  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 A ‘Dignified End’Posted on Jun 27, 2007By Mike Farrell A “dignified end of life” is in store for California’s 650-plus condemned, according to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s mouthpiece. That’s a relief. I thought they were going to be killed. The new, secretly-arrived-at protocol for use in the new, secretly built death chamber was supposed to bring California’s killing process out of the darkness—one observer said he needed a flashlight to make notes—and out of the fumbling hands of the Keystone Kop Killing team, which would, presumably, no longer be able to walk off with the unused and unaccounted-for drugs. So, E for effort? Oh, maybe H for hapless, or L for late. Three years ago Gov. Schwarzenegger wrote to me, saying he understood “that in some state [sic], officials have been concerned that abuse and incompetence worked to undermine the fair and impartial application of the law ... ,” but he was sure “that California’s administration of the death penalty is free from the kind of systemic defects that have called its accuracy into question in other states.” What a kidder! Who’da thought the Guv had such a sense of gallows humor? Missing the joke, I figured it was a lack of experience on Schwarzenegger’s part. How could you blame the guy for not seeing how messed up our state’s homicide delivery system was? The closest he’d come to killing was in the movies, and, damn, was he good at that! But he was new at this job, so should I expect him to understand that he’s actually responsible for taking actual human lives? What’s the matter with me? Thinking about it, I now get how clever he was. Saying that officials in some other state(s) worry that “abuse and incompetence ... undermine the fair and impartial application of the law,” he was being sly. He clearly knew about the 200 men who had been wrongly convicted by California’s “free from ... systemic defects” system, but, wink-wink, they were freed. Get it? The system works! Sure, there’s ridicule, humiliation, stigmatization and job loss, but they’re out, so get over it. I just missed the funny part. So—follow me now—our killing machine is “free from the kind of systemic defects that have called its accuracy into question in other states.” “Free from”—get it? He was telling me not to worry. Stupid me, I thought he was cheerleading, as you’d expect of a new governor. Here he was at the beginning of a steep, on-the-job learning curve; you can’t expect him to know this stuff for real. I mean he’d just gone from being a cigar-chomping, Hummer-driving movie star to ... well, to a cigar-chomping, Hummer-driving governor. But the clue? This is a guy born in a country that doesn’t even have a death penalty at all! He’s just waaay too subtle for me. So is my face red, or what? He absolutely had me. I thought he was a grinning cipher, an ambitious egomaniac without a clue, elected on the strength of celebrity, apologizing for a system we all knew was shaming us, and here he was, stringing me along, secretly planning to bring California into the 21st century! What a guy! So as you can imagine, I really felt for him when Judge Jeremy Fogel didn’t get the joke either. I mean, he blasted Schwarzenegger’s killing process as a “deeply disturbing” mess and said they had to clean it up or close it down. Little did he know! In any other situation, I’d have been cheering Judge Fogel for shutting down the murder machine. It would have been wonderful to hear him condemn the disorganization, the lack of “reliability and transparency,” the “actions and failures to act” that “have resulted in an undue and unnecessary risk of an Eighth Amendment violation” that would be “intolerable under the Constitution.” I mean, God bless him! Unfortunately though, like me, he’s wasting his breath. He didn’t get the joke. The killing’s over! They said it. Those on death row can look forward to “a dignified end of life.” What else could they mean?
Mike Farrell, author of the recently released book “Just Call Me Mike: A Journey to Actor and Activist,” is president of the board of Death Penalty Focus.
SHARE THIS TRUTHDIG ARTICLE:
|
|
Confronting the Terrorist Within
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By ardee, July 5, 2007 at 10:01 am #
It is rather obvious that mlevass is quick to label that which he opposes as half truths. This debate would be better served if he actually took the pains to be specific.
As to the costs of incarceration, they pale next to the cost of executing innocents. As long as we have a system that favors those able to afford expensive legal representation, as long as the poor are executed in far greater numbers than the wealthy we must, as civilised human beings, place cost below justice.
Report thisBy Skruff, July 5, 2007 at 6:58 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
84179 by mlevass on 7/05 at 6:35 am
“Dont play the ‘for the children’ card. It doesnt work.”
Since I have been a foster parent for delinquent children for much of the past thirty years, the “for the children” position is primary for me.
