TN DEATH PENALTY BLOG
We are traveling through Tennessee's heartland and highways, meeting folks and starting conversations about our death penalty.
Previous Posts
- Death Row Inmate's Mother in Painful Waiting Game
- A Rube Goldberg Machine
- Supreme Court Hears Arguments on Lethal Injection
- Let's Wait on the U.S. Supreme Court
- Another Great Paul House Article
- Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?
- He's Not the Man I Met 10 Years Ago
- Judge Rules on Paul House Case/Poll on Tennessean
- Tennessee Op-Eds on New Jersey
- It's Official: New Jersey Abolishes the Death Penalty
Links
- Abolish the Death Penalty Blog
- Amnesty International Death Penalty Blog
- Asia Death Penalty Blog
- For Victims, Against the Death Penalty
- The Real Cost of Prisons Blog
- Uncommon Sense on the Death Penalty
- National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
- Death Penalty Information Center
- Citizens United Against the Death Penalty
- Murder Victims Families for Human Rights
- Google News: TN death penalty
Contributors
Monday, January 14, 2008
Buyer's Remorse
Kudos to James Staub for his piece in Sunday's Tennessean. As a murder victim's family member, James' voice is of vital importance as the state of Tennessee examines the death penalty, particularly concerning the question of whether or not it serves victims' families.
James points out that the current lethal injection debate is just one detail as we consider the larger questions involved with the death penalty. He raises issues of wrongful convictions, cost, and the increasing numbers of victims' families, law enforcement, and district attorneys who believe that the death penalty is a diversion of tax dollars and an ineffective deterrent.
As I read the article and continue to reflect on the death penalty as a public policy, I wonder again and again why we hang on to it? If it is not a deterrent, costs too much, does not serve victims' families, and is not necessary to protect us, then why? Why?
James points out that the current lethal injection debate is just one detail as we consider the larger questions involved with the death penalty. He raises issues of wrongful convictions, cost, and the increasing numbers of victims' families, law enforcement, and district attorneys who believe that the death penalty is a diversion of tax dollars and an ineffective deterrent.
As I read the article and continue to reflect on the death penalty as a public policy, I wonder again and again why we hang on to it? If it is not a deterrent, costs too much, does not serve victims' families, and is not necessary to protect us, then why? Why?
Labels: cost, death penalty, innocence, James Staub, lethal injection, Supreme Court, Tennessean, Tennessee, wrongful convictions
