More California testimony; see Tuesday's post for more information.
From Walt Everett:
... As a United Methodist Minister, I am concerned that these proposed regulations deny a condemned inmate full access to their chosen religious advisors at a time when an individual is arguably most in need of this kind of support. In particular, I am deeply disturbed by the fact that, under the proposed regulations, the state chaplain would be required to disclose to the prison warden the contents of private conversations with the condemned inmate. This violation of the clergy-penitent relationship is contrary to the most basic ethical obligations of clergy, and may violate state law as well. I am also disturbed by the proposed prohibition against the spiritual advisor’s being allowed into the execution chamber to provide support to the inmate as his life is being taken. Other states, such as Texas, have long permitted the spiritual advisor to be present in the execution chamber, and I cannot see why it is necessary for California to prohibit this.
From Vicki Schieber:
I recently served as a member of the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment, and from this experience I have learned that it is essential to understand exactly what is involved in the application of the death penalty in order to make informed decisions about it. I am concerned that the full fiscal impact of California’s proposed lethal injection regulations is not being calculated or disclosed. The public has a right to know exactly how much it will cost taxpayers to carry out executions using lethal injection at San Quentin prison in the way that the regulations propose. Similarly, I believe that the public – by which I mean all of us in whose name executions are carried out – has the right to know exactly what is being done when someone is put to death by lethal injection. I am concerned that the proposed regulations unduly limit media access to the execution process and make it impossible for the full story to be reported.
Although comments about the death penalty most often focus on how the process affects the perpetrator of a crime, my focus is on how the death penalty affects victims’ families. The Maryland Commission concluded by a vote of 20-1 that the effects of capital cases are more detrimental to victims’ families than those that involve a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. This is something that I understand firsthand. ...
and from Bud Welch:
What victims’ families are led to believe about the death penalty is not always what turns out to be true. I am concerned that the proposed lethal injection regulations in California limit the media’s access more than is necessary, and so deprive all of us of the right to know exactly what is being done in our names. Media witnesses should be allowed to view the entire lethal injection process, including the preparation that occurs in the Infusion Control Room, and should be allowed to hear what is happening in the execution chamber. My point is that this needs to be a transparent process, if it is to happen at all.
I have serious concerns about these proposed regulations, and I do not want to see them implemented as they are currently drafted. I am expressing these concerns both as the father of an Oklahoma City bombing victim and as President of the Board of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, an organization of victims’ family members all across the nation (including California) who have experienced the horror of losing a family member to murder and who do not support the death penalty.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
California Testimony - Part 2
Here is an excerpt from the testimony that Robert Meeropol submitted regarding California's proposed lethal injection procedures (see yesterday's post):
I write you on the 56th anniversary of the execution of my parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Obviously, I have a personal relationship with the death penalty. I was born Robert Rosenberg. My birth parents were executed in Sing-Sing prison on June 19th, 1953 when I was six years old. My last name was changed when Abel and Anne Meeropol adopted my brother, Michael, and me after the executions. I believe my brother and I are unique in American history. We are the only people to have both their parents executed by the government.
I live in Massachusetts. I am an attorney. I write you as a private citizen and in my capacities as Executive Director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children and as a Founding Board Member of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR). At MVFHR we oppose the death penalty and believe state-sponsored executions, the premeditated killings of human beings by the state, are murders. We in MVFHR also believe extra-judicial as well as judicial killings violate Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and thus constitute human rights abuses.
As a resident of Massachusetts I will, for the most part, confine myself to discussing the impact of the death penalty in general, rather than the specifics of California’s proposed regulations. I am, however, concerned that the families of those facing execution are singled out in the regulations for disparate second class treatment. They deserve better than a not so subtle reminder that they are being treated as if they are a little bit guilty. In fact, the shock of having a loved one executed cries out for special counseling and care. The callous failure of the State of California to provide such support is another indication of how the death penalty diminishes the humanity of those who promote it. ...
