Cascadia Journal

In the news this week is the story that Washington State is going to execute one of the eight people sitting on it’s Death Row.  The focus of this is 55-year-old Darold Ray Stenson, who was convicted of aggravated murder for the 1993 shooting deaths of his wife and a business partner in Clallam County.  In his trial, Mr Stenson claimed that the business partner had actually killed his wife and then himself.  To this day, Mr Stenson has consistently claimed that he is innocent of the crime.

Presuming that the prosecution was correct in their assertions, that he did commit the crimes that the court convicted him of, then Mr Stenson is worthy of the most severe punishment available.  There is always uncertainty in these matters, we may or may not hear all of the facts, but for now I will presume that the wise court made the correct decision.

There are a number of reasons why we, as a state, may want to kill those who have committed serious crimes.  Some of those reasons make some sense.  It is believed that state execution is a deterrent to murder.  This may be the case.  I am also sure that many murders occur without the perpetrator thinking through the eventual consequences of his actions if caught.  While this may serve as a deterrent, if we consider all of the reasons why state-sponsored execution may not be such a good idea, it may not be a sufficiently greater deterrent than a sentence of life in prison for such crimes.

I find it particularly distasteful that a society that puts so much value in human life, a society that considers murder to be it’s greatest crime, turns around and prescribes death as the penalty for any action.  It seems to me to be a particularly barbaric practice.  It also has a finality to it, one that does not allow us to rectify the problem if we do find at some future time that our initial assessment of the situation was incorrect.

I disagree with state-sponsored executions for quite a few reasons.  Among them are:

• While the possibility is small, it is likely that some people are convicted of crimes and put to death for crimes that they did not actually commit.  If you look at our system for less-serious crimes, the great majority of “convictions” never get to trial.  Most of them are now “settled” with a prosecutor stating that he will not bring a serious case to trial if the accused pleads guilty to a lesser charge.  While this may not happen in these death-penalty cases, this is the judicial environment we have now.  A disproportionate number of those on Death Row are the poor and minorities — those who are less likely to have the means to exercise all of their rights.
• Vengeance and revenge are not good ways to decide a punishment.  This guy may “deserve to die”, but how can it be our place to make that decision?
• The inability for us to “change our mind” on the punishment if new evidence comes to light.
• If putting someone through a ceremony to cause their death is not “cruel and unusual” punishment, then I live in a more barbaric place than I thought.

The other issue is the inconsistency of our arguments for capital punishment.  A belief in capital punishment is a “conservative” ideal.  Other generally conservative ideals concerning human life include:

• An ideal that life begins at conception, and that abortion is murder.
• An ideal that persons should not be able to kill themselves through suicide.
• An ideal that we must do everything possible to keep a medically fragile person alive, even if their chances for survival are slim, and even if they are in severe pain.
• An ideal, particularly among Christians, that “Thou Shall Not Kill.”  Does it really matter if we think that this particular killing is “good” for us?

I really see this as some sort of double standard.  Killing people is always wrong, unless it is in a case where “we” make the rules.

I do believe that it might be right to kill if someone is imminently trying to kill us, and we need to protect our own lives.  In a similar situation, it may be proper for someone to save our lives by injuring or killing a person who is in the process of trying to kill another.  Self-defense is a fact of life.  I cannot complain about that, although I would hope that if a lethal and a non-lethal solution were available for a problem, that the non-lethal one would be chosen.

However, I find it difficult to imagine how killing someone (in this case)  years after the crime is somehow going ot fix anything.  It won’t save anyone’s life.  It won’t help the victims of this crime.  It will not rehabilitate the criminal.  It will not solve any problem that cannot be solved with a sentence of life in prision without the possibility of parole.

All it really shows is just how much of a barbaric people we still are.  I have no doubt that Darold Ray Stenson and others like him are wicked folks who did some really bad things.  They should be punished.  No human deserves to be deliberately killed.  Not the victims of this crime.  Just because the state condones the death does not make it right to kill someone.

Share via email