Additionally, you say (without citation) that the Death Penalty Information group are either ACLU Lawyers or activists. does the presence of “activists” on a group invalidate their studies?
I’m not here to change your mind, but the FACT that the cost of putting someone to death, and keeping them in prison for life is a wash-out is well documented.
AND I’m not anti death penalty. If the executioner did it with an axe on prime time Pay TV I’d be in favor. I oppose folks who have never seen someone put to death advocating for a death penalty. Bring it out into the public square, and you’ll have my support.
Report thisBy mlevass, July 5, 2007 at 6:35 am #
Skruff,
There are a few problems I have.
1st. The testimony you site is from an organization that is expressly aggainst the death penalty, whose members were either ACLU lawyers or activists. The testimony is full of half-truths just like this website.
2nd. The testimony stated that when Illinois changed the court procedures and processes and the system was changed, then costs would skyrocket.
Costs not covered under a day of normal incarceration-
Injections 250
Manpower to include special pay 1500
Special meal/requests 30-100
Total 1850 dollars
Punishment is just that, punishment. Deterrence is a bonus.
You state “There have been no studies in our 200 plus years history that measure the effects of the death penalty on the children of an executed inmate.” Which nullifies your next statement.
Yet you then say, “BUT children who have a parent in prison where that parent remains in contact, have a lower tendency to commit criminal acts then do children who are separated from their parents (for any reason) where the parents do not maintain contact.” I assume there is also a high number of one parent not allowing children to visit the incarcerated parent as well. How does that fit in? Don’t play the “for the children” card. It doesn’t work.
It is like saying “No records of vehicle makes or models were recorded in speeding violations but since 75% of all cars on the road are American cars then 75% of all speeders drive American cars”. Because of that, all those driving american cars must pay higher car insurance. The correlation does not make sense.
Report thisBy Skruff, July 2, 2007 at 12:31 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
83150 by mlevass on 7/02 at 10:46 am says:
“Lets make this really fair. Those that are for or the death penalty be individually identified.
Those for the death penalty are taxed for the incarceration up to the execution and the execution. Those opposed can flip the bill for those incarcerated life without parole. I think thats fair.”
Me too, but no one is getting a deal. The cost is slightly higher to execute than to provide for life in prison. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/MassCostTestimony.pdf
In Illinois over the 20 years begining in 1982, More death row inmates were freed due to innocence, than were put to death. This resulted in more safe-guards in all death penalty states, at higher costs.
States where the death penalty is in use, commonly have a higher precentage of murders than do States where the death penalty is not used.
There have been no studies in our 200 plus years history that measure the effects of the death penalty on the children of an executed inmate.
BUT children who have a parent in prison where that parent remains in contact, have a lower tendency to commit criminal acts then do children who are seperated from their parents (for any reason) where the parents do not maintain contact.
My point being, there is more to consider than just up front money. Remember the old purelator ad?
Report thisBy mlevass, July 2, 2007 at 10:46 am #
There is a reason why there are many degrees of murder not to mention the crimes of manslaughter. Once again the point of the death penalty is missed by some. It is not “revenge”. We are currently living in a society where more and more, people do not take responsibility for their actions and are quick to place blame on others and where parents undermine the authority of teachers by saying “oh..my boy/girl wouldn’t do that!”
There are certain consequences to certain actions. If a person has demonstated that he/she is a danger to people around them (murder, repeated extreme violence), what choices do you have? Life in prison, death penalty or penal island?
Let’s make this really fair. Those that are for or the death penalty be individually identified.
Report thisThose for the death penalty are taxed for the incarceration up to the execution and the execution. Those opposed can flip the bill for those incarcerated “life without parole”. I think that’s fair.
By Skruff, June 30, 2007 at 12:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Up until two years ago we were the sole indrustrialized country with a death penalty (in several states) that had no minimum age.
Up until 1972, Massachusetts had a ergetz death penalty for stuborn children. The 16th century law said that parents could bring their stubborn children to the courthouse, swear a death warrant, and have them executed. The last such execution was 1814, BUT just having the law on the books (in the same state that was berated for being “too liberal” was an embarrassment.
Here in Maine our last execution was in 1821, when we hung a guy for 15 minutes while he twisted and wiggled. we cut him down, and hung him again. it took him a half hour more to strangle.
