Mark Fuhrman Rejects the Death Penalty

UM List | 1 Oct 03 | V. Lawrence

[xzins]

Having been involved in law enforcement for about eight years, chaplain with a local police department and having served as a volunteer Chaplain with the Oklahoma Department of Corrections as an Institutional Chaplain, I was interested in the book by Mark Fuhrman, An Expose of Oklahoma's Death Row Machine: DEATH AND JUSTICE, so bought it and found it very interesting. Furhrman wrote the following on pages 251-252:

"Every murder is “heinous, atrocious and cruel.” By executing the innocent we have commited an act just as “heinous, atrocious and cruel”ourselves.

"In my career as a detective, both as a police officer and an author, I have always followed the evidence, wherever it led. My investigation of the death penalty in Oklahoma County has brought me to this conclusion: death penalty cases are not investigated or prosecuted at a level that can guarantee justice, or even that the accused is actually guilty.

"I no longer believe in the death penalty. I no longer have faith that is administered fairly or justly. I fear that innocent people have been executed.

"That’s why I am calling for the abolition of the death penalty, not only in Oklahoma but in every state. The federal government should reserve the right to execute only those guilty of treason, terrorism, or political assassination. In these circumstances, we as a nation would be executing the criminal, and it would no longer be up to individuals like Bob Macy and Joyce Gilchrist. These federal executions should be televised and broadcast on the Internet. If we don’t have the stomach to watch executions, we shouldn’t be performing them.

"I could make all sorts of arguments about deterrence, cost-effectiveness, wrongful convictions, politics, philosophy, and so on. But it boils down to this – the death penalty brings out the worst in all of us: hatred, anger, vengeance, ambition, cruelty, and deceit.”

“Jim Fowler showed me the peace that forgiveness and compassion can offer. If he, who has suffered so much, can forgive, then why can’t the rest of us? The story of the death penalty in Oklahoma, and throughout America, is sad, even depressing. But it is not without hope. The solution rests with each one of us to see the truth and then act on it. To choose justice over revenge.

— Mark Fuhrman —

Death and Justice

(New York: HarperCollins, 2003), pp.251-252.

This response to Mark Fuhrman was posted on the UM List.

Fuhrman is wrong.

The issue is not deterrence, vengeance, cost, or any of the other arguments generally given in favor of the death penalty, even though each of them has some merit. (That merit is additive, so those combined arguments amount to a significant body of merit for having a death penalty.)

An initial question involves certainty. What about when there is unimpeachable certainty that felon Y has murdered citizen A? Certainty does exist in a significant number of cases.

Given certainty, THE ISSUE is the cultural value of innocent life. We establish the value of anything by our reaction when that anything is taken. We establish it by determining what will compensate for the taking. If it is a cow that is taken, then it is the return of the cow or the price of a comparable cow that is proper compensation. If it is a horse that is taken, then the same thing...(except there was an era when the taking of a horse resulted in the taking of a human life as compensation...horse taking became rare.)

The culture that would develop where the taking of a cow was compensated by anything less than the value of a cow would be a culture that eventually stopped producing cows. It would be more expensive to nurture, feed, and grow them than would be the cost of simply stealing them. One could make a profit stealing cows EVEN if apprehended.

Likewise, If some are truly serious about ridding the world of gas guzzling SUVs, then simply pass a law that says thieves who take an SUV only have to return $10.50 to the owner of the SUV. It does not make sense in that culture to own an SUV. We have established a cultural climate that will result in many thefts of SUVs.

The same with innocent life. If we establish a culture where the compensation for an innocent life is less than the value of that life, then there is a cultural devaluation of innocent life. That devaluation is an encouragement to view innocent life apathetically. That cultural norm of devalued innocent life will bring about a culture where more innocent life is taken. Doesn’t life imprisonment serve the purpose of demonstrating a high value on innocent human life? No, because we are not placing a valuation at least equal to the value of an innocent human life. In short, we are encouraging a culture that more easily takes innocent human life than it would if the compensation were at least as costly as the item taken, i.e., innocent human life. (What if as societal compensation we required the life of the murderer and all of the financial assets of the murderer and all of the murderer's family? The valuation of innocent life would then be GREATER THAN equal compensation.)

The issue of cultural valuation of life is the reason that those murderers who have certainly committed their crimes should pay with their own lives.

Othewise, we will encourage a culture where the taking of life is more common than in those cultures that place an acceptably high valuation on innocent human life. Is there any evidence that our culture has more murders than other cultures?

It isn’t an issue of revenge. It is an issue of the valuation of life. Therefore, it is a question of what kind of culture we wish to establish.

Barricade yourself in your home. Your life isn’t highly valued. I have proof.

What do you think?

[thoughtomator]

The counter to Fuhrman sounds a lot more like an anti-abortion argument than an anti-death penalty argument.

The anti-death-penalty argument is simple, to me. What government can really be trusted with the power to put its citizens to death? A government which believes it can put a citizen to death in one situation will find a way to justify doing the same in a different situation (e.g. the Waco catastrophe).

[xzins]

Self-protection is not malice. Malice is one motivation. Self-protection is another and different motivation.

