From the LA Times, convicted murderer Dale Leo Bishop endorsed Barack Obama before being executed for murdering a friend with a claw hammer in 1998.
"For those who oppose the death penalty and want to see it end, our best bet is to vote for Barack Obama because his supporters have been working behind the scenes to end this practice."
GUEST COLUMN
By Dudley Sharp
Justice Matters
Rev. Pickett is on a promotional tour for the anti death penalty film "At the Death House Door". It is partially about the Reverend's experience ministering to 95 death row inmates executed in Texas.
Rev. Pickett's inaccuracies are many and important.
Does Rev. Pickett just make facts up as he goes along, hoping that no one fact checks, or is he just confused or ignorant?
Some of his miscues are common anti death penalty deceptions. The reverend is an anti death penalty activist.
Below are comments or paraphrases of Rev. Pickett, taken from interviews, followed by my Reply:.
1) Pickett: I knew (executed inmate) Carlos (De Luna) didn't do it. It was his big brown eyes, the way he talked, he was the same age as my son (transference). I felt so sympathetic towards him. I was so 100% certain that he couldn't have committed this crime. (Carlos) was a super person to minister to. I knew Carlos was not guilty. Fred Allen a guard, said "by the way he talks and acts I don't believe he is guilty, either. (1)
REPLY: Experienced prison personnel are fooled all the time by prisoners, just as parole boards are. This is simply Rev. Pickett's and Fred Allen's blind speculation and nothing more.
More than that, it appears that Rev. Pickett is, now, either lying about his own opinions or he is very confused. Read on.
2) Pickett: believes that, no way, could someone, so afraid of lightning and thunder, such as Carlos De Luna, use a knife (in a crime). (1)
Reply: Rev. Pickett talks about how important his background is in understanding people and behavior and he says something like this, destroying his own credibility on the issue. If the lightning and thunder event occurred, we already know what De Luna was capable of. In 1980, "De Luna was charged with attempted aggravated rape and driving a stolen vehicle, he pleaded no contest and was sentenced to 2 to 3 years. Paroled in May 1982, De Luna returned to Corpus Christi. Not long after, he attended a party for a former cellmate and was accused of attacking the cellmate's 53-year-old mother. She told police that De Luna broke three of her ribs with one punch, removed her underwear, pulled down his pants, then suddenly left. He was never prosecuted for the attack, but authorities sent him back to prison on a parole violation. Released again in December of that year, he came back to Corpus Christi and got a job as a concrete worker. Almost immediately, he was arrested for public intoxication. During the arrest, De Luna allegedly laughed about the wounding of a police officer months earlier and said the officer should have been killed. Two weeks after that arrest, Lopez was murdered." (Chicago Tribune) Being a long time criminal, we can presume that there were numerous additional crimes committed by De Luna and which remained unsolved. Was De Luna capable of committing a robbery murder, even though he had big brown eyes and was scared of lightning? Of course. This goes to Rev. Pickett's poor judgement or something else.
There is this major problem.
In 1999, years after Rev. Pickett had left his death row ministry, and 10 years after De Luna's execution, the reverend was asked, in a PBS Frontline interview, "Do you think there have been some you have watched die who were strictly innocent?"
His reply: "I never felt that." (3)
For many years, and since the 1989 execution of Carlos De Luna, the reverend never felt that any of the 95 executed were actually innocent.
This directly conflicts with his current statements on Carlos De Luna. Rev. Pickett is, now, saying that he was 100% sure of De Luna's innocence in 1989!
It appears the reverend has either revised history to support his new anti death penalty activism - he's lying - or he is, again, very confused. Reverend?
3) Introduction: In 1974, prison librarian Judy Standley and teacher Von Beseda were murdered during an 11 day prison siege and escape attempt. Ignacio Cuevas was sentenced to death, as one of three prisoners who were involved. The other two died in the shootout.
