Less than a month ago, Texas continued a long history of making up its own mind regarding what constitutes humanity when it banned last meals for prisoners on death row.
In a state whose politicians claim to hold tight to the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, it may seem odd to remind them what those century-old documents say.
Beyond the unspecific phrase “cruel and unusual punishment,” there is a list of rights that the founding fathers called “self-evident.”
These “unalienable rights,” which some believe are “endowed by a Creator,” do not have to be earned. They exist because that person is a human being, and nothing can take these rights away from a person. The first of these rights listed, as remembered, is “life.”The idea that death-row prisoners have somehow forfeited their right to life (despite the fact that they may, indeed, have committed atrocities) goes counter to the very foundations of democracy that Texas claims to hold so dear.
The Texas ruling came about after Lawrence Russell Brewer, a white supremacist convicted in the dragging death of an African American man named James Byrd Jr., requested a last meal consisting of two chicken fried steaks, a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, fried okra, a pound of barbecue, three fajitas, a meat lover’s pizza, a pint of ice cream and a slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts. Prison officials said Brewer did not eat any of the meal.
In no way do I condone the sort of vicious hate crime that Brewer committed, or believe that the perpetrators of such crimes should be defended. But encouraging human rights should not be remotely equated to defending heinous criminal acts.
No one can know, of course, what Brewer was thinking when he refused the lavish meal he had been served.
But why would Brewer order all that delicious food, and on the day before he knew he would die, sit there and not eat it? What message would that send the prison?
If he meant to financially inconvenience the prison, it seems as though an expensive meal would be a pittance compared to the years of appeals that Brewer was required by law to go through after being sentenced to death (such lengthy and expensive appeals are necessary if one wants to argue that we should be absolutely sure someone is guilty of a crime before killing them).
It is a possibility that Brewer meant to feast, but was too preoccupied with his impending death to have an appetite.
But whether or not Brewer had an ulterior motive for denying his last meal, it didn’t accomplish anything.
The last meal debate is another sign of the issues surrounding capital punishment. In general, the U.S. has been slowly moving toward more “humane” methods of execution, including the phasing-out of the electric chair in favor of lethal injection. There are also advocates who claim that the death penalty is warranted as long as there is, per the Constitution, “beyond all reasonable doubt that the person is guilty.”
What these arguments fail to realize is that humane actions are moot in capital punishment, because capital punishment in itself is a violation of that unalienable right to life.
In addition, the only way to determine for certain that a person is guilty of a crime is through trial. Even though Lawrence Brewer admitted to the murder of James Byrd Jr., Brewer was required by federal law to be granted an extensive appeals process, as is the case whenever the death penalty is sought. The cost of these trials is funded by taxpayers.
That seems like a lot of effort to expend on someone who is just going to be put to death.
Deathpenaltyinfo.org has numerous articles about the death penalty being more expensive than keeping a person in prison for life. Most of these studies confirm that it costs millions more to employ the death penalty than to seek life in prison without parole. The evidence is so irrefutable that prodeathpenalty.com admits “a life sentence is cheaper than a death sentence.”
If we spent on our communities just a fraction of the money spent on proving the guilt of people who are just going to die at the government’s hands, this country would be better off. The only son of James Byrd, Jr. is involved with Murder Victims’ Families for Reconciliation, a group that opposes the death penalty. The focus of the aftermath of murders should be the victims’ families and the community, not some Hammurabi-era “eye for an eye” idea of revenge. Family services and anti-violence projects would be a much better place for those millions of dollars to be spent, rather than on our own primal desire for retribution.
We are spending too much money on people who have committed vile acts, just so we can kill them with a clean conscience.
Like Lawrence Brewer’s decadent last meal, no one benefits from capital punishment. It is time to come out of the Stone Age and use that money and energy to prevent crime, rather than for some misguided form of “justice.”
Kelsey Allagood can be reached at kallagood@spartans.ut.edu.