Massachusetts discontinued their death penalty following the state sanctioned murders of Nicola Sacco Bartolomeo Vanzetti. They changed the law to life without possibility of parole in 1970.
For my part, I would much prefer to be executed than to be confined for years in a US prison...which leaves one wondering even about the revenge motive for the death penalty.
Report thisBy Ga, June 29, 2007 at 7:55 pm #
This “a dignified end of life” is almost as funny as “err on the side of life” by Dubya.
Report thisBy Marjorie L. Swanson, June 29, 2007 at 3:36 am #
The death penalty is society’s way of getting revenge. It is state mandated murder. Given the efficiency of our government there is no doubt that innocent people have been and will be put to death. Those that support the death penalty do not want justice; they want revenge. And if a few innocent folks get killed along the way, oh well, accidents happen and sometimes our barbaric death penalty makes mistakes.
I have all the compassion in the world for the victims of murder. But once the families of the murdered park themselves in the front row to watch the killing of someone they believe killed their loved one they have placed themselves on the same level as the killer(s). They don’t want justice. They want revenge.
Report thisBy great_satan, June 28, 2007 at 8:59 pm #
The death penalty is barbaric. I understand killing to prevent greater killing or even more killing, but not subsequently.
Report thisWe perceive the alternative as life in prison? What a joke. Prison is a waste. There are few crimes congruent to prison, (perhaps kidnapping.). The sole argument for prison is that it keeps them off the street. Presently, it costs as much to keep a prisoner for a year as it does to send someone to Stanford University.
I do believe however that one has the right to “live by ones own law.” When ones law digresses from the common law, then one may dwell in a society of others with a similar sense of law. In other words, deny a right so basic as the right to not be murdered, then forfeit that right yourself. However, the state shouldn’t be the ones to do the murdering.
Two options. One is exile to a well-guarded penal colony of sorts with other murderers, a place where murder is legal. Let them try to develop a society in which murder is
The other is to simply remove that right from an individual within common society. In 18th century England, an aristocrat murdered a peasant who was working on his estate, simply to test his new bow. He expected leniency, but to his surprise, he was a given a pardon by the judge, with one condition. He thanked the judge and asked the condition. The judge replied, “That I shall pardon whosoever murders you without condition.”
None of this however rectifies the problem of “beyond a reasonable doubt” and far too many innocent people (or those innocent of the specific crime for which they are accused,) being executed, on death row or in prison at all. This is primarily a matter of class divisions; poor folks get prosecuted while rich ones get off.
By ardee, June 28, 2007 at 6:19 pm #
Quite an experience Mike and thanks for sharing. As one with real knowledge of the subject I would ask if you are familiar with the statistics that seem to show that the death penalty, rather than being a deterent to murder actually shows that those states with such a penalty have MORE not LESS murders?
Report thisBy ctbrandon, June 28, 2007 at 4:21 pm #
in response to #82127 by richard on 6/28 at 9:18 am
Richard, I just love it when someone responds to a comment of mine with something like “this shows how little you know.” The ironic part is that in your response, you make it obvious that you have no concept of what I know, or even the point I was trying to make.
I clearly said that murder is wrong...period. My point was that my own personal feelings for revenge could take over if it was my daughter. Maybe they wouldn’t; I don’t know as it hasn’t happened and I pray to God it never does. But until you can tell me from personal experience what that is like to have someone you love murdered, please spare me another “its all black and white” lecture from someone who has no idea who I am or what I know. I get plenty of that from politicians.
brandon
Report thishttp://www.actforyourself.org
By RAE, June 28, 2007 at 3:03 pm #
What the “state” wants is REVENGE (aka punishment). In our culture, “death” is considered by most to be the worst thing that can happen to a person, therefore, it’s considered the worst punishment that can be meted out.
What fools! There are FAR WORSE things than death. Being forced at gunpoint to exist in a refuge camp anywhere near Darfur comes to mind. Or to be forced by circumstances beyond your control to live, addicted to drugs, in an inner city slum with no money, no health insurance, and without any prospects of being employed. TENS OF THOUSANDS of INNOCENT “free” American citizens have been “sentenced” by society to this fate… one that is FAR WORSE THAN DEATH, in my opinion.
