Hot death penalty issues

This is a hot topic: the extermination of a convicted murderer by firing squad in Utah. Some will be opposed to killing on any grounds, some will be opposed to not permanently stopping a dangerous killer for the safety of others. Both sides, of course, have and make arguments of merit in the national media. You can decide which side of the fence you are on.

But what occurred to me is that the discussion sometimes lacks a full perspective because of the questions not being asked, let alone answered. And answering these questions on a personal basis and as a society may color our decision on the death penalty.

I will leave aside the discussion of retribution (“eye for an eyeâ€� from the Old Testament), the expediency of  “kill ’em so they can’t hurt anyone elseâ€� (assume they are jailed) and, not least, “thou shalt not killâ€� as a moral and religious tenet. These are being amply discussed elsewhere. No, I will just list the ones I think people also need to consider that are not in the mainstream arguments waging across the nation.

u      u      u

1. What is the real cost in our taxes of keeping a murderer in jail per year? Sent to a maximum-security prison, such costs can range upwards from $75,000 per year per prisoner (multiply that by 3,300 currently on death row to get $247,500,000 a year).

2. Do we as a society feel that $75,000 is better spent keeping someone in jail or feeding the starving? There are 13 million underfed children in America … $75,000 a year would feed 30 kids a year, $247,500,000 would feed 9,900.

3. Do we feel that death row inmates should be “cleared out� immediately upon sentencing and, if not, what is a humane time to allow for legal prudence?

4. How much are we willing to spend with back-evaluating evidence using new DNA procedures, and if, as in Illinois, as many as 25 percent of reopened rape and murder cases are found to be in error, what should we do insofar as all the death row inmates are concerned? What is the payout for wrongful conviction to them or, if now deceased, their families?

5. What proof, anywhere, exists in non-death sentencing countries to show that killers do not kill again? And if they do not, why not, what rehab do they have in place? Will that work here?

6. If rehab works on killers, what does it cost compared to the $75,000 a year? Is it cheaper to rehab someone or kill them?

u      u      u

7. Do we even want money and taxes to enter into the discussion? Is that moral?

8. If rehab mostly works, but not always, what percentage of recidivism would you find acceptable (repeat killers)? Five percent? Ten percent? More? Less?

9. The human mechanism does not go out like a light switch. People pronounced dead have come back to life saying they heard the last rites, felt the sheet being pulled over their faces. Since the moment of death is not currently accurately discernable, what is an acceptable definition of death and time of death? In the 1930s it was heartbeat. Was that cruel then and is our definition of inability to regain life (shot in the heart, severe electric shock, drug-induced stopped breathing) cruel now?

10. Do we, as a society, condone cruelty like this when done on a personal level (i.e., unsanctioned murder) and, if not, why do we condone it as a society?

11. Do we need a real, scientific definition of death and, thereby, how to get the mechanism into that state as quickly and painlessly as possible? Or is it easier to accept a drowning man as already dead for all intents and purposes and overlook the pain and suffering in the process?

12. If the law is supposed to be fair and impartial, but the death laws are based on partial facts, when does the law fall into disrepute to an extent that undermines society as a whole?

u      u      u

My personal opinion on all this does not matter. What does matter is that society is grappling with this problem without all the facts and knowledge needed. Some of the questions are listed above, but by no means all. We all need to ask more questions and then form a (political) consensus under the law. Until that happens, we will continue guessing at a solution while we shoot, gas, inject and electrocute the convicted until we know better.

Peter Riva, formerly of Amenia Union, lives in New Mexico.

Latest News

Love is in the atmosphere

Author Anne Lamott

Sam Lamott

On Tuesday, April 9, The Bardavon 1869 Opera House in Poughkeepsie was the setting for a talk between Elizabeth Lesser and Anne Lamott, with the focus on Lamott’s newest book, “Somehow: Thoughts on Love.”

A best-selling novelist, Lamott shared her thoughts about the book, about life’s learning experiences, as well as laughs with the audience. Lesser, an author and co-founder of the Omega Institute in Rhinebeck, interviewed Lamott in a conversation-like setting that allowed watchers to feel as if they were chatting with her over a coffee table.

Keep ReadingShow less
Reading between the lines in historic samplers

Alexandra Peter's collection of historic samplers includes items from the family of "The House of the Seven Gables" author Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Cynthia Hochswender

The home in Sharon that Alexandra Peters and her husband, Fred, have owned for the past 20 years feels like a mini museum. As you walk through the downstairs rooms, you’ll see dozens of examples from her needlework sampler collection. Some are simple and crude, others are sophisticated and complex. Some are framed, some lie loose on the dining table.

Many of them have museum cards, explaining where those samplers came from and why they are important.

Keep ReadingShow less