The Difference Between a Sentence of Death and Life in Prison

For millennia, humans have sentenced criminals to death, exile, or excommunication.

The purpose of such a sentence is to sever the criminal from society, to separate the person from potential new victims and from followers and acolytes whom he might influence toward committing similar crimes.

When we refer to a sentence of death as a “death penalty,” we misrepresent what it is. Death is not a punishment. One is not punished by being put to death, unless one counts the anticipation prior to the execution.

Furthermore, we don’t impose sentences for the sake of retribution or retaliation.  Our civil laws set forth the consequences of transgression, the parameters of what may be imposed. Neither judge nor jury is asked to decide whether the criminal is redeemable. The judgment is based on the severity of the crime relative to the recommended sentence under the law. Laws are crafted with such things in mind.

President Joe Biden recently commuted the sentences of 37 criminals who had been sentenced to death. In other words, he has changed their sentences to life in prison without parole.

I know very little about most of the cases of those 37. But I do know something about the other three criminals on death row whose sentences were not commuted.  (It is my practice not to mention the names of those criminals, as they take glory and receive credit every time their names are mentioned in the media.) In particular, I know a lot about the Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooter, one of the three. With the exception of jury selection, I attended the entirety of his trial. I had witnessed his actions, and I testified.

During the trial, there were two witnesses for the defense who gave testimony about the conditions of incarceration at ADX, said to be the most secure prison in the United States, the sort of place that holds those sentenced to life in prison. It seemed to me the witnesses were trying to convince the jury that a person would be unlikely to escape. They described televisions in the cells, a new fish-keeping project, access to recreation and computers, and for those over age 50 (including our bad guy) card playing and other social hour access. One witness noted that they strive to keep the prisoners happy so that they do not fight. With “good behavior,” they might gain more privileges, even to requesting a transfer to a less stringent prison.

Testimony by others indicated that our criminal enjoyed having his room and board paid for, and can comport himself with what might be considered “good behavior” in prison (although there was a note that he may have hacked the computer system of the prison where he was held during the trial.)

Testimony also showed that he has a history of dealing in hatred and militant memes online. He planned his assault in advance; it was no whim. His only regret, a witness reported, was that he had not murdered more of us, in as messy a way as possible. Those he did murder he killed up close, individually, some with his AR-15 against their head or neck, blowing them to Kingdom Come. He stalked the building hunting for more to slaughter, stepping over his conquests. He severely wounded first responders who were thwarting his murder spree. He murdered people in the middle of prayer. He had an additional location in mind as a second target, and had enough weapons and ammunition.

All of this came out in the trial. (As an aside, I note that none of it would have been revealed had there been no trial, had he been sentenced under a plea deal to life in prison. His case would have been swept under the rug, had those advocating for this prevailed, and the utter depravity never would have been brought forward.)

The criminal is now on death row in Terre Haute, Indiana, while his case is being appealed. His conditions there are not as cushy as they might be at ADX. As I understand it, he is not afforded the same communication potential, is not so much in a position to transmit his hatred and nefarious convictions to others inside or outside the prison.

There are folks now who are petitioning the President, who are announcing that because racism may have been involved with the sentencing of some, and that some may have been wrongly convicted for other reasons, we should expunge all of their sentences. There are some who say we should free them all because we cannot continue what they call a culture of incarceration.

More to the point of what I am saying, there have been hordes of citizens calling for President Biden to commute the sentences of all who are on death row, simply because those folks “do not believe in the death penalty.” The President’s commutations have undercut the work of judges, juries, prosecutors, and slews of others in our justice system, on some blanket “belief” that what is in the law should not be there.

A more appropriate way for these citizens to address their “belief” would be to petition for a change in the law, rather than to ask the President to undo what our justice system has done under the law. Especially in the case of lawmakers themselves who use their office as an activist platform, they should stop encouraging this circumvention and work to change the law. The law is alive! It grows, it changes with our society. But it takes action by the lawmakers.

Let’s take this farther. Changing the law must not simply engender snipping out “death” from the wording. We need a law which sufficiently excommunicates the criminal from all of society, from electronics, mail, phone calls, even from visitors.  We need what might be considered a fate worse than death. And we need it free from being deemed “cruel and unusual punishment” so that it may be imposed, possibly at varying levels of severity. Make that new law before eliminating the old, to retain what is effective.

Given President-Elect Trump’s promise to execute immediately everyone on death row, I understand why President Biden would consider such commutations, and perhaps why he carried them out. However, folks who believe that these criminals will be sentenced to perennial solitary confinement are mistaken.

After President Biden’s announcement, one attorney for criminals whose death sentences will be commuted was quoted by CNN saying, “We hope that brings them a connection with their families…  Hopefully, they’ll have an opportunity to get into general population (an inmate group with fewer restrictions) and participate in programs and have a life.”

Undoing the work of the justice system with the stroke of a pen seems reckless and cavalier, given the potential results. Perhaps some have been spared an inappropriate outcome, but others will be gloating as they live out their lives in much better conditions than they have had on death row.

I do feel, though, very much relieved for the President’s inaction concerning the three whose sentences were not commuted. “Evil” may not be a term in civil law, but it is what I witnessed. And I am convinced that keeping that individual away from all parts of civilization is the best outcome for our country. Forever.