|
Navigate by clicking the links below
-A Word to Abolitionists
"Acquiesce"
A Word to Abolitionists "Acquiesce" By David Paul Hammer I
am compelled to render some thoughts on an issue that I find personally
repugnant. That is the use of the word "volunteer" to describe
a death row prisoner who has elected to forego further appeals of a
death sentence. Oh yeah, it's a catchy little word coined in the context
of capital punishment by some attorney or abolitionist wanting to make a
point. Over
the years, many in the fight to end the death penalty have come to use
the misleading label of "volunteer" when a man or woman under
a sentence of death decides that they don't have the will or desire to
fight anymore. Abolitionists spit out the word "volunteer" as
if it's a vulgarity meant to demean and degrade the condemned person. In
recent months published reports have identified some nationally
recognized abolitionist groups who now refer to these so-called
volunteers as being in the business of "inmate assisted suicides."
How can such a denigrating sound bite advance the abolition of the death
penalty? It cannot, and it
does not! In
all honesty I must admit to being biased on this subject. You see I have
at times struggled with the decision as to whether I should or shouldn't
continue to fight my own death sentence. I write here from personal
experience, but also from the perspective of one who has endeavored to
educate myself on this very important issue. In
abolitionist terms, the word "volunteer" as it is or has been
used in the context of capital punishment is disingenuous and deceitful.
According to the 2003 edition of Webster's New World Dictionay a
volunteer is... "one who chooses freely to do something; to offer
or give of one's own free will." A
death row inmate existing under a death sentence in prisons not fit for
man or beast while under constant pressures and dehumanizing conditions
can never be said to have made a free will choice. Years of
incarceration take a toll on even the strongest man or woman. Some can
persevere, others cannot. Nevertheless, one's inability to withstand
such an existence should not automatically relegate this individual as a
person subject to ridicule by those who disagree with him/her. In
1976 the death penalty was reinstated. Since that year, Gary Gilmore
became the first person to acquiesce in his execution and he has been
followed by 105 others who have resigned themselves to die by execution.
Each man and woman for personal reasons acquiesced in their death; they
did not volunteer! None of these people should be remembered as a "volunteer."
Their lives were extinguished by state and federal governments. If, as I
believe, capital punishment is an abomination utilized as a form of
justice, then that punishment inflicted upon any of the 946 people
executed in this country(as of this writing) was wrong. The eleven per
cent who elected not to fight are no less important than those who
battled all the way into the death chambers. I
believe that all life is sacred. If the aim of abolitionists is to end
capital punishment, then every person executed matters. Rather than
kicking the condemned while he/she is down, why not direct that energy,
anger and frustration towards the executioners and those responsible for
killing in the name of justice? ACQUIESCE..."to
grow quiet, to consent without enthusiasm." Doesn't that word more
accurately define an individual who no longer has the strength or
determination to fight the authorities hell bent on killing him? A
volunteer? I think not!
By
David Paul Hammer It
should come as no surprise that support for the death penalty in Many
abolitionist groups who oppose capital punishment, attribute the recent
rise in support of the death penalty to events such as the terror
attacks on September 11, 2001, the D.C.-area sniper attacks and other
high-profile incidents over the past three years. On
the same day these poll numbers were published by USA Today, that paper
also ran a small article about the execution of 45-year-old Lewis
Williams in When
considering that Lewis Williams was a middle-aged man who weighed only Executions such as that of Lewis Williams are a prime example of why all executions should be televised so that the 69% of Americans who say they are in favor of the death penalty can see exactly what it is that they support!
