[Masthead] Partly Cloudy with Haze ~ 68°F  
High: 81°F ~ Low: 65°F
Friday, Sep. 19, 2014

Death penalty 'sweeps in the undeserving.'

Posted Monday, May 18, 2009, at 2:50 PM

Unless something dramatic and unexpected happens between now and Wednesday, May 20, Dennis Skillicorn is going to die by lethal injection, the first such execution in Missouri since 2005.

Skillicorn and an acquaintance, Allen Nicklasson, accused of the 1994 murder of 47-year-old Richard Drummond, were sentenced to die quite some time ago, but it's taken this long to exhaust their appeals. And there were two other murders besides Drummond's -- senseless and stupid murders, committed, it appears, for no reason at all.

A third participant in the crimes, then-teenaged Tim DeGraffenreid, is serving a life sentence for his role in the crime spree that stretched all the way from Missouri to Arizona and ended in San Diego, Calif.

Nicklasson was the one who pulled the trigger in each of the three murders. Skillicorn was clearly present, but says he didn't know that's what was going to happen.

Some say Nicklasson should die first, since he's the actual shooter -- others don't care, as long as each pays the ultimate price.

Some argue Skillicorn shouldn't die because he's done many, many positive things since his conviction -- another jailhouse conversion, or maybe it's sincere.

I don't care anything about who dies first.

I don't care how many positive things Skillicorn has done since he was sentenced to death, or if he's done anything at all except sit in prison.

But I do think that three people dead is enough.

A life sentence is the appropriate punishment. Skillicorn and Nicklasson will die some day, but it should never be as free men. There should be no parole, no chance of ever living free again, no discussion, no reprieve -- that's all. Nothing more, but certainly nothing less. Even Skillicorn's most ardent supporters don't think he should be released from prison and certainly I don't.

There was a time when I believed that the death penalty was a fair exchange for murder. You kill someone, you pay it back with your own life -- as if executing Skillicorn and Nicklasson would ever be enough to balance the scales of justice for Richard Drummond or Joe and Charlene Babcock.

There are many arguments in favor of the death penalty. Decent people whom I respect and admire believe it's a viable remedy. Some say the death penalty should be available only for specific crimes - only for treason, only for killing a law enforcement officer or only for the most heinous crimes.

I disagree. I believe it should be abolished altogether.

There are a lot of reasons why the death penalty makes no sense. First and foremost, it's not a deterrent to the crimes for which it's assigned. Second, it's expensive. Third, it takes years and years before all the legal requirements can be dealt with, so it certainly is not in the category of swift justice.

And there are other arguments that could be made in either direction. Debate on the subject goes on and on and on. I'm not going to bother addressing any of those arguments, one way or the other.

The only argument that makes any sense to me is this:

The death penalty is a penalty so extreme that we must be absolutely sure we've got the right person. So sure that we don't have to ever wonder if "justice" was done. So sure that "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" is not a high enough standard. The penalty of execution demands that no doubt exist at all.

We already have ample proof that mistakes have been made, and that innocent men (and a few women) have died for those mistakes. We already know that eyewitness identification is shaky, at best. We already know that people have gone to the death chamber on the testimony of people who lied. Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor acknowledged several years ago that "if statistics are any indication, the system may well be allowing some innocent defendants to be executed."

A lucky few have escaped at the last moment and had their sentences commuted. Still fewer have been exonerated with new technologies like DNA.

Leaving the death penalty on the books as an option for any crime is a guarantee that mistakes will happen in the future, just as they have in the past.

We cannot allow more mistakes because we can never fix this kind of mistake. There is no do-over, no one left to whom we can apologize, except perhaps the family of the person executed -- and what good will our apologies do? They won't balance the scales of justice any better than an execution balances the deaths of innocent people.

Author and attorney Scott Turow ("One L," "Burden of Proof," "Presumed Innocent") has, like me, wavered between being in favor of and being opposed to the death penalty. Today, he is firmly opposed and summed up his position (and mine) very neatly in a 2003 interview with Thane Peterson of Business Week magazine:

"I used to ask myself, are there cases out there where I recognize the emotional and moral [need for] execution? For me, the answer was, "Sometimes, yes." [But] the right question is, given that there are such cases, can we devise a legal system that will reach those cases, and only those cases, without sweeping in the undeserving? As much as I answer the first question yes, I answer the second question no. That led me to say that when push comes to shove, I'm against capital punishment."


Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

Great blog post! I totally agree with you Kathy. How many innocent people will be put to death before we end this madness?

-- Posted by modemocrat on Mon, May 18, 2009, at 5:32 PM

Thank you Kathy for your thoughtful insights. I agree. Too many innocents have been jailed. Some have been proven innocent and released. Others were not so fortunate.

-- Posted by upsedaisy on Mon, May 18, 2009, at 8:00 PM

"I used to ask myself, are there cases out there where I recognize the emotional and moral [need for] execution? For me, the answer was, "Sometimes, yes." [But] the right question is, given that there are such cases, can we devise a legal system that will reach those cases, and only those cases, without sweeping in the undeserving? As much as I answer the first question yes, I answer the second question no. That led me to say that when push comes to shove, I'm against capital punishment."

Absolutely correct. I've changed my mind for the same reason. After 1000 years, Anglo-American jurisprudence simply can't do it well enough.

We should stop wasting millions of the Criminal Justice System's dollars on this flawed process. Lock 'em up, throw away the key, and get on with rebuilding the lives of the victim's families.

-- Posted by AF Brat on Mon, May 18, 2009, at 8:07 PM

To me, while there are certainly people I believe should be put to death (Jeffrey Dahmer, Charles Manson), because I do not believe they can be redeemed, you have to weigh the issue of whether or not innocent people are being put to death as well.

I'm not sure the answer is *always* yes to that, but I think there is ample evidence to show that we have a flawed system. Not only do we have lying witnesses, more advanced evidence systems that can reverse convictions, and "jailhouse redemption", but we also have inmates who ARE guilty who spend years and thousands of dollars (and hours) on appeals and frivolous lawsuits.

We need start somehow start from scratch and figure out how to make the system work properly - and that means we can't have the death penalty (at least until we can guarantee (and I do mean guarantee) that the person is 100% guilty).

-- Posted by koeller77 on Tue, May 19, 2009, at 9:14 AM

I'm confused.

I thought I read a pro death penalty article from Kathy? Is this a turn around or did I misread the previous article? I looked for a while and couldn't find it.. ?

-- Posted by Third Child on Tue, May 19, 2009, at 9:29 AM

Third child: I've never written anything in favor of the death penalty.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, May 19, 2009, at 10:06 AM

Ok, thanks. Please pardon my confusion.

-- Posted by Third Child on Tue, May 19, 2009, at 12:01 PM

There will be no reprieve for Skillicorn - this is the latest word from Gov. Nixon's office:

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/1854...

Please understand I am not defending Skillicorn - only reporting on the fact that he will die tonight.

-- Posted by Kathy Fairchild on Tue, May 19, 2009, at 10:01 PM

Kathy I believe that the only reason that there are not more comments following your blog this time is because it is so well thought out that argument is snuffed before it can begin.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, May 20, 2009, at 12:00 AM

There should have been five people sentenced to the death penalty in Marshall. If you take someones life, your's should end as well. There is no need for them to sit in prison wasting our tax dollars. In the old days if you stole they cut off your hand, if you killed, you were killed. That is the way it should be.

-- Posted by london on Fri, Dec 11, 2009, at 6:48 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Kathy Fairchild received a Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration in 1986 from Marycrest College, Davenport, Iowa. She is also a 2003 graduate of the paralegal program at New York University. She moved to Marshall in 2006, following a career of more than 30 years with the world's largest farm equipment manufacturer. She is an Air Force brat and grandmother of four.
Hot topics
Lost Weekend
(1 ~ 12:41 PM, Mar 25)

Please help me, I'm fallin'
(3 ~ 6:07 AM, Sep 9)

Jukebox Democracy
(8 ~ 9:43 PM, Aug 19)

We're this close
(0 ~ 10:55 AM, Jun 9)

Part of the function of memory is to forget*
(5 ~ 9:31 PM, May 30)