On The Death Penalty in Missouri
By Paula Skillicorn:
 

To Those Whom It May Concern,

Missouri’s record-breaking numbers of executions this year has pushed the death penalty to the
forefront in the news, politics and our minds. Like voters in many other states in this country who believe it is time to reevaluate this sentence and assess the true impact it has on our society, some Missourians are calling for an end to the death penalty – or at least a moratorium on executions.

Meanwhile, politicians choose to use the death penalty as an election tool, and try to outdo their opponents by being more bloodthirsty. A case in point is the race between John Ashcroft and Mel Carnahan, who seem to base their candidacies not on whether or not the death penalty is right, but on how many men they have sent to the execution chamber.

Unfortunately, most people, including legislators, base their opinions of capital punishment on emotions and a lack of knowledge of the facts. The death penalty and its process are secretive, complex, and far removed from most people’s daily lives. Even members of the media, who purport to bring us the facts, are largely unaware of the intricacies involved.

In my 15 years as a reporter in Missouri and Massachusetts, I spent a great deal of time covering crime and courts. I routinely knew things about investigations that victims’ families were never told. I had information that never came out in news stories or in court.

I caught prosecutors and police in lies. I watched as one white defense attorney presented no defense whatsoever during the trial for his black client. And I sat exasperated in courtrooms as evidence that I knew about was not presented.

But I still had no idea how much information is kept from juries, reporters and the public until I left the newspaper and further investigated some of the murder cases I had covered, as well as others that were being appealed.

I hadn’t realized how capriciously some murder suspects were chosen to be eligible for the death penalty while prosecutors declined to pursue capital punishment for others whose crimes clearly were more heinous.

What I found when I began looking into case files was very disturbing and changed me from a capital punishment supporter to a death penalty opponent.

Evidence shows that several people on death row – including some who already have been executed – never took a life. But prosecutor’s maneuvers and appeals-limiting legislation has effectively kept juries and judges from hearing or considering that evidence in most of those cases.

I would like to share with you just some of the cases I found compelling.

          1. Prosecutors charged James Butler with first-degree murder in the death of his wife,
          ignoring unidentified fingerprints at the crime scene and the fact that jewelry matching
          the victim’s had been found in the possession of another man. That man had motive and
          opportunity for the killing, but was never even questioned. Jurors sentenced Butler to
          death.

          2. Allen Nicklasson has consistently confessed that he, alone, made the decision to kill
          Richard Drummond and that he made that decision after leaving his two codefendants
          behind. However, Dennis Skillicorn’s jury never got to hear any of Nicklasson’s
          statements, nor was Nicklasson allowed to testify in trial that Skillicorn did not help plan
          the murder. The jury gave Skillicorn the death penalty.

          3. Larry Griffin’s attorneys tracked down the real killer in Griffin’s case, and the man
          confessed in court. But the Missouri Supreme Court ruled that his confession had come
          too late in Griffin’s appeals process to be considered. Despite the evidence that Griffin
          was an innocent man, the state of Missouri executed him on June 21, 1995.

          4. A prison guard testified that he was with Roy Roberts in 1983 when another
          corrections officer was killed elsewhere in the Moberly state prison. Several inmates
          testified that Roberts was not holding the slain guard as he was charged. Roberts,
          himself, passed a lie detector test while proclaiming his innocence. Regardless, Roberts
          was executed earlier this year.

The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty with the requirement that it be leveled fairly and impartially. That is not what is happening. The numbers of falsely convicted men and women in this country who have been released from death row – some only hours before they were scheduled to be killed – are fast approaching the 100 mark. Yet each of those innocent men and women would have been executed if ardent attorneys, students, journalists and abolitionists had not pursued the truth independently.

While you may not care about the rights of criminals, you must protect their constitutional rights to ensure that yours aren’t one day violated as well. Overzealous attorneys in Illinois are currently being investigated for misconduct after at least 12 innocent people were wrongly sent to death row.

Despite Jay Nixon’s contention that Missouri’s prosecutors "don’t make those mistakes," numerous Missouri cases have been overturned recently because of prosecutorial misconduct. Among them: State vs. Driscoll, State vs. Weaver, State vs. Royal, State vs. Rodgers and State vs. Storey.

Several other accusations of prosecutorial misconduct are currently being addressed in court.

James Chambers, scheduled for execution in November, is awaiting the results of an investigation by a special prosecutor who is looking into perjury charges against the prosecution’s key witness.

Illinois is taking a closer look at its capital punishment process because that state’s leaders are willing to admit that the system could, indeed, be flawed. Don’t we in Missouri want the same type of conscience in our own leaders?