Ms. Standley and Ms. Beseda were part of Rev. Pickett's congregation, outside of prison.
Pickett: After Cuevas was executed, Rev. Pickett alleges that he met with Judy Standley's family and they told the reverend that "This (the execution) didn't bring closure." "This didn't help us." According to Rev. Pickett, "They didn't want him (Ignacio Cuevas) executed." (1)
Reply; There might be a big problem. Judy Standley's five children wrote a statement, before the execution, which stated: "We are relieved the ordeal may almost be over, but we are also aware that to some, this case represents only one of many in which, arguably, `justice delayed is justice denied," "We are hopeful the sentence will finally be carried out and that justice will at last be served," said the statement, signed by Ty, Dru, Mark, Pam and Stuart Standley. (4)
Sure seemed like the kids wanted Cuevas to be executed. Doesn't it? Reverend?
4) Pickett: "A great majority of them (the 95 executed inmates he ministered to) were black or Hispanic." (1)
Reply: The reverend's point, here, is to emphasize the alleged racist nature of the death penalty. There is a problem for the reverend - the facts - the "great majority" were 47 white (49%) with 32 black (34%), and 16 Hispanic (17%).
5) Pickett: "Out of the 95 we executed only one that had a college degree. All the rest of them their education was 9th grade and under." (1)
Reply: Not even close. Rev. Pickett's point, here, seems to be that capital murderers are, almost all, idiots who can't be held responsible for their actions. But, there are more fact problems for the reverend. In a review of only 31 of the 95 cases, 5 had some college or post graduate classes and 16 were high school graduates or completed their GED. Partial review (Incomplete Count) , below.
Would Rev. Pickett tell us about the educational achievements of all the true innocent murder victims and those that weren't old enough for school?
6) Pickett: spoke of the Soldier of Fortune murder for hire case, stating the husband got the death penalt, while the hired murderer got 6 years. (1)
Reply: Rev. Pickett's point, here, was the unfairness of the sentence disparity. More fact problems. John Wayne Hearn, the hitman, was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Sandra Black.
7) Pickett: speaks of how sincere hostage taker, murderer Ignacio Cuevas was. Rev. Pickett states that "between 11 and midnight (I) believe almost everything" the inmates say, because they are about to be executed. (1)
Reply: Bad judgement. Minutes later, Cuevas lied when on the gurney, stating that he was innocent. This goes to show how Rev. Pickett and many others are easily fooled by these murderers. Pickett concedes the point.
8) Pickett: "In my opinion and in the opinion of the convicts, life in prison, with no hope of parole, is a much worse punishment (than the death penalty)." "Most of these people (death row inmates) fear life in prison more than they do the possibility of execution." (2)
REPLY: More fact problems. We know that isn't the opinion of those facing a possible death sentence of those residing on death row. This gives more support to my suspicion that Rev. Pickett is putting words into the inmates' mouths.
Facts: What percentage of capital murderers seek a plea bargain to a death sentence, rather than seeking a life sentence? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of convicted capital murderers argue for execution in the penalty phase of their capital trial? Zero or close to it. They prefer long term imprisonment. What percentage of death row inmates waive their appeals and speed up the execution process? Nearly zero (less than 2%). They prefer long term imprisonment. This is not, even remotely, in dispute. How could Rev. Pickett not be aware of this? How long was he ministering to Texas' death row? 13 years?
9) Pickett: stated that "doctors can't (check the veins of inmates pending execution), it's against the law." (1)
Reply: Ridiculous. Obviously untrue.
10) Pickett: Pavulon (a paralytic) has been banned by vets but we use it on people. (1)
REPLY: This is untrue and is a common anti death penalty deception. The American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) stetes, "When used alone, these drugs (paralytics) all cause respiratory arrest before loss of consciousness, so the animal may perceive pain and distress after it is immobilized." Obviously, paralytics are never used alone in the human lethal injection process or animal euthanasia. The AVMA does not mention the specific paralytic - Pavulon - used in lethal injection for humans. These absurd claims, falsely attributed to veterinary literature, have been a bald faced lie by anti death penalty activists.