I write you on the 56th anniversary of the execution of my parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. Obviously, I have a personal relationship with the death penalty. I was born Robert Rosenberg. My birth parents were executed in Sing-Sing prison on June 19th, 1953 when I was six years old. My last name was changed when Abel and Anne Meeropol adopted my brother, Michael, and me after the executions. I believe my brother and I are unique in American history. We are the only people to have both their parents executed by the government.
I live in Massachusetts. I am an attorney. I write you as a private citizen and in my capacities as Executive Director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children and as a Founding Board Member of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights (MVFHR). At MVFHR we oppose the death penalty and believe state-sponsored executions, the premeditated killings of human beings by the state, are murders. We in MVFHR also believe extra-judicial as well as judicial killings violate Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and thus constitute human rights abuses.
As a resident of Massachusetts I will, for the most part, confine myself to discussing the impact of the death penalty in general, rather than the specifics of California’s proposed regulations. I am, however, concerned that the families of those facing execution are singled out in the regulations for disparate second class treatment. They deserve better than a not so subtle reminder that they are being treated as if they are a little bit guilty. In fact, the shock of having a loved one executed cries out for special counseling and care. The callous failure of the State of California to provide such support is another indication of how the death penalty diminishes the humanity of those who promote it. ...
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Testifying in California - Part 1
Today, victims' family members -- among many others -- are testifying at a hearing regarding the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's proposed regulations on lethal injection procedures. MVFHR board member Bill Babbitt is testifying in person, and several other MVFHR members have submitted written testimony.
Here's an excerpt from Bill's testimony:
Because I am so concerned about the effect of executions on the innocent family members of the person being executed, I am especially concerned about the section of the proposed regulations that details the procedure for escorting the various witnesses. Whereas media witnesses and witnesses from the victim’s family are to be escorted to and from the viewing area by an administrative assistant to the prison warden, witnesses from the family of the person being executed are escorted by a Correctional Officer. And whereas the other witnesses, under the proposed regulations, will be brought back to the designated staging area after the execution and given the opportunity to debrief and gather their thoughts, family members of the executed are to be immediately transported to the West Gate and processed out of the institution. There is no reason that families of the executed need to be treated as though they are a greater risk to the institution than other witnesses, and there is every reason that families of the executed ought to be given the same dignity and respect as other witnesses. Families of the executed are innocent people going through an intensely traumatic experience and ought to be treated as such.
And here's an excerpt from Renny Cushing's testimony:
Inevitably, a society’s fiscal decisions reflect its values. When considering the fiscal impact of the application of the death penalty, I submit that a society must also consider whether it is devoting a proportional amount of its resources to meeting the real needs of victims – which includes not only compensation and assistance in the aftermath of a murder, but also focused efforts to prevent future violence. If we truly value victims and want to do right by them, there are much more direct and genuine ways to achieve that goal than administering the death penalty to the perpetrator.
I also noted at the start of this letter that I am concerned about the impact of the proposed regulations on families of the executed. Within the membership of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights are many families of people who have been executed, and over the years I have come to a deeper understanding of exactly how the death penalty harms these innocent family members. In 2006, our organization released a report, based on interviews with three dozen family members of persons who have been executed, titled Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind. I have come to see that each execution represents an additional traumatic experience that compounds the tragedy of the original murder.
For this reason, I am concerned that, under the proposed lethal injection regulations, families of the inmate will be treated throughout the execution process as second-class family members, treated differently from the other witnesses and made to feel as if they are guilty by virtue of being related to the condemned prisoner. There is no reason that the procedures cannot be equivalent for each set of witnesses. We must take into account the human costs – and eventually the societal costs – of further traumatizing the relatives, particularly the children, of people being executed.
