Opponents of death penalty and the escaped murderers

As just about every American knows by now, two murderers recently escaped a maximum-security prison in upstate New York.

One of them, Richard Matt, was described by a retired police captain as “the most vicious, evil person I’ve ever come across in 38 years as a police officer.”

As reported by The Washington Post, “[Matt] convinced an accomplice, then 21-year-old Lee Bates, to help him kidnap, torture and murder Matt’s former boss, businessman William Rickerson. Bates told authorities that the duo dumped Rickerson in a car dressed only in his pajamas, driving from New York to Ohio and back while Matt tried to get the older man to tell him about large sums of money Matt was convinced Rickerson had hidden somewhere. At one point, Matt opened the trunk and bent back Rickerson’s fingers until they broke, Bates said. Then he snapped Rickerson’s neck with his bare hands.” (Washington Post, June 12, 2015)

Matt then dismembered Rickerson and fled to Mexico, where he murdered another man.

Matt had also been charged with rape in 1989 and with stabbing a nurse in 1991.

The other escapee, David Sweat, murdered a policeman in 2002 after Sweat was caught shortly after burglarizing a gun store. He shot the deputy sheriff and then ran over him.

For those of us who believe that some murderers should be put to death, Matt and Sweat would seem to be perfect examples. There is no doubt as to their guilt, the murders were premeditated, and they were accompanied by heinous actions.

So here is a challenge to those who oppose the death penalty: If one or both of these murderers kills again, will you acknowledge that the blood of the victim(s) is on your hands? After all, without all the opposition to capital punishment, these two likely would have been executed (or at least sent to death row, from which their prison break would have been far less likely, if not impossible). 

As a proponent of the death penalty, I am often asked whether I accept moral responsibility for the execution of a person who is later found to be innocent of the crime. 

Of course, the answer is yes. A mature adult has to accept responsibility for the consequences of his or her positions. Otherwise taking a position is morally meaningless.

One of the reasons to support the death penalty is that the death of the worst murderers accomplishes at least one thing: They will never murder again. On the other hand, keeping all murderers alive ensures that some of them will murder again. They will either murder a guard or a fellow prisoner while in prison. Or they will murder someone outside the prison — either by arranging the murder(s) from within prison or if and when they escape from prison.

Therefore, opponents of the death penalty must acknowledge the blood that is on their hands when a murderer who would have been executed murders again. 

Moreover, considerably more innocents are killed by convicted murderers who are not executed than the number of innocents who are erroneously executed by the state.

One reason to fear that Matt or Sweat will murder again is also related to opposition to capital punishment: They have little or nothing to lose if they kill again. Because there is no capital punishment in New York state, no matter how many people they torture or murder, all that can happen to them is that they would be returned to prison for life.

Were capital punishment on the books, however, it is quite possible that just the possibility — let alone the probability — of being executed would have the effect of provoking Matt and Sweat to think twice before killing someone again.

Criminal prosecutors regularly acknowledge how effective having capital punishment on the books is to obtaining information and confessions from murderers.

We all pray that Matt and Sweat are apprehended (and some of us pray that, even better, they are killed) before they kill or maim again. But if they do kill, rape or maim again, opponents of the death penalty need to own up to the fact that their opposition to the death penalty helped make that possible.

Dennis Prager is a nationally syndicated radio talk-show host (AM 870 in Los Angeles) and founder of PragerUniversity.com.