In Belgium and the Netherlands, their euthanasia protocol is as follows: A coma is first induced by intravenous administration of 20 mg/kg sodium thiopental (Nesdonal) (NOTE-the first drug in human lethal injection) in a small volume (10 ml physiological saline). Then a triple intravenous dose of a non-depolarizing neuromuscular muscle relaxant is given, such as 20 mg pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) (NOTE-the second drug, the paralytic, in human lethal injection) or 20 mg vecuronium bromide (Norcuron). The muscle relaxant should preferably be given intravenously, in order to ensure optimal availability (NOTE: as in human lethal injection). Only for pancuronium bromide (Pavulon) are there substantial indications that the agent may also be given intramuscularly in a dosage of 40 mg. (NOTE: That is how effective the second drug in human lethal injection is, that it can be given intramuscularly and still hasten death).
Just like execution/lethal injection in the US, although we give a third drug which speeds up death, even more.
11) Pickett: "Most of the inmates would ask the question, "How can Texas kill people who kill people and tell people that killing people is wrong?" That came out of inmates’ mouths regularly and I think it’s a pretty good question to ask." (2)
REPLY: Most? Would that be more than 47 out of 95? I simply don't believe it. 10 out of 95? Doubtful. I suspect it is no coincidence that "Why do we kill people to show that killing is wrong" has been a common anti death penalty slogan for a very long time. I suspect that Rev. Pickett has just picked it up, used it and placed it in inmate's mouths. Furthermore, we don't execute murderers to show that murder is wrong. Most folks know that murder is wrong even without a sanction.
12) Pickett: said an inmate said "its burning" "its burning", during an execution. (1)
REPLY: This may have occurred for a variety of reasons and does not appear to be an issue. It is the third drug which is noted for a burning sensation, if one were conscious during its injection. However, none of the inmates that Rev. Pickett handled were conscious after the first drug was administered. That would not be the case, here, as the burning complaints came at the very beginning of the injection process, which would involve a reaction where the burning would be quite minor. Has Rev. Pickett reviewed the pain and suffering of the real victims - the innocent murdered ones?
Bottom line. Reverend Pickett's credibility is as high as a snakes belly.
Time to edit the movie?!
------------
Incomplete count
this is a review of 31 out of the 95 death row inmates ministered by Rev. Pickett
21 of the 31 below had some college or post graduate classes (5)
or were high school graduates or completed their GED (16)
-----------
1) Brooks 12
3) O'Bryan post graduate degree - dentist
41 james russel 10th
42 G Green sophomore college
45 David Clark 10th and GED
46 Edward Ellis 10th
47 Billy White 10th
48 Justin May 11th
49 Jesus Romero 11th and GED
50 Robert Black, Jr. a pilot (probably beyond 12th)
55. Carlos Santana 11th
57 Darryl Stewart 12th
58 Leonel Herrera 11th and GED
60) Markum Duff Smith Post graduate College
33) Carlos De Luna 9th
95 Ronald Keith Allridge 10th and GED
93 Noble Mays Junior in College
92 Samuel Hawkins 12th
91 Billy Conn Gardner 12th
90 Jeffery Dean Motley 9th
89 Willie Ray Williams 11th
86 Jesse Jacobs 12th
85 Raymond Carl Kinnamon 11th and GED
84 Herman Clark sophomore college
83 Warren Eugene Bridge 11th
82 Walter Key Williams 12th
72 Harold Barnard 12th
73 Freddie Webb 11th and GED
75 Larry Anderson 12th
77 Stephen Nethery 12th
79 Robert Drew 10th
-------------------------------------------------------------
1) "Chaplain Discusses 'Death House' Ministry", Interview, Legal Affairs, FRESH AIR, NPR, May 19, 2007.
