More hate mail, and a glimpse inside the mind of a pro-death-penalty advocate

The December 19th edition of the Philadelphia Inquirer featured a Letter to the Editor that I had submitted in praise of New Jersey's recent abolition of the death penalty.

Here is the text of my letter:

Kudos to New Jersey lawmakers for recognizing that revenge isn't justice, and that it makes no sense to kill someone who killed someone in order to show that killing is wrong (Inquirer, Dec. 18). Enough killing.

As always happens when I write publicly about very controversial issues such as this one, I get a lot of feedback -- much of it in the form of hate mail.

In that hate mail over the years, I've been called every name in the book, and have been accused of being a Communist, a traitor, a terrorist sympathizer, and a moron.

Much of the hate mail is entertaining, and much of it is disturbing.

One of the most disturbing examples to date was this e-mail message I received in response to the above-quoted Inquirer letter:

Enough killing? Tell it to the murderers. In the meantime they ought to give a medal to one who kills a member of your family, (sic) I'm sure you wont (sic) mind.

It's also very, very telling -- about the mindset of someone who sees things in a black-and-white, kill-'em-all kind of worldview.

Never have I suggested that killers should be forgiven, much less given medals. I've written many times before in favor of an alternative sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole for very dangerous convicts.

By the way, the writer of that e-mail did not bother to include his name; however, his e-mail address suggests that he is a Major in the U.S. Air Force. If that is the case, I am disappointed that someone who has gotten that far in life is yet so ignorant as to suggest that someone might deserve a medal for killing one of Mary Shaw's family members.

As for my feelings if someone were to kill a member of my family: One can never guess how one might really react to something like this. It's not so simple or clear-cut, anyway. With such things, there are usually stages. But, ultimately, I hope I could live up to the example set forth by the amazing members of the organization Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation (MVFR). These enlightened souls "oppose the death penalty for a variety of reasons -- endless trials re-open emotional wounds and put off the time when real healing can begin, the vast resources and attention spent on the death penalty is better spent supporting victims and preventing crime in the first place, the risk of executing the innocent is too high a price to pay, biases of geography, race, and class plague the system, executions create more families who have lost a loved one to killing, and many of us think it is just plain wrong for the state to kill."

This perspective from MVFR reminds me of the attitude of much of the western democratic world which has rejected the death penalty as barbaric and counterproductive.

The U.S. is one of the few nations of the world that still allow the death penalty, and 38 states in this nation still do. In this way, we align ourselves with the other executing nations of the world such as Afghanistan, China, North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, and a handful of other countries known for their systematic violations of human rights.

It's been said that you are the company you keep.

I would rather keep company with those who are less barbaric. Like the folks in New Jersey.

Killing a killer will never bring the victim back.

Again, enough killing.