Finally, I am concerned that the proposed regulations do not adequately protect the rights of inmates with mental disabilities. The execution of defendants with severe mental illness has recently become an issue at the forefront of our concern at Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, and on July 6 we will be releasing a report titled Double Tragedies: Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty for People with Severe Mental Illness. In that context, I note that the proposed lethal injection regulations do not provide an inmate’s attorneys with any opportunity to contest a sanity finding that may be made just prior to the pending execution. We have seen elsewhere in the U.S. that inmates clearly suffering from severely disabling symptoms of mental illness have been executed, despite the violation that this represents of human rights norms and, potentially, of our own U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ford v. Wainwright. Counsel for the person about to be executed should have the opportunity to challenge the sanity finding of the psychiatrist provided by the prison warden, if counsel believes that such a challenge is warranted.
Speaking from my own personal tragedy and on behalf of the personal tragedy that each member of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights has suffered, I oppose the implementation of the proposed regulations on lethal injection.
Watch for more testimony here over the next couple of days.
Here's an excerpt from Bill's testimony:
Because I am so concerned about the effect of executions on the innocent family members of the person being executed, I am especially concerned about the section of the proposed regulations that details the procedure for escorting the various witnesses. Whereas media witnesses and witnesses from the victim’s family are to be escorted to and from the viewing area by an administrative assistant to the prison warden, witnesses from the family of the person being executed are escorted by a Correctional Officer. And whereas the other witnesses, under the proposed regulations, will be brought back to the designated staging area after the execution and given the opportunity to debrief and gather their thoughts, family members of the executed are to be immediately transported to the West Gate and processed out of the institution. There is no reason that families of the executed need to be treated as though they are a greater risk to the institution than other witnesses, and there is every reason that families of the executed ought to be given the same dignity and respect as other witnesses. Families of the executed are innocent people going through an intensely traumatic experience and ought to be treated as such.
And here's an excerpt from Renny Cushing's testimony:
Inevitably, a society’s fiscal decisions reflect its values. When considering the fiscal impact of the application of the death penalty, I submit that a society must also consider whether it is devoting a proportional amount of its resources to meeting the real needs of victims – which includes not only compensation and assistance in the aftermath of a murder, but also focused efforts to prevent future violence. If we truly value victims and want to do right by them, there are much more direct and genuine ways to achieve that goal than administering the death penalty to the perpetrator.
I also noted at the start of this letter that I am concerned about the impact of the proposed regulations on families of the executed. Within the membership of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights are many families of people who have been executed, and over the years I have come to a deeper understanding of exactly how the death penalty harms these innocent family members. In 2006, our organization released a report, based on interviews with three dozen family members of persons who have been executed, titled Creating More Victims: How Executions Hurt the Families Left Behind. I have come to see that each execution represents an additional traumatic experience that compounds the tragedy of the original murder.
For this reason, I am concerned that, under the proposed lethal injection regulations, families of the inmate will be treated throughout the execution process as second-class family members, treated differently from the other witnesses and made to feel as if they are guilty by virtue of being related to the condemned prisoner. There is no reason that the procedures cannot be equivalent for each set of witnesses. We must take into account the human costs – and eventually the societal costs – of further traumatizing the relatives, particularly the children, of people being executed.
Finally, I am concerned that the proposed regulations do not adequately protect the rights of inmates with mental disabilities. The execution of defendants with severe mental illness has recently become an issue at the forefront of our concern at Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights, and on July 6 we will be releasing a report titled Double Tragedies: Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty for People with Severe Mental Illness. In that context, I note that the proposed lethal injection regulations do not provide an inmate’s attorneys with any opportunity to contest a sanity finding that may be made just prior to the pending execution. We have seen elsewhere in the U.S. that inmates clearly suffering from severely disabling symptoms of mental illness have been executed, despite the violation that this represents of human rights norms and, potentially, of our own U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ford v. Wainwright. Counsel for the person about to be executed should have the opportunity to challenge the sanity finding of the psychiatrist provided by the prison warden, if counsel believes that such a challenge is warranted.
Speaking from my own personal tragedy and on behalf of the personal tragedy that each member of Murder Victims’ Families for Human Rights has suffered, I oppose the implementation of the proposed regulations on lethal injection.
