I received the following in my email over the weekend. Such is displayed exactly as it was received, including spelling mistakes and composition style.
As one of many concerned citizens in the West I must stand united with numerous other individuals and organisations within society and ask TEXANS to stand accounted concerning their unique 'sole trader' attitude to the barbaric immoral and criminal practice of executing humans rightly or wrongly convicted. While the practice of legal murder as it has come to be recognised, is a multibillion dollar business in Texas, with Tourism Small Business and the State's Corrective Services Council and Media to metnion a few, stand to gain by the callous comedy of killer burgers and the stimulation of viewing the murder take place, the State to date has long gone unaccounted for with the ongoing pattern of self-interest emerging in Fundamentalist redneck practices that condone murder on one hand and singout 'Hallelujah Brother!' on the other. The bottom line is the continued resistance to change and the absence of the recognition of both the Divine Law of God Almighty and respect for the person again evident int he mass murder of innocence in more recent events under the guise of 'war' and 'defence'. Karen J. Tonkin PO Box 9138 Slade Point Mackay Qld Australia 4740I am confused about this message. Although Texas does have the Death Penalty, and admitted, executes people at a higher rate than any other state, I am not privy to any knowledge or can figure out how it is regarded by anyone as a multimillion dollar business. I am almost sure that it costs much more to house those prisoners for the years and years that they go through appeal after appeal than it does to actually shoot that bit of poison into their veins. I am sorry, Karen, I am a staunch defender of the rights of all individuals, but there are cases in which the death penalty is merited. I may agree that it is unfairly meted out, however, and am completely sure that the current system amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
To live in a cell for years and years having been condemned to death desperately searching for a chance that your life will somehow be spared seems cruel to me. In some ways, the way it was done in the old West was more humane: the sentence is pronounced and you were hung the next day or so. Of course, I admit that there was no review of the proceedings, and it may be that many an innocent man was hung in the streets. So, I cannot advocate immediate executions, as such, in my opinion, is a bit hasty and would likely be violative of due process.
In my opinion, as I have mentioned personally for several years, is that the death penalty procedure should be modified. In Texas, if one is condemned to death, the case is automatically appealed to the highest court having jurisdiction over criminal matters: the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals, which is, in essence equal to our Supreme Court, which has jurisdiction over civil matters. I like this idea that there should a review of the case by an educated and knowledgeable body who can review the case to determine if justice is served. However, I believe that it is not absolutely necessary to involve attorneys in the process, outside of those who review the case for fairness. My proposal is that the procedure be changed to dictate that each state that retains the death penalty form a body of knowledgeable and experienced people whose sole purpose is to review death penalty cases. Immediately upon a sentence of death being handed out, the complete record of that trial is to be forwarded to that body for review. If they are thoroughly convinced that everything in the proceeding was fair, that all legal rights were afforded to the defendant effectively so as guarantee justice, then the file must be immediately transferred to a Federal body, of like composition who again reviews the complete record of the case and makes a like determination. The State has six months to complete its review, and the Feds have six months to complete their review. Body shall have the power either to reverse and remand for new trial or to commute to life. The law shall be specific, however, in that if the defendant is to be executed, that such execution take place within one month, following the end of the review. If such execution has not occurred at the end of the 13th month following the pronouncement of the death penalty by the trial court, then the sentence is automatically commuted to life by operation of law.
In my opinion, such specificity and limitation remove the cruelness from the death penalty, and having two knowledgeable tribunals to review the facts and circumstances affords due process.
UPDATE: I emailed Professor Volokh, who is the main guy at the Volokh Conspiracy, which I read frequently, and asked him to check what I said about the death penalty above. He is a top legal scholar who regularly posts on legal topics. His reply: "Nope, sorry, not an expert on the death penalty, and swamped. Have to pass." [emphasis supplied] I suppose I had better take his name off of my "death penalty" expert list. However, it was very kind of him to take the time to send me a reply. I just checked his blog and his most recent post: "If you want me to read a blogpost or Web page you or someone else wrote, please include its text within the message. Yes, it doesn't take that long to just click on a link; but it does take some time, when aggregate over the dozens of such messages I get a day, and it takes especially long if I'm working from home. Including the text dramatically increases the chance that I'll actually look at the text." I read this and thought, OK, so I made a mistake and can send him another email with my last three paragraphs and maybe then he will see what it is that I am talking about. But, he said earlier that he was not an expert on the death penalty and passed on my request. I guess I will not bother a very busy man with my trivial ideas on the constitutionality of the current death penalty procedures.
Posted by Tiger at May 5, 2003 11:21 AM | TrackBackWith interest I read your rather demeaning comments on Ms Tonkin's article. Ms Tonkin's submission doesnot include her position of B.A. nor does she includes various formal infomation concerning her immediate further studies and work as an Investigative Researcher and Writer. That you have deemed it necessary to attack her grammar et al simply reflects the inconsequental nature of your own position as youattempt to undermine a woman of substance and exceptional intelligence.
Paul B.