Executing Ronald Smith is simply not moral

CALGARY

When the Montana parole board meets today to discuss the fate of Canadian death-row inmate Ronald Smith, it will consider his conduct in prison, his remorse for his crime, the feelings of his family and the feelings of the families of the two men he murdered almost 30 years ago.

But one thing I’m willing to bet the board won’t discuss is the only thing that matters — whether executing Smith for the killings of Thomas Running Rabbit and Harvey Mad Man is in itself, a moral thing to do.

The answer, clearly, is no. Killing is not moral.

To say that killing Smith is immoral is not to deny or minimize the anguish that the two victims’ families continue to suffer. Rather, it means that when meting out punishment, the justice system should never stoop to the level of the criminals who come before it, for then it is just as guilty as they are and has just as much blood on its hands as they do.

I don’t know how Smith can live with himself after what he did, but I also don’t know how members of the parole board can live with themselves if the board recommends to Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer that Smith should die. Is the U.S. a civilized society? I would have to say that when a state governor holds the power of life or death in his hands, the answer is a loud “no.” How does that work?

If Schweitzer decrees that Smith should have a rendezvous with a lethal injection, will the knowledge that he sent a man to his death haunt him the rest of his life or will it be no worse than slapping a gnat to its demise? Likely, it will be the former, for in a media interview last year, Schweitzer described the onus on him as “carrying more than the weight of an Angus bull on your shoulders.”

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty — Connecticut was the most recent, doing away with it in April, although unfortunately, abolition did not extend to 11 inmates on death row there who still have a date with the executioner. Wisconsin and Michigan were in the forefront of this progressive movement away from barbarism, doing away with capital punishment in 1853 and 1846, respectively.

Smith is a Canadian citizen, who Ottawa has been less than lukewarm about helping. In his letter requesting clemency for Smith, a native of Red Deer, Alta., Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said the Federal Court of Canada had ordered Foreign Affairs three years ago “to support Mr. Smith’s case for clemency.”

Some may argue that it’s too bad for Smith — he committed a crime in a state that has the death penalty and now he has to face the music. But what about the argument that it’s just as much of a crime for the state to kill Smith, as it was for him to commit his murders?

Or the argument that death is a cop-out for the killer? Far better to serve life in prison, living daily with the knowledge of the heinous act you committed than escape into the oblivion of death.

Those who prefer to go the costbenefit route rather than pursue the moral argument should know that it costs far more to keep a prisoner on death row pending the multitude of appeals that inevitably result, than to house him for life. According to msnbc.com: “Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons. They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses. After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death-row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.”

In 2008, California’s Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice found that death-row inmates cost $90,000 each in extra expenses annually compared with those sentenced to life in prison.

Smith’s lawyers say he is filled with remorse and regret for his actions. But all of that is secondary to the truth that it is immoral to kill.

The Montana justice department stated in a letter to the parole board, obtained by Postmedia News, that the victims’ families “have suffered the pain and agony of their deaths for over a quarter of a century, a pain that never ends.”

Smith, too, should live with pain and agony over the deaths of Mad Man and Running Rabbit — for the rest of his natural life. His sentence should be commuted to life in prison.

Naomi Lakritz is a columnist with the Calgary Herald.