prevent killing people who didn't do the crime.
IMHO, there are more reasons to get rid of the death penalty than there are to keep it.
Janet