We chose this column
as the article on the death penalty of the week by Nebraska Solicitor, J Kirk
Brown, as on this date, September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany, Slovakia and the Soviet Union invade Poland, beginning the European phase of World War II.
PAGE
TITLE:
http://journalstar.com/
ARTICLE
TITLE:
Local View: Death penalty a question of just
punishment
DATE: November 24, 2012
AUTHOR: J. Kirk Brown
AUTHOR
INFORMATION:
J. Kirk Brown
|
Local View: Death penalty a
question of just punishment
November
24, 2012 11:57 pm • BY
J. KIRK BROWN
First and
foremost, we are a country of laws. As a matter of law, neither our federal nor
state constitutions prohibit death as a potential criminal penalty for the
worst murderers.
Thus, the
moral/public policy question is: Can people engage in behavior so reprehensible
they deserve to die for their crime or crimes?
Adolph
Hitler directed the deaths of more than 17 million innocent men, women and
children. Did Hitler deserve to die? The 9-11 terrorists took 2,977 innocent
lives. Timothy McVeigh blew up 19 children under the age of six and 149 adults.
In Nebraska, Charles Starkweather murdered 11 people; Jose Sandoval, Jorge
Galindo and Erick Vella slaughtered five people in a bank in Norfolk; John
Lotter murdered three; Robert Williams, Carey Dean Moore and Marco Torres each
murdered two; John Joubert and Arthur Gales each murdered two children; Roy
Ellis, Raymond Mata and Jeffrey Hessler each murdered one child; Michael Ryan
took three days to torture his victim to death; Willie Otey repeatedly raped
and tortured his victim before taking her life.
When do
we say enough is enough? When do we say, “This murderer deserves to die”? It is
not a question of forgiveness or vengeance. It is a question of just
punishment.
Any
criminal punishment may be justified as proportionate retribution and/or
deterrence. Whether the death penalty deters murder will be the subject of
endless debate. What is not debatable is this: Some murderers are not deterred.
They intentionally slaughter our children, our friends, our fellow human beings
without cause or excuse. More than 30 states and the federal government believe
that a penalty of death represents proportionate retribution for the injury
inflicted upon society by the worst of murderers. The death penalty is
justified as proportionate retribution alone.
About
legal process
As God
discovered in Eden, human beings are not capable of perfection. Our legal
system is made up of human judges, human attorneys and human jurors, all
listening to human witnesses. Any human system has the potential for human
error. In response to that reality, our legal system provides “process” --
rules of law, rules of evidence, defense attorneys and multiple layers of
judicial review -- each to guard against that risk of error. The decision to
impose a penalty of death is subject to more legal process than any other
decision made by our courts. Providing these safeguards is wholly appropriate.
Providing these safeguards is not free.
Recently,
the argument has been made that the death penalty should be abolished, not
because it is legally or morally wrong, but because it is “too expensive”.
Achieving justice is expensive, particularly in the context of the death
penalty. Innocent life has been lost, and the life of the accused is at stake.
We should not desire to make that life-and–death decision on the cheap. On the
other hand, we should not conclude dollars are more important than doing
justice.
About
statistics and the nature of crime
Criminal
justice is a reactive endeavor. The government does not choose who commits
crimes. A murderer chooses to extinguish an innocent life and the government
has a duty to react. Any statistical description of those who commit such
crimes primarily reflects the choices of the guilty, not the government.
Finally,
we are a society that values human life. The death penalty is an expression of
the high value we place upon innocent human life. The legal process we provide
is an expression of the value we place upon the life of the accused. Yet once
guilt is established, we should place a much higher value on the innocent life
lost than upon the life of the murderer. We are neither morally nor legally
restrained from imposing death as a punishment upon the worst of murderers. We
are neither morally nor legally restrained from achieving justice for the
citizens of our community.
"There
can be no justice until those uninjured by the crime become as indignant as
those who are." Solon
(559 BC)
No comments:
Post a Comment