Death penalty
24/02/14 03:40
I am not an attorney. It is not something that I want to be. I am neither a politician nor a lobbyist. I have no aspirations for either profession. So when I get to talking about legislation and public policy, it must be understood that I am no expert. I have, however, been watching as a bill that would have repealed the death penalty in South Dakota made its way through the process. The bill was defeated on a 6 - 7 vote in committee Friday. The law in South Dakota will remain as it was before for now. But the close vote in the committee and the high emotions of the two hours of testimony before the committee on Friday speak about how we in South Dakota are wrestling with the issue.
Clearly we are not of one mind. There are passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. The dynamics of the the testimony were interesting. The parade of those testifying in favor of repeal included religious leaders from at least Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopal communions. Powerful witness was given by Leonard Eberle whose son was abducted and murdered 30 years ago. Eberle said he originally wanted his son’s killer to be executed, but has now changed his mind. Two former attorneys general of South Dakota, Mark Meierhenry and Roger Tellinghuisen also testified that they once supported the death penalty and have since changed their minds.
It seems that people who think about it a lot do seem to change their minds. But that can take a long time.
Perhaps the most dramatic of those arguing for retaining the death penalty was Lynette Johnson. Her husband, Ronald, was a South Dakota State Penitentiary corrections officer who was brutally murdered by two inmates in a botched prison escape attempt.
South Dakota’s current attorney general Marty Jackley also testified in opposition to the repeal attempt. His argument included his belief that having the death penalty is useful in getting criminals to enter into plea bargains instead of going to full trial. He also made a brief argument that the bill might be used by one of the three inmates currently on death row to avoid the penalty now sentenced.
The arguments are often cloaked in a mask of rationality. But there were plenty of logical errors in the words given in testimony. It is an emotional issue and the arguments were more emotional than rational.
If the purpose of the death penalty is to provide for the safety of corrections officers, it would follow either that criminals who murder in prison have previously committed a murder or that criminals would refrain from certain crimes out of fear of the death penalty. Neither was the case in the brutal murder of Ronald Johnson. The death penalty was in place and those previously convicted of murder were not involved in his murder. Having the death penalty did not provide for his safety.
Providing for the safety of corrections officers is the responsibility of the state. And, for the most part, the state is pretty good at it. The prison where Johnson died is really very safe. There are no weapons in the facility. The only way that inmates might dream of escape is through obtaining a uniform and posing as a corrections officer. That was the motivation for the attack. The murders wanted that uniform and were at the moment willing to act without regard for the life of the officer in an attempt to get it. Their actions were not rational. They didn’t think through the consequences of their behavior. And it didn’t work. They didn’t escape.
But the argument is not based on logic. It is an emotional argument.
As such, arguments about the costs and benefits of having a death penalty law are largely ineffective. Opponents and proponents alike try to make financial arguments. There is no doubt that properly prosecuting a death penalty case is expensive. And many of those expenses fall upon county governments. The cost of running prisons is high as well. But there are costs that societies are willing to assume to assure the safety of citizens. Perhaps there are no absolute guarantees, but states are effective in keeping those in prison for murder from killing anyone else. The most common form of prison murder is inmate on inmate violence. Violence against corrections officers is far more likely to occur in areas of prisons where the inmates have been convicted of lesser crimes rather than maximum security areas.
Proponents of the death penalty will occasionally cite Exodus 21:24 and parallel passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Those passages of ancient legal code have their roots in the even more ancient Hammurabi’s Code. Those codes are subject to significant argument within the bible itself. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Clearly the testimony of Bishops and church leaders illustrates that there is a clear biblical argument against the death penalty.
The repeal has been defeated for this session of the legislature. But the conversation will continue. There are plenty of South Dakotans who are uncomfortable with the imposition of death by the state. There is significant question about the ability of the state to impose the death penalty fairly. We often hear the stories of those who are sitting on death row. What we don’t hear as often are the stories of those who committed equally brutal crimes and the death penalty was not imposed.
Most telling for me in all of the testimony was the effect of time. It has been less than three years since Lynnette Johnson’s husband was murdered. The grief she bears cannot be processed in such a short amount of time. Marty Jackley is the current attorney general and is involved in prosecuting current crimes. Their testimony was in stark contrast to that of Leonard Eberle, Mark Meierhenry and Roger Tellinghuisen, who have had more years to process their thoughts and ideas.
