Death Penalty
Doyle left a comment in my post on the Jessica Lunsford case. I thought it was a good point for discussion, and decided that it merited a post rather than just answering in comments. I said that I go back and forth on the death penalty. You'll just have to read the post for more on that.
Doyle replied: It's like being pregnant: Either you are are you aren't.
I have to disagree. Pregnancy is a physical issue. The death penalty is an emotional/intellectual issue based on your morals, your upbringing, your education, your life experiences, and your religious choices. I agree that every crime must be punished, and some deserve the ultimate punishment, so I guess on that point I am for the death penalty. Some crimes, especially those against children, are the ones where people have the least problem with the death penalty. Crimes against the elderly are also hot buttons. Kill a child or a senior citizen and the death penalty comes into play. And it should.
But why should the killing of a person who is neither a child nor a senior citizen be treated any differently? The prosecutor cannot ask for the death penalty in every case. It would cheapen the use of the death penalty for one thing, and if it were applied, we couldn't possibly house all the inmates. And when the death penalty is on the table, it's the jury who has to make the decision whether to sentence this person to death or not. And sometimes, it has to be a compromised decision for life instead because someone on the jury agrees to the guilt, but cannot or will not agree to vote for guilt if the death penalty may be applied.
In 1978, I was on a jury in a trial where a 15-year old was charged with 2 counts of first degree murder. The prosecutor had put the death penalty on the table. This was a case were there was no doubt that the defendant committed the crimes. We ultimately voted for guilt on both counts, but only one was first degree, the other was second degree. I remember the second count was a compromise, but I don't remember the details. This was nearly thirty years ago, after all. Was either life more important than the other? No, it was the circumstances of the crime that dictated the difference. The death penalty would apply on the first degree, but not the second.
We got to the sentencing phase. Prior to this trial, I was in favor of the death penalty. No doubt about it. I was young and still saw most things in black and white. But the longer I sat on that panel, looking at a 15-year old every day for more than a week, I wasn't sure I could cast that vote. Listening to the defendant's father plead for his son's life didn't make it any easier. And I knew that hearing the victims families would turn me inside out. The judge finally took it out of our hands. I don't know whether he knew he would not impose the death penalty in any case, or just in this case, but he made the decision that the defendant would spend the rest of his life in prison.
Doyle left a comment in my post on the Jessica Lunsford case. I thought it was a good point for discussion, and decided that it merited a post rather than just answering in comments. I said that I go back and forth on the death penalty. You'll just have to read the post for more on that.
Doyle replied: It's like being pregnant: Either you are are you aren't.
I have to disagree. Pregnancy is a physical issue. The death penalty is an emotional/intellectual issue based on your morals, your upbringing, your education, your life experiences, and your religious choices. I agree that every crime must be punished, and some deserve the ultimate punishment, so I guess on that point I am for the death penalty. Some crimes, especially those against children, are the ones where people have the least problem with the death penalty. Crimes against the elderly are also hot buttons. Kill a child or a senior citizen and the death penalty comes into play. And it should.
But why should the killing of a person who is neither a child nor a senior citizen be treated any differently? The prosecutor cannot ask for the death penalty in every case. It would cheapen the use of the death penalty for one thing, and if it were applied, we couldn't possibly house all the inmates. And when the death penalty is on the table, it's the jury who has to make the decision whether to sentence this person to death or not. And sometimes, it has to be a compromised decision for life instead because someone on the jury agrees to the guilt, but cannot or will not agree to vote for guilt if the death penalty may be applied.
In 1978, I was on a jury in a trial where a 15-year old was charged with 2 counts of first degree murder. The prosecutor had put the death penalty on the table. This was a case were there was no doubt that the defendant committed the crimes. We ultimately voted for guilt on both counts, but only one was first degree, the other was second degree. I remember the second count was a compromise, but I don't remember the details. This was nearly thirty years ago, after all. Was either life more important than the other? No, it was the circumstances of the crime that dictated the difference. The death penalty would apply on the first degree, but not the second.
We got to the sentencing phase. Prior to this trial, I was in favor of the death penalty. No doubt about it. I was young and still saw most things in black and white. But the longer I sat on that panel, looking at a 15-year old every day for more than a week, I wasn't sure I could cast that vote. Listening to the defendant's father plead for his son's life didn't make it any easier. And I knew that hearing the victims families would turn me inside out. The judge finally took it out of our hands. I don't know whether he knew he would not impose the death penalty in any case, or just in this case, but he made the decision that the defendant would spend the rest of his life in prison.
To this day, I don't know what I would have decided. And neither does anyone else who has not been on a death penalty jury. Sure, most of us say that we would vote this way or that way. But until you've been there and done it, you truly don't know.
2 comments:
Doyle replied: It's like being pregnant: Either you are are you aren't.
Deborah wrote: I have to disagree. Pregnancy is a physical issue.
Perhaps a bad analogy? Still, you can't be a "little bit" pregnant.
There are those who are totally against the DP. No exceptions.
Then there's the "execute 'em all" contingent.
Those who think DP is right for some cases but not others don't fall into either of those two categories. Still, they're not a "little bit" for DP. They are but believe it should only be imposed in certain cases.
Any better? Or worse . . .
Deborah: But until you've been there and done it, you truly don't know.
Amen.
Post a Comment