« For DickDay and the Others, the Party Continues! | SleepinJeezus's Blog | In a Perfect World, Bernie Meets Justice »
Who Hangs the Hangman?
When I was in my teens, I was visited many nights by the same old nightmare. This dream was one of those that was incredibly real, so much so that upon waking the first action taken was to grasp the bedpost for assurance that it was indeed just a dream. The relief upon discovering I had awakened into the real world was nothing short of exhilarating, even as the dream itself was so incredibly terrifying.
In this dream, I always found myself in prison, on death row, for a crime I did not commit. I always reasoned that these nightmares were first sparked consequent to my reading of the novel In Cold Blood by Truman Capote. Indeed, the crime for which I was convicted always involved some variation of the senseless and extremely brutal killing of a family much like the Clutters in Kansas. I've since discovered that this "innocent convict" scenario is a fairly common experience in the dreamworld, and I'll leave it to the Freudians to read the subtext in this.
I can remember vividly to this day the features of the dream that were always most unsettling, and I will recount a few of them here. First, of course, there was the anger over the injustice of being so firmly convicted of such an awful crime. Teenagers in particular, after all, respond viscerally to the slightest insinuation of wrongdoing on their part, and these false claims against me were intolerable to suffer.
I remember being compelled at trial to look at the crime scene photographs. I would become physically ill at not only the gruesome sights portrayed but doubly so at the realization that the whole world was coming to the judgment that I was capable of such atrocities. I would then look about the courtroom and understand that my extreme reaction to these pictures only confirmed my guilt for the others.
I remember my mother never losing faith and always believing my protestations that I was in fact innocent, despite all the evidence to the contrary and the final verdict of the jury. I also remember that she was the only person who accepted my innocence without qualification. In the end, alas, I remember almost wishing I was indeed guilty, sure that it would be easier for her to accommodate than this official murder of her innocent son.
I remember my father coming to visit me at the prison - only once. He was a patriotic sort who fought in WWII and had an undying belief in his country. The look in his eyes even haunts me now when I recall how he was tormented with a desire to believe in his son's innocence but was at his core obliged to depend upon the judgment of a jury in these matters.
"Son," he said, tears in his eyes. "I want to believe you are innocent, but the courts don't make mistakes in anything as important as this, deciding who lives and who dies. Maybe you could get the governor to give you a life sentence instead if you would just admit to the crime."
The prison in my dreams resembled pictures I had seen of Rahway Prison in New Jersey. It was an imposing medieval monolith situated in the swamps surrounded by hellfire and brimstone being discharged from neighboring refineries and chemical plants. Passing through the entrance for purpose of spending the rest of one's life within its walls was reason to think that there are things worse than dying in this world.
Prison life itself was as horrifying as anything I had seen or read about in the real world of "reformatories." Most horrifying of all, however, was waking each morning knowing that its significance lay only in the fact that I was one day closer to making my trip to the death chamber. Some nights, I didn't sleep at all, my mind spinning uncontrollably with thoughts of how I would experience the last few minutes of my life. Most of us can never really know just how our life will end, nor what proportion of joy and sorrow we will know in the meantime. For me on death row, I could not only envision the last look I would take around the death chamber and the holding of my breath to thwart the gases that would soon flow to overtake me, but I was certain that I would experience nothing like a joyful existence in the intervening days, years, or decades until that awaited day of my execution.
Those of you who have shared the experience of the "innocent convict" nightmare understand just how horrifying all these details of a prisoner's life can be. For those who have not had such nightmares, it doesn't take but a few minutes of consideration mixed with a modicum of empathy to understand just how despondent you would be under the circumstance outlined here.
And yet it is difficult to argue against the death penalty. Some people simply deserve to die, it seems. Who will argue that the likes of Dahmer and Bundy and John Wayne Gacy did not forfeit their right to live when they so cruelly robbed innocents of their lives. And anything that might cause them additional anguish before they die can be argued to be vengeance appropriately applied.
And it isn't like we put to death everyone convicted of murder. Indeed, we reserve this penalty for those who commit multiple murders as serial killers or who are particularly diabolical or cruel in their commission of the crime. A straightforward passion killing by gunshot will likely gain the perpetrator a life sentence at the extreme for punishment. The same crime can most certainly gain the death penalty (in states where it is approved), but only if it is grossly premeditated and/or includes aggravating instances of torture or torment.
