Home     Writers     Op/Ed     Book Reviews     News     Bookstore     Photoshops     Submit     Search     Contact Us     Advertise  
  You are here: 

Sat

24

Jul

2010

Why death penalty should be abolished
Saturday, 24 July 2010 17:32
by Burton H. Wolfe

Burton H. Wolfe is the publisher of the early 1960's periodical (The Californian) which together with Paul Krassner's brilliant journal of freethought criticism and satire (The Realist) served as the model for the "alternative" periodicals that erupted in the late 1960's; author of such subject-definitive books as The Hippies (New American Library), Hitler and the Nazis (Putnam), Pileup on Death Row (Doubleday), and The Christianity Racket (World Audience Publishers); and publisher of Mind Opening Books (The Billion Dollar Monopoly Game Swindle, No Lawyer Necessary, Lucifer's Dictionary of the American Language, and The Black Pope  - http://mindopeningbooks.com) .  Now, at age 77, Wolfe publishes this  online journal occasionally out of his home office in Coconut Creek, Florida ("Coocoo Creek" as he calls it). Wolfe is a low income senior struggling to survive the present depression called recession by spending most of his time looking for paid work.

Chessm an Memorialization

Today, May 2, 2010, marks the fiftieth anniversary of the execution of Caryl Chessman, the man who began the lengthy appeals of death sentences and stays on Death Row, and who caused many men and women previously for or ambivalent about capital punishment to become ardent opponents: e.g., Marlon Brando, who was among the throng gathered before the gates of San Quentin Prison on the night of May 1, 1960, to form a vigil and ultimately futile protest against the execution of the alleged "Red Light Bandit" that occurred the next morning.

    ("Red Light Bandit" was the name applied to whoever it was that equipped his automobile with a red light, pretended to be a police officer, accosted couples on a so-called "Lovers' Lane" in Los Angeles, robbed them of a small amount of money, and forced the women to move into his car, where he used them for sex less than coitus.)

    The execution of Chessman remains today one of the most monstrous injustices in the history of American jurisprudence, and People v. Chessman remains the most inaccurately reported case in the history of the mass communications media. Even today, in articles and books, writers continue to misunderstand what the hullabaloo over Chessman was all about and what caused mass protests not only in the U.S., but also in a number of other countries. There is only one thorough and completely accurate source for reference: a 29-page chapter in my book Pileup on Death Row (Doubleday, 1973).

    During the first half of his eleven and a half year incarceration on Death Row at San Quentin Prison, Chessman was identified daily in the media, and eventually millions of times, as "rapist-killer Caryl Chessman." But, in fact, he was not indicted for, convicted of, or sentenced to death for the crimes of rape and murder.


    After the media was finally but reluctantly persuaded to stop identifying Chessman in that manner, the epithet in front of his name, repeated over the next six years millions of times in the mass media, became the ungrammatical "kidnap-rapist." If a newspaper reporter forgot to put that epithet in front of Chessman's name, an editor would supply it. In the massive research I did to produce my Chessman chapter, not once did I find a journalist who explained that "kidnap" did not refer to the usual meaning of kidnaper: one who seizes and spirits a person away and holds that person captive for ransom. Much less was there an explanation that the "sex crimes" purportedly committed by Chessman amounted to less than rape.

    "Kidnap-rapist Caryl Chessman" was convicted, on the basis of unbelievable "evidence" and "testimony," pursuant to California's "Little Lindbergh Law" of 1933, a 147-word atrocity strung out in one sentence which read as though written by a lunatic. Hardly anyone could understand it. Judges who dealt with it certainly did not understand it enough to state accurately what it meant, as demonstrated in their muddled written opinions. In order to provide an explanation of what the one-sentence law meant - taking it from subject to predicate, with all of the which-what-wherefore modifiers, etc. -  I had to break down the sentence in a four-text page appendix. Once that is done, you wind up with this summation: Anyone who carries away an individual with intent to hold or detain that individual for the purpose of robbery is guilty of a felony and upon conviction for it shall suffer death if the person subjected to such kidnaping suffers bodily harm.

    Sounds crazy, does it not? Of course it does. The nitwit who tried to get the whole statute into one sentence, instead of breaking it down into a number of sentences, wound up defining robbery as "such kidnaping." The statute was so persistently ridiculed that the California State Legislature amended it in 1951 to reduce the severity of punishment for everyone convicted under the law except Chessman. The others were serving sentences of life without possibility of parole; Chessman was the only prisoner who had been sentenced to death pursuant to the statute. The amendment scrapped "without possibility of parole" on behalf of all the others. But no relief was afforded for Chessman.