By
David Paul Hammer I
am sitting here in an isolation type cell at a My
transfer (temporary in nature) is a result of pending legal matters. The
court will conduct a hearing on Friday, January 16th to determine my
competency to forego more legal challenges in my case and to have the
sentence of death inplemented in the near future. This is more of a
formality than anything else. My competency has never been an issue, but,
the courts and all involved want to be assured that no mentally
incompetent person is executed. If this wasn't such a serious issue I'd
bust out in a fit of laughter Earlier
this week, an inmate was to be executed in the state of Numerous
US Supreme Court opinions written since 1973 have announced that in
regards to the punishment of convicted individuals, the punishment of
"Death Is Different." I wonder if the Justices and former
Justices honestly felt that way then, or if they feel that way today?
The highest court of the In
my opinion what makes the use of the death penalty different is how it
is used, when it is used and on whom. Minorities, poor people and thise
who reside in certain sections of this country, those are the people who
face and receive this punishment. It's arbitrary amd no amount of
tinkering with the death penalty system can fix it. The worst part is
that many innocent men and women have been sentenced to death. Only the
science of DNA has saved these 100 plus innocent persons from the
executioner. What about the majority of death penalty cases where ther
is no DNA evidence available? There is little, if any dispute that
innocent people have already been executed in this country. These alone
are reasons enough to stop the "machinery of death" as the
late Honorable Justice Blackmum wrote in his last death penalty case. The
TV news programs which I viewed prior to my departure from During
the many debates between the Democratic candidates for President the
issue of capital punishment has seldom, if ever been mentioned. Why?
It's not a hot button political issue because Americans have remained
strongly in favor of this punishment. In
a matter of weeks my own life will be taken by the executioner's
employed by the US Government. They are killing me in the name of "you,
the people." My death will come with no fanfare, no media circus
like that surrounding Timothy McVeigh's 2001 execution. Few of "you,
the people" will even be aware of what is happening or why. To me,
it seems strange that I'm being put to death for my crimes against
"you, the people." No, I'm not a terrorist, or a bank robber,
I took the life of a fellow inmate behind the walls of a federal prison.
I am the first person convicted of such a crime, to be sentenced to
death in the history of the federal death penalty. I hope I am the last.
So, I bid a fond farewell to "you, the people." I hope you
will say a silent prayer, or drink a cold beer or something as I'm
strapped onto the gurney with drugs being pumped into my veins. Oh yes,
Death IS Different, ain't it? I'm dying because "you, the people",
through your elected officials have said I should. With 290 million
people in this country I must be killed in your name so that others will
be deterred from committing the crime of murder. There's about as much
of a chance of that happening as there is of George W. Bush and his
administration being honest with the American people about the wars they
have declared. Even though I'm being killed in the name of you, the
people, I'm still damn proud to be an American, where freedom is only
one exceutioners' injection away!
By David Paul Hammer In
the spring of 2002 the issue of whether or not the state of Indiana
should enact a law that bans the execution of 16 and 17 year old killers
was being fiercely debated. Obviously
any person sentenced to death for a crime they were convicted of having
committed at 16 or 17 would be in their twenties or thirties before
actually being executed. How
then some argued could that be equated to executing child killers?
What makes 18 the appropriate age for a person to be eligible for
the death penalty? An 18
year old cannot legally drink in most states in this country.
These are all questions that I posed to my spiritual advisors and
many of my abolitionist friends who reside in the state of Indiana. I
am totally opposed to the execution of any juvenile offenders.
I did not at that time see the magical age of 18 before execution
as a big win in the fight to abolish capital punishment.
Everyone in the abolitionist movement – religious leaders,
Catholics, and common citizens – claimed a great victory when a
statutory change was made in 2002 by Indiana lawmakers raising the
minimum age of eligibility for a death sentence from 16 to 18 years of
age at the time of the crime. I
now conclude that they are right because when fighting to end the death
penalty every little bit helps. As
the October 2004 term of the United States Supreme Court draws near, the
issue of whether any person who was under the age of 18 at the time of
their conviction of murder and sentence of death can be executed, will
be decided once and for all by the nine justices of this country’s
highest court. It
would seem that the answer should be a foregone conclusion.
Unfortunately, that isn’t the case.
