I Just Watched A Movie
It’s called “The Chamber.” A Klan member died in Mississippi’s Parchman Prison gas chamber at the end. He had bombed a Jewish lawyer’s office, and according to the story, with help from another Klan member, accidentally killed the lawyer’s two young sons.
The movie, based on a novel by John Grisham, was a story of mitigation. The killer, played by Gene Hackman, did not intend for the kids to die; but, he was a bad man. He was a partial shill for the then Mississippi Sovereignty Commission and the higher ups in the Klan.
All of the elements are in place for you to feel sympathetic. Should we?
No. But should we kill people because they have killed others?
In this instance, a drama, set up to make the killer less than an evil man, the inclination is to say wait a minute. Over the course of the movie, faced with his grandson who returned to Mississippi as a lawyer to defend him in the last month of his life, he learned that he had done wrong.
To return to the last question, should we kill people who have killed others? Based on none of the above, my answer is no.
One, there’s a book in the lobby of my office published by the Innocence Project. It was put out over five years ago. It contains the stories of over a hundred people that were convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison or death; and it turned out they did not do what they were accused of. DNA established that they had not committed the crime.
Here in the state of Georgia, DNA has resulted in the last year alone, the release of three men imprisoned for rape.
We make mistakes. Our mistakes should not result in the death of an innocent person.
Two, killing people “legally” costs an enormous amount of money, and pain. Again here in Georgia, the state is trying to kill Brian Nichols. There is little question that he killed a judge, a court reporter, a sheriff’s deputy and a DEA agent he happened upon. He’s a bad man. His entire defense, costing millions of dollars, coupled with millions of dollars that the prosecution has spent trying to kill him devolves to should he be put to death. His attorneys have put out feelers many times about life in prison. The prosecutor says no, fry him at the cost of millions.
Three, which is a worse punishment for the ultimate crimes? The Unibomber, the Olympic bomber, the Kansas City bomber are all sitting in a “supermax prison” and complaining about the deprivation they face, and will face for the rest of their lives. I don’t have any sympathy.
Am I in any way more vindicated in my hatred of murder or rape if they were dead at a cost of many more millions and on the chance that one or more of them didn’t do it? To me, no.
I won’t go into the Eighth Amendment and the current debate about whether the electric chair, the gas chamber or lethal injection constitute cruel and unusual punishment. If you have decided it’s a good idea to kill someone, I’m not at all sure how it matters if you’re cruel in doing so.
Your thoughts?
9 comments:
Dave - I agree with your theory about the death penalty primarily because of the innocence factor. Granted, many people who receive a death sentence are guilty as sin -a fully known fact in some instances. But there are also so many who are convicted and if they are executed and evidence then shows they were innocent after all, I don't know of any way to make that wrong right then.
Sure, when you hear of a henious crime that's been commited and the perpetrator caught, often it is I think instinct that we want to exact vengence, but whether someone dies as a result of a criminal act or is "legally" killed, it is still one person's life being taken by another or by a group of people. I don't have a problem with people being given a life sentence, with few privileges when it is a known factor they actually did the crime. To me, imposing the death sentence and carrying it out, puts us on the same level then as the criminal.
vmFor a killer like Brian Nichols, life without parole,to me, is not a sentencing option. How can you discipline someone like this in the prison system. He could maim or kill fellow prisoners or guards with impunity. He knows he'll never get out,so he has nothing to lose. The death penalty may not deter people from heinous acts, but after it is carried out I have yet to hear of any repeat offenders.
Sonja's Mom Says -
I have been a death penalty a proronet in cases where it a certainty, with irrefutable evidence that the defendant commited a henious crime. The problem with the death penalty is the long appeals process and the cost, as you said. Perhaps life without the possibility of parole and COMPLETE isolation from the ourside world and other prisioners whould be a more fitting punishment. Although death may give the victims families safaction it may not be a punishment and in some cases may be a welcome relief as opposed to life away from the rest of the world.
I served on a jury in a capital murder case. It was not easy. We found extenuating circumstances and did not give the death penalty but the deliberations were very difficult. I feel sorry for any jury that has to make that dicision. A trial like that stays with you for the rest of your life.
Canada doesn't have the death penalty option, though sometimes people have demonstrations asking for it.
The book is better.
I was once for the death penalty, primarily because of the horror of some crimes and the impact on families and others.
Then, one day I had an ephiphany - a clear thought that just hit me out of nowhere. Killing anyone, for any reason, makes killing more OK for any justification a person or a government might come up with. We need to call killing of any kind "evil".
The killing of a prison guard by an inmate is rare; far more innocent people have been executed by the state.
Life without parole in a very restricted environment is good enough. If one believes in God, then let God be the ultimate judge.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Too many innocent people on death row. Too biased against the poor and minorities. Also, I believe that when society willing to execute murderers, it brings us all down to the moral level of the killers.
I have been ruminating on this all weekend, and am not sure I'm any closer to a hard and fast answer as I was when I started. But here are a few things I think:
1. An eye for an eye justice doesn't work.
2. I would not have been in favor of sending Gene Hackman's character to death for his crime, based on what I know about it at this time.
3. The purpose of the death penalty is to permanently remove an unrepentant and dangerous person from society. Life w/o parole does this, but we have a problem with overcrowding in prisons, so this is deemed impractical. Why? Are we villifying the wrong behaviors? Maybe. What is the percentage of prison dwellers who are incarcerated on drug charges?
4. I have lots more thoughts but I need to get on with my day and allow you to do the same.
I read the book but have not seen the movie. I do not believe in the death penalty and never have. Being in prison for the rest of your life seems to be more of a punishment as long as no parole is granted. However, with dna testing maybe the proof of guilty has improved to the degree that right decisions can be made.
Post a Comment