Watch for more testimony here over the next couple of days.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Still arbitrary
Victims' families are among those gathering in front of the U.S. Supreme Court today for the start of the 16th annual four-day Starvin' for Justice Fast & Vigil. The vigil begins today on the anniversary of the Court's 1972 Furman v. Georgia decision, which found that the death penalty was applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner, forcing many states to re-write their statutes.
Here's a summary of Furman from the Death Penalty Information Center:
"In 1972, the Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty as applied violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Due to a lack of standards for imposing the death penalty, the Court ruled that the death penalty was being applied arbitrarily and capriciously."
DPIC quotes from Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion:
"These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed."
In the section of its website that discusses the arbitrariness of the death penalty, DPIC goes on to comment,
"Three decades after sentencing guidelines were approved by the Court in Gregg, the death penalty is still being unpredictably applied to a small number of defendants. There remains a lack of uniformity in the capital punishment system. Some of the most heinous murders do not result in death sentences, while less heinous crimes are punished by death."
It's worth reading the rest of DPIC's information on abitrariness. And for anyone who is feeling especially historically inclined today, here is the full text of the Furman decision.
Here's a summary of Furman from the Death Penalty Information Center:
"In 1972, the Supreme Court held in the landmark case of Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty as applied violated the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Due to a lack of standards for imposing the death penalty, the Court ruled that the death penalty was being applied arbitrarily and capriciously."
DPIC quotes from Justice Potter Stewart's concurring opinion:
"These death sentences are cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual. For, of all the people convicted of rapes and murders in 1967 and 1968, many just as reprehensible as these, the petitioners are among a capriciously selected random handful upon whom the sentence of death has in fact been imposed."
In the section of its website that discusses the arbitrariness of the death penalty, DPIC goes on to comment,
"Three decades after sentencing guidelines were approved by the Court in Gregg, the death penalty is still being unpredictably applied to a small number of defendants. There remains a lack of uniformity in the capital punishment system. Some of the most heinous murders do not result in death sentences, while less heinous crimes are punished by death."
It's worth reading the rest of DPIC's information on abitrariness. And for anyone who is feeling especially historically inclined today, here is the full text of the Furman decision.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
The same show, 10 years later
The excerpt from Brian MacQuarrie's book The Ride that I posted two days ago told about Bob Curley's appearance on a New England Cable News Show ten years ago. The experience of appearing on the show with Bud Welch, meeting another man whose child had been murdered and who opposed the death penalty, was the catalyst that began Bob's own journey of re-evaluating his previous support for the death penalty.
Yesterday, Bob Curley and Brian MacQuarrie appeared with New England Cable News host Jim Braude and reflected on that 1999 show, on the process of working on the book, on Bob's violence prevention work, and onhis deep feelings for other victims' family members, regardless of their position on the death penalty. It's a short segment, well worth watching.
And here is a good radio interview, on WBUR, with Brian and Bob, which also aired yesterday.
Yesterday, Bob Curley and Brian MacQuarrie appeared with New England Cable News host Jim Braude and reflected on that 1999 show, on the process of working on the book, on Bob's violence prevention work, and onhis deep feelings for other victims' family members, regardless of their position on the death penalty. It's a short segment, well worth watching.
And here is a good radio interview, on WBUR, with Brian and Bob, which also aired yesterday.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
A Change in Direction
Here's Bud Welch mentioned in another piece of writing, this time a story by Diann Rust-Tierney, Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, in the June 19th Huffington Post. The story is titled "Empty Arms on Father's Day."
On Father's Day we pause to acknowledge and honor the crucial role that fathers play in our families, our communities, and our nation. In the midst of the barbecues and the ceremonial exchange of ties and golf clubs, there are fathers for whom this must be the worst of times. For fathers who have lost children to homicide, it is a painful and poignant observance.
Bud Welch is a Board member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. He lost his only daughter Julie Marie when she was killed in the Oklahoma City federal office building bombing.
Bud speaks about how Julie's murder affected him: "For about the next eight months, (after the bombing) I struggled with the thought of what's going to happen to these people, how am I going to get some peace," he said.
