Please stop Gov. Brian Schweitzer from allowing a kill
By Duganz
With that wholesome, folksy nature, the Coal Cowboy – our state’s fearless appearance maker, the man who shakes a thousand hands, introduces himself as “Brian,” and gets rootin’ tootin’ mad at the legislature – is gearing up to help kill a man.
Following the failure of his most recent appeal, all that stands between Canadian citizen Ronald Smith and a long walk to Montana’s least homely doublewide, is Governor Brian. And, Brian is okay with that needle being put in Smith’s arm, and Smith being the fourth man executed in Montana since the state started executions again in 1995.
He’s already allowed the death penalty to happen once since taking office.
Smith, the only Canadian on Death Row in America (yeah, even including Texas), has a hearing November 3rd at Powell County Courthouse where he will learn when the State of Montana plans to kill him unless Brian decides not to. The Cowboy describes his feelings like this:
“You’re not talking to a governor who is jubilant about these things. It feels like you’re carrying more than the weight of an Angus bull on your shoulders.”
“Anybody who says they are absolutely sure about the death penalty is either in denial themselves or has not been paying attention. I’m not absolutely sure about the death penalty. There are very few people on the planet that have had that kind of experience. For almost everybody else it is a philosophical test because they’ll never actually be in a position where they’re involved in any way.”
“[Referring to the state-sanctioned killing of David Dawson in 2006] There were several calls to make sure the lines were open and then one last call at 11:56 (p.m.) to say everything is prepared at this end. The capital’s a very dark place at midnight. There’s nobody else there. I’m there by myself. It’s very quiet and the length of time from midnight until the phone rings again — while it will only be somewhere around four minutes — it could just as well be an eternity when they call to say it is done.”
Because, let’s be honest (and avoid cattle references when we’re talking about DEATH for crissakes), the Death Penalty is difficult for Brian because he is quite literally sitting by while others kill someone. I’m not saying that every person on death row is innocent (Smith sure isn’t), but allow me to postulate a scenario: 
Now, let’s say a person — an angel or something — whispers in your ear, “He murdered two people.” Would you instead sit there and do nothing? Would you praise the stomper as a Man of Justice, and feel good inside?
In my experience, no one can answer “yes” to that. But that’s exactly what the death penalty is: it’s a person killing another; it’s the state taking a person who is in no way a direct threat to the welfare of the people, strapping said person onto a table, placing an IV, and letting a three dose blend of poisons end the life of another human being. It may not be a street stomping, but sanitizing killing doesn’t make it less brutal, or wrong.
To rationalize, we say we kill them, because killing is wrong… unless its by order of the state. We do not charge ourselves; we go on living. We tell ourselves that the Death Penalty is something necessary; that without it we will have to pay soooooooo much money for criminals to eat and get dentures, and that these people don’t deserve that. I myself have met plenty of liberals who say things like, “I don’t think we should arrest drug dealers, but I can understand executing murderers.” (They, like their Republican counterparts, are always so keen to change the word “kill” to “execute” to make it seem much more sanitary.)
But the question is always as simple as this: How is Smith hurting you? He’s been in jail since 1983 for, as he’s admitted and been convicted of, killing two men because he “wanted to know what it felt like to kill somebody.” It’s a chilling, and brutally honest statement that gives us a view into the psyche of a murderer––a murderer who has been successfully locked away in jail for nearly 30 years. And during that time he’s not done a damn thing to you.
Regardless, we – all of us who pay taxes in the great state of Montana – are going to kill him, because killing is wrong (unless it’s done by the state).
On a previous blog I ran I wrote about why the death penalty is a waste of money, time, and ultimately shows a lack of civility amongst the bloodthirsty rabble supporting it. Here are the main points: 
- It’s expensive (though for Montana that’s hard to prove since the government has never bothered pricing it).
- It doesn’t deter criminals, or thoughts of crime (Ex. People still follow Jesus despite that whole crucifixion incident).
- The practice eventually bites back when we realize we’ve killed an innocent person.
- It’s based on Nazi science.
I know that Ronald Smith is not an innocent man (far from it), but most of those points are still relevant. And more than that: He’s the only Canadian on death row. And no democracy has ever before executed a Canadian.
Yet on Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010, the state of Montana will make a final move to kill Ronald Smith, continuing the antiquated morality of the Old Testament: an eye for an eye. They will start a clock that will tick down every minute of every day getting ever closer to that moment – 11:56 p.m. – when Governor Brian Schweitzer will give the okay to allow a killing. And four minutes later Montana will be the first democratic government to ever kill a Canadian via the death penalty.
