What I've learned from this execution process so far is this:
Death is not the issue. Emotions are. I truly and honestly believe that the process of watching Christopher Scott Emmett will not unsettle me. I have seen too much death - from hospice to hospitals to nursing homes to the Rescue Squads I've worked on. What is upsetting to me is witnessing the emotional toll the process takes.
Every war veteran I've ever spoken to has said the same thing, "You don't make friends. They go out and never come back." It's easier to watch a stranger die than a friend die. We know that. It's why rubber-neckers can roll past a horrific automobile accident on the interstate and then be talking about it over dinner with friends like it was a movie they saw. There's no personal connection.
Racism. Make the connection with people of a different race or culture and it becomes harder to hate. When we, as people, connect with others, our entire way of perceiving, relating, judging and even healing, changes.
Defense attorneys know this. They go out of their way to paint the most despicable client as someone who "suffered a bad childhood." They're trying to connect with the jury to elicit a sympathetic response and a lighter sentence. It's calculated, but it works. Should jurors consider the emotional response they feel - if any? The prosecutor painted Emmett for what he was at the time, a crack-head all hopped up on drugs who bludgeoned his sleeping friend to death over $100 for more crack. Nope - not the sort of character you feel all warm and fuzzy about. Even if you'd invited him over for dinner once, you wouldn't do it again after hearing that.
The Defense attorney says Emmett, because of a bad childhood, did drugs. He wants the jury to feel compassion, to cut Emmett some slack, to consider life in prison rather than the death penalty. He wants jurors to think, "What if it had been my son or daughter on drugs and they had killed someone?" Should jurors listen? Do they serve justice best by listening to the facts, or listening to a skillful attorney? Tough call. The judge knows all this is going on - yet, judges too take into account the personal things that help them decide whether a criminal is evil incarnate and fire the death house up NOW, or - life in prison would serve society better (Whatever that means).
If we have to emotionally disconnect to do our jobs, how effectively are we doing our jobs? When we see the world as black and white, or good and bad - how does it affect how we do our jobs? How much disconnect should there be? Where does the "public's right to know" end and the right of the family for emotional and personal privacy begin? Tough call. Journalists make it every day.
I took this assignment because I knew it would challenge me. I just didn't know how much and in what ways. It's more than choosing to watch the state kill a man for a violent crime. It's dipping into the waters of hate, love, revenge, anguish, grief and sorrow and trying to make enough sense of it all - to condense it into a form that readers can take in.
Have I made my readers think more about this issue? I hope so. I've made myself think about it a lot more - and will - in the next months as we wait to see what the U.S. Supreme Court decides.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Wednesday
I saw no protestors at Wednesday's planned execution. Maybe they come later, closer to the time the inmate is scheduled to die. There were media there - lots of them - more than a dozen, all in suits and ties, most seemingly disappointed that Emmett received a stay.
An Associated Press reporter, a woman her colleagues call the "Death Angel" for her ongoing coverage of executions, the Virginia Tech slayings etc., was there. We talked and, a veteran of several executions there herself, she explained what would happen, what to expect. There are two executions she remembers - not for the event, but for the moments when the inmate's eyes met hers.
I didn't see the family. They received word of the stay from the media - who called for comment only to learn that was the first word they'd heard.
I admit. It was disappointing for me - not that the state didn't kill a man - but that, like the family, this isn't over for me. Emmett's execution, barring commutation I suppose, was rescheduled for Oct. 17. When I accepted this assignment I thought it would be over June 13, maybe by June 17 after I wrapped up the blog, wrote the final stories etc. etc. Shock.
It doesn't end now. This must be what it feels like for the families of the victim. It's not about the actual execution. As long as Emmett's alive there is no end to the story. He's alive. For the family that means the emotions, the hate, the anger are alive too. Their "closure" is in seeing Emmett dead. My closure is in seeing Emmett dead or his sentence commuted. The story goes on just as the debate about the death penalty goes on. It's difficult. I feel like I've grabbed a tiger by the tail and I can't let go.
An Associated Press reporter, a woman her colleagues call the "Death Angel" for her ongoing coverage of executions, the Virginia Tech slayings etc., was there. We talked and, a veteran of several executions there herself, she explained what would happen, what to expect. There are two executions she remembers - not for the event, but for the moments when the inmate's eyes met hers.
I didn't see the family. They received word of the stay from the media - who called for comment only to learn that was the first word they'd heard.
I admit. It was disappointing for me - not that the state didn't kill a man - but that, like the family, this isn't over for me. Emmett's execution, barring commutation I suppose, was rescheduled for Oct. 17. When I accepted this assignment I thought it would be over June 13, maybe by June 17 after I wrapped up the blog, wrote the final stories etc. etc. Shock.
It doesn't end now. This must be what it feels like for the families of the victim. It's not about the actual execution. As long as Emmett's alive there is no end to the story. He's alive. For the family that means the emotions, the hate, the anger are alive too. Their "closure" is in seeing Emmett dead. My closure is in seeing Emmett dead or his sentence commuted. The story goes on just as the debate about the death penalty goes on. It's difficult. I feel like I've grabbed a tiger by the tail and I can't let go.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Revenge and anger
I have seen police photos of what criminals do to other people. I can say with no hesitation that those people deserve the death penalty and that lethal injection is too kind. That's an emotional reaction to evil. Whatever brush you paint it with, the death penalty is revenge and punishment - pure and simple. Justify it how you wish, but call it what it is - court sanctioned murder. Would I feel that way after watching an execution? I don't know. I didn't get that chance tonight.
I have also seen battered women in prison for defending themselves against an abusive husband. Their defense or even their retaliation against a husband who raped their daughter or some other horrible crime may have landed them on death row. Can they be rehabilitated? I think some can. I oppose the death penalty for those who are young and in the wrong place at the wrong time, who have no criminal record or history and who are in that small majority that can turn their lives around. Not everyone can, but many do.
The death penalty is an imperfect system. How you feel about it depends on which side of the crime you're on. There are no easy answers. I strongly believe that the death penalty IS a deterrent to crime. There are studies that have shown that. Why isn't the media reporting on that? I don't know. For the same reason they don't report on how many citizens successfully defend themselves against armed criminals with deadly force I suppose.
These are issues that have been debated for decades and will continue to be major social issues. Until the human race changes I don't see this question being resolved either. I have seen small, rural court systems opt NOT to pursue the death penalty because it would bankrupt the county's budget. Great reason eh? How do you explain that to a victim's family? Gee - we don't have it in the budget to pursue the death penalty. How would you feel about this dirt-bag serving life in prison instead? Again - WHY do we pursue the death penalty against some and not others? In many cases - state law. If Emmett hadn't robbed Langley, it wouldn't have been a capital crime.
Like abortion, right-to-life, war and religion - I think this is one of those issues that can't be debated calmly. It's a powder-keg - and should be. After all - lives are at stake....victim's and criminals....
I have also seen battered women in prison for defending themselves against an abusive husband. Their defense or even their retaliation against a husband who raped their daughter or some other horrible crime may have landed them on death row. Can they be rehabilitated? I think some can. I oppose the death penalty for those who are young and in the wrong place at the wrong time, who have no criminal record or history and who are in that small majority that can turn their lives around. Not everyone can, but many do.