On a daily basis, he would visit the rubble where the Murrah Building once stood. "I was in deep pain nine months after the bombing," recalled Welch. "I was drinking too much; I was smoking three packs of cigarettes a day. Eventually, the hangovers were lasting all day.
"I had this anguish about what was going to happen. The trials hadn't even begun yet, and I went to asking myself, once they (the people indicted for the bombing) were tried and executed, what then? How's that going to help me? It isn't going to bring Julie back."
Bud Welch is among the most dedicated of advocates for a change in direction. He and a growing number of families -- including some who take no position on the moral value of capital punishment, and some who support it -- are saying that in a world of limited resources we must choose those policies that will best serve the needs of victims. As with anything else, there are opportunity costs that come with the death penalty.
The question for us is whether maintaining capital punishment best serves those who need our support the most - murder victims' family members.
For many, more resources devoted to compensation, counseling, solving cold cases and punishment that is more certain, are a higher priority than the death penalty.
Meanwhile, as Father's Day approaches, I am at a loss to adequately respond to what my dear colleague Bud Welch must be feeling. I can only pledge to carry on the struggle that he and so many other fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers of murder victims are waging - the struggle to create a society that gives meaning to the terrible loss they have suffered--A society that does its level best to prevent the tragedy they have suffered from befalling another--A society that places the balance of resources on helping families heal and achieve what some have called "a new normalcy" in the wake of the worst that any one of us could possibly imagine.
For Bud Welch and other fathers experiencing empty arms on Father's Day, I wish you Peace.
On Father's Day we pause to acknowledge and honor the crucial role that fathers play in our families, our communities, and our nation. In the midst of the barbecues and the ceremonial exchange of ties and golf clubs, there are fathers for whom this must be the worst of times. For fathers who have lost children to homicide, it is a painful and poignant observance.
Bud Welch is a Board member of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. He lost his only daughter Julie Marie when she was killed in the Oklahoma City federal office building bombing.
Bud speaks about how Julie's murder affected him: "For about the next eight months, (after the bombing) I struggled with the thought of what's going to happen to these people, how am I going to get some peace," he said.
On a daily basis, he would visit the rubble where the Murrah Building once stood. "I was in deep pain nine months after the bombing," recalled Welch. "I was drinking too much; I was smoking three packs of cigarettes a day. Eventually, the hangovers were lasting all day.
"I had this anguish about what was going to happen. The trials hadn't even begun yet, and I went to asking myself, once they (the people indicted for the bombing) were tried and executed, what then? How's that going to help me? It isn't going to bring Julie back."
Bud Welch is among the most dedicated of advocates for a change in direction. He and a growing number of families -- including some who take no position on the moral value of capital punishment, and some who support it -- are saying that in a world of limited resources we must choose those policies that will best serve the needs of victims. As with anything else, there are opportunity costs that come with the death penalty.
The question for us is whether maintaining capital punishment best serves those who need our support the most - murder victims' family members.
For many, more resources devoted to compensation, counseling, solving cold cases and punishment that is more certain, are a higher priority than the death penalty.
Meanwhile, as Father's Day approaches, I am at a loss to adequately respond to what my dear colleague Bud Welch must be feeling. I can only pledge to carry on the struggle that he and so many other fathers, mothers, sisters and brothers of murder victims are waging - the struggle to create a society that gives meaning to the terrible loss they have suffered--A society that does its level best to prevent the tragedy they have suffered from befalling another--A society that places the balance of resources on helping families heal and achieve what some have called "a new normalcy" in the wake of the worst that any one of us could possibly imagine.
For Bud Welch and other fathers experiencing empty arms on Father's Day, I wish you Peace.
Monday, June 22, 2009
How can they be against the death penalty?
I've now had a chance to read Brian MacQuarrie's new book The Ride in its entirety, and I can't recommend it highly enough. It's almost a cliche to declare a book "essential reading," but I really do think this book is essential reading for death penalty abolitionists. It's a dramatic story of death penalty politics within a state, showing in close detail how victims' families are vulnerable to being used for political purposes and giving a gripping account of a last-minute vote change that kept the death penalty from being reinstated in Massachusetts in 1997.
