Originally pubished in the Nashville City Paper 12/6/00 Comments Welcomed
A VISIT TO TENNESSEE’S DEATH ROW
I have seen Tennessee’s Death Row. It was very clean, stark - an almost sterile,
lifeless environment. So it was a surprise to see children’s toys and books on a shelf in
the visitors’ room. I was told they had been donated for the children of the condemned
men when they visited. Telling children one of their parents has been murdered must be a horrible experience. But I have no idea how I would tell a child its father is to be kept in this foreboding place until he is ritually killed by the government. (I purposely use the word “kill” because I believe “execute,” “put to death,” and “capital punishment” are government-ese for “killing a citizen.”)
On that particular day, I was at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution to interview the
warden and two condemned prisoners for talk radio. I declined the warden’s invitation
to view Old Sparky, Tennessee’s electric chair, but not because of any liberal
sensitivity. I declined because I knew the company of Boston-based Fred Leuchter had
been paid tens of thousands of tax dollars for refurbishing that killing device. His
company would also have built the state a gallows or gas chamber. I hope he had
nothing to do with our state’s new lethal injection apparatus. I have no objection to
anyone being paid for legitimate services rendered, but I refuse to see any of
Leuchter’s handiwork. I was embarrassed that my state had done business with
Leuchter and his ilk.
Leuchter is a self-professed expert on efficient methods for state-sanctioned killing, and
as such, he has testified in a Canadian court that the magnitude of the Holocaust has
been exaggerated, that killing millions of people would have been a logistical
impossibility even for the Nazis, and because of his distortions of history, the German government will not allow him to come inside its borders. He was once the darling of the ultra-rightwing lecture circuit. Refusing to observe Leuchter’s work was my silent protest on behalf of the six million people murdered by the Third Reich, people whose deaths Leuchter and neo-Nazi revisionists diminish by their Holocaust-denying propaganda. Perhaps states that want to skillfully kill in the name of justice must employ the likes of Leuchter, but I prefer no association with them and I repudiate their bigoted agenda.
I learned several things from my visit to Death Row. For example, the staff considers
Building Two (they do not call it Death Row) to be some of the best duty in the prison.
They told me it was safer for them because the security was so intense and the
condemned men were the best-behaved inmates in the entire facility. All the staff I met
were very professional and polite, not at all like the stereotypical brutes in the movies.
Although I had been warned about being “conned,” I still found the two inmates I
interviewed to be particularly charming. Of course, they were putting on their best faces
since it was an unusual privilege for them to be out of their cells at an unscheduled
time. Nevertheless, I had to remind myself they were convicted murderers. I am sure
years of solitary confinement had mellowed them, but they did not appear unusual ...
except for the web of clinking chains and handcuffs they wore. But the awareness that these men were waiting to be killed never left me; I was speaking with “dead men.” Since that day, one of them won a new trial and had his sentence changed to life. He now teaches prison GED courses.
When I interviewed the warden, I was shocked by some of his responses. This man was no bleeding heart; he was ready to pull the switch on the electric chair. I asked him what would he do with an extra million dollars in his budget. His immediate response was “more education and job training programs.” I suggested most taxpayers would resent criminals being given such freebies. The warden replied that more than 90 percent of his inmates would eventually be released, and if they had no job skills, they would quickly return to a life of crime and create more victims in the free world. Since his job was to protect society by incarcerating criminals, he thought it better for society that when he released them they would less of a threat than when they came to him. I realized that if he succeeded with only 10% of the convicts, that would mean many fewer crime victims each year. My family, or yours, might be one of those spared. When I asked him if I had a magic wand to wave over the state legislature what from his perspective would he like that magic to achieve. His quick response was to eliminate the mandatory no-parole provision for drug convictions, especially marijuana. He explained that a prison at maximum capacity requires that some people must be paroled to make room for new inmates. With the no-parole provision for marijuana, he pointed out that armed robbers, habitual burglars, rapists, etc. are being released back into society rather than some college kid caught with his backpack full of pot. Society is not best served this way, and he said those in prison for marijuana infractions are not learning to be better citizens. The warden was insistent that society is not better served by this situation either in the risk to society by parolees or the use of his prison's resources to house marijuana offenders.
I presented the warden with a hypothetical dilemma: He must free all the inmates from
one of his four maximum-security units. Which would it be? Again he answered
without hesitation: “Building Two.” While I was picking my jaw up off the floor, he
explained that murderers were the least likely to repeat their crime. An equal number of
rapists, armed robbers, and child molesters would create dozens of new victims within days of being released. Statistically, he said, it would be safer for society if the
condemned on Death Row were released. (note: the truly criminally insane are not housed at his facility)
The warden deferred to my listeners’ consciences and to their legislators when I asked
what it says about a society that would be safer if it freed those it had decided to kill
rather than another group of maximum security inmates. The warden also said that it
was not his responsibility to consider whether state killing is a deterrent to murder, or
even to consider the guilt or innocence of those convicted of murder. Rather, he said
his job was only to keep those convicted of capital murder locked up and to carry out their death sentences at the times determined by the courts and governor ....... all in our name.
(more articles for your entertainment or irritation available in BLOG ARCHIVE near top right of this page.)
