Kerry Max Cook, "Chasing Justice" (2007).

As if I didn't have enough stuff to think about, I continue to struggle with my support for the death penalty. It's not that my perception of humanity has altered in any significant way. I still run up against the thorny juxtaposition of my diet (which includes many animal products) and my belief that people are simply animals (albeit a bit more sophisticated in their brain development). If I'm willing to eat something, then I have to be willing to put it to death, or at least be responsible for its slaughter, right? Sure, I'll take a pass on the feast of the dead criminal- but that doesn't mean I'm willing to forgo his/her passing. All "god's" creatures die, one way or another... and we all have a hand in that process.

Yet I'm not altogether comfortable with the company that this particular position puts me in. All too frequently I find myself at odds with death penalty advocates on just about every other political issue. And on an intuitive level, I usually don't want to be associated with them. On the other hand, the majority of those who would seek to abolish executions are folks that I respect and sometimes even admire. Why wouldn't I want to throw in my lot with them? On the other hand, I can't seem to transcend my repulsion toward the idea of out-of-control homo sapien proliferation. I guess it's akin to the way most people feel about cockroaches. There's just too many of them, and they overwhelm environments once they take root.

That doesn't mean that I don't love individuals. I can usually find something to care about in everyone, once I get to know them a bit. I'm definitely not a misanthrope on a personal level. It's only the idea of humanity that bothers me. Anyway... so yeah, why not just eliminate those who are clearly beyond redemption? Pluck them from society so they don't perpetuate their behavior? I don't find many of the counterarguments convincing. The ultimate penalty is unfairly applied, but that's a systemic issue. The appeals process is costly, but once again it comes down to management. These are problems that must be addressed. However, they aren't sufficient to convince me that capital punishment is "wrong".

What does give me pause is the reality that the innocent are sometimes executed. Since techniques to establish DNA comparisons have become cheaper and more accurate, over a 100 men have been released from death row. Kerry Max Cook is just one of them. He spent 20 years in Texas prisons (notorious for being among the worst in the nation), and he put everything he had along the way into establishing his innocence. Incredibly, the very conservative Texas Court of Appeals reversed his conviction three times. There was so much corruption in Smith County (where Cook lived) that prosecutor misconduct caused a long series of injustices. Reading this man's autobiography is a harrowing experience.

Kerry Cook was a young, sexually ambivalent man when he was charged with raping, killing, and mutilating a woman who lived in the apartment complex where he was staying. There was scant evidence that Cook was guilty, but it was used to build a distorted version of the tragic events that took place. The depictions of the courtroom dramas that sent Cook repeatedly back to prison are troubling. Perhaps even more so are the accounts of horrid abuse Cook faced while incarcerated. Chasing Justice seems like a reasonably objective retelling of the author's experiences, and lacks the pretension that often plagues convict memoirs. It certainly makes me think twice about allowing such a thing to occur in our "open and democratic" society.

The Supreme Court Decides: Guns and the Death Penalty.

It's been hard to turn on the television or radio this past week without hearing news about the recent Supreme Court decisions. Its ruling regarding the liabilities associated with the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill has turned into a relatively minor story next to the relatively Earth-shaking results of cases regarding gun ownership and the death penalty. We really shouldn't be that surprised about that. After all it's been almost twenty years since someone piloted the tanker into Bligh Reef and dumped its noxious cargo into Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska. Because the federal government (under the watch of former oil baron and president George Bush) moved so slowly in response, this incident is commonly considered the worst man-made environmental disaster in history.

Unfortunately this isn't the time to rank order the blows that man has struck against Mother Nature. It appears that we have bigger fish to fry nowadays. So the Exxon corporation is officially done feeding out cash to the victims of their actions. Let's talk about guns! But before we get to the true American obsession, we can have a word or two about child rape. This past Wednesday, the nation's highest court reviewed the death penalty laws in that most gentle of all Southern states- Louisiana. There two men had been convicted of raping children, and subsequently sentenced to death. The court decision was narrow, with a 5-4 majority saying that capital punishment is not appropriate in a crime wherein the victim does not die.