The death penalty is an imperfect system. How you feel about it depends on which side of the crime you're on. There are no easy answers. I strongly believe that the death penalty IS a deterrent to crime. There are studies that have shown that. Why isn't the media reporting on that? I don't know. For the same reason they don't report on how many citizens successfully defend themselves against armed criminals with deadly force I suppose.
These are issues that have been debated for decades and will continue to be major social issues. Until the human race changes I don't see this question being resolved either. I have seen small, rural court systems opt NOT to pursue the death penalty because it would bankrupt the county's budget. Great reason eh? How do you explain that to a victim's family? Gee - we don't have it in the budget to pursue the death penalty. How would you feel about this dirt-bag serving life in prison instead? Again - WHY do we pursue the death penalty against some and not others? In many cases - state law. If Emmett hadn't robbed Langley, it wouldn't have been a capital crime.
Like abortion, right-to-life, war and religion - I think this is one of those issues that can't be debated calmly. It's a powder-keg - and should be. After all - lives are at stake....victim's and criminals....
Stay granted
Christopher Scott Emmett should have been dead by now - would have been dead by now if Governor Timothy Kaine had not intervened. The family of victim John Felton is - I would guess - I don't know - feeling devastated and revictimized. They'd waited how many years to see this man dead? On the other hand, in a rare move that actually acknowledges the legal system and attempts to make it work - a life (albeit a cruel and vicious life) has value, actually saved Emmett from death tonight. I can't imagine he will do much more than cry and sleep tonight.
Why was Emmett granted a stay? (He has been scheduled to die on Oct. 17 if no merit is found in his case by then.) Four U.S. Supreme Court Justices agreed to hear the writ of certiorari- meaning they will review his case in the fall. However, five justices are needed to grant stay of execution. Only four voted for a stay. So Governor Kaine stepped in - saying, in an official press release:
Why was Emmett granted a stay? (He has been scheduled to die on Oct. 17 if no merit is found in his case by then.) Four U.S. Supreme Court Justices agreed to hear the writ of certiorari- meaning they will review his case in the fall. However, five justices are needed to grant stay of execution. Only four voted for a stay. So Governor Kaine stepped in - saying, in an official press release:
Office
Timothy M. Kaine FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Governor June 13, 2007
STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR KAINE
“Given the nature of this crime, I have no reason to question the prosecutor’s decision to seek the death penalty or the jury’s decision that death was an appropriate punishment. State and federal courts have consistently upheld Emmett’s conviction and sentence.
“Emmett is scheduled to be executed this evening at 9:00 p.m. He has filed a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court seeking review of his conviction and sentence, as well as a motion to stay his execution. Earlier today, the Court denied his stay motion, with four Justices voting to grant the stay.
“The Court has yet to consider whether to grant Emmett’s writ of certiorari. Under the Rules of the Supreme Court, the writ will be granted if four Justices vote to accept his appeal. The Court does not expect to consider his appeal until late September.
“Basic fairness demands that condemned inmates be allowed the opportunity to complete legal appeals prior to execution. Allowing Emmett’s execution to go forward before the Supreme Court rules on his appeal would foreclose any additional review of his case. The irreversibility of an execution and the fact that four Justices of the Court believe a stay is needed to consider the appeal warrant my intervention in this case.
“Therefore, I delay the execution of Christopher Emmett until October 17th, 2007.
“My thoughts and prayers are with the family and friends of the victim.”
# # #
Less than 11
Less than 11 hours to go. Across the state journalists are packing up to leave for Jarratt. I doubt death is an economic boon for Emporia, but I'm sure that when the media rolls into town there's no more visible signal that today's the day.
Emmett refused an interview. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. That leaves everyone wondering if he's feeling remorse or if he's just sitting back milking the system and waiting to see if he gets clemency.
Before Emmett ever killed Langley he killed a motorcyclist while driving drunk. He was said to have laughed when he was arrested for that and joked about the cyclist's death on the way to prison. He testified of Langley's murder that "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time."
I can understand the rage I see in the victims left behind - the families. While Emmett is a human being, I can't say, given his record, that I will be saddened that he'll no longer be a threat to society after 9:09 p.m or so tonight. That's the disturbing thing about executions. You don't want to kill a human being, but you also don't want to have to worry about releasing a career criminal into society or into a prison system where - through clerical or other errors, he might one day be released. Small wonder there's such a debate.
Will watching the execution itself be disturbing? On some level I'm sure it will, but I'm not too worried about that now. I've spoken with too many people who have been there, done that. It won't be pleasant, but - it will, for me I think, help me understand the arguments for and against capital punishment from a position of fact.
Emmett refused an interview. I'm sure I wasn't the only one. That leaves everyone wondering if he's feeling remorse or if he's just sitting back milking the system and waiting to see if he gets clemency.
Before Emmett ever killed Langley he killed a motorcyclist while driving drunk. He was said to have laughed when he was arrested for that and joked about the cyclist's death on the way to prison. He testified of Langley's murder that "It seemed like the right thing to do at the time."
I can understand the rage I see in the victims left behind - the families. While Emmett is a human being, I can't say, given his record, that I will be saddened that he'll no longer be a threat to society after 9:09 p.m or so tonight. That's the disturbing thing about executions. You don't want to kill a human being, but you also don't want to have to worry about releasing a career criminal into society or into a prison system where - through clerical or other errors, he might one day be released. Small wonder there's such a debate.
Will watching the execution itself be disturbing? On some level I'm sure it will, but I'm not too worried about that now. I've spoken with too many people who have been there, done that. It won't be pleasant, but - it will, for me I think, help me understand the arguments for and against capital punishment from a position of fact.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Pacing
I paced tonight. I don't usually. I wandered around the newsroom, joked with co-workers, talked about upcoming stories, reread my story from today and then I paced. I wandered down the hall and opened the back door so I could feel the cool (relatively!) air and look out into the night.
I went downstairs and got a soda. I flipped through some old magazines on my desk. I'm restless. I don't know why. There's a tremendous amount of sadness around this story that I have never felt on a story before. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's not the death or watching the execution that bothers me so much on this.
It's the tremendous loss to the families. It's seeing the loss of father/son, the loss of a brother, uncle, grandfather. It's the Christmas dinners, the graduations, the first steps of a grandchild, the moments that make up a life that were killed when John Langley was killed. And all for $100 for crack cocaine. It makes me sick in a sad way. Maybe reporters aren't supposed to feel these things. But I do. I can't do this story and not feel it.
It's sad for Emmett, sad for the Langleys. Sad and senseless. And there's nothing that anything or anyone can do to change it. And that - I now understand, is why even when Emmett dies tomorrow, nothing else will change. John won't suddenly come to life. There will always be that hole in the lives of all those he touched.
Revenge and punishment? They only work in the movies where we don't have to walk away knowing anyone involved. It's a cruel joke Hollywood plays on us. We believe that killing someone will "make it better," that we'll cheer, that somehow it will be alright. But it won't. Michael Langley is right. Forgiveness, as contrary as it may seem, is the only freedom from the pain. On the other hand, as someone said, "It would be better for Emmett if he were a more sympathetic character. It's hard to feel compassion for a crack head who'd kill his friend for $100."
