NOTICE: The following
article is written by the author itself and not by me, I am not trying to
violate their copyright. I will give some information on them. I chose this
column as the article on the death penalty of the week by Nebraska Solicitor, J
Kirk Brown, as 74 years ago on this date, September 1, 1939, Nazi Germany, Slovakia
and the Soviet Union invade Poland, beginning the European phase of World War
II.
ARTICLE
TITLE:
Local View: Death penalty a question of just
punishment
DATE: November 24, 2012
AUTHOR: J. Kirk Brown
AUTHOR
INFORMATION: J. Kirk Brown has served as Nebraska's Solicitor General since 2003. He
previously served as the Nebraska Department of Justice's Chief of the Criminal
Bureau, Chief of the Criminal Appellate Section, and Chief of the Civil
Litigation Section. For more than 28 years, Brown has been Nebraska's primary
counsel in capital cases and was counsel of record in Nebraska's three,
most recent executions: State v. Otey (1994); State v. Joubert (1996); and
State v. Williams (1997). Brown also spent six years as the general counsel to
the Texas Department of Corrections. There he witnessed more than 20
executions. While in Texas, he also was seated as a juror in a capital murder
trial, State of Texas v. Jesse Dwayne Jacobs. A graduate of the University of
Nebraska College of Law (1973), Brown has lectured nationally on the death
penalty, appellate practice, federal habeas corpus, and corrections law.
 |
J. Kirk Brown
|
Local
View: Death penalty a question of just punishment
First and foremost, we are a country of laws. As a
matter of law, neither our federal nor state constitutions prohibit death as a
potential criminal penalty for the worst murderers.
Thus, the moral/public policy question is: Can
people engage in behavior so reprehensible they deserve to die for their crime
or crimes?
Adolph Hitler directed the deaths of more than 17
million innocent men, women and children. Did Hitler deserve to die? The 9-11
terrorists took 2,977 innocent lives. Timothy McVeigh blew up 19 children under
the age of six and 149 adults. In Nebraska, Charles Starkweather murdered 11
people; Jose Sandoval, Jorge Galindo and Erick Vella slaughtered five people in
a bank in Norfolk; John Lotter murdered three; Robert Williams, Carey Dean
Moore and Marco Torres each murdered two; John Joubert and Arthur Gales each
murdered two children; Roy Ellis, Raymond Mata and Jeffrey Hessler each
murdered one child; Michael Ryan took three days to torture his victim to
death; Willie Otey repeatedly raped and tortured his victim before taking her
life.
When do we say enough is enough? When do we say,
“This murderer deserves to die”? It is not a question of forgiveness or
vengeance. It is a question of just punishment.
Any criminal punishment may be justified as
proportionate retribution and/or deterrence. Whether the death penalty deters
murder will be the subject of endless debate. What is not debatable is this:
Some murderers are not deterred. They intentionally slaughter our children, our
friends, our fellow human beings without cause or excuse. More than 30 states
and the federal government believe that a penalty of death represents
proportionate retribution for the injury inflicted upon society by the worst of
murderers. The death penalty is justified as proportionate retribution alone.
About legal process
As God discovered in Eden, human beings are not
capable of perfection. Our legal system is made up of human judges, human
attorneys and human jurors, all listening to human witnesses. Any human system
has the potential for human error. In response to that reality, our legal
system provides “process” -- rules of law, rules of evidence, defense attorneys
and multiple layers of judicial review -- each to guard against that risk of
error. The decision to impose a penalty of death is subject to more legal process
than any other decision made by our courts. Providing these safeguards is
wholly appropriate. Providing these safeguards is not free.
Recently, the argument has been made that the death
penalty should be abolished, not because it is legally or morally wrong, but
because it is “too expensive”. Achieving justice is expensive, particularly in
the context of the death penalty. Innocent life has been lost, and the life of
the accused is at stake. We should not desire to make that life-and–death
decision on the cheap. On the other hand, we should not conclude dollars are
more important than doing justice.
About statistics and the nature of crime
Criminal justice is a reactive endeavor. The
government does not choose who commits crimes. A murderer chooses to extinguish
an innocent life and the government has a duty to react. Any statistical
description of those who commit such crimes primarily reflects the choices of
the guilty, not the government.
Finally, we are a society that values human life.
The death penalty is an expression of the high value we place upon innocent
human life. The legal process we provide is an expression of the value we place
upon the life of the accused. Yet once guilt is established, we should place a
much higher value on the innocent life lost than upon the life of the murderer.
We are neither morally nor legally restrained from imposing death as a
punishment upon the worst of murderers. We are neither morally nor legally
restrained from achieving justice for the citizens of our community.
"There can be no justice until those uninjured
by the crime become as indignant as those who are." Solon (559 BC)
