Saving 49 Lives (Part 7)

For most of my life, I've been passionately opposed to state killing. I remember as a child knowing that California's gas chamber execution of Caryl Chessman was unjust. I remember hearing with horror about the federal electric chair executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. And I admit that since I was 10 I have never understood how civilized people could justify state killing. From the beginning state killing has appeared to me to be barbaric and horrific. Yes, there are lots of other barbaric things in the world, you could make a long, annotated list of them, but for one reason or another, despite all of the other terrible things in the world, something about state killing deeply appalled me. And eventually, the fight to end state killing spoke to me, so I took it up. That was a long time ago.

It's probably my feelings about barbarism that are driving me today to try to save the 49 people facing the federal death penalty. I know we are better than this. I know we are not killers. I know we are more compassionate than that. I know we are more just than that. It's my feelings about barbarism that has me writing an essay every day about the same thing. That's what has me asking you over and over again to email Attorney General Eric Holder at Whitehouse.gov or at askDOJ@doj.gov. That's what has me asking you to sign a petition. In short, I'm appalled by state killing, and I want to stop it.

What's necessary now in my opinion is to ask Attorney General Eric Holder please to review all of the decisions made by his predecessors in office that directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in federal cases and to determine whether he agrees with those decisions. If he does not think that the death penalty is entirely appropriate, he should withdraw authority for federal prosecutors to seek death. It's really quite simple. I'm not asking him to dismiss the indictments. I'm not asking him to drop cases. I'm not asking him to perform acts of mercy. I'm just asking him whether the United States can be satisfied asking for a maximum of life without parole and not death in these cases. That's all I'm asking for.

It's not much to ask for. Really it isn't. What, if anything, is the government giving up by not asking for death and asking instead for life without parole? In my view the government gains in stature and it gives up nothing of value. What it does give up are things it should have abandoned decades ago. In my view, by not asking for death, the government gives up some of its inhumanity, it gives up a horrific difference from other civilized nations, it abandons an old harbor for its racism, it leaves behind its most unenlightened, violent, hypocritical aspect. It emerges wiser, more powerful, more human, more compassionate, and more just. It acknowledges that humans are imperfect and that there are weapons that should not be used.

Is it my buddhism that makes me opposed to state killing? It's true that I frequently ask, "May all beings refrain from killing and prevent others from killing." It's true that I try not to swat mosquitoes. It's true that I am captivated by the story of Padmasambhava's reflexively swatting a fly, and unable to stay his hand, assuring its rebirth as a boddhisatva, as his hand crushed it. I love all of that. But I was opposed to state killing long before I was a buddhist.

Is it my being a lawyer that makes me opposed to state killing? It's true that I have handled a pro bono death penalty appeal, that it turned many of my hairs gray, that I have tried to help others defend those facing death. I am honored to have been able to do that. I am thankful that I could do that. But I was opposed to state killing before I was a lawyer.

Is it my being a writer that makes me opposed to state killing? It's true that I have written hundreds of pieces about state killing in the United States, that I consider myself an advocate for life and against state killing, that I gladly took on the project of writing daily about the federal death penalty and Attorney General Eric Holder. But I was opposed to state killing before I was a writer. Maybe these aren't the things that made me oppose state killing.

Is it my being a human being that makes me opposed to state killing?

Is it that I refuse to be desensitized by the pervasive violence in our culture and that I want to live in peace in a just and human society?

Is it more simple, is it just that I feel in my heart that it's wrong for the state ever to kill, that we don't have the right to kill, and that my heart breaks at our callousness?

And because I have these deep feelings, is it because remaining silent is just not an option for me?

Please sign the petition asking Attorney General Eric Holder to review these decisions and to spare these 49 lives. There are now 102 signatures on the petition.

Please send an email to Attorney General Eric Holder asking him to review these decisions and to spare these 49 lives at Whitehouse.gov or at askDOJ@doj.gov. I have not yet received a response to my letter.

Maybe this will help you understand how I feel:

Saving 49 Lives (Part 6)

The voice of him that cryeth in the Wilderness
Isaiah 40:3

Ut oh. Ut oh. Ut oh. I'm wondering whether my little, disorganized, spontaneous, repetitive campaign to require the new Attorney General to review the 49 pending federal death penalty cases and to decide that federal prosecutors shouldn't be seeking the death penalty in these cases, has worn out my readership, my welcome, and any remaining goodwill. That's how it is, sometimes when there's more persistence than creativity. But I soldier on, vox clamatis in deserto.

The petition now has 75 signatures, for which I am incredibly thankful. If you haven't signed it yet, please do so. It is a concrete way to ask Attorney General Holder to review all of the 49 pending federal death penalty cases and to decide that his prosecutors have no business seeking the death penalty in these cases.

And many, many people have sent Attorney General emails at Whitehouse.gov or via askDOJ@doj.gov, the Justice Department's email address, encouraging him to review these 49 cases and not to seek the death penalty in them. Again, please do so, too.

This is the sixth essay in a weeklong series. You can also read Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, and Part 5 at docuDharma and also at GOS and right here at The Dream Antilles.

Today someone asked me an interesting question about my efforts to have Attorney General Holder review these cases. Said he, "Can the Attorney General actually review these cases and change the previous decision on whether to seek the death penalty?" The answer is, yes, and it's happened before.

Here's a National Law Journal article from December, 2004:

On Nov. 12, Nicholas Garaufis, a federal judge who sits in the Eastern District of New York (Brooklyn and Long Island), criticized Ashcroft's decision to seek the death penalty in the pending murder trial of mob boss Joseph Massino. Convicted in July of seven racketeering murders, Massino already faces a mandatory sentence of life without parole.

"Mr. Ashcroft's choice to make such a sobering and potentially life-ending decision now," Garaufis read from a prepared statement at a court hearing, "after several delays, and only after tendering his resignation to the President and announcing to the country that he no longer wishes to preside over the Department of Justice, is deeply troubling to this court."

The judge acknowledged his responsibility to accept the decision, but added that he hopes Gonzales, upon taking office, will "reach an independent assessment."

"Accordingly," Garaufis said, "at the appropriate time, I shall issue an order directing the Government to resubmit the matter to the new Attorney General for his consideration."

Four days later came the announcement that Ashcroft had rescinded an order he issued in January 2003 demanding that prosecutors seek the death penalty in the murder trial of Jairo Zapata. The earlier decision drew immediate fire because lawyers from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York had already signed a cooperation agreement with Zapata. The attorney general's action was criticized for jeopardizing future agreements.

Ultimately, Massino pleaded guilty and Garaufis sentenced him to life without parole, as required. And the Government didn't seek the death penalty against Zapata.

The point: the Attorney General has previously reviewed decisions to seek the death penalty, and has also reversed the previous decisions. Attorney General Holder clearly can reverse any of the death penalty decisions made by his three Republican predecessors.

Please ask your friends, relatives, colleagues, family members to sign the petition and to write to AG Holder. And please, if you have any ideas that will bring others to making this request to the AG, leave them in the comments.

We can save these lives. Let's do that.