Hannah's Blog

This is my first and  draft of my and very rough draft of my advocacy letter to my local state representative. I apologize for the awkward spacing… this blog is a bit difficult to format.

April 10, 2013

Hon. Samuel H. Smith

109 Indiana Street

Suite 3

Punxsutawney, PA 15767

Mr. Smith,

First off, my name is Hannah Allen and I am an Animal Science major at the Pennsylvania State University. I am writing to personally advocate for a cause that I feel very strongly about. One I feel that you could make a great improvement in if you chose to do so. The issue that I am speaking about is capital punishment.

I grew up in the Corsica area with a local attorney as a father. Much of my life, I was exposed to the legal system at its personal level. Our legal system in general is something that strikes many with a bitter taste, and as a child it was difficult to hear teachers, loved ones and even friends talk about the “crooked attorneys.” It is always trying to not to reply with spiteful and venomous words, just to defend a loved one. In school, I once had government teacher ask me how my father lived with himself, knowing he was defending guilty people. So, I asked him. He replied to me without furor and explained that the issue of guilt was not his job to decide. Our legal system is designed so that there are checks and balances. It was just his job to ensure that every person he defended got a fair chance. He said that in law school, they were exposed to the old maxim, “It is better for ten guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be convicted.” This got me to thinking, as humans, it is impossible for us to be accurate all the time, mistakes are made.

This has led me to develop a particular interest in a commonly debated issue regarding our legal system nowadays, the approval and implementation of capital punishment. I fail to understand how capital punishment can be accepted as appropriate for usage in a system run by humans, humans that inevitably make mistakes. As well trained and honorable in intention our juries can be, it is foolish to assume that they are always right. Now, I understand that there is rarely certainty in the world, this is unavoidable. However, I fail to see how we can decide that something as final as the decision to end a life can be based upon uncertain reasoning.  While it is natural to desire ultimate retribution against the villains of society, as the superior species we must embrace and develop the restraint to not act on our primal instinct to seek vengeance.

Also, is it not true that the primary purpose of punishment for correction? As citizens of the United States, we pride ourselves on our diversity and acceptance of those who are different than us. I understand that we must implement laws and consequences protect citizens. Yet, the concept of doing to a murderer what he did to his or her victim seems to feel like pure retribution. Revenge just does not seem to fit into the compassionate and “new beginning” type of ideals we as a country hold dear. Punishments and legal structure provide the backbone for rules and allow society to function with some sort or order and efficiency and deter the individual from repeating the mistake he or she made, while deterring others. I cannot help but wonder how capital punishment fits into all of this. How is an individual supposed to right the wrongs they committed, or even simply come to see that they are wrong if they are eliminated from this earth? If rules and legislation are around to better humanity, is this not supposed to be through teaching as opposed to simply eradicating those who exhibit repulsive behavior?

The implementation of the death penalty may provide a solution for keeping our citizens safe from dangerous characters and ultimately punishing them for their wrongs, but it is simply too final. The reality is that yes, everyone does make mistakes. As humans we are taught to learn from our mistakes and attempt not to repeat them. The sentiment is nice in theory, but when a human life is concerned humanity cannot afford to take the chance. The death penalty may be considered a perfect punishment. The fact of the matter is that this is an imperfect world. It is not that humans are never to be trusted, weaknesses just must be recognized. In order to function properly the trust we put in each other and ourselves must be sensibly placed. We have neither the authority nor the discretion to take and spare human lives at will.

In the sciences, we constantly have to make allocations for “human error.” While the concept is broad, its truthfulness is undeniable. Nothing developed or decided by humans can ever be considered completely foolproof. I implore you, enlighten our state’s legal system to acknowledge this error in our nature. We must ensure that not one innocent man is convicted. The government must protect and enrich its citizen’s lives, not end them.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Hannah K. Allen

Undergraduate, Animal Sciences

Schreyer Honors College

The Pennsylvania State University

PH(814)715-2357

hka5026@psu.edu

To be honest, I really have not added much to my idea for an advocacy project since last week. I still plan on writing some sort of appeal in the form of a letter to a local representative. The discussion we did on Wednesday was helpful in the way that it solidified more my plans! I tried considering other methods, but I knew I wanted my audience to be a representative and there just is really not another appropriate way to contact one. While the prospect of one-girl flash mobbing my local state rep regarding the death penalty does strike me a little funny, if I were actually to carry out the plan I doubt it would go so well. When I make the change to the advocacy from the persuasive, I think I will be more willing to let my personal stake show. In the essay I was trying to focus on facts. Here however I think it would be to me best benefit to make known my moral opinion and how the issue affects me as a young constituent. This I believe would bring a fresh side to an argument that she has probably heard over and over again.

