Archive: Opinions

Last Tuesday, Steven Woods was executed (in Texas, of course) even though there was no claim that he killed anyone. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time when a murder was committed. The actual murderer confessed in court and took full responsibility for the murder. The actual murderer received a life sentence. Steven Woods was executed under the Texas Law of Parties.

Last Thursday evening, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed the execution of convicted murderer Duane Edward Buck. Although his guilt seems clear, the court decided racial considerations may have been factored into the sentencing phase of his trial. Thus Texas governor Rick Perry was denied, at least temporarily, the chance to add to his record of overseeing the execution of more people than any other governor in modern times.

As I write this (on Wednesday), Troy Davis is scheduled to be executed today, surprisingly not in Texas, but in Georgia. There have been substantial doubts about his guilt for almost a decade and his case has attracted attention from all around the world. Seven out of nine witnesses who gave evidence at his trial have recanted or changed their testimony. No murder weapon was ever found, no DNA evidence or fingerprints tied Davis to the crime, and other witnesses have since said the murder was committed by another man -- a witness who testified against him. Petitions delivered to the parole board requesting clemency included signatures from 26 former death row prisoners who were exonerated of their crimes. Although the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a federal judge to convene a hearing to consider new evidence, the burden of proof was placed on Davis. He was required to prove his innocence, completely turning on its head the doctrine of "innocent until proven guilty" we take for granted.

And yesterday, the Supreme Court granted a stay of execution for Texas death row inmate, Cleve Foster, about 2-1/2 hours before he was scheduled to be put to death.

Despite Mr. Sharp's implication, I certainly never said nor implied that punishment is not a deterrent to crime or that there should be no punishment for criminal activity. Although I think that some percentage of people will always behave properly regardless of the threat of punishment, I agree that's certainly not the case for others. But the question is not punishment or no punishment. The question is the appropriateness of the punishment.

A few weeks ago you reported on a study that claimed that the death penalty saves lives. Regardless of the validity of that study (which has often been disputed), the question of appropriate punishment remains. Should we use state-sanctioned murder whenever we think lives might be saved?

About 1400 people are killed each year by drivers running red lights (Texas has the fourth highest death rate). Another 250,000 are injured. I think we all agree that's a real tragedy. Some communities have reduced the problem by installing cameras and ticketing violators by mail.

But how about a tougher penalty? Don't you think we could reduce those casualties dramatically by instituting the death penalty for anyone who runs red lights? I haven't found any studies on this idea, but let's make some reasonable assumptions. If we executed 10 or so people each year for running red lights, people would be much more careful in their driving habits. Perhaps the deaths would be reduced by 90%, or by more than 1200 lives. So for every red-light runner we execute, we would save 120 lives.

Have I just made the case for the death penalty for red-light runners? I don't think most people, at least those outside of Texas, would think so. They'd think the punishment was inappropriate. And in no way have I made the case that life-imprisonment would be any less effective than a death penalty.

Mr. Sharp again asserts the obvious observation that the vast majority of convicted murderers who are subject to the death penalty prefer a lesser sentence. But that's demonstrably not true in every case, including some particularly notable ones. As the time approached for the execution of home-grown terrorist Timothy McVeigh, McVeigh said he wanted to stop all further appeals on his behalf and was prepared to die. According to his lawyers, McVeigh was "upbeat" about his date with death, saying that he preferred dying to life in prison.

	Thanks very much to Mr. Laux and Mr. Sharp for this lively discussion.  Mr. Laux's last paragraph sums up where we are now -- the salient points have been covered at length, so this will end it in the Star for now.  We encourage all our readers to send letters to the editor, especially on local issues. -Editor

McVeigh offered no explanation for his decision, but many believed he hoped to become a martyr for the patriot militia movement nationwide. Dying was simply part of the deal to get the publicity needed for his cause. It gave him power that a life sentence certainly would not have. Perhaps in his case the death penalty was actually an incentive.

It's quite apparent that Mr. Sharp and I will never agree, of course, nor we will convince many of your readers to change their minds on this issue. And I understand his frustration as four states (New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, and Illinois) have effectively abandoned the death penalty in the past few years. However, I have enjoyed the opportunity to learn about Mr. Sharp's ideas and I look forward to his next letter. Thanks for letting this conversation continue.

Ted Laux
Lansing, NY
v7i37