California is scheduled to execute a man on Tuesday which also happens to be a day before the condemned man's birthday - his SEVENTY-SIXTH birthday! The man has been on California's Death Row for 23 years for murder. He has also been convicted of ordering three other murders while he has been behind bars. He is almost 76 years old, he is legally blind and is nearly deaf. And he is asking that his scheduled execution be blocked due to his advanced age and physical condition. His lawyers maintain that executing a "feeble old man amounts to cruel and unusual punishment". I don't know about cruel, but I have to say this is sort of an unusual case and calls to mind several conflicts I've had with the death penalty and even life sentences.
Let us be clear about a couple of points. The man was convicted of capital murder in California, and the penalty carries a sentence of death. This "feeble" old man has also ordered the murders of three others from behind bars. By this simple act, it is evident that this man - though feeble - is still a menace to society. These are facts.
It is also a fact that this man has already served 23 years and will likely not live much longer. It is also a fact that there is a 90-year-old man on death row in Arizona. I cannot help but wonder what they are waiting on there.
But is there such a thing as a reasonable cut-off point by which we would measure a standard of usefulness for the death penalty? Life sentences might also need to be re-examined as well. Consider a man who is convicted of a capital crime at the age of 20, and escapes the death penalty but is sentenced to life instead. Then he serves 50 years and is released on parole. Where is he supposed to go? What is he supposed to do? This is the same standard by which I admittedly scratch my head in wonder about executing such old men. What does our society reasonably expect to gain by such moves?
A 70-year-old man who has spent 50 years behind bars and is suddenly released is, in my opinion, subjected to "cruel and unusual" treatment if not punishment. Who will take care of him? Who is expected to take care of him? Would such a move be considered deliberate on the part of the state by releasing him just for the heck of it? How about an old deaf and blind man who has to get around in a wheelchair? The news story suggests that this man is nearly unable to function on his own although the article does not say how mentally agile he is. We cannot forget that he ordered three others killed while he was in prison. Like I said, still a threat although ordered murder took place in 1980.
Surely we must realize that we reach a cut-off point where society is no longer served by executing a man any more than society can be served by releasing an old man. Should age be a determining factor in sentencing? I know perfectly well that aged persons have had sentences suspended due to their ages. If everything is equal under the law, should this same standard not apply at least to a certain degree?
2 comments:
Good point, Danny. This is exactly what the prosecution in California is trying to argue. I can't help but wonder, though, if there is not a reasonable cut-off time. Surely the state can decide that it's done all it can, and the defense can decide that it has exhausted all possibilities. Ultimately, I guess it's up to the courts and/or the governor to decide that all bases have been covered.
Twenty-three years is a long time to sit on death row filing one appeal after another!
I don't think that any clemency should be given to lifers who are now very elderly. There was a reason why they were sentenced to life imprisonment -- so that they would pay with the whole of their life experience.
Post a Comment