Emmett? I don't know. I don't know why he started using drugs. I don't know what his childhood was like or who he is. He never agreed to talk with me. I never got that chance to look into his eyes and talk to him. If I do get to see his eyes - it will be if he looks my way from the gurney tomorrow before he dies. I don't know what it will be like for his parents - if they are there - to watch their son die. But it's all painful and senseless and there are no answers, let alone any easy answers.
If Michael Langley could reach Emmett with his message of forgiveness and his hope of the faith that he has, the faith that drove him to forgiveness - then even when Emmett dies, there will be - for some at least - a light at the end of the dark tunnel.
I went downstairs and got a soda. I flipped through some old magazines on my desk. I'm restless. I don't know why. There's a tremendous amount of sadness around this story that I have never felt on a story before. I can't quite put my finger on it. It's not the death or watching the execution that bothers me so much on this.
It's the tremendous loss to the families. It's seeing the loss of father/son, the loss of a brother, uncle, grandfather. It's the Christmas dinners, the graduations, the first steps of a grandchild, the moments that make up a life that were killed when John Langley was killed. And all for $100 for crack cocaine. It makes me sick in a sad way. Maybe reporters aren't supposed to feel these things. But I do. I can't do this story and not feel it.
It's sad for Emmett, sad for the Langleys. Sad and senseless. And there's nothing that anything or anyone can do to change it. And that - I now understand, is why even when Emmett dies tomorrow, nothing else will change. John won't suddenly come to life. There will always be that hole in the lives of all those he touched.
Revenge and punishment? They only work in the movies where we don't have to walk away knowing anyone involved. It's a cruel joke Hollywood plays on us. We believe that killing someone will "make it better," that we'll cheer, that somehow it will be alright. But it won't. Michael Langley is right. Forgiveness, as contrary as it may seem, is the only freedom from the pain. On the other hand, as someone said, "It would be better for Emmett if he were a more sympathetic character. It's hard to feel compassion for a crack head who'd kill his friend for $100."
Emmett? I don't know. I don't know why he started using drugs. I don't know what his childhood was like or who he is. He never agreed to talk with me. I never got that chance to look into his eyes and talk to him. If I do get to see his eyes - it will be if he looks my way from the gurney tomorrow before he dies. I don't know what it will be like for his parents - if they are there - to watch their son die. But it's all painful and senseless and there are no answers, let alone any easy answers.
If Michael Langley could reach Emmett with his message of forgiveness and his hope of the faith that he has, the faith that drove him to forgiveness - then even when Emmett dies, there will be - for some at least - a light at the end of the dark tunnel.
It's the waiting
As Emmett prepares to die tomorrow, his attorney is still waiting for word from the governor and/or the courts on the clemency issue. He won't know until after 5 pm. Wednesday. We'll all be in the prison by the time word comes down.
Anyone with an internet connection will know before I do, whether a stay has been issued or not. I have to admit, it's nerve-racking for me wondering. I can't begin to imagine what it's like for Emmett or the Langley family.
Anyone with an internet connection will know before I do, whether a stay has been issued or not. I have to admit, it's nerve-racking for me wondering. I can't begin to imagine what it's like for Emmett or the Langley family.
This time tomorrow
This is the hardest assignment I've ever had and I haven't even witnessed the execution yet. It is a huge emotional drain to cover. I had no idea what the demands would be. It's not, at this point, the actual execution that is so draining.
It's witnessing the emotional toll on the victim's family, the incredible pain of the family, the gamut of emotions of myself, of both victim and prisoner, of both sides. I've touched the surface and have been deeply touched. It's incredible. A friend tells me that's what being embedded in Iraq is like... It has occurred to me that:
"This time tomorrow Christopher Scott Emmett will be or have showered, eaten, written letters, spoken with family - or not. He will be a little more than three hours away from dying.
Unlike his victim, Christopher Emmett will see his death coming. He will know the exact day and time within minutes, that it will occur.
He will know how, in detail, he is to die.
He will have time to think about what is happening. He will have time to wonder what dying is like and to review his life.
He will have time to compose his last words and to speak them. He will have time to write letters to those he wishes to leave with one last message.
He will have time to shower, dress and shave.
He will have time to make his peace, if any, with God.
He will be able to look into the eyes of his loved ones, if any, for one last time as he dies. He will have time to get his affairs in order.
He will not experience the pain of being bludgeoned and beaten. He will not be covered in blood when he dies.
He will have enjoyed a last meal of his choosing. His body will not be disfigured or his skull crushed if his family wants to hold an open casket viewing at his funeral.
He knows who will claim his body.
Emmett and his victim have few things in common. As a matter of fact, the only thing that Emmett and his victim will share - is that total strangers were witness to their passing."
It's a lot to take in.
It's witnessing the emotional toll on the victim's family, the incredible pain of the family, the gamut of emotions of myself, of both victim and prisoner, of both sides. I've touched the surface and have been deeply touched. It's incredible. A friend tells me that's what being embedded in Iraq is like... It has occurred to me that:
"This time tomorrow Christopher Scott Emmett will be or have showered, eaten, written letters, spoken with family - or not. He will be a little more than three hours away from dying.
Unlike his victim, Christopher Emmett will see his death coming. He will know the exact day and time within minutes, that it will occur.
He will know how, in detail, he is to die.
He will have time to think about what is happening. He will have time to wonder what dying is like and to review his life.
He will have time to compose his last words and to speak them. He will have time to write letters to those he wishes to leave with one last message.
He will have time to shower, dress and shave.
He will have time to make his peace, if any, with God.
He will be able to look into the eyes of his loved ones, if any, for one last time as he dies. He will have time to get his affairs in order.
He will not experience the pain of being bludgeoned and beaten. He will not be covered in blood when he dies.
He will have enjoyed a last meal of his choosing. His body will not be disfigured or his skull crushed if his family wants to hold an open casket viewing at his funeral.
He knows who will claim his body.
Emmett and his victim have few things in common. As a matter of fact, the only thing that Emmett and his victim will share - is that total strangers were witness to their passing."
It's a lot to take in.
Forgiveness
There seems to be a huge controversy over what forgiveness is. Again, this is my opinion and take it for what it's worth. Michael Langley says he has forgiven Christopher Emmett for murdering his father. I believe that kind of forgiveness doesn't mean he's "okay" with the murder. It means he's willing to move on and to let it go. The time for seeking revenge is past.
Forgiveness is NOT saying, "It's okay that you did what you did."
Forgiveness is NOT saying, "What you did was horrible, but now that I think about it, it's okay."
Forgiveness is NOT approval of, condoning of or accepting of anything or anyone.
Forgiveness is letting go of the hate, the fear, the anger the feelings and thoughts about what happened and going on with your life. It means you're not going to drag that hate, that animosity, that fear, that spite, that lust for revenge around with you any more. You're dropping the baggage at the station and getting on with your life. You have/are grieving what is lost and are healing.
Forgiveness means you're letting go of what happened and you're moving forward. For Christians, God describes the forgiveness of sins as the "setting it aside as far as the east is from the west." He lets it go.
