Yes, it's time for the weekly death penalty rant. Run away while you can.
You have to wonder about people. I mean, really, what else can you do but wonder about how people think. Despite the fact that we know -- we know -- that more than half the people previously scheduled for execution in this state were innocent of the crimes they were convicted of, the governor is forced to veto a law making it easier to execute people. No, I'm not in favor of "going easy on gangs", but this is sheer idiocy. (Of which the representative who proposed the law is quite proud.) Elsewhere, someone is upset with the governor because his moratorium "allowed murderers to escape justice". Apparently, not actually committing the murder is not a reasonable defense. (He's also quite wrong on one political issue; the reason Ryan's re-election bid would have failed is that as more and more evidence about the license scandal came out, the only way you could believe that Ryan didn't know at least something about it was if you thought he was completely incompetent. Either incompetent or a crook, but either way, not a reasonable candidate for governor. But I digress.)
New Jersey has just discovered racial disparities in the way the death penalty is administered in their state. No, really, they did. The one state under federal supervision for racial profiling is surprised to discover racially biased death sentences. (Yes, I do realize that the police and the courts are different parts of the system. Nonetheless, it still doesn't seem like it should be a terribly shocking discovery under the circumstances.) Race purportedly makes no difference in how you're charged -- whether you're white or black, if you kill a white person in New Jersey or if you kill in the predominantly white suburbs, you're equally likely to be charged with a capital crime -- although not if you kill in the urban (read "black") areas of the state. The difference comes purely in the penalty phase.
Ohio -- which apparently now has so many people on death row that they're double-bunking -- is thrashing about whether or not to allow the electric chair for execution. "It can be very traumatic on personnel to witness an electrocution," said Reginald A. Wilkinson, the state's director of rehabilitation and correction who is among those who want to stop using the chair. Well, DUH. Watching the state kill someone probably should be traumatic, don't you think? Isn't the pain of the proces meant as part of "the deterrent facility" of the death penalty? (Not that it's ever been shown to deter, but that's entirely beside the point.) As it now stands, Ohio is quite likely to grant a reprieve to the inmate not to save his life, but to allow the legislature to remove electrocution as a method of execution. That way, his death will be pretty pretty pretty for all the witnesses, serene and quiet and peaceful. Isn't that nice of them?
Texans are expressing concern about their state's administration of the death penalty. Not about whether to execute, mind, but about when it's appropriate. A start, I suppose.
OK, that's it. I'll try to stay away from the topic the rest of this week, though I make no promises.
Copyright © 2001, Iain Jackson, after-words.org
[Archives: 2001 and after]
Archives before February 5, 2001
Search entries:
12/19/2001: vive la france
12/19/2001: princess, redux
12/19/2001: yemen and rumsfeld
12/18/2001: you're NOT in the army now
12/18/2001: interesting donation
12/18/2001: shame on winn dixie, indeed
12/18/2001: saudi princess
12/17/2001: new resolve
12/17/2001: a victim of the attack ... yeah, right
12/17/2001: polluters ho!