Maybe we ought to at least wait 30 years before imposing the death penalty. People do change their minds.
When you have executed someone it is too late to change your mind.
Clearly we are not of one mind. There are passionate arguments on both sides of the issue. The dynamics of the the testimony were interesting. The parade of those testifying in favor of repeal included religious leaders from at least Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran and Episcopal communions. Powerful witness was given by Leonard Eberle whose son was abducted and murdered 30 years ago. Eberle said he originally wanted his son’s killer to be executed, but has now changed his mind. Two former attorneys general of South Dakota, Mark Meierhenry and Roger Tellinghuisen also testified that they once supported the death penalty and have since changed their minds.
It seems that people who think about it a lot do seem to change their minds. But that can take a long time.
Perhaps the most dramatic of those arguing for retaining the death penalty was Lynette Johnson. Her husband, Ronald, was a South Dakota State Penitentiary corrections officer who was brutally murdered by two inmates in a botched prison escape attempt.
South Dakota’s current attorney general Marty Jackley also testified in opposition to the repeal attempt. His argument included his belief that having the death penalty is useful in getting criminals to enter into plea bargains instead of going to full trial. He also made a brief argument that the bill might be used by one of the three inmates currently on death row to avoid the penalty now sentenced.
The arguments are often cloaked in a mask of rationality. But there were plenty of logical errors in the words given in testimony. It is an emotional issue and the arguments were more emotional than rational.
If the purpose of the death penalty is to provide for the safety of corrections officers, it would follow either that criminals who murder in prison have previously committed a murder or that criminals would refrain from certain crimes out of fear of the death penalty. Neither was the case in the brutal murder of Ronald Johnson. The death penalty was in place and those previously convicted of murder were not involved in his murder. Having the death penalty did not provide for his safety.
Providing for the safety of corrections officers is the responsibility of the state. And, for the most part, the state is pretty good at it. The prison where Johnson died is really very safe. There are no weapons in the facility. The only way that inmates might dream of escape is through obtaining a uniform and posing as a corrections officer. That was the motivation for the attack. The murders wanted that uniform and were at the moment willing to act without regard for the life of the officer in an attempt to get it. Their actions were not rational. They didn’t think through the consequences of their behavior. And it didn’t work. They didn’t escape.
But the argument is not based on logic. It is an emotional argument.
As such, arguments about the costs and benefits of having a death penalty law are largely ineffective. Opponents and proponents alike try to make financial arguments. There is no doubt that properly prosecuting a death penalty case is expensive. And many of those expenses fall upon county governments. The cost of running prisons is high as well. But there are costs that societies are willing to assume to assure the safety of citizens. Perhaps there are no absolute guarantees, but states are effective in keeping those in prison for murder from killing anyone else. The most common form of prison murder is inmate on inmate violence. Violence against corrections officers is far more likely to occur in areas of prisons where the inmates have been convicted of lesser crimes rather than maximum security areas.
Proponents of the death penalty will occasionally cite Exodus 21:24 and parallel passages in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Those passages of ancient legal code have their roots in the even more ancient Hammurabi’s Code. Those codes are subject to significant argument within the bible itself. In Matthew 5:38-39, Jesus says, “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.” Clearly the testimony of Bishops and church leaders illustrates that there is a clear biblical argument against the death penalty.
The repeal has been defeated for this session of the legislature. But the conversation will continue. There are plenty of South Dakotans who are uncomfortable with the imposition of death by the state. There is significant question about the ability of the state to impose the death penalty fairly. We often hear the stories of those who are sitting on death row. What we don’t hear as often are the stories of those who committed equally brutal crimes and the death penalty was not imposed.
Most telling for me in all of the testimony was the effect of time. It has been less than three years since Lynnette Johnson’s husband was murdered. The grief she bears cannot be processed in such a short amount of time. Marty Jackley is the current attorney general and is involved in prosecuting current crimes. Their testimony was in stark contrast to that of Leonard Eberle, Mark Meierhenry and Roger Tellinghuisen, who have had more years to process their thoughts and ideas.
Maybe we ought to at least wait 30 years before imposing the death penalty. People do change their minds.
When you have executed someone it is too late to change your mind.