I Accuse YOU of Conspiring to Commit HOMICIDE!

by Doc Carney

Early on the morning of the 2nd of February, I logged onto AOL to check my mail and do a little work in their member directory -- lest y'all should get the wrong idea, I maintain my AOL account solely as a reserve dial-up and for their directory services. Personally, I think that AOL is to the internet as Microsoft is to software -- both are irritating as hell, both employ the lowest common denominator in available technology and customer service, and both are ruthless in their pursuit of market dominance. All of which is material for another column. This one's about your personal complicity in a continuing and spreading homicide conspiracy.

The conspiracy I'm referring to is the killing, by various states, mostly Texas, of some 432 people since the infamous Gary Gilmore was shot by a Utah firing squad on 17 January, 1977, thus becoming the first person executed in this country since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. And, unless you live in one of the eleven states that don't have the death penalty, or unless you don't vote, you're guilty, along with me, of complicity in homicide.

On the morning in question, the AOL bulletin boards were abuzz with gossip about the impending execution of Karla Faye Tucker. I foolishly attempted to pull together a little reason and posted a comment with the subject, "A Few Points To Think About," wherein I pointed out a couple of not-so-profound, but undeniable, facts about the death penalty. Amazingly, that single post, one out of literally hundreds posted to AOL's bulletin board that day, generated more mail, in a shorter period, than any single item we've previously posted on the pages of The Patriot (the one exception being the Libertarian "pissing contest" we had with Paul Zimmerman last year). The reason, of course, is that this is a visceral issue, one so primeval in its implications that literally everyone holds an opinion, usually with a death grip appropriate to the subject.

You'll note that I accused you, not of murder, but of homicide. There's a difference both subtle and profound. "Murder," quite simply, is the UNLAWFUL taking of life. But again, the issue is so primeval, and has such far-reaching implications, that this distinction is almost impossible for the average person to draw. The emails I received, and the messages posted on the board, clearly reflect a dichotomy of thought revolving around the definition of murder. They also point out a queer paradox associated with the religious right, namely how to justify, in conscience, what's proscribed by virtually every religion on earth, the taking of human life.

The religious rationale most commonly seized upon is this (quoting from an email): "You people are so confused about what's right and what's wrong. Her death (Karla Tucker) will not be a murder. It's a punishment for acts committed. GOD IS TAKING HER LIFE...thru the hand of the State of Texas, of course...God has put the power of life and death in the hands of Texas regarding Karla and their actions are condoned by Him for God is All power and he has allowed Texas to exist by God. The Bible is the ultimate law...God's law...Read it and believe it...Don't get left in the Texas dust..."

I must say, also, that I had an equal number of letters from the other religious perspective, most of which were characterized by the following rationale, which is, I suspect, familiar to all of us, and, to me at least, a hell of a lot easier to follow: "Thou shalt not kill."

I think it would be fair to say that in every conversation I've had on this subject over the years, all of the arguments advanced, even by a couple of my heathen friends, eventually boiled down to two questions: 1) Is it EVER right to take a human life, and, if so, 2) under what conditions? If you can comfortably answer either of these questions in less than 2,000 words, you haven't thought about it enough.

For those of you who profess to be in favor of the death penalty, consider the following questions, all of which you must answer "yes" if you are not to be found lacking in conviction (bearing in mind that The Constitution guarantees EQUAL protection under the law):

1) Do you believe in the death penalty? 2) Do you believe it should apply equally to women? 3) Do you believe it should apply equally to ALL killers, without exception? 4) Do you think it should apply even to those who've been somehow "rehabilitated," either socially or religiously?

You can keep your answers to yourselves, but I'm betting that most of you, if you considered these simple questions seriously, could not in good conscience answer "yes" to all four. Please bear in mind that I could have made it even more difficult to answer "yes" by the simple expedient of adding qualifiers (the strategy employed by the "professionals" on either side of the issue).

This issue is fraught with intellectual pitfalls poised to counter virtually any argument, pro or con. The main problem is that when you tackle the subject of the death penalty, you're dealing with the ultimate absolute, and being forced by considerations of existing circumstance to approach it as though it were malleable. Though the act of killing results in the absolute death of the victim, the penalties are assessed in a way that almost equates to the "degree of death" of the victim. Though most folks would consider that a stupid statement, to consider the question from a legal standpoint, you must almost consider it that way.

Killing, for example, though undeniably the ultimate "absolute," is considered by the law in degrees. First, we have murder (the UNLAWFUL taking of life) and homicide (the killing of one person by another -- this may or not be LEGAL killing). Second, murder may be "premeditated" or "unpremeditated," first degree or second degree, "justified" (as when you shoot an intruder, or, more likely, your wife, child, etc.), or "unjustified," as when you shoot the sheriff (for whatever reason and regardless of whether you shoot the deputy as well). As though this were not confusing enough, the law also forces you to consider "mitigating" circumstances, or circumstances under which one killing is incrementally more "justified" than similar crimes (according to the discretion of the judge/jury).

In most states, the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is premeditation (don't confuse this with pre-planning). In other words, if you thought about blowing somebody's brains out, you're guilty of a greater offense than if you just grab your gun and spontaneously shoot someone.

These arguments can be taken to extremes. In a lame effort to explain this to my girlfriend, I pointed out, for example, that if you extrapolate the concept of premeditation in connection with a shooting death, you could logically advance the idea that if you buy a handgun for the purpose of self defense, knowing that the only way you can employ a handgun is for threatening/shooting someone, and subsequently shoot the neighbor, the mere act of having purchased the gun under such circumstances constitutes premeditation, if not of murder, at least of threatening or shooting someone, if not the neighbor. Stupid, right? But I'll bet you've heard it before, or something similar, pro or con.

