NC Debate On Execution Moratorium Could Hit Close To Home For Several House Members

Wral TV5 ^ | 5/4/2003 | AP

[mtbrandon49]

Debate On Execution Moratorium Could Hit Close To Home For Several House Members Four Members Of House Have Family Members Who Were Murdered

POSTED: 8:59 p.m. EDT May 4, 2003

RALEIGH, N.C. -- The collision between personal tragedies and public policy issues is expected to play out when state House members consider a two-year moratorium on executions.

Four House members -- all of whom have family members who were killed -- say they will oppose a temporary ban on executions.

Rep. Rick Eddins, R-Wake, keeps a manila envelope in his office at the Legislative Building. It holds photos he says he would give anything not to have -- autopsy photos taken of his uncle who was slain in Franklin County about 15 years ago.

He keeps the photos at his legislative office because it is at the center of the death-penalty debate.

"It's kind of like the battle is here; it's not at home," Eddins said. "The battle is here for victims' rights."

[mtbrandon49]

They don't need a 2 year moratorium. I read somwhere that the a death row inmate serves between 8-12 years on death row. That should be plenty of time to prove their innocence or guilt. This thing passed the NC Senate last week. The bill was introduced by a Carrboro Lawyer (about as liberal as it gets).

[IronJack]

They pulled this here in Nebraska. It stalled several executions for two more years. Two more years these parasites fed on our society. The pretext was racial discrimination (isn't it always?) in the application of the death penalty. Even now, after a study found no evidence of racial bias, the quibbling continues over the method (Nebraska is the only state to still use "Ole Sparky" -- the electric chair).

We've got four clowns on The Row for multiple murders during a failed bank robbery in Norfolk a year and a half ago. But there are doubts they'll ever see the hangman (or the electrician, to be precise).

[mtbrandon49]

The race card is exactly some of the basis for their argument now. From what I've read the last few weeks on this, they want to bring diversity to the justice system.

[azhenfud]

Better policy, I think, would be to return the convicted to the area the crime was committed in and publicly execute them. The entire purpose of executions is not merely eye-for-eye satisfaction, but as a deterrant to future crime - which can't be if they are done in "sanitized" conditions but would have high effect if done publicly. If we're going to use the D.P. as levied by open courts, it should NEVER be where the action taken in the people's name is done secretly.