Recently, there were two people executed in this country. One was Troy Davis, convicted of killing an off-duty police officer in Georgia in 1989. The other was Lawrence Russell Brewer, convicted with 2 others for the dragging death of James Byrd, Jr. in Texas, also in 1989. Although the motivation and circumstances surrounding each crime were vastly different, each State in which they were tried and convicted applied the same sentence: death.
Both cases received a great deal of publicity. Davis, who maintained his innocence to the very end, was convicted despite several conflicting eyewitness accounts of who actually committed the murder. This, and several other factors, in my mind, certainly created reasonable doubt as to his guilt. Because of this, hundreds, if not thousands, of people who sought to have the case re-opened, took up his cause. The case was presented to the US Supreme Court who refused to hear it and Davis was executed by lethal injection. Brewer’s situation was quite different. He, along with two other friends, lured James Byrd, Jr. into their pick-up truck where they eventually beat him and brutally dragged him to his death by chaining him to the back of the truck. Brewer, a white supremacist, rightly received no public support and few requests for clemency.
Where the execution of Davis may have seemed potentially immoral and Brewer’s entirely justified, I believe BOTH should not have happened. Why? Because I believe that the Death Penalty is in itself, immoral and counterproductive.
In the case of Troy Davis, there were many mitigating circumstances that, as I mentioned, certainly created doubt in the case. 5 out of 7 primary witnesses for the prosecution recanted or changed their testimonies. Davis himself NEVER wavered in his claim of innocence. In fact, his last words before the lethal drugs were administered to him were to the family of the man who was murdered, Mark MacPhail. Davis acknowledged their pain and loss and AGAIN professed his innocence.
Brewer’s situation was quite different. His crime was particular heinous and brutal. James Byrd was dragged for over a mile and when the truck finally stopped, Byrd’s body was so mutilated that he was missing his head and a shoulder. There was never any real doubt as to Brewer’s guilt. So, certainly, in Davis’ case, one might say that his execution should not have occurred. But how could one justify clemency in Brewer’s case?
As I see it, there are two, main issues to be considered here. One is legal, the other moral. Legally, the issue is how the death penalty is applied. What separates one brutal crime from another? Is shooting an unarmed man in the course of a robbery as heinous as tying a man to the back of truck by a chain and dragging him to his death? Logic (and emotion) would say “no”. Yet, the death penalty was applied in both of these cases. Should ANYONE who takes another persons life pay by forfeiting their own?! Who is the arbiter who decides one murder is worse than another?
In the case of Davis, from my research, REASONABLE doubt was certainly created. One of the key tenants of our legal system is that someone must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Davis was not the first, and, unfortunately, will not be the last person who was executed with less than rock solid evidence to support their death sentence. Furthermore, the spirit of American jurisprudence is that it is better to see 10 guilty men go free then to punish one innocent man. This, in its essence, makes American justice virtually unique in the world. Most systems are the opposite: if you are charged, you are presumed to have committed the crime you were accused of and it’s up to you to prove your innocence. Oddly enough, the European countries that have adopted this philosophy have abolished the death penalty, citing it as cruel and barbaric. Yet, the US continues to execute people at what some would call an alarming rate. It is entirely reasonable to think that, with so many executions, mistakes were made and innocent people were executed. This is completely unacceptable. In fact, a few years ago, the governor of Illinois was so concerned by the flaws in the system that allows innocents to be executed that he abolished the State’s death penalty law.
Then there is the moral issue. Does the State have the right to take one of its citizen’s lives and call it justice? Some would say, “of course it is”! Citing a case like the murder of James Byrd, Jr. by Lawrence Brewer and others, they might say, “if not applied here, then where”? But isn’t that a reaction triggered more by emotion and the need for vengeance rather than justice? The crime that these men perpetrated was particularly heinous. Our emotions would scream out that the criminals should at least suffer as much as the victim. But, again, this is vengeance, not justice. I have tried to put myself in the position of one of the family members of James Byrd, Jr. and try to feel what they might have felt. How would I react if that happened to my father? I would hope that I would react as Ross Byrd did. Ross Byrd (32) is the son of James Byrd, Jr. He actually fought to prevent the execution of Lawrence Brewer. He repeatedly wrote to the State of Texas seeking clemency for Brewer. In a statement released just after Brewer’s execution, Ross Byrd said, “you can’t fight murder with murder”. Other family members did not feel this way but Ross was steadfast in his opposition to the death penalty in not only his father's case but in ANY case.
Byrd’s stance is a bold and controversial one. But it is also powerful. Here is a man who was affected by the most horrible of crimes and is still reaching for a higher ideal, the ideal of TRUE justice. The State cannot, under ANY circumstance, justify the taking of one life by the taking of another. In a sense, that then becomes institutionalized murder. The message sent by the State is counterintuitive: you cannot discourage violence by committing violence. As Einstein so well put it when talking about making a real commitment to peace: “you cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war”. They are divergent paths. A choice must be made. As a society, do we condemn violence by punishing those who commit violence with more violence and brutality? Or do we choose a path where we renounce violence in all its forms, especially as it is practiced by an all-powerful State?
There will be those who will argue that the Death Penalty must be used as a tool to deter violent crime. But it’s really quite easy to find the research that completely counters that claim. It fact, it has been statistically proven that it is NOT a deterrent to violence.
I am often amazed by the irony that can be found in the deepest of issues – like the one. The case in point that comes to my mind is the Great State of Texas (and, in many ways, it IS great). Texas, which is politically dominated by Conservative Christians execute, by far, more people than any other State in the Country. I find it odd that so many Texans follow the slogan “what would Jesus do?” while at the same time condemning hundreds to death. I’m sure that some would defend this dichotomy by saying, “an eye for an eye, says the Bible”. Well, I would counter with “vengeance is mine, sayith the Lord”.
Look, I’m not so naïve to think that if we abolish the Death Penalty all our problems with violence will go away. There are some deeply routed social, economic, and moral issues that we haven’t even touched on that need to be cited, too. I think punishments should fit the crime and serve a greater purpose, like rehabilitation when, and where, possible. In the case of a Capital Crime, you would receive the most severe punishment: i.e. total loss of your freedom for the rest of your life. If you take a life, you forfeit yours in terms of your freedom. And there would be NO parole for those will not, or cannot, be rehabilitated.
We have to distinguish between justice and vengeance. Justice seeks a greater good, a higher ideal. Vengeance is like cheap sex: it’s an orgasmic release, feels good at the time, but leaves you hating yourself in the end.
No comments:
Post a Comment