My girlfriend's response to my "extrapolation" theory was that it could be applied to soldiers, as well. That is, by enlisting in the service, during war time, the enlistee thereby "premeditates" the enormity of killing and should consequently carry a load of guilt. Reflexively, I stammered, "that's different, most GIs don't have a load of guilt because in most fire fights, soldiers have no sure knowledge that they killed ANYONE!" The point is that I came very close to falling into one of those "pitfalls" I mentioned earlier, the one marked "passion." Incidentally, my girlfriend's of the "kill'em all and let God sort'em out" school of thought.

As I mentioned in a recent letter to a friend, "any writer who expects everyone to agree with him is an out and out fool." And if you're in favor of the death penalty, either by frying, shooting, hanging or the "more humane" lethal injection, I'm probably not going to change your mind on the subject. I would, however, appreciate it if y'all would simply consider the following points, all of which are well-documented FACTS BEARING ON THE ISSUE (and if you're a long-time Patriot reader, you know we don't tap dance with our facts):

1) The death penalty does nothing to deter violent crime. This is so demonstrably true that thinking persons, even those in favor of capital punishment, carefully avoid being caught in this flimsy rationale. If this is your "reason" for supporting the death penalty, you're dead in the water. In any place on earth, at any time in history, the incidence of violent crime has always had more to do with social conditions and other factors than with harsh penalties, imposed without mercy. The most graphic examples of such penalties are the many countries, most famously Iran, but including most of the Emirates and many of their neighbors in the area, where "Sharia," or Islamic law, is the rule. Under Sharia, theft is punishable by loss of a hand, and rape, murder and other crimes are atoned for by loss of the perpetrator's head. These countries lead the world in the percentage of one-handed thieves. You'll notice I didn't say "ex-thieves." That's because "once a thief, always a thief," and you can bet there are "recidivist" thieves who've found a way to steal with no hands. And rape, murder and capital crimes continue to be committed.

2) If your rationale for supporting the death penalty is that it's the "ultimate punishment" for the ultimate crime, you're deluding yourself. While murder is the ultimate crime, the death penalty is clearly not the ultimate punishment. Torture is superior, and long term incarceration is clearly a tortuous proposition. It is also, fortuitously, neither "cruel nor unusual" in its legal nature, though often applied in ways that are both, as in 30 year sentences for certain first time drug offenders.

If you think about this one for just a little while, especially if you have a normally active imagination, it's really a no-brainer. And if you were ever a member of one of my training platoons, and really ticked me off, you'd have first hand experience of how the loss of personal freedom, combined with a little creative environmental management, can negatively impact your long term peace of mind. The complete and total absence of freedom, and hope, is clearly more debilitating than contemplation of impending execution. This fact is credibly demonstrated by the several lawsuits initiated in various jurisdictions by prisoners demanding that their sentences of execution be carried out. Devoid of any prospect of freedom and tired of the repetitious monotony of prison life, they look upon their prospective executions as a final release from the unbearable burden of hopelessness and uncertainty associated with continued incarceration. Stated simply, they prefer death to continued incarceration. If we truly want the harshest possible punishment, execution is not the way.

3) Innocent people are being killed. I'm not going to try to prove that -- if you're literate enough to read and understand this vocabulary, you already know it anyway. The only question is how you weigh the relevance of the fact. Our judicial system is built upon the premise that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Notwithstanding this, well-informed folks know that, for those folks who are "racially challenged," "culturally challenged," or "financially challenged," accusation is too often tantamount to conviction. It's a sad fact, but true nonetheless. And as DNA testing and other forensic techniques grow more perfect, we'll be seeing more and more convicted felons exonerated. Unfortunately, for some of them, it will be posthumously. The ultimate crime, the ultimate punishment and the ultimate tragedy -- and one which is almost uniquely American, since we're one of the few "democratic" countries to practice routine capital punishment.

The Karla Faye Tucker affair, for a variety of reasons, not least of which was her freshly scrubbed, wholesome appearance, managed to revisit damned near every possible consideration relating to executions. Many of those considerations deserved another hearing. Some should be the subject of continuous debate.

I'll be very frank and run the risk of alienating yet another reader (probably more)...certainly wouldn't be anything new. The fact is that I've been upset for a while now with my brethren of the religious right, especially Pat Robertson. Consequently, I'll admit that I derived a certain amount of sinful pleasure in watching Pat Robertson squirm as he tried, in vain, to rationalize why Karla Faye was more deserving of mercy than other killers in Texas and elsewhere. As far as I could figure, he thought her "rebirth in blood" (ain't Christianity ironic?) was somehow more significant, sincere or deserving than the legally equal conversions of her Muslim brothers. And given the circumstantial equivalence of their situations, that is, facing (more or less) certain death, I suspect that ALL had experienced sincere "conversions" to the straight and narrow, by whichever ecclesiastical route. It is a constant of humanity, I think, that we all, in times of extremity, experience a very real belief in, and dependence on, some sort of divinity. Dying soldiers, for example, do not appeal to wives, mothers or other loved ones, rather they almost always invoke God's help, according to their own convictions.

And the Tucker affair underlined, in neon, the paradox facing all Christian believers in capital punishment, namely, how to reconcile killing, in any form, with the Bible's clearly stated and singular imperative: "Thou Shalt Not Kill." I'm one of those who think that the Lord is sometimes a bit forgetful. On this one, he evidently forgot the sinful and deceitful nature of his "finest" creation. He should have added an emphatic PERIOD! Or specifically spelled out the exceptions.

This rant was previously published in The Patriot News, specializing in social and political satire, jokes, commentary, streaming midi music and games.