5 Responses to Suspending executions

1. Interested persons should note that many of those who have requested the proposed study on capital punishment have clients to represent or an agenda that includes abolition of the death penalty. There are others who find it politically convenient to attack the judicial system or delay executions of offenders that deserve their sentence.

   Such a contentious issue is likely to draw persons who really have no desires to see what some persons call “justice”. Creating another legislative study commission could be used as a venue for these persons to grandstand for other causes or engage in self promotion.

   The recent cries for a study have been driven by some recent acquittals or exonerations. These events indicate to some that there is a need for a study. Those who advocate more study chose not to acknowledge that the current appellate process culled these cases from the “capital stringer” before innocent persons were executed or even scheduled for execution. There is no rush to execute those who are condemned and innocent persons are not being executed in our state. It’s arguable that persons who advocate for an outright moratorium on executions confuse wrongful convictions with wrongful executions. The wrongful execution rate is zero.

   Requiring “just another study” would amount to a “one-time review” of the system. Isn’t this redundant because the appellate process already provides multiple levels of mandatory review as a matter of procedure in each and every capital case? Put another way, doesn’t each and every capital case trigger a review of the issues of fairness in the system? What can’t moratorium sponsors study this issue on their own while executions of the guilty are allowed to proceed? Why should North Carolinians be forced to endure their learning curve while proven predators escape justice?

2. Yo, Nancy. If my mechanic told me he SUSPECTED that there were serious problems with my car, of course I would have him take a look at it. But if he told me that I would have to park the car in his garage and leave it there indefinitely, with little possibility of ever getting it back, I would look for another mechanic.

   While it’s important to check for trouble, I still need my mobility, as I suspect you do. So I will do just what you and everyone else does when they think their car MIGHT have a problem–I’ll find a shop that can take a look at it in an expedicious manner, at a time when it is convenient to me. And I’ll make sure the mechanic understands that the goal is to get the car running safely and efficiently again as soon as possible, not look for a rationalization to junk the thing.

3. According to your question you are stating there are some problems with the death penalty. If there are indeed errors made during the trial phase or another phase of the process, study and serious analysis of the process before, during, and after a conviction is required.

   The goals intended to bring about clarity of execution are important, but also those who are deciding life or death issues are equally important.

   Persons whose lives have been impacted, by a traumatic event which leads to a trial and sentencing, will not waiver in what matters concerning guilt or innonence.

   Lawmakers involved in the reevaluating of such a serious subject will need to be open minded and seek wisdom. Much information will be necessary and from many sources. Data and documentation should be carefully reviewed and verified.

   If errors have been made before or after conviction, someone would need to take a stand and challenge the decision.

   Expenses involved for challenges play a role. Lack of funds could hinder true justice.

   If an innocent person has no voice or advocate, then a real injustice has been committed.

   Without a doubt, an innocent person has been convicted and sentenced to death.

   How can any lawmaker, any person make the necessary changes for justice without “truth?”

   The answer lies with truth.

   I hope we can learn of what the lawmakers discussed and decided. Learning what the lawmakers conclude and how the study ends, may give us clarity or more insight of oour lawmakers, our representatives.

   This is the real question should be–what action will we take if our convictions are not honored by our representatives? Can we expect change if we remain silent ?

4. Where’s the logic in not suspending executions while the system is in review?

   If my mechanic told me that there were serious problems with my steering column, brakes and transmission, you wouldn’t have to tell me to stop driving my car until the parts were examined more closely. I would be irresponsible, knowing what I knew about the probability of causing an accident, if I didn’t make the sacrifice of not driving my car.

   Then I would also have to face the reality of either being able to repair the car or finding out that it was beyond repair. If it were beyond repair, wouldn’t it be expected that I would find something else to replace the car? Would I even be allowed to drive it anyway? No! Because we have annual car inspections with laws that allow us only a certain time to get repairs or face legal action if we ignore the citation.

5. No moratoriums (published in Raleigh News & Observer, July 17th)

   Your July 14 editorial “A death study” promoted a deceptively and vaguely worded bill that will cost North Carolinians more tax dollars and innocent lives (because a “fake” death penalty allows the guilty to go on murdering). You have become a mouthpiece for the trial lawyers and persons who mistake proven murderers for victims.
   When the moratorium supporters (or death penalty foes) failed to get the votes they wanted in the legislature for a halt to executions, they switched to a strategy of confusing the courts into inaction. They included language that would allow Superior Courts to overrule (or undermine) the decisions of the state Supreme Court or higher authorities. The recently revised bill represents an “open season” on every case, no matter how carefully it has been decided. It would be a de facto moratorium.

   You were quick to dismiss persons who object to the latest legislative proposal as “downright silly.” What’s really “silly” is that the sponsors of the bill proposing a legislative study won’t ask for their study — and just that. Legislators need to drop the language related to stays of execution. If there should be a “time out” it should be on the whining of those who can’t study and make constructive suggestions while the system works.

   Wayne Uber

   Chapel Hill