Lynette Johnson, wife of slain South Dakota Penitentiary guard Ronald Johnson, spoke publicly last night after the execution of one of her husband's kjillers:
And while time may heal wounds, Lynette Johnson says this one is very deep and that the pain he caused will last a lifetime. She says she knows it is not going to bring her husband back but that correctional officers at the state pen and the public will be a little bit safer.
"We need to have more attention focused on the safety all of the correctional officers in the state of South Dakota," Johnson said [Austin Hoffman, "Pain of Husband's Death Will Last a Lifetime," KELOLand.com, October 16, 2012].
The man we the people killed last night was not the only bad dude behind the big walls in Sioux Falls. Correctional officers and the public would be safer if we executed every felon in the state pen. Yet we find the resources to restrain those hundreds of criminals, at greater peril to the guards and the public than simply shooting them once the judge's gavel raps.
There must be some greater moral imperative than safety that justifies the death penalty.
Lack of resources at the state pen and lack of resources in Benghazi allowed innocent men to be murdered. All in the name of political correctness.
They did learn not to let lifers in the shop where they could make their own weapon. They have also made other improvements that are working. There guys were so desparate to get out they either wanted to kill a guard or be killed. There are ways restrict them also.
My understanding is that the admitted murderer WANTED to die. That makes this execution State Assisted Suicide. If a convicted murderer wants to die, I think that is the last thing the State should agree to. Instead to truly punish him (and punishment is what this is all about), let him suffer a long boring life in solitary. Years and years of hopeless 8 x 10 foot cell stimulus deprivation. But that is not in the bible so it would not be acceptable
I am not impressed by the article. In fact, it's an insult to anyone in law enforcement or corrections.
I intend no insult specific workers. The point is that as a powerful state, we have the resources to disarm, restrain, and confine the worst criminals instead of taking the easy and immoral way out and killing them. In this case, safety concerns should not justify capital punishment.
Unless you have had involvement with someone that has worked at the Pen or in law enforcement, there is no way one can possibly understand. These are dangerous jobs and it takes a special person to be able to do it. How many innocent people have to be injured or die before you would finally say "enough"??? (remember, these are men that have had repeated escape attempts)
I know no one will change your mind and everyone has a right to their opinion. After attending 2 law enforcement funerals because of an act of violence on the officer, this just struck me the wrong way...
As other commenters can attest, I reject any argument that starts with "you aren't involved, so you can't understand." Appeals to unique and unsharable understanding get us nowhere. We are all rational beings. We can work to put ourselves in others' shoes and make rational judgments.
Here's my value-threshold question: do we kill every criminal who poses a threat to prison guards and the general public?
icymi:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/15/1144908/-Pending-South-Dakota-Execution-Sharpens-the-Death-Penalty-Debate
You can reject my argument then. I don't care who you are, unless you are in a person's shoes, you can never completely understand what someone is going through. You might have an idea.. but can never really know. I was at RJ's funeral, and I will never forget his family walking out with the clergy to put RJ into the hearse waiting outside. They forgot to turn their mic off when they went out. All you heard in the room was RJ's wife completely breaking down screaming "why did this have to happen," "why did you have to leave me." RJ is the innocent person out of all of this, not Robert's.
I think you are taking Robert's death as a blanket "let's kill them all". Not true. This man is a confessed killer and admitted he would kill anyone that got in his way. Why do you want to have someone around that is willing to injure or take "innocent lives." This man had nothing to lose and he would be willing to do anything for his freedom. The article that Larry posted... you are concerned about the innocent people that may get the death penalty. That is a valid concern. BUT... you know.. everyone on the hill is innocent. They were framed or set up. On the very RARE occasion that an innocent person would slip through, that's what the 20 years of appeals are for. Look at Moller. He murdered an "innocent" little girl many years ago. Is he a threat to the prison staff? Probably not.
That's an excellent, thoughtful article, Larry. Staring into the eyes of a killer like Eric Robert, it's hard not to support the death penalty. But authorizing the state to use the death penalty against clear and present threats like Eric Robert creates a state death machine that will make unacceptable moral errors and will itself kill innocent people.
Nicole, you illustrate part of the problem with the "only in my shoes" argument of exclusive wisdom. As a democratic nation of laws, we must run our criminal justice system according to rational discussion, not subjective emotion. That's why we outlaw vigilante killing. If we left punishment in the hands of the bereaved, we'd see much more death, and much more innocent death. Loved ones carrying a casket to a hearse are in no condition to decide justice according to reason and law.
Let me be clear about my respect and support for law enforcement with this hypothetical: had Ronald Johnson seen Berget and Robert coming, if he had had a split second to defend himself, had he been able to use his gun to stop their assault, I'd have written not one word of complaint. If I'm the guard next to Johnson, I draw my weapon and shoot the bad guys to save the good guy. When we are reduced to kill or be killed, certain moral bets are off.
But at the point where other officers disarmed, restrained, and confined Robert and Berget, the kill-or-be-killed situation was done, and our moral obligation to refrain from deadly force was back in place.
Yes.. this is an emotional issue for me. Having a spouse be part of corrections and of law enforcement does hit close to home. That is all I am saying. Just like you feel there are other ways of dealing with people like Robert and Berget, I don't think there are. What happened, needed to happen. Other violent criminals that are incarcerated need to know that they can't do whatever they want. They kill someone, there is a punishment. Adding an additional life sentence to an existing life sentence teaches a convicted criminal nothing. They already know they aren't going to get out.
As far as being fair and impartial without emotion, that is what a Judge and Jury are for.
At what point did you hear that RJ had a gun? Contrary to most movies seen on TV, prison guards have very few defenses at their disposal. You should tour the State Pen and see for yourself. Unfortunately, RJ was not armed. So, just like Robert, RJ was disarmed, and confined (restrained by industrial plastic) and murdered (beaten with a pipe). At least the state was humane and put Robert to sleep with no pain (because that's what is recommended by law).
I apologize, Nicole: I should have thought through my hypothetical more. Of course a guard wouldn't be carrying a weapon in such proximity to prisoners. I assume that risk is part of why Mrs. Johnson is suing the state, for not taking enough safety precautions.
The point of my hypothetical is only to say this: had Johnson had available some means of lethal force, and had he used it to save himself from Robert and Berget's attack, I would apply none of my critique of the death penalty to him. There is a significant difference between self-defense by an individual in mortal peril and pre-meditated, unnecessary killing by the state.
Thanks Corey! I am not a "hang 'em high" type person. I too believe at times the best thing for a person is to let them sit in their cell and rot. The act that these two men did, there is no other option. The state pen is a dangerous job. When my husband worked there, all he had was a radio to call for help if needed. Nothing else. I think people get the image of what prison is like from TV shows and that's not the case. The pen will give tours if requested (or at least they used to). Maybe if people knew what it is really like, situations like this would be better understood. From the people that I know that currently work there, some changes have been made since RJ's death. The impression I get, it's still not enough. I believe a lot of that has to do with budget and funds available to make those changes.
No way could I do their job. I am too big of a chicken. :-)
Donald Moeller going home to Jesus Tuesday:
http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/article/SD-officials-Moeller-to-be-executed-Tuesday-3986431.php