Whatever spiritual path a person follows - forgiveness is simply about letting go. You are not any less a person for forgiving. Forgiveness opens the door to change.
Forgiveness is NOT saying, "It's okay that you did what you did."
Forgiveness is NOT saying, "What you did was horrible, but now that I think about it, it's okay."
Forgiveness is NOT approval of, condoning of or accepting of anything or anyone.
Forgiveness is letting go of the hate, the fear, the anger the feelings and thoughts about what happened and going on with your life. It means you're not going to drag that hate, that animosity, that fear, that spite, that lust for revenge around with you any more. You're dropping the baggage at the station and getting on with your life. You have/are grieving what is lost and are healing.
Forgiveness means you're letting go of what happened and you're moving forward. For Christians, God describes the forgiveness of sins as the "setting it aside as far as the east is from the west." He lets it go.
Whatever spiritual path a person follows - forgiveness is simply about letting go. You are not any less a person for forgiving. Forgiveness opens the door to change.
This is so hard
Covering an execution is the hardest thing I've ever done and I haven't even witnessed the lethal injection yet.
Yesterday I spoke with the victims' family members. John Fenton Langley's son Michael, a Christian, believes his father's soul is in hell because his father did not adhere to the same beliefs and lifestyle as he. Michael has forgiven Christopher Scott Emmett for killing his father and is willing to say that. That's huge.
Gene Langley, John's brother, does not feel the same. He remembers his brother as loving, good, kind and a good man. "He had some bumps in the road," Gene said, "We all do. He was human." Gene detailed the afternoon of the night John was murdered. John bought hot dogs and hamburger to feed the men in the work crew who, Gene said, "Had drank up their paychecks and couldn't afford to eat."
No one is desecrating John's memory. To those who knew and loved him, he was a good man, a good father, a good worker. A spiritual discussion about souls and where, according to the Bible, a soul goes - is an issue of faith. Ultimately, whatever we believe, when we die we find out "who was right."
Right now there are new victims - the family members of both murderer and victim who are being emotional traumatized by this process. As the Rev. Pickett said, "There is no closure. Even after the prisoner is put to death it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Nothing changes."
There is no live murderer to hate any more. Vengeance is hollow. Hate only eats at those who hate.
Yesterday I spoke with the victims' family members. John Fenton Langley's son Michael, a Christian, believes his father's soul is in hell because his father did not adhere to the same beliefs and lifestyle as he. Michael has forgiven Christopher Scott Emmett for killing his father and is willing to say that. That's huge.
Gene Langley, John's brother, does not feel the same. He remembers his brother as loving, good, kind and a good man. "He had some bumps in the road," Gene said, "We all do. He was human." Gene detailed the afternoon of the night John was murdered. John bought hot dogs and hamburger to feed the men in the work crew who, Gene said, "Had drank up their paychecks and couldn't afford to eat."
No one is desecrating John's memory. To those who knew and loved him, he was a good man, a good father, a good worker. A spiritual discussion about souls and where, according to the Bible, a soul goes - is an issue of faith. Ultimately, whatever we believe, when we die we find out "who was right."
Right now there are new victims - the family members of both murderer and victim who are being emotional traumatized by this process. As the Rev. Pickett said, "There is no closure. Even after the prisoner is put to death it doesn't bring the victim back to life. Nothing changes."
There is no live murderer to hate any more. Vengeance is hollow. Hate only eats at those who hate.
Why?
Someone asked me yesterday why I wanted to witness an execution. People have been asking me that since I volunteered for the assignment. In 22 plus years of writing this is the only assignment I've never had to cover or had the opportunity to cover. It's an important story and one with a lot of emotion, complex issues and human lives at stake. It's not just about the man on death row - it's about the families affected by the murder.
When Christopher Scott Emmett killed John Fenton Langley, he killed a part of Langley's mother, brother, son and daughter, nieces, nephews and relatives for generations to come. Part of the Langley legacy will be, "John was murdered." Part of the Emmett legacy will be, "Emmet killed."
To be able to witness and write about significant challenges in the middle of the emotional demands of the execution, of the family - it's a tremendously sacred thing which - I think, makes me both a better journalist and a better person. We take on challenges - personal or professional, to become better - I think. And that is why I do it. If I can learn compassion, or forgiveness or how to be neutral and balanced in the midst of an emotional windstorm - then I become a better person.
When Christopher Scott Emmett killed John Fenton Langley, he killed a part of Langley's mother, brother, son and daughter, nieces, nephews and relatives for generations to come. Part of the Langley legacy will be, "John was murdered." Part of the Emmett legacy will be, "Emmet killed."
To be able to witness and write about significant challenges in the middle of the emotional demands of the execution, of the family - it's a tremendously sacred thing which - I think, makes me both a better journalist and a better person. We take on challenges - personal or professional, to become better - I think. And that is why I do it. If I can learn compassion, or forgiveness or how to be neutral and balanced in the midst of an emotional windstorm - then I become a better person.
Monday, June 11, 2007
What forgiveness looks like...
Michael and Sandi Langley
Monday, May 28, 2007
Michael and Sandi Langley had two important things to say to Christopher Scott Emmett. One, they wanted him to know they forgive him for murdering their father/father-in-law. Two, they want to see him die knowing the Lord Jesus as his personal savior so he doesn't spend eternity in hell. They wrote him this letter, but have been unable to get into the prison or send it in time so Emmett gets it. Here it is, in its entirity, hoping someone passes it along to Emmett. It doesn't matter if you, dear reader, agree, disagree or think this is more religious nonsense. It is from the heart and should be read as such - whether you agree or not.
Understand that the concept of forgiveness is what Christ preached. And remember too, these words were written by a man who's father was murdered. Michael Langley hadn't yet turned 21. He hadn't had his first child. He hadn't graduated from college yet - but was on the verge of it. There are a lot of things he and his father will never do. And he thought about all those things for several years before he became a christian and before he decided to forgive his father's murderer. Could you have written this?
"Dear Mr. Emmett,
I couldn’t let this time pass without letting you know that you have been on my heart and my mind. I come here today to let you know that I forgive you for taking my dad’s life. Several years ago, I was reading in my Bible and came across a passage in Matthew that really spoke to me. God’s word says in Matthew 6:14-15, “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”
These verses opened my eyes and heart and I was convicted. In order for God to forgive me of my sins and wrong doings, then I have to forgive the people who sin (and have sinned) against me. In order for me to properly worship God, then I have to ask him to forgive me of my sins. As long as I was storing up hatred in my heart against you and not forgiving you for what you did, then I was in sin and the Lord could not forgive me. Once I forgave you in my heart and confessed it before the Lord, he was then able to forgive me of my sins.
Not only do I want to forgive you because that is what the Bible—God’s word has commanded me to do, but I also want to show you the same love that Jesus Christ has shown me. As a Christian, I am supposed to share God’s word with all the people I come in contact with. I do not know where you stand spiritually, but I do want you to know that I want you to be rejoicing in heaven with me one day. It’s never too late to commit your life to Christ and it is as easy as ABC.
