TESTIMONY BEFORE COMMITTEE(S)
OF THE
NEW YORK STATE LEGISLATURE
ALBANY, NEW YORK
TUESDAY, JANUARY 25, 2005
Distinguished and honorable men and women, I am Jack Marston McKelvey, the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Rochester, New York. I have driven from Rochester this morning to testify before you because of the gravity of the issue which awaits your decisions.
My testimony will, perhaps, not be what you expect. I will not specifically select my words to speak to the moral implications of the death penalty. You could rightly expect that from me. Rather, I want to speak more specifically to some very practical and down to earth realities which hopefully will effect your decisions. Others will and have spoken to the moral concerns of which there are many. I thank you for listening and reading.
I would like to address five reasons why I believe the exercise of the death penalty is a poor choice to accomplish what society hopes to receive from it.
First, I would suggest to you that the death penalty, when carried out, increases victimization and violence rather than decreases it. In particular, it sullies the hands of the state. Sister Helen Prejean in her book, Dead Man Walking, refers to the son of a lawyer in the state’s case against Pat Sonyea. The exchange between the lawyer and the son went something like this:
“Dad, what are they going to do to Pat?
Kill him.
Why? Because he killed two people.
Who is going to kill those who kill him?”
It didn’t pass the scrutiny of this young person that killing, or may we say, execution, has some of the same attributes as does the reason for the sentence itself.
In their book, Who Owns Death, Jay Lifton and Greg Mitchell describe the effects on those who are engaged in the execution of another person. Their book, the results of many interviews, show the negative, victimizing effect on everyone from wardens, guards, doctors in the prison, chaplains, the executioner or executioners, jurors and others whose hands figuratively touch the rope, the needle, the gun or the electric switch. In most instances, the response to questions asked of them is something like this:
“I don’t make the laws, I just carry them out, even if I don’t believe in them.” A disproportionate number of those involved report side effects of stress, anxiety, poor health, emotional upset and the like from being engaged in this death drama. Could it be, that they are acknowledging their part in the perpetration of violence? A state of violence they were sworn to cure? Bud Welch, the father of a daughter killed in the Oklahoma City bombing who has met and spoken with Bill McVeigh, the father of Timothy McVeigh, says, “The death penalty only victimizes another family.”
Listen to the words of a mother whose young daughter was murdered in Pennsylvania. “The gaping wound will never heal. And it is because of this intense pain that I have come to know that I would not, and could not, inflict it on another mother . . . Justice would only be served, if in taking his life, Aimee could come back to life, and that is impossible.” (Who Owns Death, page 204)
Would life without parole for the adjudged offender be a better response to the perpetrator of violence?
The second point I would like to make is that there is a wide disparity between the cost leading to execution and that for maintaining a person in jail for his or her natural life. The last figures I have seen for the State of Florida indicate that it costs $3.2 million to execute a person and $516,000 to imprison a person for life based on longevity statistics. To the extent that those figures are anywhere in the ball park for this state, I believe we can agree, that is a wide disparity.
In an interview of then Governor John Engler of Michigan, he was reported to have said that he was elected on the premise that he would spend the state’s money prudently. He went on to say, that he would never sign legislation for the death penalty because it costs too much and is poor stewardship. Having read that, and wondering how true the statement was, I called his office and his top staffer checked with him to ask if, indeed, he had said that. He reported to me that, yes, the statement was true, accurate, and represented his sentiment. Perhaps your staffers could or have looked into these figures for our state.
Third, it is important and necessary that we show all the concern and care possible for the families and friends of victims of crime. There is a difference of opinion, and not yet sufficient research evidence, to indicate how helpful an execution is to the survivors of victims. We hear statements which indicate that an execution will bring closure to a person’s agony for a loved one who has been murdered. If that is true, then that person will have to hold on to his or her anguish, pain, frustration, and heartache for an average of ten to fourteen years before those feelings are assuaged. That is how long it takes from crime to execution, if it occurs, in the United States. The survivors are asked to wait and hold on to their sadness and anger for years, then encouraged to reignite the feelings of loss as they are interviewed before the execution and perhaps serve as a witness to that execution.
Isn’t it interesting that as we have lived through some horrendous crimes such as Columbine, we have learned the importance of sending in psychologists, sociologists, doctors, nurses, clergy, psychiatrists, and counselors to help children and adults speak and externalize their fears, pain, anger and sadness, so that it has less of a chance to do continuing harm to the individual. Early intervention is considered an important strategy for continuing health. Yet in the discussion of executions, we believe that holding on to those destructive feelings for so long a time will somehow heal. It is an issue worthy of concern. Betty Slusher, the widow of a man killed by two brothers in South Carolina said at the time of the executions of the brothers, 21 years after the crime, “I thought when this day came that I wouldn’t be sad, that I would be happy, but I am (sad). Let’s fact it: We’re taking two men’s lives.” (Reported in a South Carolina newspaper)
I lead to my fourth reason asking you to consider this testimony seriously in your decision-making, with a statement made to me by an Assistant Prosecutor who said, “We all know that we aren’t perfect, so there are bound to be mistakes made.” My comment back to the prosecutor was, “that is understandable as long as you aren’t the one mistake.” We all have been reminded of those released from death row because of new information which comes to light, because of dogged investigation from the likes of the journalism classes at Northwestern University, because of misidentification, poor investigation and inadmissible evidence at trial. Any, and all of these, have lead to wrong verdicts, long stays on death row and innocent people being executed. The number of those released from death row now ranges well over one hundred. Mistakes are inevitable, yet we can reduce the finality of these mistakes by appropriate action here in New York.
Finally, it can be argued that those who receive the death penalty are often not those who are able to get the best defense. Though, thankfully, in our country all are granted the right to a trial by jury and the right of defense, even paid for if we cannot afford it, there still is a wide disparity in the quality of defense which can be offered. Without considerable resources, one may go to trial without a well trained and seasoned criminal trial lawyer who has a reputation to maintain, without resources to guarantee quality detective and private investigation work, without the benefit of psychologists who often help in the jury selection process, and without the undivided attention of a lawyer and his or her firm’s resources. As committed as an individual lawyer may be, there is no substitute for financial resources and a quality team of lawyers and supportive professionals.
I thank you for listening. I hope I have been clear and convincing.
The Right Reverend Jack M. McKelvey
Episcopal Bishop of Rochester
January 25, 2005