I really had a hard time deciding what I was going to do for the advocacy part of this project. I will admit, I am really not comfortable with “advocating” political issues such as mine up front or in person simply because I typically am made uncomfortable by political controversy. However, this does not mean that I do not believe the issue should not be advocated for. So, I think for my advocacy project I will compose some sort of letter or short written appeal that could potentially go to the local state representative in my area. Since this is a state level decision anyway. I feel that this is the most appropriate way to advocate for my cause since the topic itself is of a bit of a serious matter. I just feel like it really does not lend itself to widespread emotional campaigning or rallying. Additionally I do believe that unfortunately it does seem that the majority of weight of these decisions lies with our government officials. So, it just makes more sense to me to use them as my target audience in this project. In the letter I hope to use my research as well as my status as a young voter to establish some sort of ethos.

A Perfect Punishment for an Imperfect World

As humans, we are unmatched in our compassion and ability to reason.  Over countless years, we have developed the science to heal, to learn, and to teach, along with the technology to investigate, to prosecute and to punish. Extensive know-how and dominion over our fellow animals aside, we are far from deities. As close as we can and get to finding truth, in all human discoveries and conclusions there is a certain degree of faith involved, a certain amount of carefully allocated trust that we must place in our fellow man in order to survive. Still, this trust must be used with discretion, because at the heart of the matter we are just that, imperfect.  The question is now, are you prepared to trust this imperfect humanity with your life?

In the United States, this is decided for us by our democratic government. As one of the few remaining developed countries in which the implementation of capital punishment is legal and active, we are making a statement to the world that our justice system is capable and entitled to decide whether the citizen in question lives or dies. Individuals that, at the heart, are just as human as the person they are condemning. Trained and qualified as they may be they, are still capable of errors. Though we have all been told at one time or another “everyone makes mistakes,” when it comes to something as final as a life, do we have the authority to take the chance?

I think to understand the implementation of punishments, any kind of punishment, we must try to examine what we have them for in the first place. If you think about it, is not the primary purpose of punishment for correction? As citizens of the United States, we pride ourselves on diversity and acceptance. We sing songs about being the “land of the free” where any honest person of any background can come to pursue life, liberty and happiness. Naturally, as all organized societies do, we must implement laws and consequences, to better humanity. The purpose of punishment is not to fulfill the ancient idea of an “eye for an eye” or provide some legal way to seek ultimate revenge. The concept of doing to a murderer what he did to his or her victim is pure retribution. Revenge just does not seem to fit into the compassionate and “new beginning” ideals we as a country hold dear. Punishments simply provide the backbone for rules. And rules allow society to function within some sort of structure. Punishments deter the individual from repeating the mistake he or she made, and to deter others. I cannot help but wonder how capital punishment fits into all of this. How is an individual supposed to right the wrongs they committed, or even simply come to see that they are wrong if they are eliminated from this earth? If rules and legislation are around to better humanity, is this not supposed to be through teaching as opposed to simply eradicating those who exhibit repulsive behavior? “Let the punishment fit the crime” is an often cited maxim. Should we not let the punishment fit the crime as opposed to eliminating the criminal?

Now, we may not want to eliminate them, but scare them away perhaps? Fear is a powerful tool. One of the theories floating around defending the implementation of a death penalty is based on the premise that in taking a few guilty lives even more innocent ones can be saved. Essentially, that by the simple existence of a death penalty we can prevent criminals through fear from committing acts that would place them on death row. Ethics of our ability to sacrifice one to save many aside, it is unclear how much truth there actually is to this theory.

In a study Published in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology in 2009, Michael L. Radelet and Traci L. Lacock surveyed the opinions of leading criminologists to attempt to compile an expert opinion of whether or not the existence of the death penalty ever actually succeeds in deterring criminals from breaking the law. Their conclusion in short was that no, the death penalty has no effect on the crime rate. Also, they discovered that there is little to no evidence that could have at any time even begun to suggest this.¹ Albert Camus explains this phenomenon of inaccuracy well. He stated that “For centuries the death penalty, often accompanied by barbarous refinements, has been trying to hold crime in check; yet crime persists. Why? Because the instincts that are warring in man are not, as the law claims, constant forces in a state of equilibrium” (Camus.) Crime really has existed as long as society has. The present threat of a specific form of punishment does not nor has it ever proven effective in curbing the very human tendency to do wrong.

There have been over 1,000 people executed in the United States since 1976.³ Principles of statistics alone dictate that the margin of human error will account for the incarceration and death of more than a few innocent people. In 1985 a twenty-two year old Kirk Bloodsworth found himself suddenly part of this figure. Bloodsworth was charged with the brutal rape and murder of a young woman after a false identification by a neighbor. His conviction has since been overturned based upon DNA evidence “The prosecutor in my case was very smart. The judges in both trials were very smart, the homicide detectives were smart and the jurors were concerned citizens, but in the end, every single person involved in the State of Maryland v. Kirk Noble Bloodsworth was dead wrong,” he testified. Currently, there are 142 innocent individuals living in the United States today that at one time or another were on death row.

