Where I Stand -- Mike O'Callaghan: Death penalty debate

KILLER RODERICK ABEYTA took his death by lethal injection better than the people objecting to the use of capital punishment. He said he deserved the death penalty, apologized to the family of his victim and was executed. Those objecting to his execution were reported still outside with their candles when he drew his last breath.

Reno's Catholic Bishop Phillip Straling, like Las Vegas Bishop Daniel Walsh, opposes the death penalty. I don't believe any decent human being enjoys the killing of other people. The death penalty isn't used for enjoyment, but rather as an important part of a legal system designed to give some protection to the rest of us.

Last week, prior to Abeyta's execution, a press release came from Straling's office bewailing the time of execution was to be early Monday morning following Respect Life Sunday. I find it difficult to put the execution of a killer in the same frame as the killing of a fetus or baby soon to be born. The killing of an innocent child or the physician killing a sick, elderly person shouldn't even be uttered in the same breath used to discuss sending a convicted killer or rapist on his way. Even the suggestion that there is any similarity offends me.

I've heard and read all of the arguments against the death penalty because I, governor, signed the death penalty law. It wasn't done lightly and the legislators didn't pass it on to me without giving it some deep thought. I have great respect for those people who argue against the death penalty and if we lived in an ideal society they might even sound practical. We don't live in an ideal society and their arguments aren't practical.

One of the arguments we hear is that in our rich society we don't have to execute the killers and rapists, all we have to do is put them in prison for life. They go on to say this is cheaper than the millions spent fighting the death sentences in our court system. All this tells me is that we had better straighten out our appeal system and declare that a convicted killer gets a couple bites out of the appeals apple and not be allowed to nibble on it until they die of old age.

Jimmy Lee Neuschafer, who raped and killed two Carson City teenagers and later strangled a fellow prisoner, played the appeals game for 15 years. The death penalty wasn't allowed in 1974 when he raped and killed Shawn Hofer, 15, and Lorie Woodruff, 13. However, we reinstated the death penalty before he strangled inmate Johnnie Johnson in the summer of 1981.

In 1991, writing about Neuschafer, I reported that recently he conned the courts into another round of appeals to overturn his death penalty. The new appeals started after he had once again declared he wanted to have his execution carried out. This allowed him his second final meal in just the last three years. Jimmy ate his fried chicken, chocolate chip ice cream and chocolate milk shakes and then put into motion another round of appeals.

The only difference in his method of operation in 1987 was when he ordered steak and lobster as a final meal. Then he called his attorney to stop the execution.

The Grim Reaper finally caught up with Jimmy, but he received no help from our court system. Neuschafer died of natural causes in July and showed all of us how to beat the system. He also is but one example that killers don't quit killing when in prison. Did you know that there have been 19 violent deaths of Nevada inmates since 1973 and an additional two were killed when being confined out of state?

I know the simple answer is to place all of Nevada's 85 condemned killers in separate cells for the remainder of their lives. Within a couple of years the same people complaining about the death penalty would call this cruel and inhumane punishment. You can also safely bet that the number of killers in their own comfy cells would be well over 100 in a matter of three or four years. Nevertheless, death penalty opponents would argue this would be cheaper than the court costs accumulated trying to execute them.

As long as we allow killers to use inane excuses for appeals, this argument against the death penalty has a ring of truth. So let's change the system. Republican candidate for attorney general, Scott Scherer, in a news release, bemoans the failure of the 1997 Legislature to pass the bill to change "Nevada's habeas corpus -- or rights of appeals procedure." He wants it passed in 1999 along with a special training program for judges and lawyers because "ineffective assistance of counsel is a reason usually cited in most death penalty appeals." He goes on to point out that, "This training program is designed to eliminate the most common errors made by both lawyers and judges and to reduce the amount of litigation in death penalty cases."

Attorney General Frankie Sue Del Papa has moved in the training direction with help from the National Judicial College. She has also been active in cutting the time for appeals in federal courts. So it's apparent that both Del Papa and Scherer see the same problem.

Again, the feelings and beliefs of Catholic bishops are respected and they should speak out in opposition to the death penalty. Bishop Straling's recent news release says, "The state is executing in the name of its citizens. By their teaching, Catholic citizenry stand opposed to such action." I'd feel more comfortable next Sunday if he had said some Catholics are opposed to the death penalty. If my citizenship papers are checked at the door it will be obvious I've lost this argument.

archive