Yes, in those states that embrace the death penalty we have as a society decided that the taking of a life under aggravated circumstances is so heinous a crime as to warrant the ceremonial killing of the perpetrator. Such killing is undertaken by the state, acting as the agent for our society as a whole.
We now know that the determination of who deserves to die in this way is far from an exact science. Recently, for example, the Supreme Court has been petitioned to review the conviction of Troy Davis. Mr. Davis awaits death as the penalty for killing an off-duty police officer in Savannah, GA. Since his conviction, seven of the witnesses against him have recanted their testimony, and one has admitted to withholding important information at the time of the trial that could have exonerated Mr. Davis. The Federal Court has refused to hear the appeal in this case due to a technical error made by the defense attorneys in filing the appeal.
Former Federal Prosecutor and Republican Congressman Bob Barr has taken up the cause to have this case remanded to a lower court to hear the evidence of Mr. Davis' innocence. Barr, who made a career in Congress as a "law and order" candidate, stated in an
op/ed published in the New York Times that "There is no abuse of government more egregious than executing an innocent man. But that is exactly what may happen if the United States Supreme Court fails to intervene on behalf of Troy Davis."
It is not at all certain that the Supreme Court will intervene as requested. Mr. Davis may well be executed as ordered by the court, which would undoubtedly place him as ninth on the
list of prisoners since 1990 who have been "executed but (were) possibly innocent" unless, of course, another innocent convict beats him to the gallows and claims the ninth spot for himself.
Any review of death penalty cases leaves one with an awful certainty that we have put to death people who were innocent of the crime for which they were convicted. Prosecutorial misconduct, inadequate defense counsel, and other inequities within the justice system assure that we have not only executed the innocent in the past, but that we will most assuredly do so in the future.
This "possibility" that we might wrongfully execute an innocent convict is sometimes argued to be the unfortunate risk we take to ensure justice is served. But let's take a look at the reality of such an "unfortunate circumstance" as is the execution of an innocent person.
In putting to death an innocent convict, we willfully commit - by definition - aggravated, premeditated, first degree murder. After years of confinement and submitting the convict to torturous circumstances, we finally cause the victim to take part in a ceremonial killing in which he knows he is the guest of honor.
The reality is, I cannot think of any other crime of murder that exceeds the killing of an innocent convict for its cruelty and its perversity.
And if we as a society ask the executioner to kill an innocent convict on our behalf, are we not guilty of conspiring to commit aggravated murder in the first degree? Given that we have already determined the penalty for such a crime to be death by execution, I ask who will hang the hangman?
I pray that the Supreme Court acts upon the petition by Mr. Davis. And I ask that the death penalty be at last abolished altogether. Failing that, I expect to someday see you at the gallows. Let Justice be served!
Advertisement
http://www.troyanthonydavis.org/
June 14, 2009 12:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the link that provides additional background on Mr. Davis. It is an incredible story.
June 14, 2009 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the head of the NAACP was on Bill Maher this weekend wearing a t-shirt that advertised a website to help him.
This is so bad.
Also, what you had, I think are called "waking dreams" I have them too, although they tend to be more common in men. I learned to recognize them, and get out of them by moving my little finger.
June 14, 2009 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great twilight zone with the inmate awaiting his death only to die and return the next day with the same future only the characters are all played by different 'actors'....
Similar dreams.
I am coming back here after my walk.
June 14, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great to see you here, SleepinJeezus. I have recently changed my mind regarding the death penalty, feeling strongly now, that it should be abolished. With DNA evidence becoming more prevalent every day, there is such a gross chance of mistakes made in the past when these findings were not yet discovered.
Troy Davis obviously deserves another trial with any facts that have emerged since his sentence, being allowed to be heard.
I hope this becomes possible. Thanks for your posting - it is an eyeopener.
June 14, 2009 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, maggie! It's good to be back. I read the blogs here pretty regularly and comment as I can, but I can't seem to find the time to write many myself. That, and the fact that it is still tough writing at the computer without having a cigarette going. (Almost three months now nicotine free!)
The whole death penalty thing is really perverse. You rarely find a rich man on death row. Yet, if you are poor and in Texas, you can have your judge and your attorney napping during your trial and still have it referred to as justice being served when you get sentenced to death. All the better if you are mentally disabled, 'cuz you probably won't complain too loudly about the injustice.
