May 8, 2007 (2 articles)
Arizona
Doesn't their killer deserve death?
No - this mom with a mean streak wants the person who murdered Ariana and
Tyler to rot in prison
BILLIE STANTON, Tucson Citizen
If ever a death sentence were tempting, it would be for any man who starved
his children and disposed of their tiny bodies as so much trash.
And if Christopher Mathew Payne is convicted of murdering 4-year-old Ariana
Payne and 5-year-old Tyler Payne, then Pima County prosecutors will seek a
death sentence for him.
Is that not appropriate for a man who allegedly left his little girl's body
to rot in a storage unit and is suspected of dumping his son's corpse in Los
Reales Landfill?
No, it's not.
It's not appropriate for the fiscal conservative, and it's a bad choice for
the social conservative.
More important, it's a highly inappropriate choice for mere mortals to make.
I know, I know. You thought you were wrong once, but you were mistaken,
right?
We're too often mistaken.
- Ask Ray Krone, released from prison in Arizona in 2002 after serving 10
years for a murder that DNA evidence proves he did not commit.
- Or ask Jerry Miller, imprisoned at age 22 for a rape, robbery and
kidnapping in Illinois.
After steadfastly maintaining his innocence all these many years, Miller was
released last month at age 48 -the 200th U.S. prisoner exonerated by DNA
evidence.
- Closer to home, ask psychologist Katherine Norgard, whose adopted son,
John Eastlake, was to be executed for the beating deaths of an elderly
Tucson couple.
Eastlake suffered brain damage as a victim of fetal alcohol syndrome.
Norgard fought his sentence for eight years, and it was rescinded in 1997.
She chronicles the experience in her 2006 book "Hard to Place: A Crime of
Alcohol."
Her opposition to the death penalty is about more than her adopted son's
case, however.
"It's part of my Christian belief about not having the right to judge,"
Norgard says.
"The death penalty doesn't bring (the victims) back, and it doesn't make us
any safer."
Statistics certainly support that last statement.
In 2005, states with the death penalty had 5.87 murders per 100,000
population, compared with 4.03 among states without capital punishment,
reports the Death Penalty Information Center.
But even if the death penalty doesn't deter would-be killers, it should save
us money, right?
Wrong. Capital cases result in so much costly legal work for appeals and
other trials, it would be far cheaper to keep all killers in prison for
life.
New Jersey, for example, spent a quarter of a billion dollars on its death
penalty system from 1982 till 2005 - with 197 capital trials resulting in 60
death penalty convictions, 50 of which were reversed. And no one had been
executed.
While the spiritually enlightened among us oppose the death sentence on
religious principle, you may wish to consider the practicalities:
The death penalty costs more, doesn't deter killers and often is imposed on
innocent citizens.
As for me, I'm just a mom with a mean streak.
I adamantly believe anyone who kills a child deserves the very worst
punishment.
Death? That's far too quick, soft and easy.
Give them a lifetime in prison to contemplate their crimes and enjoy the
comradeship of their fellow inmates.
Now that's justice.
---
Source : Tucson Citizen (Billie Stanton may be reached at
bstanton@tucsoncitizen.com and 573-4664. )
Stanton: Doesn't their killer deserve death? | www.tucsoncitizen.com ®
Doesn't their killer deserve death? 
Linear Mode
