Must be the winds blowing from the North, but a fairly conservative state -- Montana -- is now considering abolishing the death penalty. Since restoring the death penalty in 1974, Big Sky Country has had only three executions. One inmate has been granted clemency while two sit on Death Row. But in an interesting twist, the state Senate -- as well as the Attorney General -- has now concluded that promoting a "culture of life" while actively seeking some one's death is simply inconsistent. Says the AG, John Connor:
"It seems to me to be the ultimate incongruity to say we respect life so much that we're going to dedicate all our money, all our resources, our legal expertise and our entire system to try and take your life. ... Frankly, I just don't think I can do it anymore ... There will always be religious, moral and emotional reasons why the death penalty doesn't make sense, but I think the real practical consideration for the policymaker is, is this where we need to be committing our very limited, scant criminal justice resources?"
This has been one of the flaws of the neo-conservative movement for years. How one be both "pro-life" on issues such as pre-natal care and the terminally ill, but "hang 'em high" on criminal justice is not only contradictory; it's also hypocritical. Say what you will about Pat Robertson, but even he has rethought the issue and has called at least for a moratorium on the practice.
I for one am glad Canada does not have the death penalty. No question, the most serious offences should get heavier sentences and not a slap on the wrist. We still have issues about miscarriages of justice, however, and my worry is that in the path to getting tough on terrorists, the mafia and sexual predators we may engage in rushes to judgment. One only has to think about the injustice Guy Paul Morin endured (several years after Canada abolished capital punishment) to understand why when prosecutors seek a conviction it had better be based on the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Something that's ironically often far more lacking in jurisdictions with the death penalty. There's far more reason to not disclose evidence when someone could face death than a life sentence. If someone has a reason to want someone to die, they'll do anything to ensure that happens. If the sentence is life, they're going to have to make sure they have it absolutely right on with no chance for error. It should be the other way around, but it's not.
The fact Montana is at least talking about it -- and at least 10 other states have a moratorium -- shows that the debate may be shifting in the States. If it finally joins the civilized world and gets rid of the practice I would certainly welcome that.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
No comments:
Post a Comment