It really is time we drag ourselves out of the Middle Ages, don't ya think?
June 14, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we can say with certainty now is that he should not have been found guilty as he was, the trial was biased. And the sheer number of recantations is impressive, it leaves only the likely actual guilty party as the only witness against him, if I read the story right.
I don't know how much latitude the Court of Appeals has in matters of timeliness. Certainly, parties filing 'pro per' get more latitude on procedural errors. But the guy was represented by counsel - why did they wait so long to file, anyway? So kicking it back might have been the correct thing to do even if the CoA was sympathetic. Then the Supreme Court can decide the larger question of whether the formalities of due process significantly abridged the essence of due process in this case.
June 14, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
SJ - Thanks for a well-reasoned, well-written essay on a vexing issue, the death penalty. I find myself in agreement with the thrust of your arguments. Indeed, the choice to execute conviced murderers is inevitably a choice to execute the innocent among them, even though we may never identify just who those will be. Let me, however, quote one passage you wrote for the purpose of offering an additional perspective. You wrote:
"And yet it is difficult to argue against the death penalty. Some people simply deserve to die, it seems. Who will argue that the likes of Dahmer and Bundy and John Wayne Gacy did not forfeit their right to live when they so cruelly robbed innocents of their lives."
I would suggest that while the death penalty is the most instantaneous form of retributive justice (when it eventually happens), it isn't difficult to conceive of worse penalties within the realm of legal possibility. For many convicted murderers, life in prison without parole may seem a more lenient alternative prospectively, but it's actual cumulative impact over time might well be more severe.
There would still be those who argue that prison life is too comfortable these days to match the agony of execution, but of course, that is an argument against prison practices rather than an argument for the death penalty. Even today, suicide prevention is an important element of prison routine. It would probably be almost universally necessary if all murderers were subjected to solitary confinement, not to mention the chained solitary confinement of medieval dungeons.
I'm not suggesting for a moment that we treat prisoners that way, but merely that is singularly unimaginative for death penalty proponents to claim that no other penalty could be commensurate in severity.
My comments of course, only apply to the side of the argument that neither you nor I endorse, but it's worth ensuring that the weaknesses of that argument be fully delineated.
June 14, 2009 5:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Addendum - In fairness to death penalty proponents, their additional argument is that the death penalty exerts a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment and therefore saves innocent lives. The statistics I've seen don't substantiate that claim, but as with many statistical controversies, it's always possible to dredge up numbers that appear to support whatever conclusion one has already decided on.
June 14, 2009 5:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know they used to string up pickpockets back in the day. It was great. The hanging would draw a big crowd, and the crowd would be rife with pickpockets. Deterrent, deschmerrent.
June 14, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great allegory, that! lol
June 15, 2009 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Some people simply deserve to die, it seems.
In the very great words of the very great Tolkein, "Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice."
Who will argue that the likes of Dahmer and Bundy and John Wayne Gacy did not forfeit their right to live when they so cruelly robbed innocents of their lives.
This is a wrong-headed argument. The question is not whether these vile, sick men had "the right" to live. They lived, therefore they had the right. The question in a civilized society should be, "Does an imperfect society have the right to deny life to a living human being?" In fact, should we take for granted our collective possesion of the wisdom to know whom we should deprive the right to live? To continue Gandalf's words above, "Even the wise cannot see all ends."
The question of wrongful death is actually a red herring thrown into the argument, but of course it does exacerbate the barbarity of societal murder.
June 14, 2009 6:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are absolutely right in everything you have written here. I apologize for being too cavalier in casting aside the argument to be made in opposition to the notion that "some people simply deserve to die."
Where I disagree with you, however, is in your perception of wrongful death as a red herring. As outlined in my essay, I believe that the certainty of a wrongful death being committed stands as an insurmountable "fatal hazard" (ahem!) to the just application of the death penalty. It in fact ultimately leads to the necessity to "hang the hangman" if equal justice is to be served. (see Fred Moolten's responses above for further clarification.)
June 15, 2009 8:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The certainty of wrongful death is indeed an excellent argument against societal murder in general. However, I'll stick with my point that ALL executions constitute wrongful deaths. I admit it's a philosophical fine point.
June 15, 2009 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink