The death penalty is and has been a hotly contested issue. Opponents of the death sentence stand in awe and wonder how the state can kill an individual while proponents consider the death penalty as a penalty for a crime, not an individual. The question must be asked – why does this wide gulf of disagreement about punishing criminals exist among law abiding citizens?

According to a recent Associated Press article, a 2003 and 2006 academic study concludes that capital punishment deters crime. Proponents of the death penalty concluded this long before these recent studies. There are some considerations that should be evaluated when examining the death penalty as a reasonable sentence. It is absolutely important to remember that the death penalty is a sentence prescribed for a particular crime and equally important is to remember that the individual committing such a crime has a choice.

Unlike years past, today’s murderer once indicted has a lengthy delay of approximately four to five years before he even goes to trial. Once he goes to trial four or five years later, the specifics of the heinous crime he committed has become vague and forgotten. Therefore, victims have been forgotten and many in the community are able to reconcile their belief that they or one of their loved ones could be murdered by simply accepting the idea that the murdered victims were in the wrong place at the wrong time. This tends to provide a much more comfortable state of mind and therefore, we as a society are perfectly willing to accept the judiciary’s decisions even though these decisions have almost made the death penalty a sentence of the past. Therefore, why argue with facts when the facts don’t support our emotional attitude?

Nacci Mocan, a University of Colorado economics professor, co-authored both the 2003 study and 2006 study. However, the results in both studies were not what he wanted. Therefore, he was quoted as saying “The results are robust, they don’t really go away. I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) – what am I going to do, hide them?” This is quite alarming and given this quotation, it would be worth while to look beyond one-liners that begin with “scientists say.” Perhaps, Professor Mocan adheres to the flawed and unconscionable philosophy that says – “when scientific results conflict with one’s emotional hypothesis then discard the scientific results.”

It is appalling to consider that any competent scientists and/or engineer would hide or discard hard core scientific results in favor of satisfying one’s emotional viewpoint. Again, it must be said – why argue with the facts when they are diametrically opposed to one’s view though rose-colored glasses, particularly when the victim has been forgotten and one of your loved ones hasn’t been slain. The United States spends more money than any other nation on the rehabilitation of criminals and yet, has the highest recidivism rate.
The judiciary in its attempt to make sure the criminal has a fair trial has almost overlooked the victims. Today, victims are discriminated against during the trial of a criminal. One can in all fairness understand why barristers representing criminals would be advantaged by discriminating against victims and their families. However, one must ponder as to why the judiciary and state legislature would allow this. Yes, it is understood that some of the judiciary leans toward criminal’s rights. As a matter of fact, these judges are virtually criminal advocates. However, many judges operate on a fair and balanced platform. Even in Cobb County, we are blessed with many fair minded and hard working judges and members of the Georgia Legislature.

Therefore, the question is worth raising again – why do these fair-minded judges and members of the state legislature stand idly by while the judiciary is becoming an advocate for criminals? Many of these purport to be tough on crime, but there is more credibility in action than words. Words without action are worthless and feed emotions which last only for a short time. In all fairness, it is very uncomfortable to engage in a public forum or with the judiciary in conversations regarding the punishment of criminals who commit heinous crimes. It is much easier to relax into the safety of our individual enclaves and reconcile our thoughts to the mindset that crime and murder always happens to someone else. How comforting that mindset must be until one day a police officer knocks at your door and informs you that your loved one has just been murdered for no apparent reason. All of a sudden, the view through those rose colored glasses will change.

The only logical conclusion for opposition to the death penalty in this writer’s opinion is that opponents have forgotten or never considered the heinous crime that was committed and either forgotten or never considered the victim. In addition, opponents most likely have never had an immediate family member murdered. Moreover, it is suspected by this writer that death penalty opponents view criminals through rose-colored glasses and are really criminal advocates. Given the wishes of these advocates, society as we currently know it would become a war zone. Therefore, it is the task and obligation of law abiding and level-headed citizens to continue reminding the legislature and judiciary that swift punishment will always be a deterrent to crime ranging from purse snatching to heinous murders.

(Please note that Wayne Brown’s daughter, a real estate agent along with another agent was viciously murdered several years ago. A person has been charged for the crimes, but the trial has not yet happened, due to delays by Cobb Superior Court Judge Dorothy Robinson. I understand the judge has now moved the trial to Brunswick, Georgia, a five hour drive from Marietta, Georgia. This travel distance will create another hardship for the Brown family for what could be a month long trial. Wayne and the entire Brown family has paid the price for being too critical of the unfairness of the judicial process. Although, the criminal trial has not yet begun, the Brown family’s trial has been underway for years. Somehow the issue of fairness and balance has been lost. - *Comment by: Michael Opitz, President, Madison Forum)