You first have to ACKNOWLEDGE you are a sinner: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”—Romans 3:23. Next you have to BELIEVE that Jesus died for your sins, was buried and was raised from the dead. “If you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”—Romans 10:9. And lastly, you have to CALL on the Lord in faith and repentance. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”—Romans 10:13. I ask you today that if you have not surrendered your life to Christ, then please take time to read through these verses and pray to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Once you have accepted him and asked for forgiveness, he will wash all of your sins away and you will live an eternal life with him in heaven.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter. I just wanted to take a moment and share the love that Christ has for you and me. I pray that your heart is right with God. No matter what happens from this day forward, I will be praying for you. I pray that you take this information and share it with others that you may come in contact with, so that you can make a difference in someone else’s life and show them that there is everlasting hope with Christ Jesus.
In Christ,
Michael Langley
Monday, May 28, 2007
Michael and Sandi Langley had two important things to say to Christopher Scott Emmett. One, they wanted him to know they forgive him for murdering their father/father-in-law. Two, they want to see him die knowing the Lord Jesus as his personal savior so he doesn't spend eternity in hell. They wrote him this letter, but have been unable to get into the prison or send it in time so Emmett gets it. Here it is, in its entirity, hoping someone passes it along to Emmett. It doesn't matter if you, dear reader, agree, disagree or think this is more religious nonsense. It is from the heart and should be read as such - whether you agree or not.
Understand that the concept of forgiveness is what Christ preached. And remember too, these words were written by a man who's father was murdered. Michael Langley hadn't yet turned 21. He hadn't had his first child. He hadn't graduated from college yet - but was on the verge of it. There are a lot of things he and his father will never do. And he thought about all those things for several years before he became a christian and before he decided to forgive his father's murderer. Could you have written this?
"Dear Mr. Emmett,
I couldn’t let this time pass without letting you know that you have been on my heart and my mind. I come here today to let you know that I forgive you for taking my dad’s life. Several years ago, I was reading in my Bible and came across a passage in Matthew that really spoke to me. God’s word says in Matthew 6:14-15, “For if you forgive others for their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions.”
These verses opened my eyes and heart and I was convicted. In order for God to forgive me of my sins and wrong doings, then I have to forgive the people who sin (and have sinned) against me. In order for me to properly worship God, then I have to ask him to forgive me of my sins. As long as I was storing up hatred in my heart against you and not forgiving you for what you did, then I was in sin and the Lord could not forgive me. Once I forgave you in my heart and confessed it before the Lord, he was then able to forgive me of my sins.
Not only do I want to forgive you because that is what the Bible—God’s word has commanded me to do, but I also want to show you the same love that Jesus Christ has shown me. As a Christian, I am supposed to share God’s word with all the people I come in contact with. I do not know where you stand spiritually, but I do want you to know that I want you to be rejoicing in heaven with me one day. It’s never too late to commit your life to Christ and it is as easy as ABC.
You first have to ACKNOWLEDGE you are a sinner: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.”—Romans 3:23. Next you have to BELIEVE that Jesus died for your sins, was buried and was raised from the dead. “If you shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in thy heart that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.”—Romans 10:9. And lastly, you have to CALL on the Lord in faith and repentance. “For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.”—Romans 10:13. I ask you today that if you have not surrendered your life to Christ, then please take time to read through these verses and pray to accept Christ as your Lord and Savior. Once you have accepted him and asked for forgiveness, he will wash all of your sins away and you will live an eternal life with him in heaven.
Thank you for taking time to read this letter. I just wanted to take a moment and share the love that Christ has for you and me. I pray that your heart is right with God. No matter what happens from this day forward, I will be praying for you. I pray that you take this information and share it with others that you may come in contact with, so that you can make a difference in someone else’s life and show them that there is everlasting hope with Christ Jesus.
In Christ,
Michael Langley
Emmett's eyes
.JPG)
I'm ashamed. I thought I had looked into Emmett's eyes, if only in his photograph, but I failed to notice he had one blue eye and one brown eye. The copy desk caught it. They're artists. They see these things. I looked and never saw it. His right eye is blue. His left eye is brown.
"Did you notice this?" they asked. I hadn't. So we stared. We gathered around the computer and listened to the air conditioner hum and telephones ring and we looked at the full, four-color image of Christopher Scott Emmett in his last photo. It's the last picture he'll have before he's executed on Wednesday and he's staring back at us with one brown eye and one blue.
Why do you think that is? Someone asks. I don't know. Maybe it's symbolic, but of what? I come back to my computer and I sit down and I can't get the image out of my head. One blue. One brown. Forever it will burn in my mind and I can't even tell myself why.
"Did you notice this?" they asked. I hadn't. So we stared. We gathered around the computer and listened to the air conditioner hum and telephones ring and we looked at the full, four-color image of Christopher Scott Emmett in his last photo. It's the last picture he'll have before he's executed on Wednesday and he's staring back at us with one brown eye and one blue.
Why do you think that is? Someone asks. I don't know. Maybe it's symbolic, but of what? I come back to my computer and I sit down and I can't get the image out of my head. One blue. One brown. Forever it will burn in my mind and I can't even tell myself why.
There's a reason...
There was a reason Rev. Pickett never read a prisoner's "jacket" (folder of a prisoner's criminal history). It goes back to the original statement I made when I started this blog. It personalizes someone to know the details of their life. It makes it harder to put aside emotion and to watch someone put to death when you know the little details of their life. Pickett had the brief luxury of ignorance - of not knowing anything about these men until they walked through the door of the death room and he spent the next 18 hours with them.
That made it hard enough - getting to know them, knowing they would die before that first handshake was 24 hours old. I've spent the last two weeks reading about the case, reading about the death penalty, the actual act of execution. I've even spent hours interviewing and listening and replaying the interviews with family members as they talk about how their father's or their brother's death impacted them. It's hard. I'll go into that witness room well prepared and totally unprepared.
That made it hard enough - getting to know them, knowing they would die before that first handshake was 24 hours old. I've spent the last two weeks reading about the case, reading about the death penalty, the actual act of execution. I've even spent hours interviewing and listening and replaying the interviews with family members as they talk about how their father's or their brother's death impacted them. It's hard. I'll go into that witness room well prepared and totally unprepared.
Eight steps away
Eight steps and an open door. That's what brings the fear out in death row inmates. Because until the last minutes of their life, it's something they don't see.
“The inmate has been eight steps away from that table (execution gurney) all day. Eight steps,” said Carroll Pickett, witness to 95 executions. “But it’s been on the other side of that door all day and they haven’t seen it.”
“It’s when the door swings open that it hits them,” Pickett said. “That’s when the anxiety hits. You can see it in their eyes.”
“They all react differently,” he said of both inmates and witnesses. Reporters who are witnesses to the execution and often used to covering tragedy, don’t handle it any better than anyone else, he said.
Pickett should know. As the chaplain for the Texas Correctional system for 16 years, Pickett has seen both sides of the execution room. He’s watched men die and he’s watched witnesses watch men die.
“They all react differently,” he said of both. Reporters, often used to covering tragedy, don’t handle it any better than anyone else, he said.
“Ted Koppel (Former anchorman for ABC’s Nightline) was up close and then he backed away. He didn’t want to watch it,” he said. “He said later on the Larry King show that it was the toughest assignment he ever had. Some reporters will faint. Some vomit. Some turn away,” Pickett said. But none leave unaffected.