But if I urge abolitionists to read the book, it's not only for these reasons; it's also because the story takes us so deeply into the devastation that a single murder causes, and shows how jagged and personal the process of healing is -- and how long it takes. Years after a murder, when people might expect a grieving family to be well on the way to recovery, the family may in fact be dealing with new layers of pain, and this is what Brian MacQuarrie's account of the Curley family's experience shows so well.
The Ride is a hard book from which to choose an excerpt, because what I really want to say is "go read the whole thing." But here are a couple of passages from the account of Bob Curley's appearing on a television program in the spring of 1999 with Bud Welch, who had come to Massachusetts to participate on a speaking tour with other victims' families who were against the death penalty. Bob Curley, at this point, had, by his own description, "led the fight to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts," and he had been reluctant to appear on the television program with Bud but had eventually agreed:
When [the host] asked Bob if he could accept an iron-clad guarantee of life without parole, the harshest sentence allowed under Massachusetts law, Bob answered, "My position on the death penalty hasn't changed." [The co-host] then asked, "How would you feel if Sicari and Jaynes [the men responsible for the murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley] were killed by lethal injection?"
Before Bob could answer, Welch interrupted. The questions were unfair, he said. Jeffrey's death was still fresh, the pain too near, to consider any option other than revenge. Bob would never get over Jeffrey, Welch continued, and he would miss him every day. But with time, Welch suggested, maybe "he'll learn each day how to live that day a little bit better."
Bob glanced quickly in Welch's direction, again avoiding direct eye contact. But his demeanor had softened. To Bob's surprise, his supposed sparring partner had not come to castigate him or diminish him. Instead, this folksy, gray-haired man had accepted his grief and understood his rage. The exchange touched Bob, who also connected with Welch when the Oklahoman spoke of his swift, unsettling transition from anonymous citizen to high-profile spokesman for a controversial cause. ....
After the television camera had been turned off, Bob and Welch moved quietly to the front of the studio, where two limousines were scheduled to return them separately to Somerville and Cambridge. When only one car arrived, Bob unexpectedly found himself in the awkward position of sharing a ride with Welch and Renny Cushing, who were bound for Harvard University and a speaking engagement ... . During the ride to Cambridge, Cushing spoke about his father. Welch spoke about his daughter ..., And Bob, who mentioned the death penalty only briefly, spoke about the details of Jeffrey's death, as well as his ongoing efforts to bolster child-safety programs. But for most of the ride, the three men shared their stories, forged through pain and perseverance, about the task of coping with extraordinary evil.
Bob had never participated in such a discussion. In previous encounters, the relatives of murder victims had always supported the death penalty. This was new, unexpected, and confounding. Welch and Cushing both seemed like regular guys, men who spoke straight from the heart and who both knew firsthand the horrible pain of murder. How can they be against the death penalty? Bob asked himself. ...
But if I urge abolitionists to read the book, it's not only for these reasons; it's also because the story takes us so deeply into the devastation that a single murder causes, and shows how jagged and personal the process of healing is -- and how long it takes. Years after a murder, when people might expect a grieving family to be well on the way to recovery, the family may in fact be dealing with new layers of pain, and this is what Brian MacQuarrie's account of the Curley family's experience shows so well.
The Ride is a hard book from which to choose an excerpt, because what I really want to say is "go read the whole thing." But here are a couple of passages from the account of Bob Curley's appearing on a television program in the spring of 1999 with Bud Welch, who had come to Massachusetts to participate on a speaking tour with other victims' families who were against the death penalty. Bob Curley, at this point, had, by his own description, "led the fight to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts," and he had been reluctant to appear on the television program with Bud but had eventually agreed:
When [the host] asked Bob if he could accept an iron-clad guarantee of life without parole, the harshest sentence allowed under Massachusetts law, Bob answered, "My position on the death penalty hasn't changed." [The co-host] then asked, "How would you feel if Sicari and Jaynes [the men responsible for the murder of 10-year-old Jeffrey Curley] were killed by lethal injection?"
