A milestone was passed when, on December 2, 2005, Kenneth Lee Boyd was put to death by the State of North Carolina, thus becoming the 1,000th murderer to be executed in the United States since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. A few days earlier, Virginia missed the opportunity to reach this milestone when its governor granted clemency to another murderer shortly before his scheduled execution. Rather than holding our heads in shame, as suggested by death penalty abolitionists, we should celebrate the 1,000th execution as justice well done.
As you can tell, I am a strong advocate of capital punishment. I am firmly convinced that it acts as a deterrent to premeditated murders. I also believe that it would be a strong deterrent to felony murders - murders committed during the commission of other crimes such as robbery and rape - if those comdemned to death would not linger on death row for up to over 20 years. Back in the '50s and 60's, when I was a law enforcement officer in California, we had many armed robberies in which the perpetrator commited the robbery with an EMPTY gun. When caught, we always asked the robbers why their guns were not loaded. They always replied with words to this effect: "Man, if I used a loaded piece I might kill someone and if I got caught I would end up getting topped." (TOPPED is con lingo for executed.) Accordingly, I maintain that there is good emperical evidence that capital punishment does act as a deterrent to killings that are not committed in the heat of passion. That is why we should celebrate each execution.
The death penalty abolitionists used to argue that captial punishment does not act as a deterrent because, by asking death row inmates if they considered the possibility of being executed for killing their victims, the answer was always "no." Those questions, which even imbeciles would answer the same way, were designed to provide the abolitionists with BOGUS proof that the death penalty does not act as a deterrent. And what about all the felons who are not on death row and were not asked whether they gave the death penalt any thought? The abolitionists also pointed to states, such as Minnesota, which do not have the death penalty as having lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment. That was also bogus. States without capital punishment were largely rural states, while the oters were largely urban states where the homicide rates are expected to be higher. Those opposed to capital punishment claim that it is part of a racist agenda, in that there are a disproportionate number of minorities on death row. But, the reason there are a disproportionate number on death row is that minorities in this country commit a disproportionate number of crimes and murders.
In recent years, the abolitionists have tried to shame us into aolishing the death penalty. They point out that the U.S. is one of only a handful of "civilized countries" with the death penalty. They point out that all western European countries have abolished the death penalty and that we are relegated to joining dictatorships, such as China, the former Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, and third world countries with oppressive governments, by retaining capital punishment. That is another bogus argument. We have a very high homicide rate, while the western European nations have an extremely low rate. If the homicide rate in those countries were to rise dramatically, approaching that of the U.S., they would quickly return to the use of capital punishment.
There are those who oppose capital punishment for religious/moral reasons, and while I believe them to be misguided, I have nothing but the utmost respect for their beliefs. However, most of the abolitionists come from, or have been influenced by, the extreme left wing of the political spectrum, and the death penalty is just another issue to fault our government with.
I do share the concern that indigent defendants in capital cases are not as well defended as thoose who can afford to hire private attorneys. The remedy to that problem is not to abolish the death penalty, but to guarantee each indigent capital defendant the best possible defense. That will require a large amount of public funding. Two ways of resolving this problem is (1) through the use of a Public Defender's Office or (2) the court appointment of only the best defense attorneys with additional funds for skilled investigators and expert witnesses. The federal government has a public defender system and so do some of the states. Unfortunately, some states do not have public defenders and resort to the appointment of attorneys to defend indigents. Many of these attorneys are inexperienced or, if experienced, they do not have enough clients to sustain a good income. And they recieve little if any funding for investigators and expert witnesses. At least, in a public defender's office, the attorneys are just as good as those in the district attorney's office and there is a staff of skilled investigators and funds for the use of expert witnesses.
I am even more concerned about the possibility of executing someone who is innocent, a tragic circumstance which cannot be reversed. The Houston Chronicle recently published an investigative report which indicates that the State of Texas may have wrongly executed Ruben Cantu in 1993. Cantu, 17 at the time of the crime, was convicted of killing the victim of an armed robbery in San Antonio. Another victim of the robbery was shot numerous times, but survived. The other participant in the robbery, 15 year old David Garza, received a 20 year sentence. About four months after the robbery, an off-duty police officer, who had been drinking, was shot and wounded by Cantu during a confrontation in a bar. Cantu was not charged in that shooting, but within days, the surviving victim identified Cantu as his assailant. More than 10 years after Cantu's execution, Garza signed an affidavit stating that Cantu was not present during the robbery and named another individual as the shooter. The surviving victim now claims that the police pressured him into identifying Cantu. The defense never called a witness who would have testified that he was with Cantu in Waco, some 180 miles from San Antonio, at the time of the robbery. Most troublesome to me is the likelyhood that the San Antonio police were out to get Cantu for the bar shooting of the off-duty officer.
I am sure that innocent persons haave been executed in the past and will likely be executed in the future. As unfortunate as this is, it still does not justify abolishing the death penalty. That would be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. It would be akin to taking a proven life-saving drug off the market because its side effects may, on rare occasions, kill soneone.
Some believe that those who turn their lives around, while on death row, should be spared from execution. Take the case of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious Crips street gang, who is scheduled to be executed by the Sate of California on December 13, 2005. His defenders, including several left-wing Hollywood celebrities, claim that he has turned his life around during the twenty-some years he has been on death row. They point out that he has written several children's books in which he urged them not to join gangs. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has agreed to hold a clemency hearing for Willimas this week. Let us hope that the " Terminator", who has squandered the political popularity he once enjoyed, has the good sense not to grant Williams clemency. Williams was not convicted of finding redemption on death row. Nor was he convicted of writing children's books. He was sentenced to death for the cold blooded murder of four people and deserves to pay the ultimate penalty for his crimes.
The latest ploy by abolitionists is to claim that, during the injection process, some states use chemicals that cause the condemned to "suffer an excruciatingly painful and protracted death", thereby constituting cruel and unusual punishment. Last week, a federal judge in Houston, granted a Texas death row inmate the right to challenge the death penalty on this issue. Give me a break! We put these cold blooded murders to sleep like we put our pet dogs and cats to sleep. Even if these absurd claims were true, so what! I'm all for bringing back the electric chair because it scared the shit out of crimials. Why are we so concerned about the suffering of the condemned? What about the suffering of the victims at the time of their death?
Most survivors of a murder victim want to see the killer put to death. Are they seeking revenge instead of justice? Perhaps, but so what! For the rest of us, the execution of a cold blooded murderer serves the interests of justice. It should be the natural consequence for committing the ultimate crime. Captial punishment does deter premeditated murder and felony murders. It would have an even greater effect if the condemned did not linger so long on death row. Of the 1,000 executions, 355 have been in Texas. That is one of the reasons I am proud to be a Texan. I hope you will join me in celebrating the carrying out of the 1,000th execution in the United States.
No comments:
Post a Comment