Unless the Governor is convinced to not do it. Unless we all stand up for something very simple: the belief that killing is wrong. That’s it. It’s that simple. We need to ask Brian Schweitzer to not use our money to kill a man, to not sully our image as a state and country with a needless death. I’m not asking for him to be released, I’m just asking that we not perpetuate ancient, stupid ideas.
Do the right thing Governor. If it helps you make up your mind, I’m sure you’ll even be asked to be on national TV again.
***
You can also help by contributing to the Montana Abolition Coalition.
-
Recent Comments
lizard19 on Who Can Can Engstrom? Pancho on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Who Can Can Engstrom? petetalbot on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Who Can Can Engstrom… on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Steve W on Is UM Discriminating Against F… Ryan Morton on Is UM Discriminating Against F…
October 29, 2010 at 2:10 pm
Note to our northern friends.
If you want to kill someone and never pay for you actions with your own life.
Don’t venture south of the border.
October 29, 2010 at 2:42 pm
This piece of inhuman filth is long overdue for the reaper.
I’m good with it.
October 29, 2010 at 2:49 pm
And to finish off your list,
5. It diminishes our own humanity to perpetrate state-sanctioned murder.
Something is very wrong when we claim to value life so highly that we’re willing to kill for it. The death penalty is about vengeance, not punishment.
October 29, 2010 at 3:12 pm
Actions have consequences. I’d peg the blame on someone other than our Governor.
October 29, 2010 at 3:13 pm
“. . . It doesn’t deter criminals”
Actually, it is an excellent deterent for Ronald Smith. He will never kill again.
October 29, 2010 at 3:24 pm
“. . . And no democracy has ever before executed a Canadian.”
Until 1976, Cananda, a democracy, did a pretty good job of executing Canadians, at the rate of around 7 per year on average:
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/canada.html
“. . . 704 people were hanged in Canada from 1867 to 1962. 1,533 death sentences were passed between 1867 and 1976, resulting in the
executions of 693 men and 11 women, between 1867 and 1962.”
October 29, 2010 at 4:10 pm
Please, DO NOT just lump me in with some of the commenters above.
In the past, I have favored the death penalty. Not out of some spirit of “eye for an eye”, but rather a deep belief that some hominids are not so much human, and more a disease on the rest of humanity. I had no problem at all with the state sponsored murder (that is what it is) of Ted Bundy. As strange as you might find it, one of the things I loath George Bush for is that the only person out of about 150 that he offered clemency to was Henry Lee Lucas, a disease that needed to be eradicated.
But the point is that it *is* state sponsored, every bit as favorable to the state as killing German kids who happened to wear a swastika, or Nipponese who just wanted a healthy supply of oil for Emperor and country. Attempts to personalize it won’t change anything. Many people do already understand that they are culpable, and if the above commenters are any example, they won’t lose any sleep over it; any more than knowing what happens to cattle at a slaughter house stops folks from eating steak. Very few are confusing ‘the state’ for ‘not themselves’.
As I’ve gotten older, a long process, my favor for the death penalty has waned, based mostly on the point number 3. It is better that 10 parasites live than even one innocent be murdered. But that’s not what we’re dealing with here. We’ve got a man who freely admitted to killing others just to know what it felt like. He’s a known parasite.
I truly empathize with the Governor’s statement, and find it unfair that, left or right, we hold one person to account/blame for having the power of life and death over others. (That’s why, before Dubya, Congress had the power to declare wars.) If Schweitzer grants clemency then he is disagreeing with established and favored legal action from the very people who granted him that power. True, it may be the moral thing to do. But it would also be a betrayal of expectations. There is no easy way out, cattle jokes or not.
October 29, 2010 at 4:26 pm
You don’t argue with a rabid dog, you don’t reason with him, you don’t pen him up and hope that he doesn’t bite someone else – you put a bullet to him.
I won’t get emotional about having this person executed because it is what it is – removal of a dangerous and rabid animal from society.
I have the same concerns about the death penalty that Wulfgar does but when you have a person that freely admits to the crime, there is no question about whether this person is a danger. He needs to be removed for the safety of society.
October 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm
He was removed, Moorcat. He’s been incarcerated for nearly 30 years. Go ahead and let it be thirty more, but don’t bloody my hands with your vengeance (see, I pay taxes too, and my dollars will be used to do this).
October 30, 2010 at 7:41 am
First, I find it interesting that you thank wulfgar and accuse me of “bloodying your hands with my vengence when we basically said the same thing.
Second, as I made clear in my post, it has nothing to do with vengence and everything to do with removing a rabid dog from society (you know, that whole protect society from bad people thing….).
