Wow, I can hardly believe a whole week has gone by since I last wrote!  Have you had a chance to look at the Bill of Rights I sent you?  I know it’s a lot to go through, but it’s definitely worth the time.

This past week I’ve been thinking about the death penalty, and I know it’s a favorite subject of yours too.  Down at the Supreme Court on Monday they were hearing a case about whether or not lethal injection constitutes a violation of the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the U.S. Constitution due to possible pain and suffering cased by the mix of chemicals currently used in most states to execute prisoners.  In case you missed it, you can review the Supreme Court transcript docket #07-5439, Bowling v. the Kentucky Department of Corrections here.

Anyway, all this discussion about putting people to death kind of got my curiosity up and I started looking into the thing.

Now, I’ve got to admit to you, I’m a death penalty opponent going way back to my fifth grade debating class when I was assigned to the “opposed” side. But hey, a lot of time has passed since then and I mean, since the death penalty is such an effective deterrent to crime, I’m thinking that after all these years of executing criminals, the murder rate must have gone down, right?

Well, like I said, all this talk about the death penalty on the news got my curiosity up.  I was driving home from work and they had this great report on the Free Speech Radio Network about the hearing.  This report was really thorough.  Evidently, the drugs used in lethal injection include a drug that anesthetizes you, one that paralyzes you, and finally, one that actually stops your heart.  I guess the whole thing rests on whether or not inmates experience excruciating pain from the subsequent two drugs if the anesthetic is not administered correctly.  Evidently that happens…a lot.

But I think the most interesting point in the whole newscast was the part about potential alternatives to the current 3 chemical cocktail.  Someone suggested that we employ the drugs used for assisted suicides to execute our prisoners instead. But I guess there are some drawbacks to that, not the least of which is the fact that the use of such a combination of drugs could cause the inmate to twitch uncontrollably during the 15 minute dying process – something that would make the people watching the execution extremely uncomfortable.

Ever vigilant, Judge Scalia warned that the Bowling case could be used as a “…ploy to ban executions all together.”  I know that’s a thought that sends a chill through the hearts of Americans everywhere.

The newscast concluded with a comment from Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch.  She said that the justices are not just concerned about those being put to death; they are concerned about the experience of the witnesses.  Said Fellner, ”It might be more uncomfortable for witnesses to see a body twitch…than to have to wait 10 or 15 minutes, but if you are weighing the human rights obligation, which is the least possible pain, versus the discomfort of the witnesses who voluntarily choose to be there, I think the answer is clear.”

It’s an interesting point Ms. Fellner raises.  And I guess, based on constitutional law, it’s an appropriate one.  But George, I think there’s a bigger question here.  I mean, maybe I’m just a simpleton, but why are we executing people in the first place?  It seems to me, there are only a couple of ways to answer this question: 

• To deter future criminals from committing offenses punishable by death
• To exact revenge on behalf of the victims

I figured you would be a great one to answer this question since you’ve spent a lot of your political life in Texas – the execution capital of the United States.  Here are some fun facts about the state of Texas that I found on the Counterpunch website: 

1. Texas leads the nation in the number of executions since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976… (Up to the mid 1970s, the primary method of execution in America was electrocution).  Take a look at the cool chart I found illustrating this point.
2. Texas is also a real trendsetter when it comes to killing mentally retarded children.  In fact, I read in The Texas Defender that since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Texas has executed six men who were mentally retarded and has sentenced numerous others to die. Sorry if I’m telling you stuff you already know.  I mean, in 2000 when you were Governor of Texas you publicly said that Texas does not execute mentally retarded people right after you opposed the bill that would have ended the practice!  I’m sure you just forgot, right?
   
3. Texas is the only state where a judge or state attorney general can set an execution date before the appeals process has been exhausted. I’ll bet that can get awkward!
4. Despite being #1 in the execution of death row inmates, Texas’ murder rates in its largest cities including Dallas, Houston and San Antonio are higher than in New York where the death penalty was only reinstated in 1995!  Well, so much for the “deterrence factor.”

 Hey, listen, I don’t mean to just pick on Texas; there’s a lot of competition out there!  The state of Virginia, (where Justice Scalia spent a lot of time), is a not-too-shabby second in the number of state sponsored executions.

Of course, when it comes to the American judicial system, we shouldn’t underestimate the race factor.

Across all the states there’s a huge disparity between the numbers of African American prisoners executed as opposed to white prisoners.  In Georgia, 40% of all those sentenced to death since 1976 have been black and no white people have ever been executed for the murder of a black person in that state!  Why, in Danville, Virginia every person ever executed in the town has been African-American since the town’s incorporation in 1890!  But I do digress. 