No matter what their response to the execution they are watching, Pickett said, witnesses can’t leave the room until the inmate is pronounced dead.
“That door (to the execution room) is closed and locked once the execution begins and it’s not opened, no matter what, until it’s all over,” he said.
Prisoners all react to their execution differently. In Texas All are given the opportunity to ask to speak with their choice of spiritual advisor their last day. Some are Christians. Some are Muslim. Some are Buddhist and some are Wiccan. Almost all want to talk. Some want to dance. Some want to sing. Some take a nap. Most write last letters or speak with family members. Pickett has helped each according to their faith and needs in as far as he was able.
Pickett has seen everything from a prisoner who asked for a witch to help him transition to his next life as a tree once he died, to men who found became Christians in prison and went to their deaths singing hymns of praise and worship.
But regardless of whether they’re resigned to death or not, there’s always a part of them that desperately wants to live.“Preservation of life is a natural instinct,” he said.
“Even if they’re prepared to die something kicks in at the end,” he said. It’s not the tears that come when the inmate walks through the door. It’s not the trembling as they climb on the table. In those final moments, Pickett said, it is seeing the condemned's reaction, that desire to live that converts those who support the death penalty into those that oppose it.
“The inmate has been eight steps away from that table (execution gurney) all day. Eight steps,” said Carroll Pickett, witness to 95 executions. “But it’s been on the other side of that door all day and they haven’t seen it.”
“It’s when the door swings open that it hits them,” Pickett said. “That’s when the anxiety hits. You can see it in their eyes.”
“They all react differently,” he said of both inmates and witnesses. Reporters who are witnesses to the execution and often used to covering tragedy, don’t handle it any better than anyone else, he said.
Pickett should know. As the chaplain for the Texas Correctional system for 16 years, Pickett has seen both sides of the execution room. He’s watched men die and he’s watched witnesses watch men die.
“They all react differently,” he said of both. Reporters, often used to covering tragedy, don’t handle it any better than anyone else, he said.
“Ted Koppel (Former anchorman for ABC’s Nightline) was up close and then he backed away. He didn’t want to watch it,” he said. “He said later on the Larry King show that it was the toughest assignment he ever had. Some reporters will faint. Some vomit. Some turn away,” Pickett said. But none leave unaffected.
No matter what their response to the execution they are watching, Pickett said, witnesses can’t leave the room until the inmate is pronounced dead.
“That door (to the execution room) is closed and locked once the execution begins and it’s not opened, no matter what, until it’s all over,” he said.
Prisoners all react to their execution differently. In Texas All are given the opportunity to ask to speak with their choice of spiritual advisor their last day. Some are Christians. Some are Muslim. Some are Buddhist and some are Wiccan. Almost all want to talk. Some want to dance. Some want to sing. Some take a nap. Most write last letters or speak with family members. Pickett has helped each according to their faith and needs in as far as he was able.
Pickett has seen everything from a prisoner who asked for a witch to help him transition to his next life as a tree once he died, to men who found became Christians in prison and went to their deaths singing hymns of praise and worship.
But regardless of whether they’re resigned to death or not, there’s always a part of them that desperately wants to live.“Preservation of life is a natural instinct,” he said.
“Even if they’re prepared to die something kicks in at the end,” he said. It’s not the tears that come when the inmate walks through the door. It’s not the trembling as they climb on the table. In those final moments, Pickett said, it is seeing the condemned's reaction, that desire to live that converts those who support the death penalty into those that oppose it.
Done deal
I was reading William Poyck's weblog tonight, in between listening to replaying my interviews with the Langley family in my head. Poyck writes:
"Christopher Scott Emmett has a June 13, 2007 execution date, and in Virginia that means it's a done deal..."
On the other hand, the Langley family fears that something may happen and the execution may not happen. Gene and Michael Langley, respectively the brother and son of John Fenton Langley, are convinced that there's still a chance that Emmett could have his sentence commuted to life in prison. Odd isn't it - how our greatest fears become our strongest perceptions.
"Christopher Scott Emmett has a June 13, 2007 execution date, and in Virginia that means it's a done deal..."
On the other hand, the Langley family fears that something may happen and the execution may not happen. Gene and Michael Langley, respectively the brother and son of John Fenton Langley, are convinced that there's still a chance that Emmett could have his sentence commuted to life in prison. Odd isn't it - how our greatest fears become our strongest perceptions.
Victim's Families
It's easy enough to think about just the condemned man when you haven't spoken to the family. This afternoon I interviewed Gene Langley - John Fenton Langley's brother. And John's son, Michael.
The last time Gene saw his brother was on Easter 2000. That's the last photo Gene has of him - taken at the dinner table with his niece Tracy around playing around with her father. Tracy's holding her fingers behind her father's head in the timeless "bunny ears" gesture. John is trying to eat.
Michael remembers his last conversation with his father.
"My wife and I had convinced him to fly up to Nashville," Michael said. "I was graduating from college (Auto and Diesel Mechanic School) and he had never flown before. I bought him a ticket to come up here. He never got to use it. I used it to fly down for his funeral," he said.
Michael misses the father/son relationship. He hates it that his daughter, now three, never got to meet her grandfather. Most of all Michael hates it that his father died without being a Christian.
They went to church back in the day he says. But they'd also gone drinking the night before. Just being in church and believing in God doesn't make you a christian, he explains. It's more than that. It's obeying God and living for him. Michael has forgiven Emmett for murdering his father, but he still believes that the death penalty is biblical and that Emmett must pay the consequences for his crime.
He and his wife have tried to visit Emmett in prison and want him to know they've forgiven him.
"I want him to get right with God," Michael said of Emmett. Michael believes his father is "burning in hell," because he didn't get right with God.
"But there's still time for Emmett," he said. "He's got right up til the end to make a sincere confession of his sins and he can be celebrating in heaven."
The last time Gene saw his brother was on Easter 2000. That's the last photo Gene has of him - taken at the dinner table with his niece Tracy around playing around with her father. Tracy's holding her fingers behind her father's head in the timeless "bunny ears" gesture. John is trying to eat.
Michael remembers his last conversation with his father.
"My wife and I had convinced him to fly up to Nashville," Michael said. "I was graduating from college (Auto and Diesel Mechanic School) and he had never flown before. I bought him a ticket to come up here. He never got to use it. I used it to fly down for his funeral," he said.
Michael misses the father/son relationship. He hates it that his daughter, now three, never got to meet her grandfather. Most of all Michael hates it that his father died without being a Christian.
They went to church back in the day he says. But they'd also gone drinking the night before. Just being in church and believing in God doesn't make you a christian, he explains. It's more than that. It's obeying God and living for him. Michael has forgiven Emmett for murdering his father, but he still believes that the death penalty is biblical and that Emmett must pay the consequences for his crime.
He and his wife have tried to visit Emmett in prison and want him to know they've forgiven him.
"I want him to get right with God," Michael said of Emmett. Michael believes his father is "burning in hell," because he didn't get right with God.
"But there's still time for Emmett," he said. "He's got right up til the end to make a sincere confession of his sins and he can be celebrating in heaven."