It would be nice if you would actually read people’s responce rather than just assume you know anything about them.
October 30, 2010 at 11:56 am
Sorry you felt left our of the thank yous, Moorcat. Thank you too.
But, again, we ARE protected from any threat Ronald Smith could make. He’s in jail. That’s what jails do. Killing him is just vengeance, no matter how you play it in your mind.
October 30, 2010 at 1:11 pm
See, that is where we will never see eye to eye. To you, it is vengence. To me, it is prudent (again, back to my rabid dog analogy).
As far as him being in jail, far too many people escape from jail (or worse, get parolled etc) for me to be comfortable with the idea that jail is a final solution. Many murderers have escaped (Diane Downs, Ted Bundy.. the list goes on). A bullet in the head (or lethal chemicals in the veins) is a permanent solution to that particular problem and I will have no problem sleeping the night they put this animal down.
October 29, 2010 at 10:03 pm
I think you and I are nearly on the same page Wulfgar. I just, as I often do, go one step further. But thank you for making a thoughtful comment that aids the discussion. I really appreciate that, and your thoughts on this issue.
October 29, 2010 at 4:32 pm
and we all know that prisoners never escape from montana prisons…..
http://goddamnindependents.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/cropped-joker-pic-1.jpg
October 29, 2010 at 9:29 pm
Build higher walls. I don’t care. But don’t kill someone and call it justice.
October 29, 2010 at 4:33 pm
The problem with your analogy to someone stomping someone else’s head on the bridge is that this person had a trial and was found guilty. And admitted it. It’s not like the state is grabbing ugly looking people off the street, tying them down, and killing them for being ugly.
October 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm
Yet.
October 29, 2010 at 4:37 pm
i respect duganz position and it is usually a tough call to put someone to death. but granting clemency to ron smith is simply not remotely defensible.
October 29, 2010 at 4:49 pm
If you will allow such, I concur.
October 29, 2010 at 9:25 pm
It is completely defensible to say that killing is wrong, p-bear. Justice should not be done with spite and hate, but reason. If we are to say that killing someone is wrong, we cannot then kill.
October 29, 2010 at 5:05 pm
I have been wishy washy, too, about the death penalty. I started with the arrest of the child molester and murder who had kidnapped Shasta and Dylan Groene of Idaho.
Despicable piece of humanity.
But after listing to significant testimony during the 2009 session for SB236, Sen. Wanzenried’s bill to abolish the death penalty in Montana.
Had a nice amount of support on both sides of the aisle, PASSING the Republican controlled Senate in a 27 to 23 vote.
Interesting to note – Sen. Roy Brown out there in Billings supported this bill.
Despite such support, the bill failed to make it out of the House Judiciary committee.
That being said, I highly recommend for everyone who really wants to give the reality of the death penalty a truly critical look, (to listen or watch) (or read) the testimony given before the Senate Judiciary – (read) or (lsten or watch) the debate in committee before approval – and finally, watch or listen to the floor vote in the senate.
Expert testimony – testimony from those who had been on death row – testimony from those who’s loved one had been murdered by someone that sat on death row – advocates on both sides of the issue and everywhere in between.
The taking of a life in the name of a government is, as our Governor has said, nothing that should be taken lightly. For his decision, he is either FOR the death penalty or AGAINST it – it is not his job to weigh the guilt or innocence. That is reserved to the judiciary and jury.
Smith by all accounts isn’t worthy of even the mention of his name. But to decide that he should die because of that? That’s the role of the judge…who does what the law allows.
Montana needs a legislative fix if it is to stop executions. I have hopes that if attempted again, it makes it up to a Governor’s office.
The decision Brian faces isn’t whether this guy deserves to die – its his decision to determine whether the death penalty is a valid form of punishment.
Just as juries or a juror can refuse to convict on a law if they believe the law unjust, Schweitzer can refuse to allow the death penalty to be followed through to its finality.
That’s his power.
Edit, because I can: This is a previous post that I wrote during the last session after the public testimony in the Senate Judiciary committee and after the floor vote in the Senate.
October 29, 2010 at 6:28 pm
PB has it right. I remember this fucking animal like it was yesterday and would kill him myself if nobody else will.
You folks that weren’t around don’t know how evil Smith is..beyond Charlie Manson sick.
October 29, 2010 at 6:46 pm
I believe the situation is two-fold – either you believe the guy is guilty or he isn’t and (2) either you believe it is OK for a government to take a life.
These’ aren’t related – they are solely independent of each other.