    Why was there no reduction of the severity of punishment for Chessman? Because, after the numerous stays of execution caused by his brilliant appeals - one of them written by Chessman on a roll of toilet paper and smuggled out of the prison during a period when he was forbidden to write and send out anything more - the media was screaming for the execution of this man identified in report after report as a rapist and kidnaper who was already fixed in the collective public mind as also a "killer." Over and over again the editorial writers referred to Chessman as an "evil genius" who was cheating society out of its prescribed punishment.

    California Governor Edmund G. (Pat) Brown was provided by advisers with a different characterization of Chessman. He was informed that there had been four acts committed by the "Red Light Bandit" which resulted in Chessman's being sentenced to death as purportedly the responsible party. First, he held up a man and a woman. Second, after that was completed, he moved the woman 22 feet from her companion's car to the red light-equipped car he used as a fake police vehicle, forced her to commit a sex act less than coitus, then released her. Third, he tried to rob but did not succeed in robbing a young man, because the young man had no money. Fourth, after the attempted robbery was over, he moved the man's female companion from his car into the red light-equipped car, drove her several miles away, forced her into sex acts less than coitus, then released her.

    Though he then understood what was wrong with the way that the Little Lindbergh Law had been applied to the "Red Light Bandit" acts, Brown, confronted with the nationwide equivalent of a lynch mob, declined to commute Chessman's sentence for fear that if he did so it would destroy his political career.

    In charging Chessman pursuant to the Little Lindbergh Law, the prosecutor characterized each one of the four acts as kidnaping for the purpose of robbery, and the jury convicted on the basis of that description. But the "Red Light Bandit" did not "carry away" the two women and detain them for the purpose of robbery. He "carried them away" and detained them a short time for the purpose of sex, and that set of circumstances was not described in the Little Lindbergh Law.  Consequently,  Chessman was not even eligible for conviction of a crime pursuant to the Little Lindbergh Law, much less a death sentence. He was only eligible for a sentence to prison, probably for around 15 years, under the provisions of other laws.

    Finally, it was up to the California Supreme Court, on review of what had either been unexplained or misunderstood before, to determine whether or not Chessman was properly convicted pursuant to the language of the Little Lindbergh Law. In order to uphold the death penalty imposed on Chessman, the Court majority held: "We cannot say as a matter of law that at some point during the abductions of his female victims defendant ceased to be a robber and became a kidnaper whose sole purpose was to inflict bodily harm by forcibly committing sex crimes." In that weird way of describing purpose, the California Supreme Court wound up construing the entire set of acts attributed to Chessman as kidnaping for the purpose of robbery with resultant bodily harm. Thus did the Court send Chessman on his way to the gas chamber.

    But the fact was that Chessman did not move or detain anyone for the purpose of robbery with resultant bodily harm. Though it could be said that he detained somebody in order to rob that person, that makes no difference because he did not "carry away" the robbery victims before detaining them, and that was the sequence required for conviction under the law. Moreover, no bodily harm occurred during the course of the completed and attempted robberies, and the "bodily harm" that occurred as the result of the sex acts consisted of a few bruises on the women. But the Democratic Party-dominated California Supreme Court's deliberate misinterpretation of the acts and law at issue, undoubtedly rendered to save Pat Brown's political career, became the way in which this deadly farce was concluded after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the California Supreme Court's charlatanical opinion. And so it was that Chessman was put to death in the gas chamber at San Quentin Prison for crimes that either he did not commit or, if he did, then for acts not applicable to the law under which he was convicted and sentenced.

    There is a lot more for necessary analysis than what I have provided here, but it will suffice, especially given the lack of credible evidence and testimony that existed in the first place. For more you have to get Pileup on Death Row from a library, a used book store, or Amazon.com (which had a few copies last time I looked). You should also read Chessman's masterful book Cell 2455, Death Row. Chessman, being interviewed at San Quentin.
 
    My conclusion from the Chessman case was this: If someone can be executed as the result of hysteria created by mass media misidentification of crimes committed, followed by a court opinion that any rational human being must view as quackery rather than as a valid rendering of fact and law, then the death penalty must be removed from the forms of punishment promotable by the media and available to the courts.