Black man
There are innocent men and women on death row. But because of a lie detector test and determined prosecutors, there's one less innocent man, a black man, on death row. The man escaped the sentence Emmett is now facing when prosecutors refused to believe Christopher Scott Emmett's accusations that a co-worker, not Emmett, had killed Langley.
Emmett, said Danville prosecutor William Fuller, killed John Fenton Langley then...
"He tried to pin the murder on a co-worker, a black co-worker," Fuller said. Emmett, who is white, will be the first person since Virginia re-instated the death penalty to be put to death," Fuller said.
Emmett, said Danville prosecutor William Fuller, killed John Fenton Langley then...
"He tried to pin the murder on a co-worker, a black co-worker," Fuller said. Emmett, who is white, will be the first person since Virginia re-instated the death penalty to be put to death," Fuller said.
Methodical
Death is methodical. Not always. But for John Fenton Langley and Christopher Scott Emmett is was and will be.
According to Virginia Prosecutor William Fuller the night Christopher Scott Emmett killed John Fenton Langley he sat on the edge of his bed, watching his sleeping friend. He took a heavy brass lamp, one that would later be introduced into evidence in the trial.
He removed the lampshade.
He removed the light bulb - "So it wouldn't break and cut him," Fuller explained.
He then struck Langley five or six times in the head. He wasn't trying to knock him unconscious. He planned to kill him, Fuller said. With Langley dead Emmett was free to take the money he wanted to buy the crack cocaine he so desperately wanted. Within minutes he was dead.
On Wednesday Emmett will die in a methodical way. He will step through the door of the death room, walk across it to the table where he will die. He will climb up on it and lie down as a "tie-down" team straps his legs and body to the table. Another team will then insert needles into his arm in preparation for the drugs that will be administered. He will be allowed to speak his last words, if he has any. Then the warden will give a signal and the drugs will flow. Within minutes Emmett will be dead.
Methodical.
According to Virginia Prosecutor William Fuller the night Christopher Scott Emmett killed John Fenton Langley he sat on the edge of his bed, watching his sleeping friend. He took a heavy brass lamp, one that would later be introduced into evidence in the trial.
He removed the lampshade.
He removed the light bulb - "So it wouldn't break and cut him," Fuller explained.
He then struck Langley five or six times in the head. He wasn't trying to knock him unconscious. He planned to kill him, Fuller said. With Langley dead Emmett was free to take the money he wanted to buy the crack cocaine he so desperately wanted. Within minutes he was dead.
On Wednesday Emmett will die in a methodical way. He will step through the door of the death room, walk across it to the table where he will die. He will climb up on it and lie down as a "tie-down" team straps his legs and body to the table. Another team will then insert needles into his arm in preparation for the drugs that will be administered. He will be allowed to speak his last words, if he has any. Then the warden will give a signal and the drugs will flow. Within minutes Emmett will be dead.
Methodical.
Choices
Christopher Scott Emmett has one thing in common with his victim, John Fenton Langley.
Neither one got to choose the clothes they would be wearing when they die(d).
According to the Dept. of Corrections, Emmett's clothes "will be provided."
Neither one got to choose the clothes they would be wearing when they die(d).
According to the Dept. of Corrections, Emmett's clothes "will be provided."
Preperations
I'm making hotel reservations, scheduling a photographer, getting directions to the prison, talking to friends who are urging me not to do this. I'm in reporter mode now - getting last minute interviews, asking myself how this story should be written, asking myself the "what ifs" and wondering, still wondering, what will it be like.
Christopher Scott Emmett is preparing to die.
I'm almost finished asking others what I can expect. No amount of talking with those who have been through it will really help. I have an idea of what to expect - but so did how many thousands of veterans returning from war with PTSD who were told what war was like.
Christopher Scott Emmett will find out what it was like to die, but he won't be able to share his experience. I will. I hope.
Christopher Scott Emmett is preparing to die.
I'm almost finished asking others what I can expect. No amount of talking with those who have been through it will really help. I have an idea of what to expect - but so did how many thousands of veterans returning from war with PTSD who were told what war was like.
Christopher Scott Emmett will find out what it was like to die, but he won't be able to share his experience. I will. I hope.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
One juror
Only one juror needed to oppose the death penalty for Christopher Scott Emmett to have been given life without parole rather than the death penalty. Only one.
In Emmett's appeal pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and a clemency petition before Gov. Timothy M. Kaine two jurors now allegedly claim that if they had been given information about Emmett's childhood and other problems they would have opposed the death penalty.
In his plea to the U.S. Supreme Court Emmett's newest defense attorney reiterates complaints about Emmett's trial lawyer. Emmett alleges his trial lawyer failed to adequately defend him by fully informing the jury a full picture of his abusive, impoverished childhood and other problems.
Four days
Four days. I'm getting nervous. I can't imagine what Emmett is feeling. I've been reading the blog by his death row friend William Van Poyck. Poyck's sister visits him weekly and also writes him regularly, posting his blog for him.
I interviewed Rev. Carol Pickett Friday. I asked him to detail exactly what will happen on the final day. He described in detail what happened on several of the 95 executions he witnessed. I'm sure he left out some of the more graphic details, but he alluded to enough to give my mind fodder for fear and sadness. I could not get the images out of my mind last night and I tossed and turned - not with fear, but with the questions of revenge versus justice. I think it actually comes down not to what is the right thing to do, but what is the expedient and financial thing to do. I don't for a moment believe that the government ponders weighty spiritual issues. I'm pretty much convinced that after spending a million dollars or so per prisoner on death row that actually putting these men and women to death is cheaper than housing them in secure facilities for another 50 years at $40 to $80,000 a pop. Remember, most death row prisoners are in their early 20's to 30's.
If we go down that slippery slope of cost versus humanity, it creates a picture of who we are as a civilization that I don't care to think about. The death penalty becomes neither right or wrong, but a mere accounting issue. And that, is really scary.
I interviewed Rev. Carol Pickett Friday. I asked him to detail exactly what will happen on the final day. He described in detail what happened on several of the 95 executions he witnessed. I'm sure he left out some of the more graphic details, but he alluded to enough to give my mind fodder for fear and sadness. I could not get the images out of my mind last night and I tossed and turned - not with fear, but with the questions of revenge versus justice. I think it actually comes down not to what is the right thing to do, but what is the expedient and financial thing to do. I don't for a moment believe that the government ponders weighty spiritual issues. I'm pretty much convinced that after spending a million dollars or so per prisoner on death row that actually putting these men and women to death is cheaper than housing them in secure facilities for another 50 years at $40 to $80,000 a pop. Remember, most death row prisoners are in their early 20's to 30's.
If we go down that slippery slope of cost versus humanity, it creates a picture of who we are as a civilization that I don't care to think about. The death penalty becomes neither right or wrong, but a mere accounting issue. And that, is really scary.
Friday, June 8, 2007
Gotta love copy editors
I'm fortunate to have a great copy editor. He was doing his own research on the execution (not part of his job description, but he's helpful). He found a blog by an inmate on death row. I'm not sure how death row inmates have access to the Internet, but he's in the same facility as Christopher Scott Emmett. I've posted a link to his blog to the right. I can't confirm at this point it's a "real" blog, but it's certainly insightful reading.