Trying to roll the thing into what is actually two questions – one which is both judicial and legislative, the other which is moral.
Is it a moral law? Do you stop an immoral law when you can?
Jurors can. They in fact have an obligation to do so. Just as military.
I believe the law that allows the governor to make this decision is lawful…he just need to think clearly about exactly what his decision is. Period.
October 29, 2010 at 7:12 pm
And I believe that politics as it is hasn’t given him the ability to do so.
October 29, 2010 at 7:21 pm
Are you suggesting that politics trumps morality? That it is OK?
October 29, 2010 at 9:06 pm
I think Wulfgar is saying that Brian knows his bread is buttered by the vox populi, and as this thread has shown… the people want blood.
But, isn’t it sad that someone’s death can be chalked up to politics?
October 29, 2010 at 9:17 pm
Ronald smith isn’t just “someone”
October 29, 2010 at 9:26 pm
No. He’s a human being; a human being capable of committing something tragic and despicable, but still a human being.
October 29, 2010 at 9:31 pm
when the judge asked ronald what it felt like to kill ronald answered “it was no big deal.”
he is no human being i could ever recognize.
and where in hell have you ever encountered reason in this world patrick? let me know so i can take a picture of it.
October 29, 2010 at 9:55 pm
We both know I’m not going to find that picture, but it doesn’t mean you stop looking.
October 29, 2010 at 9:57 pm
very good post patrick.
as usual.
October 29, 2010 at 9:35 pm
Chuck said: “I remember this fucking animal like it was yesterday and would kill him myself if nobody else will.”
Oh the irony when you’re sentenced to death and beggin’ for clemency.
Chuck also said: “You folks that weren’t around don’t know how evil Smith is..beyond Charlie Manson sick.”
Notice that Charles Manson is alive, locked up, and none of us have to deal with him. Sort of like this guy Ronald Smith…
But, more than that Chuck, don’t insult my reasoning based on my age. That’s just a cheap tactic people that “were around” use to discredit younger people because they have no argument. I’m 25, Chuck, and I’m not a child. Talk to me, and anyone else here, like an adult or leave the thread.
October 29, 2010 at 8:34 pm
i think capital punishment could be an effective deterrent.
for example, imagine if the W.R. Grace executives were convicted then executed for poisoning an entire Montanan town, i bet you other execs would think twice before valuing profit more than human life.
and that guy from Billings who put together his Afghanistan kill team–convict and execute him and maybe our soldiers will think twice before indiscriminately murdering foreigners.
and the government officials who sanctioned the torture that has led to multiple deaths? convict and execute them, and we’ll see how gung-ho folks are before the next enemy combatant is tortured to death.
but that’s not how capital punishment works, so until the big fish face the same level of extreme mortal consequences for their abhorrent actions, i think we, as a nation, should find other punitive measures to deal with our low-level sociopaths.
October 29, 2010 at 8:45 pm
Ronald Smith is nothing but a murdering scumbag who needs to be put to death as soon as possible for killing the two innocent men in 1983 who gave him a ride only to be murdered by the scumbag Ronald Snith from Red Deer, Alberta in Canada. As well the scumbag Ronald Smith should have been put to death within 2 years of having killed those two innocent men and would have saved the taxpayers of Montana a lot of money keeping the low life scumbag Ronald Smith alive.
October 29, 2010 at 11:21 pm
Ronald Smith must die.
He wanted death then, give it to him now. It’s long over-due.
October 30, 2010 at 10:54 am
Do you feel that you enlarged yourself and your argument by taking cheap shots at Schweitzer? Pathetic really. He is conflicted as are many people. Or would you prefer Racicot and Martz making the decisions? Tool much?
October 30, 2010 at 10:58 am
Duganz,
I’m not going to argue with philosophy with you.
Ronald Smith is beyond subhuman, the decades have made him appear less so. I was working in Browning at the time and knew Tom Running Rabbit Sr and saw him have to go identify his son’s body. Smith needs to die.
October 30, 2010 at 11:05 am
Chuck, we all ‘need’ to die. It comes with the job description, and is completely beside the point.
What Duganz is asking is this: Do we need to kill? And if so, why?
October 30, 2010 at 11:00 am
I was going to ask PB if he ever met Smith. I have.
Problem Bear is the only one here that the truly gets it.
October 30, 2010 at 11:09 am
never met him chuck but my brother and i have friends on the hi-line.
October 30, 2010 at 11:01 am
Jose: Brian is governor now, and sorry if I think his moral character should rise above that of Judy and Marc.
October 30, 2010 at 4:16 pm
The Rabid Dog analogy.