Before Bob could answer, Welch interrupted. The questions were unfair, he said. Jeffrey's death was still fresh, the pain too near, to consider any option other than revenge. Bob would never get over Jeffrey, Welch continued, and he would miss him every day. But with time, Welch suggested, maybe "he'll learn each day how to live that day a little bit better."
Bob glanced quickly in Welch's direction, again avoiding direct eye contact. But his demeanor had softened. To Bob's surprise, his supposed sparring partner had not come to castigate him or diminish him. Instead, this folksy, gray-haired man had accepted his grief and understood his rage. The exchange touched Bob, who also connected with Welch when the Oklahoman spoke of his swift, unsettling transition from anonymous citizen to high-profile spokesman for a controversial cause. ....
After the television camera had been turned off, Bob and Welch moved quietly to the front of the studio, where two limousines were scheduled to return them separately to Somerville and Cambridge. When only one car arrived, Bob unexpectedly found himself in the awkward position of sharing a ride with Welch and Renny Cushing, who were bound for Harvard University and a speaking engagement ... . During the ride to Cambridge, Cushing spoke about his father. Welch spoke about his daughter ..., And Bob, who mentioned the death penalty only briefly, spoke about the details of Jeffrey's death, as well as his ongoing efforts to bolster child-safety programs. But for most of the ride, the three men shared their stories, forged through pain and perseverance, about the task of coping with extraordinary evil.
Bob had never participated in such a discussion. In previous encounters, the relatives of murder victims had always supported the death penalty. This was new, unexpected, and confounding. Welch and Cushing both seemed like regular guys, men who spoke straight from the heart and who both knew firsthand the horrible pain of murder. How can they be against the death penalty? Bob asked himself. ...
Friday, June 19, 2009
A Friday in 1953
Today is the 56th anniversary of the execution of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. June 19th was a Friday in 1953, too, which has given this past week an additional resonance for Robert Meeropol, the Rosenbergs' younger son who is now the director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children (and MVFHR Board Vice-Chair). Each day week, Robby has been posting on the RFC blog a short account of his memories of that same day in 1953. Read the entire week's postings here.
It is also very much worth taking a few minutes today to watch these video clips from the RFC's 2007 event, "Celebrate the Children of Resistance," during which actors Eve Ensler and David Strathairn read the last letters that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg wrote to their children. The letters are extremely moving and remind us that, amidst all the political controversy surrounding the Rosenbergs' execution, theirs was also an execution that -- like so many in the years since -- left behind a grieving family.
It is also very much worth taking a few minutes today to watch these video clips from the RFC's 2007 event, "Celebrate the Children of Resistance," during which actors Eve Ensler and David Strathairn read the last letters that Ethel and Julius Rosenberg wrote to their children. The letters are extremely moving and remind us that, amidst all the political controversy surrounding the Rosenbergs' execution, theirs was also an execution that -- like so many in the years since -- left behind a grieving family.
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Working in Japan
MVFHR board member Toshi Kazama is on his way to Japan to do some valuable MVFHR work there. Toshi will be speaking to several public audiences, meeting privately with victims' families, and working with local organizers to plan an MVFHR speaking tour in 2010.
The public audiences Toshi will be addressing include several university groups, the Japanese Religious Network Against the Death Penalty, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, the Police Headquarters, two hospitals, a meeting with officials from a juvenile detention center. He will also be meeting with members of Ocean, our Japanese MVFHR affiliate.
We'll have a more detailed report on the trip once Toshi returns.
The public audiences Toshi will be addressing include several university groups, the Japanese Religious Network Against the Death Penalty, the Japan Federation of Bar Associations, the Police Headquarters, two hospitals, a meeting with officials from a juvenile detention center. He will also be meeting with members of Ocean, our Japanese MVFHR affiliate.
