by Gary Nesdahl

The postponement of the execution of Elijah Page last summer, and the conversation in the legislature about "correcting" our rules surrounding executions, makes this legislative session an important time to consider eliminating the Death penalty in South Dakota.

The United States is in dubious company when it comes to capital punishment.  In 1998 only two countries executed more people than we did - China and the Democratic Republic of Congo (1067 and 100, respectively).  We executed 68, with Iran following closely at 66.   Much of the world, particularly Europe, has eliminated this form of punishment, favoring life without possibility of parole.

There is evidence in the United States of a correlation between violence perpetrated by individuals and violence perpetrated by the State.  Individual States who are currently executing people have more murders than States who are not.  Common sense may argue that the executions are necessary in these states because of the increased violence, but the evidence suggests that elimination of capital punishment in some states has led to lower murder rates.  It may be that the response of government is adding to the culture of violence that it is intended to curtail.

The assumption driving capital punishment - whatever the reason given for practicing it - is that the government has the right to legislate against murder, as well as the right to ignore its own legislation.  The government has the right to kill, as long as it can come up with a reason for doing so.  This is the logic that justifies all murder.  It justified the murders of countless citizens in Iraq by Saddam, in Russia by Stalin, in Cambodia by Pot Pol, among others.  In a more personal way, it justifies the killings committed by the people we put to death.  Most people do not kill without reason, whether that killing is done out of greed, anger, or fear of being caught and punished for another crime they are committing.

We put people to death only if we can prove that the murder was premeditated (intentional and planned), or least intentional.  We use their justification of their right to murder another person as our justification to murder them. We don't call it that, but a spade is a spade.

Premeditated murder becomes acceptable if justified and carried out by an appropriate authority.  Saddam was the supreme authority in his country.  He decided that he could murder certain individuals because they threatened his rule, and perhaps his safety.  In his mind he had the ability to do make that decision because he was the supreme authority in the State.  The same is true in other countries where people die for opposing the State, angering the authorities, or being in the wrong place at the wrong time.  I don't equate these countries with ours, but the underlying suppositions are the same - that the government can decide who is to live and who is to die.

• There is no reason to execute people, if we believe that life is sacred.  Murdering someone who murders me does not honor my life.
• There are many studies showing that execution does not have a deterrent effect, meaning that people don't keep themselves from killing because of the fear of the death penalty.
• The death penalty does not save money.  On the contrary, it costs much more, because of the appeals processes in death penalty cases.
• While the death penalty may provide satisfaction for some victims, it causes further pain for others.
• The death penalty does not make our society safer.
• There is an argument that some prisoners prefer death to life in prison.  Too bad.  State sanctioned suicide is not currently an option.
• Capital punishment promotes a culture of death, rather than a sanctification of life. It says that taking a life can be justified.

South Dakota can join its neighbors (Iowa, Minnesota, North Dakota) and eliminate the death penalty.  I hope it does.