|
CHANGING THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT CRIME & PUNISHMENT
Mike Farrell
Actor; President, Death Penalty Focus
Answers to Written Questions from the Floor:
Q: Do you think that televising executions would serve your crusade against the death penalty?
A: I do not. Many believe that people seeing an execution on television would be so revolted by it that they would turn against executions. I don't share that view. I'm too experienced with television and too aware of the fact that people divorce themselves from the reality of what they're seeing. If they can go to their refrigerator and get a snack while they're watching somebody die, they will immure themselves to the reality of it, and it will simply harden them rather than revolt them.
Q: Statistics show that a growing number of Americans oppose the death penalty, yet some of the same people who now oppose the death penalty support the execution of Timothy McVeigh.
A: McVeigh is the anomaly. He's white, educated, a young man of a relatively normal upbringing. The usual things that argue against the death penalty don't apply in his case. However, it seems to me that it is still wrong to kill, and we stoop to his level by doing to him what he did to those 168 people in Oklahoma City. Those who support the death penalty and want to see this man punished really should come to my side on this particular issue, because Mr. McVeigh has said the last thing he wants in his life is to spend the rest of his life in prison. If you're interested in punishing Timothy McVeigh, what you want to do is not give him what he's asking for, but give him what he's saying he doesn't want.
Q: How can the efforts to overturn the death penalty go forward under Bush and John Ashcroft?
A: Slowly. President Bush is intending to prove that he is president of the entire country. I hope he lends some energy to that pursuit. Attorney General Ashcroft has demonstrated that, in spite of the fact that he's a fundamentalist, a Bible-believing Christian, he's no opponent of killing people that are dispensable. This is one of those situations in which the people are going to lead the political leadership. There will be a meeting here at the Santa Clara Board of Supervisors Chambers here tomorrow, talking about this county going on record in support of a moratorium in California. That has already been done in San Francisco. It's already been done in Alameda, in Berkeley and in a couple of other places. Death Penalty Focus is working on a California-wide moratorium movement that will soon be supported by members of the State Legislature. In Illinois, Governor Ryan ended executions when he saw the facts before him that could not be ignored, and did an extraordinarily courageous thing for a man who describes himself as a conservative Republican, which is to say: This cannot happen until this issue is studied sincerely and effectively and thoroughly, and then we'll try to figure out if the system can be fixed or if it simply has to be done away with.
Q: Some of Timothy McVeigh's victims have stated that they want him executed so that he can no longer hurt them, as he did most recently with his statements about the bombing. How can we protect victims and families from ongoing pain caused by prisoners behind bars except to silence them forever?
A: People ought to read the statement he made. He certainly did refer to "collateral damage," but he said that if he had known, he would not have bombed that particular site. That's interesting in terms of the way the media has skewed this statement. I also think that media is the answer to the question. If the media didn't report what he said, those people who have been so wounded by the comment would not have been so wounded. That man can have his free speech, but we are capable of making a choice as a society that we are not going to broadcast every word that Timothy McVeigh, Mr. Davis, Mr. Massie or anyone else says. What is the value to our society in continuing this exploitation of deep and gross and base emotions other than to sell newspapers and jack up ratings on television and radio shows? We need to find a way to make the media know that the public airwaves mean our ownership, and they ought to be used in a manner that is more socially productive than the way they are currently being used.
Q: You describe routine failure in leadership on the part of judges and politicians. What can we do to train judges to have the courage to do what is right?
A: I have served for the last four years on the California Commission on Judicial Performance, and I know the work of many extraordinary judges; I know the work of some who are less than that. But that's true across the country. The judge I cited that said, "The Constitution doesn't say your lawyer has to be awake," rued the words that he uttered, but utter them he did. We have judges who use inappropriate terms, who are sexist and who are racist. People who put on robes don't automatically become noble and dignified. Within the community of judges there needs to be some education on all kinds of these areas, but I would love a way for judges not to be subject to the problems inherent with having to campaign for office, having to be subject to attacks by single-issue groups who believe that they should be thrown out of office for having had the courage in some instances to make a very honorable decision.
Q: Why have Europeans rejected the death penalty while Americans continue to support it?
A:They have learned the lesson I've been talking about here: The death penalty doesn't serve society; it denigrates society. In Britain, a government commission was put in effect to study the death penalty. When they outlawed the death penalty in 1969, 70 percent of Britons said they supported the death penalty. They did it against the will of the people to some degree, but they've not been thrown out of office for doing so. In different parts of the world at different times, when egregious crimes have been committed, you'll see a revving up of emotion around the issue. But countries aren't reinstating the death penalty.
Q: When will we execute our first juvenile killer?
A: Juvenile killer meaning a killer who was a juvenile when he or she killed? We have executed 70 of them in this country. We are the world's leading executor of children who commit homicide. Some of you may remember the case of the 13-year-old student and Mary Kay Letourneau, a teacher who had a sexual relationship with this young man. That boy was protected by law because he was underage. His rights were recognized by our laws. She was sentenced to prison, but he was protected. His identity was even protected. But had it been reversed - had that boy, in a fit of rage, lashed out and done her harm to the degree that she ended up dead, he'd have had politicians jumping up and down, talking about kids who are killers and how we have to wipe them out and eliminate them in this society. There's a schizoid relationship we have with our children in this country of ours.
Q: A friend of a member of the audience has your autograph and that of several other "M.A.S.H." co-stars. You have all signed it with the word "Peace." Is this something you all agreed to do?
A: No, that was spontaneous. Years ago, I did a television series and it was during the Vietnam War, and I used to wear a peace symbol. I had determined that the character I was playing should wear the peace symbol. One of the network executives came to me and said, "I don't think we can have your character wearing the peace symbol." I said, "Why not?" He said, "Well, we're a little concerned that it's a subject of some controversy and there are equal time issues." I said, "So you'd be happy if every other week I wore a bomb?" Peace has always been the salutation I sign when I sign my autograph, one I believe deeply in. Not just the end of war, but peace on a personal level, peace among us, peace within ourselves.
