Posted on 10/20/2003 5:10:58 AM PDT by Hill Street Blues
MND COMMENTARY
Mike Farrell’s Fanaticism
October 19, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Farrell is known as much for his zealous campaign against capital punishment as he is for his role in the TV series MASH. He preaches his sermon to abolish capital punishment with religious fervor. The only problem with his sermon is that it is not true. It contains the usual sophistry that is the stock in trade of liberal advocacy groups.
Mike Farrell’s Fanaticism
October 19, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Farrell is known as much for his zealous campaign against capital punishment as he is for his role in the TV series MASH. He preaches his sermon to abolish capital punishment with religious fervor. The only problem with his sermon is that it is not true. It contains the usual sophistry that is the stock in trade of liberal advocacy groups.
In a speech about capital punishment before the Iowa state legislature in 1998, Farrell referred to the Supreme Court case of Herrera v. Collins (USSC 1993). Herrera was an appeal of a Texas capital case, which requested the grant of a new trial. The convicted murderer, Herrera, claimed that there was new evidence, a confession by the actual murderer, which exonerated him.
Farrell declared to the Iowa legislators that, “In the Herrera case in 1992 the U.S. Supreme Court held that innocence was not sufficient justification to stop an execution. " [1] This is patently false. Farrell merely parroted the same canard that capital punishment abolitionists always spout when referring to Herrera. The truth is the Supreme Court did not say that.
What the Supreme Court actually said was, “ Held: Herrera's claim of actual innocence does not entitle him to federal habeas relief.” Notice the convenient omission by Farrell of the words “Herrera’s claim.” It makes a tremendous difference to say the Supreme Court said a claim of innocence-instead of this specific claim of innocence-which the majority of the Justices did not believe to be credible.
Chief Justice Rhenquist wrote the majority opinion – also distorted by Farrell. The pertinent excerpt from Rhenquist’s opinion is, “What the Herrera case seems to be is one affidavit of a deceased relative claiming he was the murderer and another affidavit by a relative claiming that the first affidavit is correct… These affidavits are years later after a confession and conviction by and of Herrera. There are many inconsistencies with this new 'evidence” and you can read those yourself… Herrera is not left without a forum to raise his actual innocence claim. He may file a request for clemency under Texas law, which contains specific guidelines for pardons on the ground of innocence. History shows that executive clemency is the traditional "fail-safe" [506 U.S. 390, 392] remedy for claims of innocence based on new evidence, discovered too late in the day to file a new trial motion.”
Justice O’Connor wrote a concurring opinion that stated, “I cannot disagree with the fundamental legal principle that executing the innocent is inconsistent with the Constitution. -- the execution of a legally and factually innocent person would be a constitutionally intolerable event. Dispositive to this case, however, is an equally fundamental fact: Petitioner is not innocent, in any sense of the word.”
Despite Justice O’Connor explicitly stating that executing the innocent is unconstitutional, Farrell’s fabrication is unquestioned by the media.
Farrell’s writings, as well as his speeches, provide examples of his casuistry. One of his more incredible declarations was an essay titled “ To Help Mend the World.” Farrell wrote [2] , “Today… the primary concern of too many now in the arenas of power is self advancement rather than the welfare of the nation or its people. ..in order for the Ambitious to slake their thirst, the average person's attention has to be diverted. These power-mongers have to …promote fake, self-serving solutions to "problems" they themselves have conveniently identified. ..as they fill their pockets with the trinkets of wealth and power. ..Our history is replete with their handiwork. They've used "injuns," "niggers," "The Yellow Peril," the interning of Japanese-Americans, "The Red Menace" and now "illegals" to rally us to their cause. From Manifest Destiny to Anti-Communism, the dynamic is the same: "others" are trying to deter us from our God-given course and must be vanquished. …Today, absent any more convenient scape-goat, the target is ‘killers.’ “
Does Mike Farrell really believe that convicted murderers are nothing more than a political ploy? Murderers have been described in many ways. For them to be characterized as mere political ploys is ludicrous.
Another of Farrell’s fallacies was broadcast during a 2001 interview on Court TV. Farrell said, “The idea that the death penalty deters crime has simply been discredited by every reasonable criminologist, sociologist, and psychologist who has looked at the issue. “ [3]
The truth is that in a November 2001 paper presented by the National Policy Committee to the American Society of Criminology, the issue of the deterrent value of capital punishment was addressed in the section titled “Deterrence.” The Committee said, ”There has been a great deal of research conducted by criminologists on the effectiveness of the death penalty in preventing future homicides and other acts of violence. While many of these studies find no deterrent effect there are other well designed research reports that reach the opposite conclusion. “ [4]
Why Farrell would even believe that he could make such a pronouncement without his prevaricating being discovered is Clintonian. Yet, until now, no one has noticed the error of Farrell’s statement. The media are myrmidons. They probably want to believe Farrell’s propaganda. Farrell is an advocate for a myriad of causes-including opposing war in Iraq. The question that needs to be asked is if Farrell is misleading the public about capital punishment what else is he misleading them about. What he says about other causes could well be as specious as his claims about capital punishment.
Farrell was once asked during an interview who his mentors were. He replied that one was Margery Tabankin - formerly a member of the SDS and the first woman to graduate from Saul Alinsky’s School of Community Organizing-of which propaganda was an integral part of the curriculum.
Farrell learned much from his mentor.
Michael P. Tremoglie
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------- Michael P. Tremoglie is a writer whose work has appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia Daily News, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Front Page and Insight magazines. He is working on his first novel 'A Sense of Duty'. E-mail him at elfegobaca2@earthlink.net
Well, it sure does deter the person being put to death from further crimes, now doesn't it Mikey?
The reason that the death penalty is not as effective deterrent as it might be is precisely because of people like Farrell and his friends.
Absurd, frivolous appeals typically stretch the time between the commission of a capital offense and the execution of the convict to over a decade, making the link between crime and punishment tenuous.
Imagine, to illustrate the point in a fanciful way, that every gun and knife could be fitted with an absolutely failsafe system that could detect when it was being used to commit a capital offense.
Whenever the weapon was so used, it would instantly be turned around on the killer, shooting or stabbing the perpetrator to death.
Thus committing a capital offense would amount to committing immediate suicide. Would Farrell or anyone else doubt that in such circumstances, the death penalty would be a tremendous deterrent?
If we could eliminate frivolous appeals, and get back to the justice system of the 1800s, when trial, appeal and execution typically required no more than a matter of a few months (the assassin of Pres. McKinley, for example, was executed within two months of committing the act), the deterrent effect of the death penalty would be hugely enhanced.
My source for that is the book of Deuteronomy, IIRC.
Evil people will not be deterred from being and acting evil. Punishment has in its sights the goal of correcting the behavior of the individual being punished. Evil people will not be changed by punishment.
The only true purpose that capital punishment accomplishes is the elimination of one more evil person, so they are no longer able to influence others toward evil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.