2) THE FAILURE INTERVIEW: REVEREND CARROLL PICKETT—AUTHOR OF "WITHIN THESE WALLS: MEMOIRS OF A DEATH HOUSE CHAPLAIN" Interview, by Kathleen A. Ervin
www(DOT)failuremag.com/arch_history_carroll_pickett_interview.html
3) "The Execution: Interview with Reverend Carroll Pickett", PBS, FRONTLINE, 1999
www(DOT)pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/execution/readings/pickett.html
4) "Appellate court refuses to stay killer's execution", Kathy Fair, HOUSTON CHRONICLE, Section A, Page 1, 2 Star edition, 05/23/1991
- Dudley Sharp, Justice Matters e-mail sharpjfa(at)aol.com, 713-622-5491 Houston, Texas Mr. Sharp has appeared on ABC, BBC, CBS, CNN, C-SPAN, FOX, NBC, NPR, PBS and many other TV and radio networks, on such programs as Nightline, The News Hour with Jim Lehrer, The O'Reilly Factor, etc., has been quoted in newspapers throughout the world and is a published author.
A former opponent of capital punishment, he has written and granted interviews about, testified on and debated the subject of the death penalty, extensively and internationally
Pro death penalty sites:
homicidesurvivors.com/categories/Dudley%20Sharp%20-%20Justice%20Matters.aspx
http://www.dpinfo.com/
www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPinformation.htm
www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/links/dplinks.htm
joshmarquis.blogspot.com/
www.lexingtonprosecutor.com/death_penalty_debate.htm
http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/
www.prodeathpenalty.org/
http://www.yesdeathpenalty.com/(Sweden)
www.wesleylowe.com/cp.html
Permission for distribution of this document is approved as long as it is distributed in its entirety, without changes, inclusive of this statement.
GUEST COLUMN
By Dudley Sharp
Justice Matters
Often the death penalty dialogue gravitates to the subject of innocents at risk of execution. Seldom is a more common problem reviewed. That is, how innocents are more at risk without the death penalty.
Living murderers in prison, after release or escape or after our failures to incarcerate them, are much more likely to harm and murder again than are executed murderers.
This is a truism.
No knowledgeable and honest party questions that the death penalty has the most extensive due process protections in US criminal law.
Therefore, actual innocents are more likely to be sentenced to life imprisonment and more likely to die in prison serving under that sentence, than it is that an actual innocent will be executed.
That is logically conclusive.
Sixteen recent studies, inclusive of their defenses, find for death penalty deterrence.
A surprise? No.
Life is preferred over death. Death is feared more than life.
Some believe that all studies with contrary findings negate those 16 studies. They don't. Studies which don't find for deterrence don't say no one is deterred, but that they couldn't measure those deterred.
What prospect of a negative outcome doesn't deter some? There isn't one...although committed anti death penalty folk may say the death penalty is the only one.
However, the premier anti death penalty scholar accepts it as a given that the death penalty is a deterrent, but does not believe it to be a greater deterrent than a life sentence. Yet the evidence is compelling and unrefuted that death is feared more than life.
"This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death." (1)
" . . . a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel,rather than forbid, (capital) punishment." (1)
"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many as eighteen or more murders for each execution." (1)
"To be sure, 30 or 40 categorically innocent people have been released from death row..." (2)
Debra J. Saunders at the San Francisco Chronicle has a piece on the case before the Supreme Court arguing that execution by lethal injection is "cruel and unusual" based on the contention that these convicted murderers might feel some pain as they meet justice.
Saunders sheds some scientific light on these thin arguments:
Start with the bogus medical argument that the three-drug protocol may cause "excruciating pain" - and hence violates the Eighth Amendment protection against "cruel and unusual punishment." In that the Kentucky protocol starts with the administration of 10 times the amount of sodium pentothal needed to start invasive surgery, there is no chance that the other two drugs will cause pain for a convicted killer during execution. And no one has proven that an executed inmate has felt any pain from the three-drug cocktail.
