2008 Supreme Court Limits Use of Death Penalty

Jim was fortunate in 1956 - when he was sentenced in federal court for robbing the bank and then, in the process of escape, killing the banker - that he was not sentenced to death; no doubt some people in the state, besides the U.S. Attorney prosecuting him, were calling for the death penalty.  Had Jim been executed anytime in the several years following 1956, he would not have changed enough to have experienced true contrition for his conduct.  He would not have contributed anything substantially positive to society and thus his conviction would have resulted in one more soul lost.  Society would only have been harmed by his existence.  But that is not what happened.  Jim was "merely" sentenced to life in prison.

     The widow of Jim's victim voiced her wishes at the time of his hearings in federal court.  She did not want Jim executed - rather she wanted him to suffer all his natural days, but also to have the time to make amends to his fellow men.  (Minneapolis Morning Tribune, 4-7-1956). 

Jim was spared some of the suffering Mrs. Lindberg, in her grief, wished for him, though he did suffer mightily in the 40 years following that 1956 conviction.  But Jim made use of that pain, plus the numerous other positive experiences which presented themselves during his incarceration - and, again fortunately, he served his time during a period of prison reform where rehabilitative opportunities were available to him - to thoroughly examine himself as a killer, and to convert himself into a respectable, kind and wise man.  Credit goes not only to the rehabilitative programs available, to several positive hopeful people who conveyed concern for him, and to his own fierce determination enhanced by a strong intellect, but also to prayer, faith in God, and God's own action in Jim's life ("God helps those who help themselves.").

The U.S. Supreme Court, this June (2008) put another limit on the scope of the death penalty in this country:  the Court ruled, although by the slimmest of margins (5-4), that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment for child rape, and is therefore unconstitutional in these cases.  The majority opinion, written by John Paul Stevens, said that the death penalty in this situation did not meet the "evolving standards of decency" regarding application of the death penalty.  In recent years the Court has also ruled the death penalty unconstitutional for mentally retarded criminals and for those who committed their crimes while a juvenile.  These rulings have breathed life into the anti-death-penalty movement and literally into a minority of death row inmates.  That is good, but it is not enough.

The death penalty is a barbaric act of an immature society, responding with retribution and vengeance, and with a hope to deter future crime.  A policy of execution disregards the fact that there is no hard evidence that the threat of execution acts as a deterrent to crime, and it casts aside all teachings and principles of Christianity (and other major religions) though many who advocate for it do so while professing to honor those religious teachings and principles.

Two justices who were part of the majority opinion on this recent death penalty case, John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg, are likely to retire soon, leaving to the next President the weighty task of nominating replacement judges.  It is hugely discouraging to me that neither of the likely-to-be-endorsed Presidential candidates, John McCain and Barack Obama, is opposed to the death penalty categorically.  We can only hope that if/when vacancies occur on the Supreme Court, the next President will nominate judges likely to vote to abolish the death penalty when given the opportunity.  Ideally, an enlightened Court will find the entire dehumanizing policy of executing criminals to be unconstitutional.  Perhaps on that day our "evolving standards of decency" will have caught up with the rest of the civilized world.