I’ve been chewing on this for a day, probably longer, because every time one argues about the death penalty it comes up. And I do mean every time.
First, it’s not my argument. Hopefully I can clarify why.
Second. I don’t like it much, in part because it is dismissible. When it comes up, anti-death penalty advocates always point to the idea that humans aren’t dogs, and poof, the argument is refuted. But the problem is, it’s never examined either. And that’s the part I really don’t like.
It isn’t that dogs aren’t humans. It’s that rabies isn’t a capital crime. Society decides what is a capital crime; biology decides the behavior of a disease. My brother is correct that we kill rabid dogs because it protects those who could be harmed. Duganz is correct that we can protect those who could be harmed by locking psychopaths away for life. So which could be correct?
Both, obviously. So what aren’t we looking at that makes the rabid dog argument so weak? Just this. the movie Ol’ Yeller taught us a great deal of common wisdom, and should have taught us some uncommon wisdom as well. It taught entire generations of men that we could cry and still feel good about ourselves. It taught us what many have always known, that you have to put down a rabid dog. What is uncommon is the reason. We don’t kill rabid dogs because we hate them and what they’ve done, nor because we fear what they will do. We kill them because we love them. It’s a mercy. Rabid dogs will live about two weeks before they die of dehydration and starvation. We cried at the end of Ol’ Yeller because of love, not anger or hatred or practical purpose. We cried because we can offer mercy and sympathy. It isn’t about prudence that we kill the diseased. It’s about the necessity of love.
So, Duganz and Moorcat are both right. Except that capital punishment isn’t about love. Far from it. The question is what it is about. Rabid animals don’t seek out humans to destroy. Ronald Smith did. He has been unable to fulfill his desire for 20 years. So why kill him now?
This discussion really isn’t about the reasons a killer deserves to die. It’s about the reasons we are willing to kill. That’s why I cannot stomach or endorse the rabid dog argument. That something is a parasite on the species, and functions to kill? No mercy or love is required. But it certainly isn’t diseased. We choose to kill it. That’s our judgment, and our consequence. And that’s the burden that we bear.
October 31, 2010 at 1:49 am
I could easily argue that it is a disease but that is not the point you are trying to make. You are correct that – in the case of Ol Yeller, it was love that made the decision. I could just as easily point to Cujo, though.. or any rabid wild animal. It isn’t mercy or love that dictates that we put them down… it is the possibility that – in that two weeks they have left – that they would infect others.
While I understand that this person isn’t a “disease”, he would kill you just as dead (and with as little sympathy or empathy as a disease) and that is why I see it as practical. We will have to agree to disagree on this one.
The arguement about him being in prison for 20 years and only now is he heading for the chair is a completely different issue – one that Texas had a few years back. They opted for an express lane to the death chamber for those animals who’s crimes were so heinous (and witnessed by more than 3 credible witnesses). Those animals don’t wait 20 years for the death penalty – they go to the head of the line.
I get that this issue is very difficult for many people – including Duganz – and I really do feel for his pain over this execution, but I have already had this argument with myself and I came down on the side of eliminating the threat to society. If there was a way to ensure that these animals never harmed another human being (that includes those people incarcerated with them), I would be fine with life in prison without any home of parole, but that isn’t possible. There is no question with the death penalty.
What I am sympathetic of, though, is a serious discussion on what qualifies someone for the death penalty. As much as I believe that the death penalty is a necessary “evil”, I would not want to see another innocent person executed (yes, I am aware that it has happened before).
November 1, 2010 at 6:20 pm
The Missoulian’s Gwen Florio got some more info on Ronald Smith’s execution: http://bit.ly/bVW3hR
November 3, 2010 at 10:43 am
I was wondering if you would set aside $10-20 grand a year out of your own pocket to keep this person in jail for the next 20 years. Costs to house inmates will climb higher as the years go by. On the moral front, that state takes a life yes, however the state is the whole sum of the people of the state, just because you or a handful of like minded individuals think killing is wrong shouldn’t be grudge what the whole of the citizenry think. Not that am against housing or carrying out the state penalty but we all must remember that our individual consciousness must conscious to the whole of consciousness of the state.
November 3, 2010 at 11:56 am
We could get deeper into my thoughts on inmate housing (I don’t think prison is needed for 80 percent of all people in prison), but that’s not what the post was about. It had to do with hypocrisy of killing someone for killing someone.
But, could you please clarify this remark:
“Not that am against housing or carrying out the state penalty but we all must remember that our individual consciousness must conscious to the whole of consciousness of the state.”
I’m lost.