Shades of Gray

“Well, I’m sure you know that our country is the only so-called advanced nation that still has a death penalty and torture chambers. I mean, why screw around?”
- Kurt Vonnegut

Last Tuesday, while quite a few of us were watching House, or eating supper with our families, our country was justifying another murder. We all were justifying another murder.
John Allen Muhammad, otherwise known as the D.C Sniper, was executed for his crimes Tuesday night. His actions may be abhorrent, but does killing him really change anything? We say, “murderers are disgusting and no longer deserve to live,” then we turn around and turn the collective justice system into a killer—a “do as I say, but not as I do” situation.
The youngest children have the mental clarity to point out this contradiction, and often do. But they are quickly shot down—told that they just simply can’t understand the complexities. We tell them about these gray areas that they just can’t see yet.
But maybe these “shades of gray” are not something children cannot see. Maybe the gray areas are spots our old fuzzy eyes have grown to see, not as signs of wisdom, but as markers of becoming jaded, or even senile.
When it comes to the death penalty we justify our fuzzy vision because of (1) the death penalty’s deterrent power (2) its incapacitation power (3) its protective power (4) retribution.
Killing criminals will obviously both protect society from them, and prevent them from committing further crimes. But not so much more than life in prison, which doesn’t involve playing God. There is no logical justification for retribution as punishment, and it will not lead to any real healing.
Ronald Carlson, whose sister was murdered in 1983, was happy to hear the murderer would be executed, saying he would do it with his own hands if he could. But after he saw the execution he said, “Watching the execution left me with horror and emptiness, confirming what I had already come to realize: capital punishment only continues the violence that has a powerful, corrosive effect on society.”
The biggest battle for the death penalty’s use has always revolved around its supposed deterrent power. Yet after decades of research by economists, social scientists and criminal justice professionals, no one can say without a doubt that it has any real deterrent power. Some will try, however. Should we really base killing another human being on an idea that we can’t even say for sure is valid?
As North Dakotans we are opposed to the death penalty. However, you may recall that not too long ago the federal courts intervened in the case of Alfonso Rodriguez and sentenced him to death, even though North Dakota does not condone, and even opposes the death penalty.

The “Problem” of Innocence

Cameron Todd Willingham’s three daughters died in a tragic house fire. Soon after, Willingham was charged with intentionally starting the fire. He was found guilty, and was subsequently executed in 2004.
Good riddance, right?
Just one problem. As it turns out, Willingham didn’t do it. After his execution the Innocence Project began to look into the case. They brought in arson experts from across the country. A report was then submitted that effectively debunked every bit of forensic evidence that was used in the trial.
Still doubtful? In 2008 the Texas Forensic Science Commission decided to take a look at the case. The Commission brought in Craig Beyler, a highly regarded arson expert. He reported, “The investigators had poor understandings of fire science and failed to acknowledge or apply the contemporaneous understanding of the limitations of fire indicators. Their methodologies did not comport with the scientific method or the process of elimination. A finding of arson could not be sustained…”
In layman’s terms the “experts” that convicted Willingham messed up, and messed up big time.
Sadly, Willingham is not the only person to be given the death penalty even though he was innocent, and certainly not the only man to be wrongly convicted.

But in the end, killing is a disgusting business, no matter who is being slain. Guilty of a crime, or innocent, it makes no difference. When we as a society decide we have the legal right to kill another, with no consequence, we have crossed a line.
Not a gray line, but a big screaming, glow-in-the-dark, hot pink line.

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)