One of the arguments against the death penalty is that there is always the possibility of executing a wrongly convicted person. I’ll concede that is true, and may have happened at different times. But what is the cost – in innocent lives – of not executing murderers?

Opponents of capital punishment give us names of innocents who would have been killed by the state had their convictions stood and they been actually executed, and a few executed convicts whom they believe might have been innocent. But proponents can name men and women who really were -- not might have been -- murdered by convicted murderers while in prison. The murdered include prison guards, fellow inmates, and innocent men and women outside of prison.

In 1974, Clarence Ray Allen ordered a 17-year-old young woman, Mary Sue Kitts, murdered because she knew of Allen's involvement in a Fresno, Calif., store burglary.

After his 1977 trial and conviction, Allen was sentenced to life without parole.
According to San Francisco Chronicle columnist Debra Saunders, "In Folsom State Prison, Allen cooked up a scheme to kill the witnesses who testified against him so that he could appeal his conviction and then be freed because any witnesses were dead -- or scared into silence." As a result, three more innocent people were murdered -- Bryon Schletewitz, 27, Josephine Rocha, 17, and Douglas White, 18.

This time, a jury sentenced Allen to death, the only death sentence ever handed down by a Glenn County (California) jury. That was in 1982.

Had Ray been executed his three later victims would likely still be alive today. Instead, the creature who coldly initiated their deaths is still alive – his execution repeatedly postponed by a legal system more concerned about possible violations of his rights than about justice for his victims and their families.

Similarly, there is the horrific case of Jack Abbot, freed a killer freed from prison at the behest of the celebrity effete.

Perhaps the most infamous case of a death penalty opponent directly causing the murder of an innocent is that of novelist Norman Mailer. In 1981, Mailer utilized his influence to obtain parole for a bank robber and murderer named Jack Abbott on the grounds that Abbott was a talented writer.

Six weeks after being paroled, Abbott murdered Richard Adan, a 22-year-old newlywed, aspiring actor and playwright who was waiting tables at his father's restaurant.

Mailer's reaction? "Culture is worth a little risk," he told the press. "I'm willing to gamble with a portion of society to save this man's talent."

In other words, for the sake of “art” and “culture”, Mailer is willing to risk the lives of innocent, unimportant victims, men and women who do not make a significant contribution to the world.

I dread the possibility of a wrongful execution. But it is better that we take such a risk than knowingly allowing a rabid dog to run wild, attacking and killing at will.

Posted by: Greg at 01:33 PM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 504 words, total size 3 kb.