Contrary to what Jay Nixon and other politicians who support the death penalty would have you believe, being against the death penalty has nothing to do with being soft on crime. Abolitionists do not favor the rights of criminals over the rights of innocent people. We believe that those who commit crimes ought to be punished, but not by making us all killers.

All killing is wrong.

When the government and voters support killing those who hurt others, it gives the wrong message to our young people. The murders in Columbine High School underscore the danger in that message.

Sentences such as life without possibility of parole, policies of our current corrections system, and the death fences that surround Missouri’s maximum security institutions, provide more than adequate means of keeping dangerous people out of society without turning voters into premeditated killers.

Keeping a convicted murderer in prison for life is much cheaper than executing him or her. Even without considering the cost of appeals, capital punishment trials are far more expensive than other first-degree murder trials. They typically involve bringing in far more witnesses, include more meticulous and labor-intensive handling of evidence and result in more expansive investigation. Often, juries are sequestered, which also adds to the price of the trial, which could range in the hundreds of thousands.

Appeals to be sure that the convicted person’s rights were not violated can put the total cost of a capital case into the millions – enough to house at least two or three inmates for life.

Wouldn’t it be better to keep convicted murderers alive and find ways for them to make restitution to their victims’ families?

The argument that execution is the only way to provide closure for victims’ families is bunk. If that were true, all convicted murderers would be put to death, instead of the current 1%.

If you support the death penalty on a closure basis, it follows that you must also insist that drunken drivers be eligible for the death penalty. Getting behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated and causing a fatal accident is no different from picking up a gun when high on drugs and shooting someone to death. Both involve illegal behavior with potential lethal weapons. Both can cause innocent people to die and innocent families to suffer.

Advocates for the death penalty stop short of equal sentences for drunk drivers, however. Does that mean that drinking and driving still remains acceptable behavior in this country? Where and how do those victims’ families get closure?

When I was a reporter, I never once considered the families of the criminals. Like so many, I assumed one "bad apple" had to have come from a rotten barrel. But even before I met and fell in love with my husband, I learned that that stereotype, like most, is false.

The families of death row inmates in Missouri are, by and large, law-abiding, hard-working taxpayers. They don’t condone the crimes there loved ones committed or were convicted of. They know who these men really are. And they love them, as anyone loves his or her family, regardless of conflict, disappointments or disagreements.

When I supported the death penalty, I thought that only the worst of the worst were sentenced to death. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that is not true. Some of the most heinous cases I covered never were even considered for the death penalty.

Many of the men on death row committed their crimes while high on drugs and, once sober, are indistinguishable from men on the streets.

Most have true remorse for their crimes. In court, however, defense attorneys routinely warn their clients to show absolutely no emotion at all, regardless of their guilt or innocence or the outcome of the trial. In fact, when Butler began to weep during testimony about his wife’s murder, the judge warned him that if he showed any more emotions, Butler would be banned from the court for the rest of his trial.

After a suspect is found guilty, his or her public expressions of remorse typically are perceived as insincere or a lame attempt to get leniency.

Above all, capital punishment commands a punishment that goes far beyond reasonable for the convicted and their families.

Had these men and women committed robbery, arson or assault to land in prison, they would not have been sentenced to be robbed, torched or beaten. The death penalty is excessive because it sentences criminals to be killed for killing.

Likewise, had these men and women committed robbery, arson or assault, the system would not demand that their families be robbed or beaten or that their property be burned. The death penalty is excessive in that it punishes innocent families by making them suffer the same loss that the victim’s family suffered.

Only in capital punishment does this country sentence innocent men, women and children to pay the penalty for their loved one’s crimes.

Pray that no one you care about is ever wrongly accused or convicted of a crime and sentenced to die. Consider what the death penalty tells our children about hatred, vengeance and retaliation.

We can no longer shrug off the death penalty by saying "it is of no importance to me." The messages and ramifications of this sentence affect all of us, directly or indirectly, and especially impact our youth.

If you support the death penalty, I urge you to learn more about its realities and consider the long-term effects on all innocent people.

If you oppose the death penalty, please speak out against it. Educate others. Let legislators know how you feel. Call for the United States to join nearly every European country in abolishing the death penalty. Or, at least, ask for a moratorium.

If you are not comfortable speaking out, please sign a petition to end capital punishment. You can get a petition or more information from:

          Missourians Working For Life
          P.O. Box 7
          New Bloomfield, Mo. 65063

                  The CCADP offers free webpages to over 500 Death Row Prisoners
                                              Contact us for more information.
            
                                                       "The Eyes Of The World Are Watching Now"