Life taken for self-protection is an act that has the acceptance of the God of the Bible.

[Tribune7]

I respect Fuhrman's position (and other anti-death penalty types, although note that Fuhrman does reserve death for certain crimes.)

But what about those who commit a particularly cruel murder, are spared, then kill again in prison or after serving 20 years of their "life" sentence?

[bmwcyle]

Killing is never pretty but to save society it is sometimes needed. Mark is a good person and a nice guy. It would turn anyone's insides.

[xzins]

Abortion is an illegitimate devaluation of human life that creates apathy about the value of life.

So does refusing to uphold a standard of equal or greater compensation for the taking of a life. As life is cheapened more will apathetically take life. In the long run their taking of the life will pay off for them.

[xzins]

In my view, anytime there is unimpeachable certainty that a person is guilty of a murder, then that person, for the good of the culture, must be given the death penalty.

[xzins]

yeah, he's probably been around murder too much for too long. It's a grim specialty that has to change the folks involved in its prosecution.

[thoughtomator]

The standard that needs to be fixed is the average 7-year sentence for murder. Death penalty or no death penalty, as long as the punishment is so ludicrously short compared with the crime, it will deter no one. Our standards across the board are messed up, when you can get a longer sentence for minor drug trafficking than for murder and child rape.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

The corrupt legal system is a different issue than the standard of proof, but where it is corrupt it must be reformed.

As soon as you reform it I will be for the death penalty again.

Good luck.

[xzins]

If it isn't eligible for the death penalty or life imprisonment, it shouldn't be called murder. It should be some form of homicide. Different words don't make anyone feel any better, but they do clarify that a difference is involved.

If I kill someone in an auto accident in which I'm the cause of the accident, that is not murder; it is homicide.

I'm not sure how they decide what to call murder and what they call manslaughter or homicide.

If someone can get a 7 year sentence for murder, then it never should have been called murder in the first place. If it is murder and someone can get a 7 year sentence for it, then the society is sick.

[Sam Cree]

The argument that capital punishment is justified by self peservation presupposes that capital punishment is a preventative measure.

I happen to not know if that is proven.

[xzins]

Actually, I think what you're saying is based on a desire for fairness on your part.

Nevertheless, even in this current system in those cases where they are CERTAIN that the person has murdered, it is not wrong to execute that person.

In some cases guilt can be established with unimpeachable certainty.

[Sam Cree]

How would you differentiate between which murders are punishable by death and which by lesser methods?

[thoughtomator]

The society is sick, mate. The seven years is the average factoring in parole and early release (since we're too busy stuffing our prisons with drug users and dealers to have any room for murderers).

The difference between murder and manslaughter is intent (homicide covers both, as well as justified killing in self-defense). Premeditation makes the difference between first- and second-degree murder. Meanwhile, thanks to mandatory minimums, people are serving 20 years+ for drug trafficking while murderers go free.

We supply more than enough resources for our justice system and our prisons to do the job society needs. The majority of those resources are wasted on the futile and pointless War on Drugs.

[TexasCajun]

Well, Mark, at least you succeeded in screwing up the O.J. investigation, that's one less death-penality case you have to fret over!

[Zevonismymuse]

For many of the same reasons stated by Furman, I stopped being pro-death penalty several years ago. The primary reason I am opposed to it is that I find the idea of a state executioner repugnant. I hate civil servants in general and certainly think they are the least competent among us.

The only death penalty I believe in is the Ellie Nessler.....when a victim's family pulls our a gun and blows the brains out of someone who is certainly guilty. Too bad she blew her own case by being on dope.

My mother used to say, "If anyone hurt my children I would ring their neck with my bare hands and I would defy a jury to convict me!"

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Nevertheless, even in this current system in those cases where they are CERTAIN that the person has murdered, it is not wrong to execute that person.

So exactly how do you codify this "CERTAIN"ty of yours?

We right a law that says "Capital punishment is acceptable when guilt is a certainty?"

Isn't that what we already have?

You sound like a Democrat to me. If one law ain't working, then passing ten more ought to fix it.

[xzins]

Death caused for another another that is Accidental/unintentional are in a non-capital category.

Death caused for another that it Intentionally malicious/cruel/heinous/in commission of crime are in a capital category.

There is a possible 3rd category requiring extensive imprisonment where it is a combination of unintentional and woefully negligent.

[xzins]

President Bush should have lots of people like me who send him campaign money.....not much of a democrat, huh?

Now the standard is "guilty within a reasonable doubt."
The standard that would make executions more rare is "unimpeachable certainty."

In the first standard (as I understand it) a jury can weigh conflicting evidence and return a guilty verdict even if there is plausible but unlikely evidence to the contrary.

In the 2nd standard they must be certain. In other words, as p-marlowe said above, it must be impossible that that the defendant did not commit the crime.

[southland]

RE #18: I really agree with you .. The effort of the government employees is to get a conviction whether with or without merit.
I have seen this in my area of Alabama. This is sad for our society../
Just now a legal Department of Franklin County Alabama is being investigated regarding improper actions of the prosecutors etc...