Yes, some politicized medical journals have been willing to publish alleged research that supports the bogus pain argument, but they do so to their own discredit. In 2005, the British medical journal, The Lancet, ran a piece that reported that blood samples taken from executed prisons showed concentrations of the sodium pentothal that "were lower than that required for surgery in 43 of 49 executed inmates." It turns out the samples were taken as long as two days after death, which allowed the drug to dissipate.
Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to get it when he commented, "This is an execution, not surgery." As the Washington Post reported, Scalia also asked where the Constitution says that "in the execution of a person, who has been convicted of killing people, we must choose the least painful method possible?"
From Fox News, the Supreme Court is looking at the constitutionality of lethal injections.
For most people with common sense, it's a no-brainer. But liberals must always anguish over punishing wrongdoers and worry that they might feel some discomfort as they receive their punishment for murdering an innocent human being.
From a purely constitutional perspective, I think Judge Scalia sums it up well:
States have been careful to adopt procedures that do not seek to inflict pain and should not be barred from carrying out executions even if prison officials sometimes make mistakes in administering drugs, Scalia said. "There is no painless requirement" in the Constitution, Scalia said.
From the Del Rio News Herald, the UN has voted for a moratorium on the death penalty. The vote is not binding.
The article points out that the U.S. took "the unusual step of siding with countries such as Iran, China and Syria." Of course this makes the U.S. look bad, since everyone knows these are barbaric and bloody regimes. Keep in mind, also, that the UN is the same body so bereft of moral discernment that it considers countries like Libya and Sudan worthy of being on the Human Rights Commission. However, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
The difference, of course, is that in the United States, human rights are protected, due process is afforded, and every effort is made to ensure that executions take place only when the person is found guilty by a jury of their peers "beyond a reasonable doubt."
In these other countries, you can be shot simply for saying the wrong thing about a government official, so the moral equivalency should be disgusting and abhorrent to anyone concerned with objective truth.
The death penalty is fully supported by both Old and New Testaments of the Bible, and is an important component of a good justice system, which is characterized by the concept of fair recompense.
Deterrent effect aside, when a person steals or destroys something of value, a healthy justice system demands the perpetrator repay with their own resources with at least equal value of what was destroyed. The only way a murderer can properly pay for the life stolen is to pay with their own life. This makes the statement that innocent human life is so important and so sacred that it requires the ultimate penalty in repayment.
To not execute someone lawfully found guilty of murder is to make the statement that the victim's life was less valuable than that of the murderer.
That is a statement I find morally abhorrent.
The New York Times has an article today examining the death penalty's deterrent effect. Some of the study information became available several months ago, but it examines the issue in a little more depth than some previous articles I read back then.
Incidentally, the primary study cited was done by a death penalty opponent, so it can't be said that he slanted his research to make it come out in favor of a death penalty deterrent.
“I personally am opposed to the death penalty,” said H. Naci Mocan, an economist at Louisiana State University and an author of a study finding that each execution saves five lives. “But my research shows that there is a deterrent effect.”
The effect is most pronounced, according to some studies, in Texas and other states that execute condemned inmates relatively often and relatively quickly.
Professor Sunstein and Adrian Vermeule, a law professor at Harvard, wrote in their own Stanford Law Review article that “the recent evidence of a deterrent effect from capital punishment seems impressive, especially in light of its ‘apparent power and unanimity,’ ” quoting a conclusion of a separate overview of the evidence in 2005 by Robert Weisberg, a law professor at Stanford, in the Annual Review of Law and Social Science.
“Capital punishment may well save lives,” the two professors continued. “Those who object to capital punishment, and who do so in the name of protecting life, must come to terms with the possibility that the failure to inflict capital punishment will fail to protect life.”
