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?

[hopespringseternal]

In fact the 5th commandment prohibits it.

That is just ignorant. The same law that contains the fifth commandment also commands the death penalty for many things we don't even recognize as crimes today.

[xzins]

Let's say you have a corrupt prosecutor.

Also, imagine a case where a mother and a neighbor watch someone they know murder the mother's children. In other words, it is a case where the identity of the murderer is CERTAIN, absolutely certain.

Why does that have anything to do with whether or not the prosecutor is corrupt? Why should it impact the death sentence of the murderer?

Certainty of guilt is a standard that overrides any systemic problem.

[wordsofearnest]

There are punishments worse than death. I personally believe in life terms at hard labor or thw worst forms of labor we could come up with. Make the inmate earn his keep and any left over go to the victims. The hell with prisoners rights.

[Sam Cree]

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

That is what I am asking you to define a little more closely, if you will.

Would you require the death penalty for all murders that were intentional, whether crime of passion or premeditated for personal gain, etc.?

[B Knotts]

I'm just repeating what I (vaguely) recall him saying. He mentioned something about the Oklahoma situation, where lab work was completely bungled.

I'm not strongly in either camp. I think that there are certainly people who deserve the death penalty; yet, I can see some of the other side's points, too: that a flawed system, made up of flawed people, can and will make mistakes, in an area where no mistake is acceptable.

I think he did say that he thought that the feds were capable of doing the job at present; it was the states he was worried about.

[xzins]

I always thought that crimes of "passion" were given lesser sentences because they were arguably "intentional."

Premeditated for personal gain murders seem to come into the category of intentional and, as such, would be eligible for the death penalty. Intentionally murder for personal gain would fall under the category of malicious. (Mal intent.)

Certainty then would apply to:

1) Guilt for the murder itself. You'd have to be certain.
2) Guilt for intention. You'd have to be certain it was intentional.
3) Guilt for malicious intent. You'd have to be certain the murderer did so for personal gain.

A person who is found certainly guilty of the murder, but who can sucessfully fend off accusations of intentionality and of commission of crime for personal gain, would have a sentence lesser than capital punishment.

This is getting pretty deeply into categories that have probably been well thought out through the years by those in the legal profession.

We'll just use their categories.

The only thing we'll change is the stand of "guilty within a reasonable doubt" when it comes to a capital crime. We'll replace it with a standard of "unimpeachable certainty."

[Sam Cree]

I think it is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

Back later, an interesting discussion, thanks.

[xzins]

Yep, you're probably right. Also, I meant to say that crimes of passion were viewed as "unintentional."

Someday JR will put an edit button on these posts so we can go back and correct mistakes.

[southland]

#62 I am not altogether against capitol punishment but have recently mellowed because of things I have seen.
There is nothing worse than convicting a totally innocent person. But this has happened all through history... The best illustration is Christ....

I am with you in the illustration you bring to this forum.
We are just talking about different levels of perspective.

[snerkel]

Blunt and to the point.

Genesis 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man."

[xzins]

Precisely.

I like clarity when it can be found.

[Sam Cree]

"That is just ignorant. The same law that contains the fifth commandment also commands the death penalty for many things we don't even recognize as crimes today."

Hey!

You're probably right about me? But I am ready to be educated about how the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is contained in another law that specifies the death penalty. So elaborate, please, if you will.

[Tempest]

Curious? What verse(s) is that?

[snerkel]

But I am ready to be educated about how the commandment "thou shalt not kill" is contained in another law that specifies the death penalty. So elaborate, please, if you will.

Thou shalt not kill is not the best translation for the Hebrew word Ratsach. Thou shalt not murder is a closer translation, but still does not justify the meaning of the Hebrew. A closer inspection would show a premeditated, vengeance type slaying.

malakhi, would you mind offering some insight to Exodus 20:13? Thanks.

[hopespringseternal]

Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

[Sam Cree]

"Exodus 21:17 "Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death."

Does that seem a little strong? Although, these days, it's almost refreshing.

[malakhi]

malakhi, would you mind offering some insight to Exodus 20:13?

You are basically correct. Ratsach can signify premeditated murder, as well what we might call "manslaughter" or "2nd degree murder" -- crimes of passion rather than of premeditation.

This commandment in no way forbids capital punishment.

[2timothy3.16]

Well, let me start by suggesting you read the Torah, the first five books of the Bible with particular study going into the last three.

The verses referring to death for an action are way to numerous to mention.