In Roper v. Simmons
the U. S. Supreme Court has received Friend-of-the-Court briefs
representing parties from around the world both supporting and
denouncing the practice of executing juveniles.
Listed below are some excerpts from those briefs: “The
United States executed more young killers than the rest of the world George
W. Bush and his administration have consistently proclaimed their
outrage over the human rights violations attributed to some of these
countries. The death
penalty does make Strange Bed Fellows! “By
continuing to execute child offenders in violation of international “Countries
whose human rights records are criticized by the United Additionally,
48 nations, the American Medical Association, American Psychiatric
Association and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops among others
have all weighed in with the U. S. Supreme Court opposing the execution
of juveniles. The
case being decided (Roper v. Simmons) involved Christopher Simmons who
was 17 when he and an accomplice are alleged to have killed a Missouri
woman by binding her with restraints and then drowning her.
They are said to have bragged to their peers that they would get
away with the crime due to their age.
(This allegation is included here not as fact, but only as a
statement made by Missouri prosecutors.) The
U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear this case after the Missouri Supreme
Court declared the practice of executing juvenile killers
unconstitutional. Missouri
state prosecutors and the state Attorney General’s office appealed to
the U.S. Supreme Court. Those
officials have their supporters as well.
At least two Friend-of-the-Court briefs have been filed
supporting the execution of teens. Attorneys
for Alabama, Delaware, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah and Virginia stated: “State
prosecutors’ and law enforcement officials’ experience indicates Such
a position from these states cannot come as any surprise.
According to the most recent Bureau of Justice Statistics
Bulletin on capital punishment 2002 (Revised February 4, 2004), four of
these states executed 490 people between 1977 and 2002.
These included juvenile offenders.
That’s 490 of the 820 people executed during this time period.
Unfortunately those numbers increased in 2003 and 2004.
As of December 31, 2003, the following states have executed 532
of the 885 people executed in the United States: Texas (313), Virginia
(89), Oklahoma (69), and Missouri (61).
These states also lead the nation in numbers of executions for
2004. To date, over 926
people have been executed here in the United States since 1977. Those
same justice statistics also reveal that in 2002 seven jurisdictions
with a death penalty statute did not specify a minimum age for which the
death penalty could be imposed. In
some states the minimum age was set in the statutory provisions that
determine the age at which a juvenile may be transferred to adult court
for trial as an adult. Fifteen
states and the Federal Government System require a minimum age of 18.
Sixteen states indicate an age of eligibility between 14 and 17. While
the eyes of the world are watching to see how the United States Supreme
Court decides this issue, capital punishment is alive and well in this
country. In 2002 the
youngest person under a sentence of death here was a white male in Texas.
He was born in April 1984. He
was sentenced to death in August 2002. There
is a flip side to the age issue. At
what age does an offender become too old to be executed?
Due to incompetence and infirmities brought on by aging, can a
person become ineligible for execution?
As of this writing, the oldest person on death row in the United
State is 89. He was born in
1915 and sentenced to death in 1983.
He is a white male on Arizona’s death row. Recently
the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case of an Alabama death row
inmate, James Hubbard. Mr.
Hubbard was 74 years old and lived for 27 years on death row.
He suffered from prostate and colon cancer.
On August 5, 2004, James Hubbard became the oldest person to be
executed in the United States since the reinstatement of executions in
1977. The
issue of capital punishment is a complex one with only one real answer
– end this barbaric punishment once and for all!
Our goal should be the total abolition of the death penalty, as
it can never be applied equally and fairly. Note: Source material for this essay includes but is not limited to: U.S. Department of Justice Statistics on Capital Punishment, The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, Execution Alert Notices, Associated Press articles, U.S.A. Today articles, the 2004 World Almanac and Book of Facts and Amicus Curiae Briefs (Friend-of-the-Court briefs) filed in the U.S. Supreme Court.
|