Murderers put to death by today’s “humane” methods really get off EASY. A little needle prick in the arm and instantly your lights go out painlessly and permanently. What a relief! It’s a better death than most of us will ever know.
Report thisBy felicity, June 28, 2007 at 10:47 am #
Good job, Mike.
Death to the ‘bad’ guy, carried out by the State or a gang in east LA or a ‘white’ supremicist group or a Jew-hating head of state or a...what’s the difference. When death is a State’s solution, it is anybody’s solution.
Report thisBy ardee, June 28, 2007 at 10:42 am #
A subject as fraught with peril as are the right to life controversies.
When faced with such volatility in a subject I always look into my heart, generally I find the correct stance, at least correct for me as an individual. As a member of a society well, Im on shakier ground there I suspect.
It is against the law to murder yet we then murder those convicted of that crime, what an example to set......The key for me is the statistical evidence that way, way too many innocent folks are being convicted of murder and then murdered before evidence can be obtained to prove the mistake, and then its irrevocably too late.
With the emergence of DNA evidence we have found a shocking number of wrongly prosecuted and convicted folks sitting on death row, one can only wonder at the numbers of those executed in the past equally innocent. It was always my understanding that our laws and judicial system were set up on the principle that it is better to free a guilty person than convict an innocent one.
If for no other reason that this all executions should be halted until we build a judicial system in which poor folks are no longer railroaded into the death chambers due to incompetent or disinterested legal aide.
I would close by thanking Mr. Farrell for his political and social activism as well as his talented acting career.
Report thisBy richard, June 28, 2007 at 9:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
to the comment below mine, the fact that you “would want someone to pay the ultimate price” shows how little you know of the issue. I guess it’s okay that people can be wrongly convicted and sentenced to death. or how about the fact that we are the only developed nation that still carries out death sentences, along with the rest of the 3rd world, middle east, and south east asia. it is a black and white issue, that’s why there are two sides to it.
Report thisBy ctbrandon, June 28, 2007 at 8:40 am #
I tend to agree, but it is such a tough subject. I believe that killing is wrong, period. However, if someone was to harm my daughter or my family, I would want them to pay the ultimate price for it. Its definitely not a black and white issue.
brandon
Report thishttp://www.actforyourself.org
By Sid, June 28, 2007 at 7:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“...begs some serious questions...”
I think you mean “...poses some serious questions...”
“begs the question” means something different entirely.
Report thishttp://www.answers.com/topic/begging-the-question
By Malcolm Martin, June 28, 2007 at 7:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stanley “Tookie” Williams, just remembering that your lifes trial ended 18 months ago with the kind of mess which your killers are trying to pretty up now. Wealthy men, with their perverse sense of justice had their way with you before the people had freed themselves from the shackles of racism and were united and strong enough to save your life. But the life you had now gives strength to others.
Up from poverty, deprivation and abandonment Stanley Williams you had the fortitude and intellect to organize your loved ones as you called desperate and despised youths like yourself. You then grew beyond the boundaries of gangsterism to become the kind of serious political threat that convicts like Malcolm X and George Jackson were before their executions by the State.
Rest assured you were a fully redeemed man in the eyes of the people, from the children around the world that you reached out to and all the way up to the former president of the NAACP Bruce Gordon. You were a man who met his death with a dignity and courage that shames the pathetic cowardly weaklings that occupy the White House and the governor’s mansion in California. These small men who send others to fight, torture, kill and die to protect their privilege will one day be brought to justice and then quickly forgotten. Your memory will outlive their crimes by eons.
Report thisBy wendy davis, June 28, 2007 at 6:50 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I admire your work and politics, mike, but i really think sarcasm is not the most effective way for you to write. You do better when you inject your sooulful sense of justice into the rational arguments. I would imagine you loved seeing your favorite terminator rushing over to 10 downing street yesterday to do photo ops with blair while california is burning....
Report thisBy Verne Arnold, June 28, 2007 at 4:18 am #
I was going to stay away from this one but.....
The death penalty is state sponsored murder. This is not a good thing.
Think of the elegance of life in prison with no “possibility of parole”. There is a ring to it don’t you think? You get to wake up every day and pay yet again for your crime. No hope...unless you’re not guilty. Then there can be justice, but not if you’re already dead. This happens too often for a country priding itself on democracy and freedom and...and “the best justice system in the world”.
Report this