by Kimberly Blaker

In savage murder cases, judging the death penalty from a rational perspective is an emotionally difficult endeavor, even for the staunchest opponents of the measure, and for many, it’s an impossible feat. This is especially true for the scheduled, April 24, execution of Gary Leon Brown of Birmingham, Alabama. 

Brown and two other assailants brutally and viciously murdered 60-year old Jack McGraw, in 1986, stabbing him 78 times and nearly decapitating the man. The three conspirators had spent the hours leading up to the slaying planning to inebriate and then rob the unsuspecting McGraw, who, according to the felons, had paid them in the past for sexual favors. But things went awry when McGraw, who had to work the next day, didn’t follow their plan to booze it up.

Particularly compelling in this death penalty case is that of the three felons, only one, Brown, landed on death row.  Despite prosecutors indicating that James Bynum was equally responsible in the crime, he received only a life term and was paroled in 1997.  More troublesome is that Archie Bankhead, who was the leader in the plot, had his death sentence reversed on appeal.  During his retrial Bankhead claimed to have “found the lord” and in the end, was handed a life sentence without parole.

Inconsistency in the doling out of the death penalty is one of the greatest arguments against it, especially since that’s one of the factors preventing it from being a deterrent to murder.  To be sure, Louisiana ranks 8^th in its number of executions since 1976, yet has a murder rate greater than twice the national average. 

As criminologists point out, the only way the death penalty will really deter murder is if all or nearly all murderers are caught, which is far from the reality; if they are all convicted and sentenced to death, including children, the mentally retarded, the criminally insane, those who commit crimes of passion, and self-defense murderers such as battered women; and finally, if the sentences are carried out swiftly and in all instances, thus requiring the elimination of the right to appeal and thereby executing numerous wrongly-convicted and innocent people.

Of course there are other equally compelling arguments against capital punishment, most notably that it’s immoral.  How can we say that murder and torture is wrong only to turn around and impose it on those who commit such acts?

cars The recent tendency of moving away from the violent use of the electric chair replaced by lethal injection makes the death penalty seem far more civil, and therefore, less immoral.  It has made me ponder its suitability in rare circumstances. As it turns out, this is also the method by which Brown’s execution will be carried out in a few days. 

This seemingly humane way of ending the life of one little deserving of it (life) isn’t as painless as most would like to believe.  Sociologist Joseph D. Diaz, in his recent book, The Execution of a Serial Killer: One Man’s Experience Witnessing the Death Penalty, reveals just that. Because of differences in metabolism and other body chemistry, death by lethal injection is not always instantaneous.

As Diaz shares, during lethal injection, a very short acting barbiturate is used to render the inmate unconscious along with a muscle paralyzing agent. This is followed by potassium chloride to stop the heart.  A New York anesthesiologist, according to the Alabama Committee to Abolish the Death Penalty, says that potassium chloride burns in the veins and “would be agony” once paralysis takes place.  But because the individual is paralyzed, onlookers would not recognize the torture.  In unusual cases, it has taken 30 minutes or longer for an inmate to die from lethal injection.

Still, some argue that the death penalty offers justice to family members of victims. But avenging a loved one’s death rarely brings comfort, because in the end, it neither brings the person back nor diminishes the pain and suffering the loved one endured.  At the same time, capital punishment victimizes more innocent people—the family members, often parents, spouses, and even children of the death row inmate.

Those criminals who hold so little regard for the life of another should not be free to roam our streets and brutalize others.  But civilized people ought not reduce themselves to execute or impose inhumane treatment on others.

Kimberly Blaker’s The Wall™ appears weekly. She is editor and coauthor of the The Fundamentals of Extremism: the Christian Right in America. Send your comments to Kimberly Blaker: TheWall@TheWall-OnChurchAndState.com  © 2002, Kimberly Blaker