| You may recognize Mrs. Schieber from her testimony in support the original Maryland bill to continue the moratorium on executions, and to commission the now well known University of Maryland Study on the racial disparities in Maryland's executions.
I will refer now to Mrs. Schieber's remarks before the US Senate Judiciary Committee in 2006, because I think they represent what she correctly calls an "under-served segment of the crime victim population." That would be, families of murder victims who are against the death penalty.
Her remarks are also important because they counter the new attempt at distraction by Republicans and death penalty proponents, to say the death penalty is necessary to protect prison personnel. More on this specious reasoning later.
I encourage you to read the full text of Mrs. Schieber's testimony. Here is what I found most compelling (all emphasis in blockquotes is mine).
First, Mrs. Schieber sees true justice in life without parole, not in execution.
No one should infer from our opposition to the death penalty that we did not want Shannon's murderer caught, prosecuted, and put away for the remainder of his life. We believe he is where he belongs today, as he serves his prison sentence, and we rest assured that he will never again perpetrate his sort of crime on any other young women. But killing this man would not bring our daughter back. And it was very clear to us that killing him would have been partly dependent on our complicity in having it done. Had we bent to this natural inclination, however, it would have put us on essentially the same footing as the murderer himself: willing to take someone else's life to satisfy our own ends. That was a posture we were not willing to assume.
It should also be a posture the state is not willing to assume.
Mrs. Schieber also confronts the term "closure" and how the word and concept has been manipulated by those who support the death penalty.
In regards to the death penalty, what does "closure" mean to the mother of a murder victim?
The word closure is invoked so frequently in discussions of victims and the death penalty that victims' family members jokingly refer to it as "the c word." But I can tell you with all seriousness that there is no such thing as closure when a violent crime rips away the life of someone dear to you. As my husband and I wander through the normal things that we all do in our daily lives, we see constant reminders of Shannon and what we have lost. Killing Shannon's murderer would not stop the unfolding of the world around us with its constant reminders of unfulfilled hopes and dreams.
Indeed, linking closure for victims' families with the execution of the offender is problematic for two additional reasons: first, the death penalty is currently applied to only about one percent of convicted murderers in this country. If imposition of that penalty is really necessary for victims' families, then what of the 99% who are not offered it? Second, and even more critical from a policy perspective, a vague focus on executions as the potential source of closure for families too often shifts the focus away from other steps that could be taken to honor victims and to help victims' families in the aftermath of murder.
We have chosen to honor our daughter by setting up several memorials in her name - a scholarship at Duke University, and an endowment fund to replace roofs on inner city homes through the Rebuilding Together program in poor sections of our community, to name two. We also believe that we honor her by working to abolish the death penalty, because, for my husband and for me, working to oppose the death penalty is a way of working to create a world in which life is valued and in which our chief goal is to reduce violence rather than to perpetuate it.
Forgive me for the large blockquote, but such eloquence in the face of tragedy deserves a read.
Now take a look at the second bold line. Lets return to the Republican argument from earlier which argued the death penalty would protect prison staff. Its clear that such an argument is deeply flawed. Heck, one could just look at the fact that we in Maryland have executed only 5 people since 1961. I suppose those 5 were the only ones that posed a risk to prison workers.
Of course, prison workers are always at risk. If we want to address that problem, the legislature can pass the bill to end mandatory minimum sentencing, reform our drug policy, expand rehabilitation programs, hire more prison workers and pay them a more competitive salary. There are lots of ways to protect prison workers. Executing one person every 10 years isn't the way.
Finally, Mrs. Shieber touches on the divisive nature of the death penalty. I agree with her, the death penalty raises more questions as to whether justice has been served, than it answers.
In my work with Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, I have come to know several survivors of people who have been put to death by execution. Seeing the effects of an execution in the family, particularly the effects on children, raises questions for me about the short- and long-term social costs of the death penalty. What kind of message do we convey to young people when we tell them that killing another human being is wrong but then impose the death penalty on someone with whom they have some direct or indirect relationship? Isn't there the possibility that the imposition of the death penalty sends a conflicted message about our society's respect for life? Isn't it possible that the potentially biased application of the death penalty in certain racial contexts distorts the fundamental principles on which this nation was founded? Isn't it possible that the bitterness that arises out of this causes more social problems than it solves?
So, as the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee prepares to vote on the death penalty repeal next week, they should fix their minds on justice, and nothing else. They should remember that they are legislating in the real world and must vote based upon how the death penalty has been applied in Maryland, not on why it should, or how it could exist in an ideal society. That society won't be arriving in Maryland any time soon. Justice in Maryland means repealing the death penalty.
(thanks to Greg Bloom, national constituent organizer for Equal Justice USA who provided some of the links for this story. I hope to have more on this fight for repeal as it develops.) |
