To read more articles and other works
by author Ken Kreps, visit http://www.kenkreps.com.
To send an e-mail to the author, click here.
If you were to survey a cross section of the American public about their feelings regarding capital punishment, I feel certain that a majority of the people would be in favor of it. To the surprise, I'm sure, of those who have branded me a wild eyed liberal, I too am in favor of capital punishment. Will wonders never cease.
It wasn't always that way as in my younger days I was totally opposed to any and all forms of capital punishment. I could see no reason why we, as a supposedly civilized society, had the right to take a human life. Then, as I grew older, some high profile events occurred which made me re-examine my feelings. First, John F. Kennedy was murdered in cold blood. He was the first President I'd claimed as my own. Had Lee Harvey Oswald lived and had the others responsible been caught (no, I don't at all, think it was the work of one man) I wanted them to pay with their lives. Then, the band of idiots led by Charles Manson went on an insane killing spree in Southern California. Again, I could see no reason why any of the main participants should not face the death penalty. Unfortunately, California banned the death penalty before these executions could occur. Later, other terrible murders like those committed by Ted Bundy begin to make me see that there was a place for the death penalty and that some criminals, by their own actions, dictated that this be their punishment.
While I stand with those who feel the death penalty is the only punishment that fits the most terrible of crimes, I'm troubled, not that most states have a death penalty, but in the way it's used and in who we execute and who we don't.
Twenty or so years ago, a man by the name of Dan White, an ex San Francisco City Councilman, went through a window (to escape metal detectors) in San Francisco's City Hall with a loaded weapon and proceeded to murder the Mayor and a City Councilman. He committed first degree pre-meditated murder. Not only did he not get executed (California still did not have the death penalty at that time), but he got off with a five year sentence on a "junk food" defense (later dubbed the "Twinkie Defense" by the press) saying that the sugar in the junk food diminished his ability to reason. The jury bought it. Later, after being released from prison, Dan White committed suicide. The state couldn't impose the death penalty on him, but he could impose it on himself.
More recently, overwhelming evidence showed that O.J Simpson murdered two people. Not only did he not get the death penalty, he wasn't even convicted. He was later convicted in a civil trial, but, today, he walks around a free man, having made a mockery of the scales of justice.
As maddening as the verdict in the Simpson trial was, it's not typical of what happens when a black man is charged with a capital crime in this country. Simpson was not tried as a black man, but as a wealthy man. He used his money to buy the services of some very high profile and successful defense attorneys and it worked as he walked out of the courtroom a free man. Many black defendants can't afford the services of F. Lee Bailey or the services of any attorney so they're assigned a Public Defender to plead their case. Public Defenders are overworked, some are incompetent and a few are both. Racial profiling by police forces causes black men to be stopped routinely far more often than whites and to be charged with crimes more easily. In capital crimes they're more likely to receive the death penalty due to bad representation and a lack of research into the crime by hired investigators. To be charged with a capital crime is bad, but to be black and charged with a capital crime is worse.
Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. To be Hispanic or other minority or even to be white and poor almost guarantees you will not receive the same brand of justice that more affluent people receive. I don't mean to imply that a good deal of these people are not guilty or that in many cases there is not a preponderance of solid evidence pointing to their guilt. However, minorities simply do not receive the same thorough trials or pre-trial investigations as do people with more means. Some are convicted and sentenced to die purely on circumstantial evidence. No one should ever receive the death penalty on circumstantial evidence, alone. Be pronounced guilty? Maybe, but not the death penalty.
Now, before you start running around the room, foaming at the mouth, flailing your arms and screaming, "He's soft on crime", please know that I'm not. I believe anyone who kills another in the course of committing a crime (such as robbery) should pay with their life. I also believe that those who commit certain pre-meditated first degree murders should receive that same punishment and that all serial killers should be put to death. I'm not saying that capital punishment should be done away with. I'm saying we should make a much more concentrated effort to insure that those individuals who are put to death are, indeed, guilty. The biggest crime of all is the execution of an innocent man, and the loose, and often too easy way in which we apply capital punishment makes that altogether too possible.
I was born and grew up in Texas, a state that leads the nation in executions. The ex Governor, George W. Bush, publicly stated that Texas never executed an innocent man under his administration. How does he know that? How can anyone be so sure as to make such a reckless statement? The Governor of Illinois was so convinced that some of the inmates on his state's death row might possibly be innocent that he imposed a moratorium on executions in his state until this could be investigated. This is not a Governor who opposes the death penalty, but a man who thinks we need to be absolutely sure before we pull the switch.
With today's DNA testing and other scientific methods, we can go a lot further in determining a person's guilt or innocence. Some argue that DNA testing is too expensive. Is anything too expensive to insure we have the right person? Remember, two things happen when we make a mistake with capital punishment and both of them are bad. An innocent person dies and a guilty person remains free, possibly to kill again.
I have no doubt that capital punishment is a fair and just punishment for certain heinous crimes, but I feel equally as certain that we need to be absolutely sure we are executing the right person. To do otherwise is, in itself, a crime.
©2000 by Ken Kreps. This article may not be re-published in electronic or print media without the express written permission of the author. All rights reserved.
Ken Kreps lives in the Pacific Northwest with his wife. He has written a number of published articles, essays and short stories, as well as numerous consumer and business pieces. Ken has also written scripts for Imagination Theater, an award winning audio drama series heard on over 150 commercial radio stations across the nation.
Press the Back button to return to the menu for this category. Click here to return to the main page.