We'll have a more detailed report on the trip once Toshi returns.
Monday, June 15, 2009
Soul-Searching
Today's Boston Globe has a great review of Brian MacQuarrie's new book The Ride, which tells the story of MVFHR member Bob Curley. We'll be posting a couple of excerpts from the book soon, but in the meantime, here is an excerpt from the review by Chuck Leddy:
Bob Curley would become an outspoken advocate for capital punishment in Massachusetts. About his son's killers, he'd tell one television interviewer, "Let's go get them and put the hurt on them. Until people are willing to make a stand, it's just gonna keep going on and on." MacQuarrie offers a detailed account of the passionately fought legislative battle over establishing the death penalty. Just when it looked like the pro-death-penalty position had won, one legislator (Representative John Slattery) switched sides and voted against the measure, defeating it.
MacQuarrie describes how deeply involved Bob Curley would become in the battle, as he lobbied legislators face-to-face and even verbally attacked a few opposing State House demonstrators. Upon seeing one man with a sign opposing the death penalty, writes MacQuarrie, Curley "began screaming uncontrollably."
Although Bob Curley and his family would commit themselves to passing the death penalty in Massachusetts, they were psychologically devastated by Jeffrey's death. MacQuarrie gives us a visceral account of how this trauma affected the Curleys, especially Bob.
MacQuarrie writes of how Bob Curley's encounter with a man named Bud Welch triggered a long process of soul-searching about the death penalty. Welch's daughter had been killed in the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh, yet Welch opposed the execution of McVeigh, and the death penalty. "I always thought that if you were against the death penalty, you were a wimp," recounted Curley, but clearly Welch was no wimp. Despite his own experiences, Curley would gradually change his views on the death penalty.
MacQuarrie's account, besides explaining the impact of a terrible crime on a family and a community, also describes how it transformed a single man. It's clear from MacQuarrie's account that Bob Curley's rage could have easily destroyed him (or possibly led him to destroy others), but the book's biggest revelation is how Curley got beyond the hate to discover something positive in himself and in others. "The Ride" is a fascinating story of loss, profound anger, pain, and the difficult, soul-searching aftermath of trauma.
Bob Curley would become an outspoken advocate for capital punishment in Massachusetts. About his son's killers, he'd tell one television interviewer, "Let's go get them and put the hurt on them. Until people are willing to make a stand, it's just gonna keep going on and on." MacQuarrie offers a detailed account of the passionately fought legislative battle over establishing the death penalty. Just when it looked like the pro-death-penalty position had won, one legislator (Representative John Slattery) switched sides and voted against the measure, defeating it.
MacQuarrie describes how deeply involved Bob Curley would become in the battle, as he lobbied legislators face-to-face and even verbally attacked a few opposing State House demonstrators. Upon seeing one man with a sign opposing the death penalty, writes MacQuarrie, Curley "began screaming uncontrollably."
Although Bob Curley and his family would commit themselves to passing the death penalty in Massachusetts, they were psychologically devastated by Jeffrey's death. MacQuarrie gives us a visceral account of how this trauma affected the Curleys, especially Bob.
MacQuarrie writes of how Bob Curley's encounter with a man named Bud Welch triggered a long process of soul-searching about the death penalty. Welch's daughter had been killed in the Oklahoma City bombing committed by Timothy McVeigh, yet Welch opposed the execution of McVeigh, and the death penalty. "I always thought that if you were against the death penalty, you were a wimp," recounted Curley, but clearly Welch was no wimp. Despite his own experiences, Curley would gradually change his views on the death penalty.
MacQuarrie's account, besides explaining the impact of a terrible crime on a family and a community, also describes how it transformed a single man. It's clear from MacQuarrie's account that Bob Curley's rage could have easily destroyed him (or possibly led him to destroy others), but the book's biggest revelation is how Curley got beyond the hate to discover something positive in himself and in others. "The Ride" is a fascinating story of loss, profound anger, pain, and the difficult, soul-searching aftermath of trauma.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
