Two Executions

There were two executions this week. One was by Texas, the other by Oklahoma. They both involve horrible crimes. They are also different in significant ways. 

At least one is unjust, even if (which is not clear) due process was followed. The other is more of a case study of how the problems of capital punishment do not erase the fact that we are dealing with some horrible people.  

Ramiro Gonzales (Texas) 

Ramiro Gonzales was sentenced to death in 2006 for the murder of Bridget Townsend, who witnessed Gonzales robbing his drug dealer’s home, in 2001. He was eighteen. His upbringing had childhood abuse and mental illness issues that are familiar in capital cases. 

The current line for executions is eighteen. Some experts argue that it should be twenty-one. Juries and judges can still consider age. Gonzales, to add a detail found in a second article, also raped Bridget Townsend. 

The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Gonzales’ original execution in July 2022 two days before the date, after an expert who had testified that Gonzales posed a future danger to society walked back his testimony. A new sentencing hearing re-established the death penalty. 

His final appeals to the Supreme Court focused on the argument that the method of determining future dangerousness was invalid. This process repeatedly is a dubious enterprise and state witnesses have been found to be dubious experts repeatedly. Should we trust that they did so much a better job the second time around? 

The Supreme Court without comment -- as expected -- rejected his final appeals. This is reasonable given the current law. 

Nonetheless, I continue to be uncomfortable with no justice even supplying a clarifying statement before signing off on an execution. This is also the second recent challenge addressing the argument rehabilitation made the person constitutionally unfit for execution. Again, comment please, Sotomayor or Jackson! 

His good character in prison helps his case. The Supreme Court was asked to consider the state's interest in executing a person who kept in very good behavior in prison and rehabilitated himself in another recent capital case. Overall, compare him to the other person we cover today.  

Gonzales tried and failed to donate a kidney. An NYT op-ed was one example of how this received some national attention. A few capital prisoners over the years tried to do this. One problem was that the execution made the process difficult. If a person on death row wants to donate, they should be able to do so. 

The strongest argument for commutation (to life imprisonment) is that he found God. Gonzales became one of the first Texas Department of Criminal Justice Faith-Based Program members on Death Row. 

To follow a theme here, this is not the first time the religious conversion of a prisoner did not convince people in the Bible Belt. They have a different idea about the saying "vengeance is mine, sayth the Lord" as well.  

Such programs suggest that, even if the final result is an execution, some rehabilitation is possible in capital cases. A religious-based argument might not convince some. If not, consider his wider good behavior and rehabilitation. 

He committed a horrible crime. He did so when he was a teenager. A long prison sentence was appropriate. All things considered, I don't think he fits the "worse of the worst" standard the Supreme Court once suggested. 

Roper v. Simmons, which set the 18-year limit, noted: "Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution." 

His crime was horrible. Nonetheless, all of the mitigating factors, including his time in prison, weigh against execution. A sentence of over twenty years for a horrible crime, when you are eighteen, is not being soft on crime. Want him to serve more time? Go ahead. Execution is not necessary, even if you want to give him an extremely harsh punishment. 

He was executed, apologizing to the victim and complimenting the warden in his final statement. 

Richard Norman Rojem Jr (Oklahoma) 

Richard Norman Rojem Jr., 66, was sentenced to death after kidnapping, raping and murdering a 7-year-old girl in 1984.

He was only in his mid-20s, but it was not his sexual assault:

Six years before Rojem raped and murdered Cummings, he sexually assaulted two teenage girls in Michigan in 1978. He served four years in the Michigan Department of Corrections.

And, to add a poisonous cherry on top:

Rojem was accused of harassing Layla Cumming’s family after he murdered her by sending letters and having friends visit them. Layla’s mother wrote in a victim impact statement that Layla’s father committed suicide shortly after the first murder trial ended.  

The suicide is connected enough to the harassment that we probably can factor it in when determining the sentencing. He also was no model prisoner:

Rojem also has had a history of violent behavior in prison. He has been written up for misconduct eight times in prison for assault and flouting and disrespecting staff, according to the Department of Corrections. Prison staff also cited him for misconduct in 2020 for possessing sharp weapons.

He also was implicated in a murder-for-hire plot while in prison. He was not prosecuted when he agreed to turn state witness. Yes, he claims he did not murder the child. I didn't do a deep dive. But, let's say I don't believe him. 

It is not too surprising his request for commutation was rejected 5-0. So, why isn't he dead yet? 

Rojem’s first two death sentences from Washita County were thrown out of court due to procedural errors. He was sentenced to death for a third time in 2007. Okay. That still was 17 years ago. Some screw-ups resulted in a moratorium later on but there was time to execute him.

The overall delays -- even for this horrible person -- underline the problems Justice Breyer cited in his dissent spelling out the problems with the death penalty.  

There have been some attempts to improve the process of Oklahoma executions, including spacing them apart ninety days. The machinery of death will always have its problems.

Rojem comes closer to the pure principle opposition to the death penalty. A system sometimes is inherently bad. We should not try to draw lines about who is a good target for torture. The principle becomes easier to argue when people are being executed for forty-year-old crimes. 

He had no final appeals. He was executed earlier today.

 ===

I have enough faith in human nature that executing Ramiro Gonzales bothers me. Texas promotes itself as a Christian state, correct? It should understand redemption. 

Richard Rojem deserves few tears. My concern here is more on principle. If you did not get around to executing him for forty years, I see little value in executing him now.

We are supposed to believe that "justice finally was done." The stance of family members on the value of executions, especially after forty years, is variable. I don't see much of it. Not enough, given that as long as we have the death penalty, there will continue to be problems, to execute even him. 

If you don't agree, I won't think you are an immoral monster.