Times Commentary

Some Crimes Are Far Too Heinous to Forgive -- Or Forget

SAN QUENTIN -- I don't envy the people in positions to make decisions about the death penalty, nor those who carry out the executions that take place in a pale green chamber here in this California state prison overlooking San Francisco Bay.

Murder is a horrible thing no matter who commits it, and I wish our resources and expertise as a society could go toward addressing the problems that lead human beings to become hardened criminals in the first place.

I believe the U.S. needs to outlaw guns and make inner cities safer.

I believe America should provide better foster care programs, more effective welfare-to-work programs, and sufficient drug rehab centers and rape crisis centers with better public outreach.

I also believe our cultural and societal obsessions with violence play a role in the violence we reap, and that these obsessions must end.

But I also believe the death penalty should be allowed. It should be applied only under special circumstances, and only after careful and thorough legal examination of each case. But it should be allowed.

The fact is that while I am opposed to the death penalty in many cases, I also believe that it's appropriate in instances of extreme and vicious multiple killings and torture.

Punishment by execution -- like the ones that are carried out in the state prison here, either by lethal injection or gas -- has been a part of American society since the beginning of its history. It is the unfortunate end for some who may have been saved in a friendlier, more nurturing environment.

Today, surveys tell us that 66 percent of Americans support the death penalty in theory. President Clinton, who should be noted for his attempts to bring about peace and harmony worldwide during his term, also added crimes of "espionage, treason, and drug trafficking in large amounts" to the federal death penalty scope. Clinton also expedited the death penalty process by signing the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Killings occur for vast amount of reasons. Some killers lash out on single occasions due to dire circumstances and I don't believe they should be put to death. Financial desperation, mental illness, sudden passionate anger, and troubled pasts include some of the factors that must be considered by juries and judges when looking at any death penalty case.

But those who are proven to have carried out premeditated murders on several victims over extended periods of time are a different breed of killers. The horror stories of those criminals who sodomize, eat, torture and kill victims, causing tremendous and lasting pain and suffering for their families, are hard to forgive. People like Jeffrey Dahmer (a necrophiliac and cannibal who slaughtered a total of 17 males in Milwaukee in the late 1980s and early 1990s), Charles Ng (held sex slaves with an accomplice and killed 11 people in California in 1984 and 1985), James Daveggio (killer of Vanessa Samson, a 22 year-old Pleasanton woman, and worked with Michele Michaud in a green "torture van" to sexually abuse young victims over two decades time including their own children).

These are people who are permanently ill and should be put to death because they will continue to act out in this manner. As I learned here during a visit at San Quentin State Prison recently, prison guards and inmates are murdered, beaten and made to suffer as much as those outside the bars at the hands of known and convicted killers.

I realize that my limited version of the death penalty may have legal challenges and would certainly present public outcry. I think everyone deserves fair and equal trials. The legal process must take its course. Criminals often sit on death row for 20 years or more while their cases are being reviewed. It may not be the best system, but the safeguards need to exist at the county, state, and federal levels to ensure fairness.

In the past century, executions have become more humane and fewer in frequency. Barbaric hangings and gas chamber executions of the past have been replaced by the slightly less horrific lethal injections. I see this as a small step towards compassion towards criminals. The deaths are apparently not painful.

And remember, it's not only the state's decision to grant the death penalty. A 12-member jury must ultimately decide. Those picked must be willing to issue a death penalty sentence to be considered on a jury, but they still must be convinced the defendant should die. This is no small matter and jury members must think hard about their decision.

I think serial killers and sexual predators are the worst of offenders, and thus the gravity of their acts and lack of remorse they show must be factors in deciding cases. Thus, I would include such leaders as Hitler and Pinochet on the list of death penalty candidates.

But the general focus on peace and love in our society, rather than on glorifying heinous acts of violence, needs to be addressed in a death penalty discussion because just talking about punishment is shortsighted. A discussion about the various ways our country can stop from producing these kinds of assailants may be less sensational, but it is the right thing to do.