Opponents of the death penalty like to tell us that there's no deterrent effect from capital punishment. Since it takes an average of 11 years to execute a convicted murderer, thus far removing the act from it's consequences, that might not be a surprise.
But would it be a surprise if there were STILL a deterrent effect even with that 11 year gap between cause and effect?
The Wall Street Journal features an article by Roy Adler and Michael Summers with a study finding that for every execution, the following year sees 74 fewer murders.
Among the findings:
In the early 1980s, the return of the death penalty was associated with a drop in the number of murders. In the mid-to-late 1980s, when the number of executions stabilized at about 20 per year, the number of murders increased.
Throughout the 1990s, our society increased the number of executions, and the number of murders plummeted.
Since 2001, there has been a decline in executions and an increase in murders.
From KMBC.com (KMBC - Channel 9 News out of Kansas City)...
"Montgomery Found Guilty Of Killing Pregnant Woman
POSTED: 12:40 pm CDT October 22, 2007
UPDATED: 5:45 pm CDT October 22, 2007
KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- A woman whose attorneys had argued that she was suffering from delusions when she killed an expectant mother and cut the baby from her womb was found guilty Monday.
After about four hours of deliberation, jurors convicted Lisa Montgomery, 39, of kidnapping resulting in death in the Dec. 16, 2004, attack on 23-year-old Bobbie Jo Stinnett in the northwest Missouri town of Skidmore. Jurors deliberated for about four hours before rejecting Montgomery's insanity defense. Besides convicting her, the jury also could have acquitted her outright or found her not guilty by reason of insanity.
Prosecutors plan to seek the death penalty."
(Complete news report))
"Convicted by a sleeping jury
by Mark Yannone
August 24, 2007
During the closing arguments of the prosecution of Florida citizen Nancy Grant, the assistant prosecutor told the jury, "if someone is telling another person about their civil rights, they are practicing law without a license."
By Carrie K. Hutchens
There should be no statute of limitations, or deadlines without exceptions, when it comes to proof of innocence. No one should be forced to stay in prison or be executed, simply because the innocence issue wasn't resolved in time. How ridiculous to suggest otherwise, especially when we have a judicial system so broken that the rich guilty (and sometimes even poor guilty) can often walk, while many innocent people have been sent behind bars because they didn't have the means to prove their innocence, or were afraid to take a chance on a trial after being told they would face a harsher sentence, if they fought the charges and didn't win. The latter should never be a part of a system supposedly seeking "justice", but sadly it is. (Full Article)
Jim Kent's column in the Rapid City Journal today deals with capital punishment.
Kent says some of his opinions on crime and punishment come from his experiences in the Marine Corps where he did some corrections work. Having also worked in law enforcement and corrections, I concur with his first hand assessments of criminals in general.
I came to understand two realities during the time I spent "behind bars." First, of the thousands of prisoners I dealt with during my years at the base brig, I met just one individual -- a 30-something, African-American sergeant -- who actually admitted he deserved to be incarcerated.
Lesson learned: nobody’s "guilty." That’s why there are defense attorneys.
More importantly, I realized there actually are those in our society who live to be criminals. They don’t desire anything else in life and they don’t seek "rehabilitation" (something I’m not sure can actually be accomplished anyway ). They’re not only quite content, but also fare quite well in a prison environment.
Many people have a problem understanding this mindset, because most people want much more out of life. So do I.
Far too few Christians spoke up in the recent public debate over capital punishment, and many of the few that did were from the misguided group that believes Christianity condemns the death penalty.
However, in today's Rapid City Journal, there comes a letter to the editor from a pastor in Sturgis:
Death penalty is morally right according to Bible
I am weary of the one-sided "religious voice" in the death penalty debate.
There is a lot of sentimental twaddle from the Roman Catholic segment about revenge and the moral equality between abortion and the death penalty. I frankly find these lines of argument offensive.
