SALINA, Kan. - On July 7, 2011 the state of Texas executed Humberto Leal for the 1994 rape and murder of Adria Sauceda.
Leal was a Mexican citizen, although he had lived in the United States from a young age. The Mexican government joined other groups and individuals in pleading for his life be spared by Texas governor Rick Perry, but to no avail.
The execution reminded me of a comment, or better yet a question that a Mexican friend put to me a few years back. This individual asked me bluntly, "Why does the United States still have the death penalty? How barbaric!"
And in fact the United States is one of a minority of countries in the world who still practice capital punishment.
The United States is practically alone in the Western Hemisphere in this practice, being joined only by Belize, Guatemala and Cuba. Worldwide, according to Amnesty International (2007 statistics) eighty-eight percent of all death penalty executions were carried out in five countries - China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States. That's some dubious company indeed.
Nowadays when I think of the death penalty my thoughts turn immediately to John Grisham's book Innocent Man. This work, the only piece of non-fiction that Grisham has written, recounts the true story of Ron Williamson of Ada, Oklahoma, who was convicted in 1988 of the 1982 rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter and given the death penalty. Williamson spent eleven harrowing years on Death Row and, at one point had his execution stayed by the Supreme Court twenty-five minutes before the event was scheduled.
In 1999 Williamson was exonerated by DNA evidence and set free. The book also touches on several other inmates on Oklahoma Death Row that have also been exonerated. Williamson's case was one of the first undertaken by the Barry Scheck Innocence Project, which to date has freed 272 individuals from Death Row based on DNA evidence.
Within the United States fifteen states have outlawed capital punishment. Kansas remains part of the other group of thirty-five. An attempt was made by the Legislature in the Spring of 2010 to outlaw the practice in our state, but the measure failed in the State Senate on a 20-20 vote.
Notable on that vote was the lack of support from Senators from the so-called "Christian Right," who are normally vociferous when it comes to abortion and other social issues of importance to their religious denominations. Bishops from the Episcopal, Roman Catholic, Evangelical Lutheran and United Methodist Churches co-signed a letter to state senators urging them to end the practice of capital punishment in Kansas. But the effort failed.
What's truly disappointing is the failure of major "Pro-Life" groups to get involved in the death penalty debate. Groups like the inappropriately named "Kansans for Life," focus their efforts on abortion and ignore the second half of Pope John Paul II's efforts to build what he called a Culture of Life, meaning, in his words, "respect for life from the moment of conception until natural death."
Anti-abortion fanatics will cite the millions of babies aborted since the 1970's, and talk about how the 1226 public executions in the United States since 1976 pale in comparison. Such talk ignores the moral dimension of the argument.
Yes, Humberto Leal, like St. Paul, was guilty of a heinous crime. Others, like Ron Williamson were innocent. Do we really want to sacrifice a few guilty individuals to satisfy our collective desire for vengeance? Capital punishment is morally indefensible.
Hopefully our state and country's leaders will soon see fit to end this medieval practice.
I agree with you on this one, Alan. I'm also happy to see that you recognize the hypocrisy of "pro-life" groups. I recall that when you were running for Congress in the KS 1st District, that when you were asked point blank if the mother's life were in jeopardy from a pregnancy would your "pro-life" beliefs lead you to choose the life of the woman or the life of the fetus, you responded that you would choose the life of the fetus. Do you also see the hypocrisy in that?
What gets me is the immigrant rights hypocrisy. One one hand we have people pushing the DREAM act which says people who were brought here illegally as children should be given full rights. While in this story the person in the same category gets to use his immigrant status as a "Get out of Jail" card.
When one chooses to live in a country they have to abide by its laws. Remember years ago the teenage boy in Singapore that was subjected to that countries discipline (caning) which is outlawed in the US.
This is why we need to control immigration. Far too many immigrants get out of punishment by posting bail and fleeing the country.
Finally dont think being an American in a Mexican jail isnt also a death sentence.
Amen, Kari Ann. As to the death penalty, I've been opposed to it ever since I was teenager. It doesn't matter who the person is, I don't want anyone put to death in the name of the state, which is also in my name. I agree with Alan that the practice is medieval.
However, it is also medieval to force women to carry pregnancies to term or to seek illegal abortions when they don't want to have children. Yes, I know the argument--why didn't they think of that before they had sex. Sexuality is complex. Many people have sex when they didn't intend to. Yet, it's the woman who has to pay the price when the act results in pregnancy.
My first husband was in a Mexican jail. He came home in one piece and we went back to Mexico for a vacation several years later. I guess being in a Mexican jail wasn't all that bad.
"The Mexican government joined other groups and individuals in pleading for his life be spared by Texas governor Rick Perry, but to no avail."
In Texas, the Governor only has the authority to delay an execution by 30 days - only the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles can commute the sentence.
Diane - "Many people have sex when they didn't intend to."
Can you explain this? Other than rape, I'm struggling to find a circumstance where one can accidentally have sex.
No Kari Ann. I see no contradiction or hypocrisy in my position. In 2004 Pope John Paul II canonized an Italian woman, Dr. Gianna Beretta Molla, who went through the scenario you pose. The incident in question occurred in 1962. Her widower husband, Pietro, and their three living children attended the ceremony. The youngest, Gianna Emanuela, born at the time of her mother's death, is today a physician in Italy.
With strides in medicine, we are able to save the lives of women facing life threatening circumstances during the course of pregnancy with the medical procedure of abortion. To say that these women should become sacrificial lambs, elevated through their deaths to some sort of sainthood is a dangerous, viewpoint. Very few people in today's society share it with you Mr. Jilka, because it demeans the lives of women, sisters, mothers and friends who deserve more than to be viewed as incubators whose expiration is viewed as some pre-ordained master plan.
Mr. Jilka--Maybe you prefer that the women in your life find sainthood by carrying a life-threatening pregnancy to term. The men in my life prefer their women alive to see their born children grow up. Born children always should be the first priority for a mother.
Further, what about those of us who don't believe in this myth of sainthood? Why should women who have different beliefs have to seek illegal abortions because of those who abortion is a sin?
Why are you a Democrat?
Editor's Note: It goes without saying that it is not a prerequisite at KFP for KFP writers to consider themselves "pro-choice" and KFP honors the free speech for all those who have written on this page, both pro-choice and non-pro-choice voices. As difficult as it is to disagree about a topic this important to women (dominion over their own bodies), civil discussion is an important and necessary process. I respect each of the writers on this page for their straightforwardness (not mincing words unnecessarily) and the courtesy they have shown.