Anyway, my point is George; the facts just don’t bear out the “death penalty as a deterrent” argument.  It just doesn’t fly.  In fact, some pretty smart folks are even saying that the death penalty might even lead to an increase in capital crime!  Check it out!

But what about the revenge factor?  Surely the survivors of murder victims have the god-given right to witness the execution of their loved one’s executioners?

You know, I’ve thought a lot about this too, and well George, I know that you are going to identify with what I have to say about this because you are a Christian man.  As I recall, the bible tells us that God reserved the right to vengeance for himself alone and commanded “Thou shall not kill.”

I know you’re familiar with the Ten Commandments, ‘cause there’s a big stone monument of all the commandments right outside the Texas state capitol building in Austin where you used to go to work everyday.  The folks in Texas fought the ACLU hard to keep those commandments there because in their minds, it’s important to remember God’s word and to keep his commandments, especially if you work for the government.

Anyway George, I’m sure you can see how silly the whole thing is.  The matter is so easily settled: 

Killing = bad.           God doesn’t like it.

Vengeance = bad.  Taking vengeance is not our job.

Deterrence = false.  It doesn’t work.  Never has.  Never will.
                                    Escalation of violence does not decrease
                                    violence. 

I’ll write again soon.  Hope you have a good week!

I’ve been meaning to write to you for a very long time, but I’ve been really busy lately, what with the holidays and all.

I guess you’ve had a pretty good week considering the fact that most of the news media has been focused on the Iowa caucus activity.  Why, I’ve hardly heard your name mentioned in the news at all this week!

Anyway, let me get back to the reason I’m writing.

For the last seven years I’ve been watching you systematically disassemble the very foundation of our country, morally, physically and spiritually. Now, whenever I see a friend or colleague of mine doing really stupid stuff, my tendency is always to try to extend a hand, offer some help or some words of kindness to help them get back on track. I thought maybe I could do the same for you.  You seem to need a friend to help you on your way.

So, rather than spend my time watching reruns of What Not To Wear, I thought I’d finally take some time to write and share some of my thoughts about where you might want to consider making some changes.  They say it’s never too late to change, and even though you only have about a year left, there’s still time!  No “lame duck” you! 

Of course, it’s really important to contextualize this conversation.  I mean, there’s sooo much we could talk about.  So, just to get the conversation going, I thought I’d reacquaint you with this document called The Bill of Rights. You can read all about it if you have access to a computer and a connection to the Internet.  I know you must remember seeing this document in your civics class, but hey, it’s been a long time.  I know how that is.

So here it is – I just grabbed it off of Wikipedia.com.  I’ll check back in a little later after you’ve has some time to read it and we can talk a bit more about some of the stuff it says. We’ll use some examples from real life.  That’s always the best way to learn things, don’t you think?

Talk to you soon George!

The Bill of Rights are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. They were introduced as a series of amendments in 1789 in the First United States Congress by James Madison. Ten of the amendments were ratified and became the Bill of Rights in 1791. These amendments limit the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of all citizens, residents and visitors on United States territory. Among the enumerated rights these amendments guarantee are: the freedoms of speech, press, and religion; the well-regulated militia’s right to keep and bear arms; the freedom of assembly; the freedom to petition; and the rights to be free of unreasonable search and seizure; cruel and unusual punishment; and compelled self-incrimination. The Bill of Rights also restricts Congress‘ power by prohibiting it from making any law respecting establishment of religion and by prohibiting the federal government from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. In criminal cases, it requires indictment by grand jury for any capital or “infamous crime,” guarantees a speedy public trial with an impartial and local jury, and prohibits double jeopardy. In addition, the Bill of Rights states that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people,”^[1] and reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the citizenry or states.

These amendments came into effect on December 15, 1791, when ratified by three-fourths of the states. Most were applied to the states by a series of decisions applying the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was adopted after the American Civil War.

Initially drafted by James Madison in 1789, the Bill of Rights was written at a time when ideological conflict between Federalists and anti-Federalists, dating from the Philadelphia Convention in 1787, threatened the Constitution’s ratification. The Bill was influenced by George Mason‘s 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, the 1689 English Bill of Rights, works of the Age of Enlightenment pertaining to natural rights, and earlier English political documents such as Magna Carta (1215). The Bill was largely a response to the Constitution’s influential opponents, including prominent Founding Fathers, who argued that it failed to protect the basic principles of human liberty.

The Bill of Rights plays a central role in American law and government, and remains a fundamental symbol of the freedoms and culture of the nation.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Amendments:

• First Amendment – Establishment clause, freedom of religion, speech, and press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

• Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

• Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

• Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

• Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

• Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

• Eighth Amendment - Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

• Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

• Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.