Reflecting on the Death Penalty
20/02/12 05:57
I have blogged about the death penalty at least once before and I am not sure that I have much to add to the long-standing arguments that have already been made. On the one hand, the proponents of the death penalty argue that there are some crimes that are so heinous that they warrant the worst punishment that society can hand out. Many proponents of the penalty argue that state executions serve as deterrents to violent crimes. Those who do not make the deterrent argument will at least argue that possibility of future crimes by that individual criminal is completely eliminated. There is also a compassionate argument offered in favor of the death penalty that considers the feelings of the families of victims. There is a belief that an execution brings events surrounding the loss to a final conclusion. The term “closure” is often used to describe the situation where there can be no more trials, no more appeals, no more legal actions surrounding the crime that so injured the victim’s family.
Opponents offer arguments that there is an inherent hypocrisy in the state engaging in killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong. They cite statistics to support their belief that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. They also demonstrate compassion for the families of victims but offer their belief that such a loss is something from which one never can fully recover. They believe that closure is impossible. The loss cannot be forgotten. Life cannot return to normal. People survive the loss of loved ones. They do not get over that loss. Opponents of the death penalty often cite the statistics about the majority of countries that no longer practice the death penalty and portray the laws in most states that do practice the penalty as a relic of pre-modern societies that has been eliminated in most parts of the world.
I once read that on topics such as the death penalty, people rarely change their opinions. Even when opportunities are provided for reasoned debate, people are unlikely to be persuaded to change their beliefs. The one argument that has produced changes in opinions about the law has centered about the inability of the state to administer the death penalty in a fair manner. States with a high number of executions inadvertently execute people who were wrongly convicted of their crimes. Guilty persons escape punishment because of failures of our human-administered justice system. The current suspension of executions in the state of Illinois is based on substantial evidence that even with complex processes of appeals and many levels of re-examination of previous decisions the state was incapable of administering a system that was fair. The presence of the death penalty acted as a deterrent to justice.
Our state of South Dakota, however, finds itself in a much different position. We are a state with a small population and crimes in which the death penalty is considered are rare. We currently have five persons who have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death who are awaiting execution pending the outcome of further legal proceedings. Cases are handled individually and very carefully. In these cases there is very little possibility that the convicted persons are not guilty of the crimes.
The government in South Dakota has executed 15 persons. The first, Jack McCall, was the killer of Wild Bill Hickock. Three more were executed under the territorial government before Statehood was established. After the establishment of the state, ten more persons were executed by hanging before the death penalty was abolished in South Dakota in 1915. A new law reinstated the death penalty in 1933 and one person was executed by electric chair in 1947. This was the second to last use of the electric chair by any state. In 1972 a ruling by the United States Supreme court resulted in a moratorium on all death penalties that remained until 1976. South Dakota’s current death penalty law was the first law signed by Governor Bill Janklow in 1979.
Under the new law, only one person has been executed. Elijah Page was executed by lethal injection in July 2007. He was convicted of the murder of Chester Allan Poage. He voluntarily suspended his appeals and directed his attorneys to allow his execution to proceed. The process was relatively painless. The drugs administered through an IV first put him to sleep before the lethal dose was administered.
Now South Dakota has a new prisoner on death row that is asking to be executed. Eric Robert pleaded guilty to killing prison guard Ronald Johnson in an escape attempt. He then asked the judge for the death penalty. He has instructed his attorneys not to appeal or to argue against the death sentence. The South Dakota Supreme Court has appointed Randall Connelly of Rapid City to submit friend-of-the-court briefs and oral arguments on whether the death penalty is appropriate in the case in order to have two sides argued in the mandatory appeal.
It appears that in its modern application, the death penalty in South Dakota is a form of state-assisted suicide. Prisoners who do not want to die have decades of appeals, re-trials and other legal maneuvers that can stall execution. The only ones actually executed by the state are those who choose to die.
The situation brings forth a new possibility in the discussion of the death penalty. What if death by lethal injection is not the worst punishment that the state can hand out? What if those convicted of crimes see death as preferable to life in prison? The arguments about the death penalty have, in the past, assumed that death was the most severe punishment that the state could administer. The current situation in South Dakota questions that assumption.
As one who lost a sister to murder decades ago, I believe that victims of crimes need to look beyond the state for justice. Peace comes from trusting God to be the arbitrator of justice and accepting that state systems of justice, though well meaning and necessary, are always prone to mistakes. We are human and human justice is incomplete and imperfect. Final justice comes from God. With that belief, I don’t think the state should grant the wishes of prisoners to die. In as much as we have the ability, extending life as long as possible giving the criminal more days to think of the crime with no easy exits from the reality of their situation seems like a more severe punishment. If the families of the victim have to live with the crime for the rest of their lives, why not the criminal as well?
