2007
Week 15
April 14, 2007

Hi

No side humor this week. Grim and tedious. One time the floor was absolutely silent. Much detail work being done, which of course is the main work we have to do.

The death penalty will not be back, so I will focus on a wrap-up of the subject as it now stands, in the legislature and in Nebraska. A long debate on an amendment of the repeal bill lost again, this time by two votes. The amendment took away the outright repeal and left execution for offenders who are too dangerous to be safely restrained in prison. We have offenders who will plot to kill an inmate or guard or a person who testified against him (not her -- we do not execute women), or one who would plan an escape.

Excellent, quiet, respectful discussion. It is apparent the public attitude is shifting and that a majority now favor life without parole to execution. But, like us, the public is about evenly divided. I will summarize the arguments and stated feelings, very briefly -- simply reporting key points in the debate. If you want more detail please ask.

BOTH SIDES AGREE: (more than two sides, but this is brief) Our system is not working. It is a very expensive system. The seriousness of the death penalty means 20 years of appeals unless the offender gives up and prefers death to jail. That is the case for our May execution, which someone wryly noted becomes assisted suicide.
Swift and sure punishment is the greatest deterrence and execution does not give us that.
Gang member types are more fearful of endless jail than of death. The death penalty is applied unevenly. Similar crimes produce widely varying verdicts. Rural counties have many prosecutors who will not press for execution. Execution of a well known citizen would offend voters. Part time prosecutors may have no experience prosecuting any murder and do not want to be embarrassed in court. A death sentence trial is a strain on a small county budget.
Women, the wealthy, the prominent -- are not charged for execution, almost without exception. Black and Hispanic males are far more likely to face execution.

All agree that execution does remove the offender from our presence .... that execution makes some victim families feel better and gives a sense of finality to the general public. We also agree that many victim families are not supportive of execution, and some are deeply troubled that they have any connection to killing someone.

All agree religious and moral principles apply, but as usual this is more about personal feelings than it is about the Bible. Right to Life advocates are evenly divided. Some say life is sacred and the commandment not to kill applies to all life. The others state they do not feel compelled by the connection, which upsets their church leaders.

Then we have the “eye for an eye” statements which are clearly personal feelings. Some see the quote as comment on the Ten Commandments, which is really bad Bible. “Eye for an eye” was a part of primitive Jewish culture as a guide to justice. It was a ceiling, not a floor. If someone took your eye you were limited to one eye in return. More, if the offender's eye ‘saw better’ than yours you could not legally take it, because it would be more valuable than yours. The values of two lives would have to be measured and compared in court. It was a guide for primitive society and Jesus flatly rejected it. (Mt. 5)

Scripture also warns against taking our own vengeance. “Vengeance is mine, and recompense ..... For the Lord will vindicate his people.” (Deuteronomy 32:35, 36) There is much more on vengeance, which varies according to the time of the writing.

THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN -- HOW DO WE FIX IT? That is the heart of the debate. We are evenly divided. Half say the only realistic fix for the uneven application is to remove the death penalty, so that punishment would focus on life in prison where mistakes can be corrected and delays are not needed to check for mistakes. The other half feels we should fix the errors, force more even application, and remove error in court. The unresolved part, not tackled by anyone, is how. How do we get a prosecutor to do what (he) does not feel competent to do? How do you remove error in court proceedings, which is mostly human error? (One comment: perhaps we should pass a law that judges and clerks may not be human while they are at work.)

MY THOUGHTS It is apparent the death penalty is on its way out. I feel the law is less important than public attitude, so we should give the public time to process the complex issues: what is fair, which is deterrence, how deterrence varies for potential offenders. As a public we are not agreed that we truly want to deter violence or child abuse, or really bad parenting or drunk driving, or Don Imus/Rich Limbaugh violence. Public attitude is deterrence.

We make excuses for all of these and do not strongly and evenly support punishment. I hear persons say that the drunk driver needs his license to get to work. The fellow he killed is not getting to work. In Sweden, society has agreed that a second offense warrants lifetime suspension of driving. Consensus! We give all kinds of rights to the biological father whose only connection with the baby is a drunken act. He has never held it as the step dad has or taught the child like a real parent would. We allow violent acts, like random shootings, bullying, and execution to be examples of how we deal with each other -- with little public comment except by hurting families.

Our excuse-making and lack of consensus, more than the moral revulsion of killing in execution, is central in my thoughts as I support life in prison. On most serious offenders, all we agree to is we don't like them. “Let them stay there.” Others simply cannot be among us -- cannot be trusted in attitude and actions. We must ‘put them away’ for our own safety. Prison can be an effective punishment option.

The 'swift and sure' is big to me. Hopefully we can become united in that thought, so that we would be together in teaching our young and in dealing with each other. We could agree AND SAY that violent response is absolutely not acceptable behavior.

Let's say it. Stop violence.

Lowen