In this case (a review of Kennedy vs. Louisiana) Justice Anthony Kennedy was the tipping point, and he authored the Majority Opinion. He pointed out that the possible application of the death penalty in these cases might repress the reporting of sexual abuse within families where these crimes have occurred. He also cited the unreliability of testimony from children. Ultimately it was reduced to a question regarding the 8th Amendment- and the Court came down with a judgment stating that such punishments constitute "cruel and unusual punishment" for these particular criminals. While I can understand such sentiments, I'd have to say that I'm unhappy about the ruling. Apparently both Obama and McCain are against it too, as they are both on record as having said so.

Still it is inevitable that conservatives spin this as a blanket condemnation of "liberals", as if all those categorized as such support the rape of children. It won't matter how many within that classification disagree with the ruling. Similarly the GOP and its Kool-Aid drinkers are proclaiming a huge victory in the landmark case that was decided today. For the first time in history the Supreme Court has directly addressed the issue over whether or not the Second Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right of individual citizens to "keep and bear arms". It has long been accepted that the framers of the document meant to ensure that militias have access to weaponry.

This judgment (a 5-4 ruling, falling along predictable lines) overturns a law in Washington DC that has prohibited handgun ownership within the city for 32 years. Antonin Scalia wrote the Majority Opinion, specifying that the Constitution forbids "the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home". This ultimately gives the lie to the oft-stated right-wing contention that they oppose "activist" justices who legislate from the bench. Clearly this ruling amounts to doing the very thing they claim to hate. But it is still unclear what the true impact of this decision will be, partially because these particular activists (including Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Kennedy and Alito) have overreached, thus failing to address the specific issues of gun control.

How to: Die at the Hands of the State.

Recently I expressed my position on the death penalty, along with my rationale for feeling the way I do. In short I maintain an uncomfortable support for it. I certainly have my reservations. But I think that if I am going to continue to hold to that position, I should try to imagine myself in the role of the condemned. I don't imagine myself committing a crime that could land me on death row, but I have no doubt that there have been innocent people put to death in this country. And that means that you (or I) could face this fate. What would that experience be like?

If we knew in our heart of hearts that we weren't culpable for the capital crime for which we were convicted, we'd most likely have to go through a stage of denial. No matter the possibility, we really wouldn't be able to accept the fact that it was happening to us. Regardless of whatever speculations we might occasionally entertain, the vast majority of us believe deep down that the universe has some innate sense of justice that would prohibit such a fate as wrongful conviction. Unfortunately this is an irrational belief. The exceptions in this case prove the rule. Innocent people are sometimes killed by the state.

Whether or not we are guilty, if we failed to attain exoneration in the appeals process, an eventual date for execution would be set. In some states we would be given a choice as to how our sentence was to be carried out. What method would you choose? Most localities don't offer death by firing squad anymore. I don't think I'd prefer being shot because it just seems so personal to face a firing squad- although I assume they'd apply a blindfold. Hanging would certainly be my last choice. To my mind it's completely humiliating. If you've ever read an eyewitness account of the type of things that can happen when you are jerking on the end of a rope, then you probably already know what I mean.

I think I'd also pass on the gas chamber. That seems like a singularly unpleasant way to die. Why don't they just light me on fire? Death by asphyxiation is only a bit less alluring. The electric chair is out as well- it's too messy. Plus you face the risk of malfunction and simply smoldering for awhile. No fun. I don't relish the idea of my eyes bursting from the electricity coursing through my body. If I could avoid pissing and shitting myself, that would also be a plus. So I guess if I had to choose, I would go for lethal injection. I'm not afraid of needles, and if administered correctly it is supposed to be painless. I'd slip into unconsciousness and never wake up. Of course my victim's family (if I were indeed gullty) might resent that type of smooth retribution.

There are other decisions you'd be asked to make before being executed. What would you want for a last meal? I'm not sure if I could muster any kind of healthy appetite under those conditions. I might just pick the most elaborate thing I could think of out of spite. If I had been imprisoned for a significant time (which would seem likely under such circumstances), I'd probably just pick my favorites from the prison menu. I've heard the veggie lasagna is especially good. For dessert I know I'd take whatever sedatives would be available. If necessary I would bribe a guard to bring the good stuff.

