In Wisconsin, the last we saw of a serious campaign for the death penalty was 1994 when former federal prosecutor now radio talk show host Jeff Wagner ran against Jim Doyle, seemingly on the single issue of the death penalty. Wagner's defeat seemed to take the steam out of the death penalty engine, at least temporarily.The death penalty makes a return this week with the announcement by State Senator Tom Reynolds (R-West Allis) he's seeking co-sponsors for his attempt to bring back the death penalty. He's quoted in the Badger Herald as saying,
“My bill allows capital punishment for only the most egregious criminal acts,” Reynolds said in a release. “The DNA requirement linking the defendant to the crimes will help ensure that only the guilty are punished. I believe the death penalty will have a deterrent effect that will save innocent lives.”The "most egregious of crimes" includes: first-degree homicide, first- or second-degree sexual assault and mutilation of the same victim.
Reynolds is hardly alone in his desire to bring back the death penalty, and one suspects that he won't have trouble finding co-sponsors. But it doesn't answer the question, does Wisconsin really need the death penalty? After all, we've survived without the death penalty since 1853.
John at Holstein Grove cites three reasons to bring back the death penalty: Steven Avery, and Juan Nieto & Gregorio Morales.
Almost everyone is familiar with the Avery case. But the first part of the story should give us pause before we call for the hangman. After all, had the death penalty been in place at the time of the first (wrongful) conviction, would Avery have been sentenced to die? Aha! You say. Had he been given the death penalty, Teresa Halbach may be alive today. Yes, and he would have been killed for a crime he didn't commit. As for the crime he committed since his release, Avery is responsible for the decisions he made leading to the murder of Teresa Halbach, not the lack of a death penalty.
State Senator Tom Reynolds argues the death penalty is a deterrent, and the crimes he considers worthy of the death penalty certainly sound like the crimes committed in the Halbach murder. However, can one seriously believe that any punishment including the death penalty would have served as a deterrent, given Avery's history and time already spent in prison? The death penalty would not have saved Halbach's life in this case, and it certainly would not prevent Avery from committing more crimes in the future any more than life-without-parole will.
The case of Juan Nieto and Gregory Morales involves the kidnapping, rape and attempted murder of a woman outside a Green Bay nightclub.
The pair abducted their female victim from the parking lot of the XS night club in Green Bay, and took her to a secluded farm field where they repeatedly raped her, and strangled her to the point of passing out. When the pair was finished, the woman was doused in fuel and set ablaze while still alive. She suffered second and third degree burns, but was thankfully able to put herself out by rolling on the ground and lived to see her attackers convicted.A horrible crime to be sure, but even Mario Puzo's Godfather would point out that she lived, and justice would not be served by the taking of their lives. Yes, a long incarceration, preferably for the rest of their lives, is called for, both from a sense of justice and for the public safety.
We can find other specific heinous acts by criminals and say, "This deserves death," but let's not pretend there is any utility in imposing the death sentence. It's merely an act of frustration of the public to deal with the worst sort of criminal found in our society. As we build the first scaffold we should ask, to what purpose does this really serve?