The Bible clearly teaches that the death penalty is not only a permissible punishment for capital murder, it is actually the mandated punishment. Due to the limitations of space I cannot go into detail, but I invite you to examine Genesis 9:6, Exodus 20:13, Numbers 35:16, and Romans 13:1-5.
To claim that Jesus was against the death penalty is to either claim that your Bibles are unreliable conduits of God’s revelation, or it is to set the purposes of God the Father against those of God the Son, and the Old Testament against the New. This represents a weak and muddle-headed Christianity. Do orthodox Christians not believe that the pre-incarnate Son was involved in the giving of the Law to Moses? Capital punishment is not revenge, it is divinely mandated justice. Abortion and capital punishment are not equivalent because the unborn baby has committed no capital crime, but the murderer has.
Rev. Brian Carpenter
Sturgis
I haven't seen the need to say a whole lot in the aftermath of Elijah Page's execution last night. I take no joy in his death, but do feel gratitude that justice was finally served, if 6+ years overdue.
I did, however, come across a story and a quote worth drawing attention to. It's from In Forum News, and it goes a long way in explaining why I found the media's violins and sobbing--along with a few others--so disgusting. Beyond the need for justice, the inordinate focus on the murderer has been offensive to reason, propriety and the facts. Why?
Attorney General Larry Long, a death penalty supporter who attended Wednesday night's execution, said people should remember "the stark contrast between the clinical, really professional and I think painless death Elijah Page got as opposed to the hours-long torture and pain Chester Poage got."
"He got a way better deal than Chester Poage got," Long said.
The Rapid City Journal reports Elijah Page's execution has been set for 10:00 pm Central Time on Wednesday.
According to state law, the execution must happen sometime during the week, so it could be delayed and still fall within the legal timeframe.
Any murder, no matter how quickly, suddenly, or painlessly it is done, deserves the death penalty.
But as we approach the execution of Elijah Page, we should look at just how depraved the three who killed Chester Allan Poage were.
KELO features an excerpt from Elijah Page's confession:
Investigator: "Were you laughing?"
Page: "We chuckled. We weren't really laughing, but let out little chuckles. 'Ha ha,' you know?"
Then they started kicking... And kicking.. And kicking.
"I looked at Darrell. I said, man, my foot hurts. I can't kick anymore," Page says.
The Argus Leader has an article today on the Christian worldview of the death penalty, and it's surprisingly balanced.
While it gives some of the touchy-feely rationalizations made by some Christians these days--which frankly aren't biblical but are borrowed from their unbelieving neighbors--it gives a couple of the Scriptural references which support the death penalty:
"In Genesis 9:6, we read 'Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed,' " said Sioux Falls Seminary professor Paul Rainbow.
"That seems to provide authorization for a society or a duly constituted government to practice capital punishment."
The New Testament is referring to civil authority when, in Romans 13:4, it states "He is God's servant for your God, but if you do wrong be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer," Rainbow said.
"It goes a little further than Genesis," he said. "Only God ultimately has the right to give or take life, but in this case, he delegates a share of that authority to his human government, which makes capital punishment not a case of human beings against human beings, but God exercising his sovereignty using human beings as his instrument."
As South Dakota gears up to execute convicted murderer Elijah Page, the sob stories are already starting. I saw one in the Rapid City Journal a couple of days ago which was short on fact about the upcoming execution, but very long (complete with the violin playing in the background) about how Page is just wasting away, and how hard this is on those who love him.
Meanwhile, the victim, Chester Allan Poage, and his mother Dottie got a passing mention.
The Argus Leader did have a better one today that was more factual, and I don't think I heard any violins.
Besides the murder itself and the murderer-sympathetic coverage the "mainstream" media provides, that's what bothers me the most about this and other murders: the victims are treated like an afterthought, like minor supporting players in a bigger overall drama. Yet they are the ones we should be most concerned about.
What does this say about our values and priorities as a society?