These 142 people were incarcerated for anywhere between nine to nineteen years. These men and women lost an entire portion of their lives and in more cases than not endured some form of torturous circumstances or were placed in solitary confinement. These people are not exonerated and set free in the same condition that they were in when first incarcerated. Many suffer from mental issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder and all have a higher chance of becoming alcoholics or drug-addicts to deal with their anxiety. Additionally, frequently the exonerated end up homeless. For people such as Kirk Bloodsworth, who are locked up as young men or women for ten of fifteen years, they miss the crucial social window that typically involves schooling, building a savings and beginning a family. They are forever hindered in social situations due to their being in prison. They leave prison with no savings, no job, and frequently no education (“Once On Death Row, He Now Fights To Defeat The Death Penalty.”)Now, some may argue that the fact that these people were released at all proves the effectiveness of the system, but not every person in this situation found him or herself quite as lucky as Kirk, if you can even call it lucky.

Men such as Cameron Todd Willingham found themselves in this situation. Willingham was executed for the crime of murdering his three children in a speculated case of arson. It was speculated that he intentionally set his house on fire for the purpose of killing his family. This case never sat completely right with some. Yet, after a supposed scientific investigation and the testimony of one inmate, it was determined that Willingham was the arsonist and he was put to death in 2004. Yet, recent discoveries have deemed that the techniques used in the investigation were actually flawed. Additionally, one of the individuals who testified that Willingham had confessed to him in a county jail was found to be a drug addict and on psychiatric medication. Thus, there really was no conclusive evidence to justify the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham. Furthermore,  just months later the same scientific techniques used to speculate as to the late Willingham’s innocence was used to free Earnest Wills from death row in an arson case almost identical to that of Willingham (Urs.)

Carlos DeLuna, Ruben Cantu, Larry Griffin, Joseph O’Dell, David Spence, Leo Jones, Gary Graham and Claued Jones are the names of just a few others that have found themselves in the same situation as Willingham. These men that fill the percentage of natural “human error” that is inevitably present in any human act were real people. People with families, friends, pets, jobs and lives that may have lost their life for no other reason than someone somewhere made a mistake (Urs.)The implementation of the death penalty may provide a solution for keeping our citizens safe from dangerous characters and ultimately punishing them for their wrongs, but it may just be too final. Yes, everyone does make mistakes. As humans we are taught to learn from them and try not to repeat the same mistake again. The sentiment is nice, but when a human life is concerned, we just cannot afford to take the chance. The death penalty is in realty a perfect punishment, but this is an imperfect world. It is not that humans cannot or should never be trusted. The fact of the matter is that weaknesses have to be recognized. In order to function properly the trust we put in each other and ourselves must be sensibly placed. We have neither the authority not the discretion to take and spare human lives at will.

Works Cited

Camus, Albert. Reflections on the guillotine. Michigan City: Fridtjof-Karla Publications,                1960. Print.

“Once On Death Row, He Now Fights To Defeat The Death Penalty.” Alder, Margot. All    Things Considered. National Public Radio. 91.5, State College. 10 Mar. 2013.    Web. Transcript.

Radelet, Michael L. , and Traci L. Lacock. “Do Executions Lover Homicide Rates?: The      Views of Leading Criminologists .” The Journal Criminal Law and Criminology 99.2   (2009): 489-508. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/. Web. 16 Mar. 2013.

Urs, Lori. “Executed But Possibly Innocent | Death Penalty Information Center.” Death                 Penalty Information Center. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Mar. 2013.                                                   <http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent>.

Well, today in class when Dr. Haspel posed the question, “So what is everyone thinking for their persuasive papers?” and like everyone else, I said nothing. I realized I better get cracking. In reality, I sort of hate confrontation. However after some brainstorming, I remembered a conversation I had with my dad just recently. We were in the car heading back here from spring break listening to NPR’s “All Things Considered.”  There was a testimony of a man who spent around 10 years in prison and two years on death row. A short period of time before his execution, they finally discovered some life changing evidence: he was innocent.  He went on to discuss that there are over 140 people living in America today that were at one time on death row as innocent people. I will admit, this topic has more than a bit of a political angle than I typically like. Nevertheless, I think that the topic will work for me since I already have some good resources I will be able to employ and utilize that I think will successfully strengthen my argument. Also, it is a topic that I am slightly distanced from, so I believe this will allow me to be objective and formal in my writing, without getting too passionate.