A VISIT TO TENNESSEE’S DEATH ROW
I have seen Tennessee’s Death Row. It was very clean, stark - an almost sterile,
lifeless environment. So it was a surprise to see children’s toys and books on a shelf in
the visitors’ room. I was told they had been donated for the children of the condemned
men when they visited. Telling children one of their parents has been murdered must be a horrible experience. But I have no idea how I would tell a child its father is to be kept in this foreboding place until he is ritually killed by the government. (I purposely use the word “kill” because I believe “execute,” “put to death,” and “capital punishment” are government-ese for “killing a citizen.”)
On that particular day, I was at Riverbend Maximum Security Institution to interview the
warden and two condemned prisoners for talk radio. I declined the warden’s invitation
to view Old Sparky, Tennessee’s electric chair, but not because of any liberal
sensitivity. I declined because I knew the company of Boston-based Fred Leuchter had
been paid tens of thousands of tax dollars for refurbishing that killing device. His
company would also have built the state a gallows or gas chamber. I hope he had
nothing to do with our state’s new lethal injection apparatus. I have no objection to
anyone being paid for legitimate services rendered, but I refuse to see any of
Leuchter’s handiwork. I was embarrassed that my state had done business with
Leuchter and his ilk.
Leuchter is a self-professed expert on efficient methods for state-sanctioned killing, and
as such, he has testified in a Canadian court that the magnitude of the Holocaust has
been exaggerated, that killing millions of people would have been a logistical
impossibility even for the Nazis, and because of his distortions of history, the German government will not allow him to come inside its borders. He was once the darling of the ultra-rightwing lecture circuit. Refusing to observe Leuchter’s work was my silent protest on behalf of the six million people murdered by the Third Reich, people whose deaths Leuchter and neo-Nazi revisionists diminish by their Holocaust-denying propaganda. Perhaps states that want to skillfully kill in the name of justice must employ the likes of Leuchter, but I prefer no association with them and I repudiate their bigoted agenda.
I learned several things from my visit to Death Row. For example, the staff considers
Building Two (they do not call it Death Row) to be some of the best duty in the prison.
They told me it was safer for them because the security was so intense and the
condemned men were the best-behaved inmates in the entire facility. All the staff I met
were very professional and polite, not at all like the stereotypical brutes in the movies.
Although I had been warned about being “conned,” I still found the two inmates I
interviewed to be particularly charming. Of course, they were putting on their best faces
since it was an unusual privilege for them to be out of their cells at an unscheduled
time. Nevertheless, I had to remind myself they were convicted murderers. I am sure
years of solitary confinement had mellowed them, but they did not appear unusual ...
except for the web of clinking chains and handcuffs they wore. But the awareness that these men were waiting to be killed never left me; I was speaking with “dead men.” Since that day, one of them won a new trial and had his sentence changed to life. He now teaches prison GED courses.
When I interviewed the warden, I was shocked by some of his responses. This man was no bleeding heart; he was ready to pull the switch on the electric chair. I asked him what would he do with an extra million dollars in his budget. His immediate response was “more education and job training programs.” I suggested most taxpayers would resent criminals being given such freebies. The warden replied that more than 90 percent of his inmates would eventually be released, and if they had no job skills, they would quickly return to a life of crime and create more victims in the free world. Since his job was to protect society by incarcerating criminals, he thought it better for society that when he released them they would less of a threat than when they came to him. I realized that if he succeeded with only 10% of the convicts, that would mean many fewer crime victims each year. My family, or yours, might be one of those spared. When I asked him if I had a magic wand to wave over the state legislature what from his perspective would he like that magic to achieve. His quick response was to eliminate the mandatory no-parole provision for drug convictions, especially marijuana. He explained that a prison at maximum capacity requires that some people must be paroled to make room for new inmates. With the no-parole provision for marijuana, he pointed out that armed robbers, habitual burglars, rapists, etc. are being released back into society rather than some college kid caught with his backpack full of pot. Society is not best served this way, and he said those in prison for marijuana infractions are not learning to be better citizens. The warden was insistent that society is not better served by this situation either in the risk to society by parolees or the use of his prison's resources to house marijuana offenders.
I presented the warden with a hypothetical dilemma: He must free all the inmates from
one of his four maximum-security units. Which would it be? Again he answered
without hesitation: “Building Two.” While I was picking my jaw up off the floor, he
explained that murderers were the least likely to repeat their crime. An equal number of
rapists, armed robbers, and child molesters would create dozens of new victims within days of being released. Statistically, he said, it would be safer for society if the
condemned on Death Row were released. (note: the truly criminally insane are not housed at his facility)
The warden deferred to my listeners’ consciences and to their legislators when I asked
what it says about a society that would be safer if it freed those it had decided to kill
rather than another group of maximum security inmates. The warden also said that it
was not his responsibility to consider whether state killing is a deterrent to murder, or
even to consider the guilt or innocence of those convicted of murder. Rather, he said
his job was only to keep those convicted of capital murder locked up and to carry out their death sentences at the times determined by the courts and governor ....... all in our name.
(more articles for your entertainment or irritation available in BLOG ARCHIVE near top right of this page.)
very nice piece. write more on this topic.
ReplyDeleteExcellent; thank you, Lee Swain
ReplyDelete