Vote NO on California Prop 62 and YES on Prop 66

In 1998 I wrote the following Op Ed article for the Los Angeles Daily News concerning their request for opinions about the imposition of the death penalty. At the time of writing Texas was preparing to execute a young woman, Karla Faye Tucker who had brutally murdered two people. However, during the time she was incarcerated before her execution she became a "born again Christian" and was adopted by the anti-death penalty movement as their poster child.


As a survivor of a murdered son that was murdered in California I expressed and submitted my thoughts to the Los Angeles Daily News. Since that time, our son's murderer while being convicted of 1st Degree murder his crime didn't reach the criteria that would have made him eligible to receive a sentence of death and he has received two parole consideration hearings being eligible for parole.


On California's ballot for the November 8, 2016 general election there are two propositions, Prop 62 which would repeal the death penalty and Prop 66 that would not repeal it but would revise it to address some of the concerns expressed by those that are against the death penalty. As a survivor of a murdered son and a crime victim I strongly oppose Prop 62 but endorse Prop 66 and hope that the voters in California will vote against repealing the death penalty.


The following is a reprint of my letter to the editor;

February 6, 1998

Daily News
Public Forum

Re: Capital Punishment

Karla Faye Tucker, the confessed pickax murderer of Jerry Lynn Dean and Deborah Ruth, became a national poster child for the anti death penalty forces in this country, and throughout the international community. The exposure given to her in the media could not have been more effective than if she had hired a slick Madison Avenue Ad Agency to handle her campaign to avoid paying with her life, for the horrific murders she committed.  From the way she was portrayed as the repentant, born again Christian, one could easily become convinced that she in fact was the victim, rather than the two persons she brutally murdered.   A victim perhaps of the same right wing conspiracy we all have been hearing so much about in recent news broadcasts.  Although that seems less plausible considering that two of the so-called right wing conspiracy leaders, Rev. Jerry Falwell, and Rev. Pat Robertson were among those pleading for Karla Faye Tucker to be granted clemency.

 The Daily News Public Forum has asked for reader’s response to whether the death penalty is appropriate for certain crimes, does it serve as a deterrent, should procedures be changed to reduce judicial delays in carrying out executions, and should officials with authority to commute sentences be influenced by the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced? Each one of those questions could be the subject of lengthy debate.  I want to answer each of them from my perspective as a surviving parent of a murder victim, opinions that are mine alone.

 First of all, the death penalty is most assuredly appropriate for any crime or criminal act that results in the willful, deliberate taking of another living human beings life.  Further, I believe that this should be the only “special circumstances" required for the imposition of the death penalty.  If the murder victim became a victim by accident, that is, due to the willful, deliberate act of a person or person’s intent on killing someone else, they are no less dead than if the intended person was killed. The defense of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter should not be considered or allowed.

 One area I am likely to agree upon with those opposed to capital punishment is that the death penalty probably does not serve as a deterrent.   But that is the extent of my agreement with them.  Instead, I look upon capital punishment as legal retribution permitted by a civilized society. Those that are opposed to it argue that a “civilized society” would not permit the execution of anyone, no matter how heinous the murder they committed was. Without capital punishment being the price paid for murder, there can be no justice.  “Justice” is defined in part in Webster’s New World Dictionary as “sound reason; rightfulness, reward or penalty as deserved, the use of authority to uphold what is right, just, or lawful, the administration of the law.

Whereas, punishment is a penalty imposed upon an offender for wrongdoing, harsh treatment, and revenge is defined as to inflict injury or punishment in return for an injury, insult, etc. a chance to retaliate.

 I believe, In order for true justice to be served, an element of vengeance is an inherent part of it. Not only because of human nature, but also when a person or persons receive all of the considerations they are entitled to under the constitution and the law, and they are convicted of the act for which they have been tried by a jury of their peers, then vengeance becomes a part of justice and punishment, when it is a part of the administration of the law.

 The death penalty is described by those opposed to it as “cruel and unusual punishment."  I consider the lengthy delays made possible by the appeals process to be equally a violation of the murder victim's survivor's rights of due process, and cruel and unusual punishment.

As a member of homicide victims survivors' grief support and various victim rights groups for the past five years, I have never met anyone that would want an innocent person to be executed for a murder they did not commit.  However, as an interested observer of court cases and the appeals process, most appeals are based upon legal technicalities. Serving as delaying tactics of postponing that justice be served with the execution of murderers that have been found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The Karla Faye Tucker case serves as a prime example of those tactics. No such consideration was given to any murder victim by their murderers.

 Further review and reform of habeas corpus is in order to assure that the frivolous examples we witness in the various Appellate Courts are minimized or eliminated entirely.

 *For officials that have the authority to commute the sentences of condemned murderers, to do so on the basis of the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced is not only egregious on their part, it also is an affront to the integrity of the American Justice System. Not to mention further victimization of the survivors, both family and friends, of the murder victim.  They have already suffered the greatest loss and indignity possible when their loved one was murdered.

 We have been bombarded with media provided images of a repentant, often times praying Karla Faye Tucker.  A convicted murderer who perhaps did truly change during the fourteen years she was imprisoned before her execution, and “found” Jesus as we heard many times over. I want to offer another viewpoint that I have not heard expressed by any one in the religious community as it pertains to forgiveness and whether Karla Faye Tucker should have been executed because she was perceived, perhaps correctly so, to have changed.  That viewpoint is the fact that a person that is sorry for a wrong, or in a religious term, a sin they have committed, does not mean they should not be held accountable for its commission.

For those of the Christian faith the story of Christ’s crucifixion is the cornerstone of their belief. In the gospel according to St. Luke the “King James Version” Chapter 23 describing the execution (crucifixion) of Jesus it also tells of two other malefactors (evil doers or criminals) that were crucified with him.  One of them “railed” on him for not saving himself since he was Christ. The other criminal  “rebuked “ the malefactor that chastised Jesus for not saving himself, by saying; “ Dost thou not fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?  And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds.”  He then asks Jesus the following.  “Remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.”  “And Jesus said unto him, "Verily, I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in paradise.”  Jesus did not say it was wrong or through divine intervention, stop this repentant criminal's execution.

 Karla Faye Tucker perhaps did change, and is now perhaps in a better place, but like the criminals that were executed along with Christ; she received the due reward for her deeds. 

 Ralph L. Myers

West Hills, CA

Footnote: Since I wrote this opinion as I mentioned at the beginning of this blog piece I have gone through two parole consideration hearings conducted for my son's murderer. One of those hearings my wife who was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer just weeks after the first hearing attended it. Sadly, she died from her cancer less than two months before the second hearing took place in November 2015. Prior to attending either of the two hearings we were made aware that California Governor Jerry Brown instructed the Board of Parole Commissioners (many of whom were appointed by him) that when conducting a parole eligibility hearing they were to mainly consider how the inmate has behaved while incarcerated not for the severity of the crime they committed. I alluded to this in my 1998 article without even knowing such consideration would be primary for the Board of Parole as they deliberated whether a prisoner would be granted parole. *For officials that have the authority to commute the sentences of condemned murderers, to do so on the basis of the prisoners conduct after they have been sentenced is not only egregious on their part, it also is an affront to the integrity of the American Justice System. Not to mention further victimization of the survivors, both family and friends, of the murder victim.  They have already suffered the greatest loss and indignity possible when their loved one was murdered