I oppose the death penalty, but not on philosophical grounds. Rather, I do not believe that the state can implement the death penalty without making mistakes such as the one described in this haunting Sunday Houston Chronicle/Lise Olsen article. Until a system is developed that reduces as much as humanly possible the risk of mistakes such as this one from happening, I remain opposed to the death penalty.
By the way, we are not close to having such a system in place in Texas.
Houston's Clear Thinkers
Longtime Houston attorney Tom Kirkendall's observations on developments in law, business, medicine, culture, sports, and other matters of general interest to the Houston business, professional, and academic communities.
The Chronicle executive editorial leadership is, of course, philosophically opposed to the death penalty — adamantly so.
It may well be the case that Lise Olsen’s investigation is fair and that the newspaper raises legitimate questions in this case, but the position of the newspaper on the death penalty should always be kept in mind by readers.
Tom,
Doesn’t the belief that you “do not believe that the state can implement the death penalty without making mistakes such as the one described in this haunting Sunday Houston Chronicle/Lise Olsen article” represent a philosophical grounds to oppose the death penalty? … albeit, a different philosophical ground than used by others.
Kev,
Curious what linkage you’re supporting your initial claim with.
Greg, yes, opposition to misuse of state power is a philosophical position. What I meant — and what I think you pick up — is that I do not oppose the state using its power to administer the death penalty so long as it does so under a system that prevents mistakes such as those set forth in the Chron article from occurring. Kevin believes that the Chron’s position is that the death penalty should be abolished because it is unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. I do not agree with that position.
Here’s the problem with the death penalty: it’s forever. If you kill someone, they ain’t coming back, regardless of how much you wish you could. On the other hand, prison allows you to at least salvage a portion of your dignity by turning a key and releasing a wrongfully convicted person.
I believe the state does have a right to take the life of someone who has wronged it. However, it has no right to take anyone else’s life, such as the wrongfully convicted.
In 1987, I went to work for a respected Texas DA’s office (yes, there are a few) with a pro-death penalty view. During my 6 years there, I became very uncomfortable with the entire concept of state sanctioned murder. My discomfort is based on two undeniable truths. One is the power the state possesses over the process, that can cause testimony and evidence to skew in favor of the state. The second, scarier truth, was the lust for power of those who prosecute the cases. While not every prosecutor succumbs to this urge, all must fight the urge.
In the end, I realized that the death penalty is not about the person on trial as much as those that inflict it. Justifying the death penalty does not change the fact that one is advocating the taking of a life, however worthless that life may seem.
The Chronicle story merely shows how weak the evidence can be in this most serious of trials.
The Shortcut
Business As Usual: Corrupt Kinsley … spot on. That’s about all that need be said. Well, that and “Read the whole thing.” Not much of a point to elaborate much on the Duke Cunningham moment of political corruption. You know…
The Shortcut
Business As Usual: Corrupt Kinsley … spot on. That’s about all that need be said. Well, that and “Read the whole thing.” Not much of a point to elaborate much on the Duke Cunningham moment of political corruption. You know…