I oppose the death penalty.
It isn’t because I am Catholic. Greg Abbott is also Catholic and supports the death penalty.
It isn’t necessarily because execution is cruel. Murder is cruel, too.
It isn’t necessarily because a life sentence is more humane. W. J. Estelle Jr., who served as director of the Texas Department of Corrections during the 1970s and early 1980s, said in an episode of The Constitution: That Delicate Balance that life without hope is worse than the death penalty.
There are other reasons to consider.
So, why do I oppose the death penalty?
- Kerry Max Cook
- Alfred Dewayne Brown
- Anthony Graves
- Robert Springsteen
- Michael Toney
- Michael Blair
- Ernest Ray Willis
- Ricardo Aldape Guerra
- Muneer Deeb
- Federico Macias
- Clarence Brandley
- John C. Skelton
- Randall Dale Adams
- David Roeder
- Bonnie Erwin
- Vernon McManus
- Justin Cruz
- Claude Wilkerson
Each case represents a failure of the process that resulted in a person being sentenced to die. The circumstances differed, but the consequences were profound.
You could argue that the system worked because these people were eventually exonerated. No system is perfect. That is the point. Do we know all the cases where the system did not work?
It may not have worked for Cameron Todd Willingham. He had a history of bad behavior and the case against him seemed strong when he was executed. Subsequent reviews by fire experts seriously undermined the scientific basis for concluding that the fire was deliberately set. The official review acknowledged problems with the forensic science, but Willingham was executed before those questions could be fully resolved in court.
That is precisely the problem. A posthumous finding of innocence cannot restore a life. I do not find posthumous exoneration sufficient.
Today, Robert Roberson’s case raises further questions about the reliability of scientific evidence used in a capital conviction. His case illustrates why the justice system must be able to reconsider a conviction when the science underlying it is challenged.
Recent execution controversies elsewhere in the country (such as a possible televised execution of Nidal Hasan and the botched execution of Christa Pike) remind us that the practical administration of capital punishment raises difficult questions of its own. These are separate issues from wrongful convictions, but they deserve public scrutiny.
As a Libertarian, I believe government power should have limits. The question is not whether murder deserves serious punishment. It does. The question is whether the government should retain the power to impose an irreversible punishment when its own procedures can fail.
What of the case where the murderer is guilty? I respectfully disagree with Mt Estelle. As a Christian I believe there is always the hope of reconciliation. Erika Kirk said of the man accused of killing her husband Charlie “That man, that young man, I forgive him. I forgive him, because it was what Christ did, and is what Charlie would do.” Pope John Paul II visited the man who shot him and personally forgave him. As long as someone is alive, they can repent and help others follow a better course than they did. That can give someone purpose. I have a painting of Stephen Hawking that says, “While there is life, there is hope.”
A governor cannot abolish the death penalty alone. But a governor can lead. A governor can propose legislation, work with the Legislature, appoint members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles, and take seriously the responsibility to prevent irreversible mistakes.
As governor, I would lead that discussion. I would support repeal of the death penalty and work toward a criminal justice system that protects the public, respects the rights of the accused, and recognizes the limits of government power.
The state can correct a wrongful conviction only if the person is still alive to benefit from that correction.
I oppose the death penalty because government should not have the power to make an irreversible mistake.