Untitled

NOT THAT YOU ASKED

By JOHN BOXLEY

Before getting into the whole debate over whether or not we should continue to have a death penalty, let's clear up what happened in Oklahoma two weeks ago. It was not a botched execution. The condemned prisoner died. That was the intended result. The only way it could really have been botched, is if the prisoner had gotten up from the gurney and gone back to his cell.

Also, let's be clear that this inmate is not the one to be the poster child to oppose the death penalty. This was an evil person. He was a rapist and a murderer, who killed one of his victims by burying her alive. I have no doubt that if you asked the families of his victims about the circumstances of his death; they would have no problem with them at all. It might even put a smile on their faces. I know it would mine.

All of that aside, I have to confess that when it comes to the death penalty I am very conflicted. On the one hand there are some killers whose guilt is beyond doubt and their crimes so heinous, that I want them to die. In fact, in some of those cases the state could make money by raffling of the chance for a member of the public to actually perform the execution.

On the other hand, our system of determining guilt or innocence is far from perfect. In fact, it is flawed. With the advent of DNA evidence, and the work of the Innocence Project, more than 300 wrongly convicted people have been released from prison.

When confronted with the facts, the only conclusion a logical person can come to is that, at some point, an innocent person has been put to death by the state. That same logical person would have to ask one question. Is the right to put a truly guilty person to death worth the chance of killing an innocent person? For me it's a no brainer. The answer is no.

If that doesn't move you, consider this. Two years ago a Trumann police officer was murdered in front of witnesses during what began as a routine traffic stop. The murderer, whose guilt was never in doubt, was found guilty and sentenced to death, which automatically gave him grounds for an appeal. That means that this murderer can continue to have court hearings where the family of the slain officer is forced to relive the worst night of their lives.

If there were no death penalty, this killer might not have any basis for appeal. He would be sitting in prison, with no chance for parole, where guards have all sorts of unique ways of dealing with cop killers. The family of the dead officer would have the chance to try to rebuild their lives, and never have to hear from him again. Don't they deserve that?

Our system is not perfect. Innocent people have been killed by the state. Victim families have had to deal with the appeals of the people who ruined their lives. The death penalty is just not worth it.