Post by happyhaddock on Nov 22, 2008 12:33:42 GMT -5
Death penalty is not one of the options we need
By Patrick Delahanty
In all likelihood Marco Allen Chapman will soon realize his desire to die at the hands of the state. "I should be able to do what I want to do," Chapman recently told a judge, "and go ahead and have the execution put forth."
Chapman's desire to do what he wants to do — die — raises the issue of the use of the death penalty in a way that should force reconsideration of the monstrous practice we have in place here.
Our elected representatives reinstated the death penalty in our names in 1976. I doubt any of them had Marco Chapman in mind. None of them wanted to create an opportunity for him to do what he wants to do. Presumably, they hoped to find a fair way to punish "the worst of the worst" murderers as a warning to others to behave. They could not have foreseen what has happened since.
Consider this. In 2007, Ernie Lewis, the former Public Advocate, told the House Judiciary Committee that Kentucky had spent about $300 million since 1976 to kill two prisoners. That's $150 million per execution. Chapman's death will reduce the cost per prisoner to $100 million. With so many greater public needs, should we not be considering alternatives to the death penalty? Should the death penalty even be an option?
How about this? On Aug. 1, 2002, a Whitely County jury found Larry Osborne innocent. He had been declared guilty in his first trial and sentenced to death. But the Kentucky Supreme Court decided unanimously to order a new trial after concluding that his right to a fair trial was violated. The prosecutor had introduced hearsay evidence and the trial judge allowed it.
At the time, The Courier-Journal wrote: "But however you view this particular case, it holds clear implications for capital punishment in general. In a system where only one bit of unfair evidence makes the difference between conviction and acquittal, should the death penalty even be an option?"
Do you suppose legislators anticipated a system in which the majority of those sentenced to death in Kentucky were sentenced to death unfairly? In fact, courts have found that more than 60 percent of Kentucky's death sentences were unjustly imposed and overturned them. No one would consider flying if they knew 60 of every 100 planes would crash. Should the death penalty even be an option?
Chapman's case is different. We know we got the right guy because he says so. We know he wasn't tried unfairly because he refused a trial. We know no court will overturn the conviction because he fired his attorneys. He waived all his appeals. He wants to die.
And that is another reason to ask: Should the death penalty even be an option? What if we did not have the death penalty? In the past Chapman had tried to kill himself by hanging and cutting his wrists. If we did not offer him the death penalty, what method would he have chosen now? Is it possible that our own public policy led Chapman to take two lives — so he could do what he wanted to do?
Kentuckians are rethinking the value of this punishment. In 2006, the University of Kentucky surveyed Kentuckians. They asked each respondent to choose one of the sentences available under Kentucky law to punish a capital offender. Two-thirds selected a sentence other than death, the most popular being life without the possibility of parole.
Those directly affected by murder — surviving family members — are asking if the death penalty should be an option. In fact, several asked Gov. Steve Beshear to consider the effect executing Chapman would have on others, especially his own innocent family members.
"Furthermore, killing Marco Allen Chapman," they said, "creates another set of surviving family members and friends. Having had our own hearts broken by the loss of loved ones who were intentionally killed, we do not want anyone else, including members of his family and his friends, to experience the searing pain and the dark sadness that accompanies the intentional killing of a loved one."
Those working to abolish the death penalty are certainly disappointed that Chapman's execution will proceed. But we will continue to raise questions and educate Kentuckians about the wisdom of keeping in place a policy that puts innocent persons on death row, violates the rights of the majority of those convicted and sentenced to death, denies taxpayers the benefits of spending their dollars on far greater needs, is no more effective than life without the possibility of parole, and is not the preferred sentence of the majority of Kentuckians.
We will continue to ask: Should the death penalty be an option?
By Patrick Delahanty
In all likelihood Marco Allen Chapman will soon realize his desire to die at the hands of the state. "I should be able to do what I want to do," Chapman recently told a judge, "and go ahead and have the execution put forth."
Chapman's desire to do what he wants to do — die — raises the issue of the use of the death penalty in a way that should force reconsideration of the monstrous practice we have in place here.
Our elected representatives reinstated the death penalty in our names in 1976. I doubt any of them had Marco Chapman in mind. None of them wanted to create an opportunity for him to do what he wants to do. Presumably, they hoped to find a fair way to punish "the worst of the worst" murderers as a warning to others to behave. They could not have foreseen what has happened since.
Consider this. In 2007, Ernie Lewis, the former Public Advocate, told the House Judiciary Committee that Kentucky had spent about $300 million since 1976 to kill two prisoners. That's $150 million per execution. Chapman's death will reduce the cost per prisoner to $100 million. With so many greater public needs, should we not be considering alternatives to the death penalty? Should the death penalty even be an option?
How about this? On Aug. 1, 2002, a Whitely County jury found Larry Osborne innocent. He had been declared guilty in his first trial and sentenced to death. But the Kentucky Supreme Court decided unanimously to order a new trial after concluding that his right to a fair trial was violated. The prosecutor had introduced hearsay evidence and the trial judge allowed it.
At the time, The Courier-Journal wrote: "But however you view this particular case, it holds clear implications for capital punishment in general. In a system where only one bit of unfair evidence makes the difference between conviction and acquittal, should the death penalty even be an option?"
Do you suppose legislators anticipated a system in which the majority of those sentenced to death in Kentucky were sentenced to death unfairly? In fact, courts have found that more than 60 percent of Kentucky's death sentences were unjustly imposed and overturned them. No one would consider flying if they knew 60 of every 100 planes would crash. Should the death penalty even be an option?
Chapman's case is different. We know we got the right guy because he says so. We know he wasn't tried unfairly because he refused a trial. We know no court will overturn the conviction because he fired his attorneys. He waived all his appeals. He wants to die.
And that is another reason to ask: Should the death penalty even be an option? What if we did not have the death penalty? In the past Chapman had tried to kill himself by hanging and cutting his wrists. If we did not offer him the death penalty, what method would he have chosen now? Is it possible that our own public policy led Chapman to take two lives — so he could do what he wanted to do?
Kentuckians are rethinking the value of this punishment. In 2006, the University of Kentucky surveyed Kentuckians. They asked each respondent to choose one of the sentences available under Kentucky law to punish a capital offender. Two-thirds selected a sentence other than death, the most popular being life without the possibility of parole.
Those directly affected by murder — surviving family members — are asking if the death penalty should be an option. In fact, several asked Gov. Steve Beshear to consider the effect executing Chapman would have on others, especially his own innocent family members.
"Furthermore, killing Marco Allen Chapman," they said, "creates another set of surviving family members and friends. Having had our own hearts broken by the loss of loved ones who were intentionally killed, we do not want anyone else, including members of his family and his friends, to experience the searing pain and the dark sadness that accompanies the intentional killing of a loved one."
Those working to abolish the death penalty are certainly disappointed that Chapman's execution will proceed. But we will continue to raise questions and educate Kentuckians about the wisdom of keeping in place a policy that puts innocent persons on death row, violates the rights of the majority of those convicted and sentenced to death, denies taxpayers the benefits of spending their dollars on far greater needs, is no more effective than life without the possibility of parole, and is not the preferred sentence of the majority of Kentuckians.
We will continue to ask: Should the death penalty be an option?
