death penalty news June 6, 2004
CALIFORNIA: Imperfect death penalty state-backed retribution Is it possible to have a foolproof death penalty system? Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney thinks that it is. Last year, the governor appointed a blue-ribbon commission with drafting an infallible death penalty. The commission recently made its results available to the public. Assuming that one believes in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and the United States providing stability and democracy in Iraq, it is perhaps possible to believe that death penalty utopia is achievable. But a perfect capital punishment system fails to address the death penalty's major flaw: state-sponsored retribution. One of the major recommendations from the commission was to raise the bar for death penalty sentencing from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to a finding of "no doubt about the defendant's guilt." Moreover, the death penalty would be sought only in the "worst of the worst" murderers: torture murders, political terrorism murders, murders of police officers, and murders of multiple victims. The physical evidence required would have to "strongly corroborate the defendant's guilt," with all scientific evidence reviewed by an independent board. The commission also warned that such a system would be costly and still does not guarantee the 100 percent threshold that Gov. Romney was hoping to achieve. There is no doubt that such safeguards would reduce the possibility of repeating the type of errors that led former Illinois Gov. George Ryan to impose a moratorium on the death penalty. But it still keeps the government in the retribution business. Since the death penalty was reinstated in the United States, politicians from the conservative George W. Bush to the liberal California Sen. Barbara Boxer shamelessly pontificate their bona fides about their concern for the victims and their survivors. Groups such as Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, however, a national organization comprised of family members of homicide and state-sponsored murder whose mission is the abolishment of the death penalty, debunk the notion that supporting capital punishment is advocacy for victims. "Our concern is how the death penalty affects the rest of us in society," says Renny Cushing, the group's executive director. "Our opposition to the death penalty is rooted in our direct experience of loss and our refusal to respond to that loss with a quest for more killing. Executions are not what will help us heal." It is widely believed that Gov. Romney will use the findings of the blue-ribbon commission and his support for the death penalty in an attempt to elect more Republicans to the state legislature in November. Mike Farrell, former television star of M*A*S*H and president of Death Penalty Focus, takes umbrage with such tactics. "There is simply no perfect system to employ capital punishment," states Farrell. "This is a cheap political ploy to pander to the lowest. This is not leadership; it is political chicanery." It is understandable for any of us who experience the violent loss of a loved one to embrace the desires of retribution. I, like many others, would want to administer the punishment myself. But revenge cannot be a public policy. What does it say about the United States, for all of its commitment to freedom and democracy, that it is stuck in an arrested development alongside the infamous "axis of evil" when it comes to capital punishment; or that we remain willing to execute the mentally retarded, especially if it suits political ambition? There are myriad things that the government can do if it is indeed committed to helping victims, including economic support as well as state-sponsored legal and mental health services. Seeking a foolproof death penalty speaks to our priorities as a nation. It is better to spend whatever is necessary to get the death penalty right than simply abolishing it altogether because the latter option does not play to the rhetoric of vengeance that remains popular in American politics. A kinder, gentler, near foolproof death penalty is still state-sponsored retribution. It continues to operate on the Old Testament "eye for an eye" motif. To paraphrase the Gandhian response: An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind to the fact that retribution may make for good politics, but ultimately appeals to the worst in us. (source: Alameda Times-Star)
