We find it inexplicable that Gov. John Hickenlooper thinks that the “conversation” on capital punishment is incipient. The subject has been hashed out for decades, with great passion, insight, research and moral positioning on both sides.
Hickenlooper, as is well known by now, neither allowed Nathan Dunlap’s execution to proceed, nor commuted his death sentence to life without parole. Instead, he left Dunlap — and, in our view, far, far more important, the relatives of Dunlap’s victims — hanging. All, he says, to stimulate a “conversation” on the death penalty.
On the death penalty, opinions abound: It is a deterrent; it is not a deterrent but is correct anyway, as retribution, as an important message by society to society; it is administered unfairly or is sometimes administered against innocent people and therefore should be abolished; it is a waste of financial resources; etc. Exactly which one of these arguments has not been thoroughly hashed out, Mr. Governor? We shall not rehash them here, but only comment on one view attributed to you: perfect consistency.
You argue that the death penalty is sought inconsistently, sometimes more aggressively by one prosecutor and less aggressively by another; sometimes in certain aggravated circumstances and sometimes in others. Yet, this is true of virtually every single law. There is no perfect consistency in the administration of any law, nor can there ever be. Prosecutors, even in a single area governed by the same law, are individuals. It is highly unlikely that any two prosecutors will ever see the same set of circumstances exactly the same way. Not to mention, when prosecutors in different locations are bound by different laws, the punishment for the same crime will not be perfectly consistent.
The idea that capital punishment cannot be imposed until there is perfect consistency (the word “perfection” was attributed to you) in the way it is applied means that there can never be a court system that applies any law. Laws, even when administered with complete dispassion, with complete allegiance to what a lawyer or a judge sees as the intent of the law, will never be applied consistently because it is human beings who administer the law.
To say that capital punishment cannot be applied to Nathan Dunlap — a first-degree murderer convicted under a very high-bar state for the death penalty, with some 20 years of judicial review under his belt — because his execution would be inconsistent is really saying you’re opposed to the death penalty. So why not just come out and say it, and act on it in that way? To duck the issue in the name of “conversation” when this topic has been (pardon the pun) conversationed to death is very poor leadership.
Our view is this: Unless insane, people who kill innocent people forfeit their right to life. Unfortunately, the legal system is unable to identify the killer in many instances. And innocent people should not be put to death. Therefore, there is no choice but to put these heinous murderers away for life, without parole.
We respect the other point of view, which favors capital punishment. However, it is difficult to respect a position that is a non-position, all in the name of “conversation.”
Copyright © 2013 by the Intermountain Jewish News