There are no easy answers and I suspect that the arguments will continue for many more years.
In the meantime, my sympathies lie with those who have lost family members to violent crimes. My passion lies with those who work daily to prevent the crimes from occurring in the first place.
Opponents offer arguments that there is an inherent hypocrisy in the state engaging in killing to demonstrate that killing is wrong. They cite statistics to support their belief that the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to crime. They also demonstrate compassion for the families of victims but offer their belief that such a loss is something from which one never can fully recover. They believe that closure is impossible. The loss cannot be forgotten. Life cannot return to normal. People survive the loss of loved ones. They do not get over that loss. Opponents of the death penalty often cite the statistics about the majority of countries that no longer practice the death penalty and portray the laws in most states that do practice the penalty as a relic of pre-modern societies that has been eliminated in most parts of the world.
I once read that on topics such as the death penalty, people rarely change their opinions. Even when opportunities are provided for reasoned debate, people are unlikely to be persuaded to change their beliefs. The one argument that has produced changes in opinions about the law has centered about the inability of the state to administer the death penalty in a fair manner. States with a high number of executions inadvertently execute people who were wrongly convicted of their crimes. Guilty persons escape punishment because of failures of our human-administered justice system. The current suspension of executions in the state of Illinois is based on substantial evidence that even with complex processes of appeals and many levels of re-examination of previous decisions the state was incapable of administering a system that was fair. The presence of the death penalty acted as a deterrent to justice.
Our state of South Dakota, however, finds itself in a much different position. We are a state with a small population and crimes in which the death penalty is considered are rare. We currently have five persons who have been convicted of murder and sentenced to death who are awaiting execution pending the outcome of further legal proceedings. Cases are handled individually and very carefully. In these cases there is very little possibility that the convicted persons are not guilty of the crimes.
The government in South Dakota has executed 15 persons. The first, Jack McCall, was the killer of Wild Bill Hickock. Three more were executed under the territorial government before Statehood was established. After the establishment of the state, ten more persons were executed by hanging before the death penalty was abolished in South Dakota in 1915. A new law reinstated the death penalty in 1933 and one person was executed by electric chair in 1947. This was the second to last use of the electric chair by any state. In 1972 a ruling by the United States Supreme court resulted in a moratorium on all death penalties that remained until 1976. South Dakota’s current death penalty law was the first law signed by Governor Bill Janklow in 1979.
Under the new law, only one person has been executed. Elijah Page was executed by lethal injection in July 2007. He was convicted of the murder of Chester Allan Poage. He voluntarily suspended his appeals and directed his attorneys to allow his execution to proceed. The process was relatively painless. The drugs administered through an IV first put him to sleep before the lethal dose was administered.
Now South Dakota has a new prisoner on death row that is asking to be executed. Eric Robert pleaded guilty to killing prison guard Ronald Johnson in an escape attempt. He then asked the judge for the death penalty. He has instructed his attorneys not to appeal or to argue against the death sentence. The South Dakota Supreme Court has appointed Randall Connelly of Rapid City to submit friend-of-the-court briefs and oral arguments on whether the death penalty is appropriate in the case in order to have two sides argued in the mandatory appeal.
It appears that in its modern application, the death penalty in South Dakota is a form of state-assisted suicide. Prisoners who do not want to die have decades of appeals, re-trials and other legal maneuvers that can stall execution. The only ones actually executed by the state are those who choose to die.
The situation brings forth a new possibility in the discussion of the death penalty. What if death by lethal injection is not the worst punishment that the state can hand out? What if those convicted of crimes see death as preferable to life in prison? The arguments about the death penalty have, in the past, assumed that death was the most severe punishment that the state could administer. The current situation in South Dakota questions that assumption.
As one who lost a sister to murder decades ago, I believe that victims of crimes need to look beyond the state for justice. Peace comes from trusting God to be the arbitrator of justice and accepting that state systems of justice, though well meaning and necessary, are always prone to mistakes. We are human and human justice is incomplete and imperfect. Final justice comes from God. With that belief, I don’t think the state should grant the wishes of prisoners to die. In as much as we have the ability, extending life as long as possible giving the criminal more days to think of the crime with no easy exits from the reality of their situation seems like a more severe punishment. If the families of the victim have to live with the crime for the rest of their lives, why not the criminal as well?
There are no easy answers and I suspect that the arguments will continue for many more years.
In the meantime, my sympathies lie with those who have lost family members to violent crimes. My passion lies with those who work daily to prevent the crimes from occurring in the first place.