After hearing the 911 call of Denise Lee, I concluded that if anyone ever deserved the death penalty it was Michael King. I even entertained a scenario where I might be on a jury and might be able to vote for capital punishment. After all, if the law asked me whether I felt a Michael King deserved mercy, I would definitely say, “No.” Few killers I can think of would deserve anything but punishment.

What good comes of an execution?

But after listening to his family and friends testify in the penalty phase of the trial, once again I find that I can see no good coming of a death-penalty for this monster or for anyone else. Absolutely no good.

The family and friends of a murderer are as innocent as his victim and his victim’s family and friends. King’s son will have to grow up and live with the knowledge that he loved a monster. His parents have to live with the knowledge that their son caused great suffering – they raised him, they did what they thought was right, and they failed their son and society. His brother feels guilty for a snow-mobile accident that permanently damaged King’s brain; he clearly feels as if his brother would never have become a murderer but for that accident.

Yesterday an older brother and his wife testified about the normal, average-American family life of the murderer. They smiled and laughed nervously about memories of family gatherings. (Ashleigh Banfield was appalled, while I was greatly saddened. As usual, I reacted about 180-degrees differently than most people, I guess.)

“Flat affect” versus “Disassociated affect”

Throughout the trial, TV commentators (lawyers) remarked on King’s “flat affect.” I believe they misused that psychological term. In King’s eyes throughout the guilt phase of the trial I saw anger and despair. Today a psychologist confirmed my opinion, saying that King was doing what anyone would do when confronted with the horror of what he had done—he was zoning out.

“Flat affect” is something else all together. It is the emotionless face of a sociopath, a person who feels no emotions. King clearly feels sorry for himself.

If the King defense claims this killer was insane when he committed the crime, they will be making a big mistake. In my opinion that can only anger the jury, especially after they did not put on an insanity defense during the guilt phase of the trial. I can’t help but wonder why they didn’t plead insanity after hearing this testimony. People can have periodic psychotic episodes. King clearly has a history of brain damage and inexplicable behavior. I don’t think an insanity defense would have  produced a not-guilty verdict, but it might have prepared the way for a jury recommendation of life imprisonment.

Vengeance Is Mine, Saith the Lord

In the Judeo-Christian tradition, believe it or not, individual revenge is not justified. We do not believe in “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” (Apparently Islam does, and in Saudi Arabia, therefore, they chop off thieves’ hands.) Vengeance is the right only of the Lord. Justice does not occur in life.

The families of murder victims often think they will “get closure” when a murderer is executed. They are sadly deluded. Revenge is angry. Anger wounds the person who feels the anger. Denise Lee’s family will only hurt themselves more if they do indeed watch Michael King’s execution. It will only bring back the pain of Denise’s death. They need to let go of their anger now. Her killer was caught and found guilty.

What Good Does the Death Penalty Do?

I was pleased yesterday when TruTV debated the death penalty. It confirmed my belief that many lawyers believe that forensic science is infallible and that there is no longer any chance that an innocent person can be executed. (I will write more about this latter.)

One commentator claimed that America has more psychotic, evil killers than other countries, and that is why European countries do not have the death penalty. What nonsense. Please look at this Wikipedia page on worldwide murder rates. If I could get lawyers to quit throwing around specious statistics to prove their points, I would feel as if I had accomplished something with this blog.

The death penalty does not serve to deter crime (especially against law-enforcement, women, and children). All it does is tell society that killing is acceptable. The death penalty does not ensure that killers will not be able to kill again, any more effectively than life imprisonment does. The death penalty costs society far more than life imprisonment does. The death penalty clogs our appeals courts. The death penalty takes so many years to be “executed” that it doesn’t even necessarily shorten the life of a murderer.

The death penalty is just another horror.