Reconsidering the Death Penalty
By Aaron Goldstein (10/22/06)
For as long as I can remember I have opposed the death penalty and have opposed it under all circumstances.
Let’s take a stroll down amnesia lane. In the mid-1980s, there were more than a dozen police officers killed in the line of duty in Canada. This prompted calls for the restoration of the death penalty in Canada which had been formally abolished in 1976 (the same year it was restored in the United States). I remember being the only person in my seventh grade class that was willing to speak out against the death penalty during a class debate we had on the issue. More than twenty years after that debate I still remember being mocked by both my classmates and my teacher for the position that I took. I must admit that I felt some vindication when Canada’s House of Commons ultimately voted against restoring the death penalty in June 1987.
There are compelling reasons to oppose the death penalty – incompetent or inadequate legal representation for the accused, police and prosecutorial misconduct and poor management of forensic evidence. In other words, what if the wrong person has been convicted? Ask most Canadians about David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin and Donald Marshall, Jr and they will tell you about three men convicted for murders they did not commit. Indeed, the Government of Canada is close to completing a public inquiry into the wrongful conviction of Milgaard.
There are also compelling philosophical reasons to oppose the death penalty. There is the most basic consideration that the killing of another human being is wrong and immoral. Even if one human being takes the life of another what gives the state the right to execute any human being, no matter how vile their acts? I have long believed that when the state executes someone that they are no better than the person who committed the murder.
Then there is also the argument that death is the easy way out. One certainly hears the sentiment that death is too good for someone and that is isn’t really punishment at all. Real punishment is dispensed by allowing the murderer to live the rest of his life in prison and being forced to think about what he did every day for the rest of his miserable life.
In November 2003, I wrote a review of former Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Fuhrman’s book Death and Justice: An Exposé of Oklahoma’s Death Row Machine. (www.americandaily.com/article/2308) Fuhrman was critical of the overzealous behavior of the Oklahoma City District Attorney and the incompetence of the forensic chemist at the Oklahoma City Police Department. He argued that the combination of these two factors led him to conclude that the death penalty was not being administered fairly and justly and ultimately forced him to abandon his support for the death penalty. At the time I reviewed Fuhrman’s book, Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney had established a Governor’s Council on Capital Punishment for the purpose of restoring the death penalty to the Bay State. I implored Romney, Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey and the members of the Council to read Fuhrman’s book and consider his findings. It is worth noting that the Massachusetts House of Representatives rejected Romney’s effort to restore the death penalty in 2005.
But I have begun to reconsider my opposition to the death penalty under all circumstances. There are some circumstances where the death penalty is the only appropriate remedy.
On October 13, 2006, a family of four was found murdered on an isolated stretch of the Florida Turnpike in Port St. Lucie. Deceased are Jose Luis Escobedo, 28, his wife, Yessica Guerrero Escobedo, 25 and their two sons Luis Julian Escobedo, 4 and Luis Damian Escobedo, 3. What struck me about this heinous crime was that the mother was found clutching her two sons apparently in an effort to shield them from the bullets as she was shot numerous times. The father was found a short distance away. They were starting a new life in Florida having just moved there from Brownsville, Texas this past June.
Three days later the Escobedo family vehicle, a black Jeep Cherokee, was found in neighboring Palm Beach County. As of this writing, there have been no arrests made. However, the St. Lucie County Sheriff believe the killer or killers were known to the Escobedo family and that it was not a carjacking.
What kind of human being executes children? What kind of human being executes a mother clutching her children? Can anyone tell me why the person or persons who did this deserve to walk another day on this earth? The fact that the person or persons who did this are still at large means they represent a clear and present danger to the public.
Of course, I must ask myself why isn’t life in prison sufficient for those responsible for this cowardice. After all, since 1995, Florida has had truth in sentencing. In other words, life in prison means life in prison. One can argue that a life sentence would be assurance enough that the person or persons guilty of this crime are no longer a threat to public safety. I could also go back to my argument that a life sentence would force the person or persons who did this to think about what they did for the rest of their lives.
Of course, there’s a good chance they might watch cable TV 23 hours a day. This is what Paul Bernando does. In 1995, Bernardo was convicted for the rape, murder and dismemberment of two teenaged girls in St. Catharines, Ontario that took place in 1991 and 1992. Bernardo was sentenced to life in prison and was deemed a dangerous offender so he will never be released. He serves his time isolated from the rest of the population at the Kingston Penitentiary spending 23 hours a day in his cell and one hour a day exercising in a walled yard. Shortly after he was sentenced, however, a videotape was leaked to several news organizations showing him watching TV in his cell. Many Canadians wondered what kind of punishment was actually being meted out to Bernardo.
There is also a good chance that the person or persons who killed the Escobedos are sociopathic. While some who commit murder are capable of remorse many derive sick pleasure from their actions. Charles Manson, Richard Ramirez and Clifford Olson come to mind. Americans are familiar with Helter Skelter and the Night Stalker but are likely unfamiliar with the self-described Beast of British Columbia. In the early 1980s, Olson killed 11 children. Olson owned up to his culpability in 1982 when B.C. authorities agreed to give Olson’s wife $10,000 for each child he killed in exchange for telling them where their bodies and personal effects were. In 1997, Olson applied for early release under what is known as Canada’s faint hope clause. At the hearing, Olson displayed a pornographic picture of a child and grinned at the families of the victims. As a result of that hearing, the faint hope clause was amended making those who commit multiple homicide ineligible for applying for early release. Over the years, Olson has taunted the families of the victims by sending them taunting letters. Now in the 25th year of his sentence, under Canadian law, Olson automatically became eligible for parole. Olson was denied parole this past July. Although it is unlikely he will ever be released, Olson is eligible for a parole hearing every two years.
The point here is if the Escobedo’s killer or killers are as devoid of remorse as Olson the Escobedo’s relatives can look forward to have their suffering compounded. Under those circumstances, only the death penalty would be the appropriate remedy. There is no doubt that the District Attorney for St. Lucie will seek the death penalty for the individual or individuals charged with this crime.
Let me clear here. If the St. Lucie Sheriff’s Department arrests someone in connection with this multiple homicide the person or persons are, of course, to be presumed innocent until found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They ought have competent legal representation that will fight for their client or clients zealously. Their legal representation must have full access to the District Attorney’s evidence so it can be scrutinized and cross examined. Every effort must be made to ensure forensic evidence is collected in a transparent manner and that DNA testing also be done by a laboratory outside Florida. Although it would be no doubt expensive it would ensure veracity of the forensic work done locally. Simply put if DNA evidence finds them guilty in Florida it must also find them guilty in Vermont or Oregon and everywhere else in the United States. Any confessions obtained must be videotaped so as to avoid any appearance of coercion.
Provided that all of those conditions were met I believe that the death penalty would be the most appropriate sentence to remedy the murder of the Escobedo family.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