Another conventional decision I'd face would be whether or not to be attended by a spiritual advisor. I'm not part of any organized religious group, so this would be a difficult decision. Perhaps a Buddhist monk would be most appropriate. I wouldn't turn away a priest- it seems like a no-lose situation to accept Christ in that moment. Absolution for whatever sins I have committed throughout my life might come in handy. "Cover all bases" would be my motto.

As far as last words are concerned, I wonder if I could resist being a wise-ass. That is my normal reaction to fearful situations. Maybe a sincere apology would be in order. Anyway I'd likely have plenty of time to come up with something contextually appropriate. I'd hate to think that I'd resort to a quote. It would be important to me to come up with something original. The indignity of being put to death is a bit too oppressive without a touch of wit and class.

The Death Penalty.

Generally I consider myself to be politically progressive. I tend to think of the root causes of our social ills. I'm a big proponent of public education, labor rights, expanded healthcare, job training programs, reproductive rights, environmental protection, corporate regulation, and a progressive policy of taxation. But on at least one key issue I've had difficulty adhering to the accepted progressive line- the death penalty. It's not that I wouldn't like to be against it, but rather that I can't think of any compelling reason for opposition. I've spent a lot of time trying to be convinced otherwise, but I've yet to experience the definitive argument to sway my thinking.

In forming my opinion about the issue, I have to confront several components of the debate. Many people oppose the death penalty for philosophical and/or spiritual reasons. I like to say (with some humor) that humans are animals, and that I eat animals. Therefore it seems it would be inconsistent for me to believe that the lives of human beings are somehow particularly "sacred". Perhaps I'd be a more compassionate person if I thought otherwise... I don't know. But my position certainly eliminates an entire class of opposition to this most severe of punishments. Humans have as much of a right to kill other humans as any other creature on Earth. It's a harsh viewpoint, but in line with evolutionary thought. The only reason to prioritize human life is species identification.

Next I have to consider whether or not it is appropriate to have the government act as the surrogate in enhancing the public good. Undeniably, we live in a social environment. We have devised many rules, and consequences for their violation. It seems somehow more just to have a representative body act out the will of the people. In allowing the governmental enforcement authorities to administer punishment, we avoid the nasty effects of vigilantism. I don't find it at all contradictory that we have laws against murder for society's individual members, while we have specified a number of capital offenses for which the government carries out the execution of criminals. That seem to me as it should be. On this issue, I feel I am adopting a utilitarian perspective.

As to a deterrence effect, I think we need to look at the issue from a couple of angles. It would be difficult to prove that the death penalty deters potential criminals, yet it is equally hard to prove the opposite. Everyone in society is a "potential criminal". We can't study this effect unless we rely on the unreliable method of self-reporting, a method which is insufficient for our ends. I view any such research as suspect and incomplete. On the other hand, it is intuitively conclusive that the death penalty deters future crimes in the case of those who suffer it. Obviously it couldn't be any other way. And criminal recidivism is a major problem in our society.

I feel that we have a responsibility to ask ourselves about sensible alternatives. Is it more humane to place convicts in the brutal conditions of our prisons, without hope of escape except through "natural" death? If there is no hope for rehabilitation, then what is the point of keeping them alive? That seems as inherently cruel as killing them. If we are going to do away with the death penalty, then I believe we should do away with life without parole. I don't believe that we should apply purely punitive fates for the convicted. There must be logic beyond simple retribution.

Some will counter that it costs more to put a person to death than to imprison them for life. I recognize that as a reality because of the appeals system. And I think that is the way it should be. We should have to pay a huge price to execute someone. If it was a cost effective way of dealing with crime, then the danger of applying the punishment indiscriminately would increase dramatically. Although I support the death penalty, I recognize it as an extreme end and a last resort. I am fully aware of the many injustices in the way the death penalty is currently applied. The accused must be extended every benefit of the doubt. To rush to judgment is to commit a grievous injury to both the individual, but also society. Personally, if I were going to impose the penalty, I would want to be free of any doubt. Its application is not a cause for celebration or pride (like in Texas and Florida).