More from this author:
The Non-History Channel Butchers 'The Hippies' (14200 Hits)
by Burton H. Wolfe Once in awhile I indulge myself in a bit of masochism by tuning in to the Non-History Channel, my designation for the...
Historical Jesus (4974 Hits)
by Burton H. Wolfe The question which has so much exercised the minds of men – whether Jesus was the historic Christ ( = Messiah) – is...
What Congress may have known pre-Iraq invasion (4041 Hits)
by Burton H. Wolfe The members of Congress may have known far more than they are revealing to the public in their excuse that they depended...
My two claims to Guinness World Records (14161 Hits)
by Burton H. Wolfe The Guinness Book of World Records Six Landmark Square Stamford, CT 06901-2704 Re: My two claims for Guinness World...
The U.S. today - an oligarchy with inequality growing worse (4475 Hits)
by Burton H. Wolfe Throughout my career in journalism, dating back more than 50 years, I have been painting the U.S. as an oligarchy governed...
Related Articles:
A Journey Through The Mind Of Contemporary Conservatism: Clutching Our Values Aboard The Death Train (10437 Hits)
Day-to-day life within an empire consists of the deceitful leading the disengaged. Although when the artifice shielding a nation’s populace from...
Congress Should Immediately Terminate the 2001 AUMF (9028 Hits)
by Dave Lindorff Forget Nancy Pelosi's "100 Hours" agenda for the new Democratic Congress. The first thing Democrats need to...
Pale Fire and London Fog: Illuminating Outliers in the Death of Alexander Litvinenko (8542 Hits)
by Chris Floyd This is an updated version of the piece that appeared yesterday at Truthout.org. I. The Baron and the Billionaire ...
Pale Fire and London Fog: Illuminating Outliers in the Death of Alexander Litvinenko (7976 Hits)
by Chris Floyd I. The Baron and the Billionaire Everyone knows that Russian exile Alexander Litvinenko was killed by...
The Democrats and the Anti-Bushite Movement: How This Important Alliance Should Work (5888 Hits)
by Andrew Bard Schmookler The most important task facing America now, after the election, is the same as it was before the election: it is...


Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites
Trackback(0)
Comments (4)add comment

Dorina Lisson (ACADP) said:

0
When Justice Errs!
This story reminds me of the last man hanged in Australia in 1967. His name was Ronald Ryan. Despite no scientific balkistic frensic evidence, missing pieces of vital evidence that could have cleared Ryan, serious ambiguities in the case and inconsistencies of all fourteen eyewitnesses for the prosecution, Ryan was found guilty of the shooting death oif a prison officer based solely on unrecorded, unsigned and unproved allegations of "verbals" said to have been made by Ryan to police. Later, in an unusual twist of events, most of the 12-man jurors' that convicted Ryan of murder made several pleas and signed searate petitions urging political leaders not to execute Ryan. The jurors' claimed they never would have convicted Ryan had they known he would be executed, even though they fully knew before the trial that the mandatory sentence for murder was death. Ryan was hanged less than one year after being sentenced to death and seven days before his final unfunded (Government withdrew all legal aid funds) appeal to The Privy Council had made its decision. Hundreds of witnesses heard one single shot (a prison officer admitted and testified he fired one single shot) and no person heard two shots fired. If Ryan had also fired a shot at least one of the hundreds of witnesses would have heard two shots. Today, there is still serious doubts whether Ryan was guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
More information can be found at .... http://www.ronaldryan.info
 
July 25, 2010
Votes: +0

Dudley Sharp said:

0
...
The idiocy of the media and the sheep that follow such idiocy give us no reason to banish anything, except the idiocy of the media and the idiocy of those who blindly follow such writings.

Not to mention, I strongly suspect this review of the Chessman case is inaccurate.
 
July 26, 2010
Votes: +0

Dudley Sharp said:

0
...
The idiocy of the media and the sheep that follow such idiocy give us no reason to banish anything, except the idiocy of the media and the idiocy of those who blindly follow such writings.

Not to mention, I strongly suspect this review of the Chessman case is inaccurate.
 
July 26, 2010
Votes: +0

Dudley Sharp said:

0
...
The idiocy of the media and the sheep that follow such idiocy give us no reason to banish anything, except the idiocy of the media and the idiocy of those who blindly follow such writings.

Not to mention, I strongly suspect this review of the Chessman case is inaccurate.
 
July 26, 2010
Votes: +0

Write comment
smaller | bigger

busy
 

adsense

Top