What role?
What role do journalists play in an execution? I finished Pickett's book. He struggled to find his place, his role. Shortly after he began he decided he was there as a comforter - regardless of his growing opposition to the death penalty. He focused on his work as a minister of God - tending to the spiritual needs of these men, comforting them in their last hours.
But what role do journalists play? I have been inside prisons as part of the "Scared Straight" program years ago. I've toured prisons. I even sat in a chair in the gas chamber in a prison in Colorado and looked out the thick glass windows and wondered what the people who had died in that very spot had seen and thought before they died. As the guards there told me, many would hold their breath as the gas seeped up - hoping to prolong life by another minute - only to find the sudden intake of breath after release sped up the process. I remember looking outside through the small, high window and seeing on the treetops of the pines and the walls of the prison.
I have done stories on prisons. I have heard the steel doors clank shut behind me as I followed an officer into the windowless hallways. I have heard the jangle of keys echo down empty hallways and seen the inside of cells, the cinder block walls, the toilets and sinks an arm's length from the bunks. I have eaten with inmates at long tables while guards stood by. I have walked through an exercise yard surrounded by security guards who briefed me about what to do if we were charged by an inmate. I have seen inmates hurl paper and feces through cell bars and whistle and jeer as escorted young juvenile offenders through the prison. I've seen the shanks, the guns carved from soap, the crude weapons prisoners make - all piled high on a table. I've seen photos of inmates killed by inmates.
It's not like this is all new to me. I've seen the bodies of women carved up by murderers. I've talked to women whose faces were so swollen by beatings that they could barely talk. There are nights I cannot get the screams of a woman being tortured and killed out of my head - courtesy of an FBI agent during a training class I took while in the police academy. He played a brief few seconds of the tape they'd taken from a killer. I've seen clips from "snuff films" and interviewed my share of officers who have worked murder scenes. There are many, many, many reasons why I should strongly support the death penalty.
There's also a woman in Tennessee named Teresa that I spent hours interviewing. She was convicted of murder when she was 16 and served 30 plus years in prison before being released on parole. Her crime? She had hitchhiked home from a party with her 14 year old cousin. The man who picked them up beat them both and raped her before she wrestled his gun away from him and shot and killed him. Both she and her sister ran from the scene. She was convicted. Her defense counsel spent less than two hours with her prior to trial and convinced her to plea bargain or face the death penalty. She listened to him and spent her entire life basically - behind bars. Should she have been executed for defending herself? There are reasons, stories like this, and like the more than 100 cases where DNA had freed innocent men from death row, that are equally strong reasons for opposing the death penalty.
But I'm not writing about Christopher Scott Emmett or John Langley because I feel one way or the other about them or whether the death penalty is right or wrong - or should I? It goes back to my role as a journalist. If, as I said at the beginning, I can look into the eyes of Christopher Scott Emmett - even metaphorically, and again, through accounts from friends and family of John Langley, and tell my reader what I saw, have I done what I need to do? If I can equally convey both sides of the issue, of the debate on the death penalty, have I done my job?
It is harder for journalists. We offer no condolences. We must remain impartial. We seem uncaring when we are truly neutral. We have no power to wring either comment or truth from anyone. We must trust what people tell us when there are no documents, no court records, no witnesses to corroborate what they are saying. We are hampered by our own naivete s, our lack of or abundance of experience. I have seen more than some, less than others. All that I am I bring to this story. Yet I was not there for the trial. I did not sit in the courtroom. I did not smell the fear, the anger, the remorse the hate of those involved. I am merely witness to the execution.
By agreeing to witness the state-sanctioned death of a murderer I am consciously and deliberating agreeing to alter who I am forever. Will it help? When a police officer puts on his/her uniform and goes out on the streets every day and sees all they see and experiences all they experience - it changes them forever. They must think, at times, like the criminals they seek. Is this sacrifice or just part of the job? Is it worth it? I don't know. I won't know until it is "too late."
I'm going a long way from simply looking into someone's eyes.
But what role do journalists play? I have been inside prisons as part of the "Scared Straight" program years ago. I've toured prisons. I even sat in a chair in the gas chamber in a prison in Colorado and looked out the thick glass windows and wondered what the people who had died in that very spot had seen and thought before they died. As the guards there told me, many would hold their breath as the gas seeped up - hoping to prolong life by another minute - only to find the sudden intake of breath after release sped up the process. I remember looking outside through the small, high window and seeing on the treetops of the pines and the walls of the prison.
I have done stories on prisons. I have heard the steel doors clank shut behind me as I followed an officer into the windowless hallways. I have heard the jangle of keys echo down empty hallways and seen the inside of cells, the cinder block walls, the toilets and sinks an arm's length from the bunks. I have eaten with inmates at long tables while guards stood by. I have walked through an exercise yard surrounded by security guards who briefed me about what to do if we were charged by an inmate. I have seen inmates hurl paper and feces through cell bars and whistle and jeer as escorted young juvenile offenders through the prison. I've seen the shanks, the guns carved from soap, the crude weapons prisoners make - all piled high on a table. I've seen photos of inmates killed by inmates.
It's not like this is all new to me. I've seen the bodies of women carved up by murderers. I've talked to women whose faces were so swollen by beatings that they could barely talk. There are nights I cannot get the screams of a woman being tortured and killed out of my head - courtesy of an FBI agent during a training class I took while in the police academy. He played a brief few seconds of the tape they'd taken from a killer. I've seen clips from "snuff films" and interviewed my share of officers who have worked murder scenes. There are many, many, many reasons why I should strongly support the death penalty.
There's also a woman in Tennessee named Teresa that I spent hours interviewing. She was convicted of murder when she was 16 and served 30 plus years in prison before being released on parole. Her crime? She had hitchhiked home from a party with her 14 year old cousin. The man who picked them up beat them both and raped her before she wrestled his gun away from him and shot and killed him. Both she and her sister ran from the scene. She was convicted. Her defense counsel spent less than two hours with her prior to trial and convinced her to plea bargain or face the death penalty. She listened to him and spent her entire life basically - behind bars. Should she have been executed for defending herself? There are reasons, stories like this, and like the more than 100 cases where DNA had freed innocent men from death row, that are equally strong reasons for opposing the death penalty.
But I'm not writing about Christopher Scott Emmett or John Langley because I feel one way or the other about them or whether the death penalty is right or wrong - or should I? It goes back to my role as a journalist. If, as I said at the beginning, I can look into the eyes of Christopher Scott Emmett - even metaphorically, and again, through accounts from friends and family of John Langley, and tell my reader what I saw, have I done what I need to do? If I can equally convey both sides of the issue, of the debate on the death penalty, have I done my job?
It is harder for journalists. We offer no condolences. We must remain impartial. We seem uncaring when we are truly neutral. We have no power to wring either comment or truth from anyone. We must trust what people tell us when there are no documents, no court records, no witnesses to corroborate what they are saying. We are hampered by our own naivete s, our lack of or abundance of experience. I have seen more than some, less than others. All that I am I bring to this story. Yet I was not there for the trial. I did not sit in the courtroom. I did not smell the fear, the anger, the remorse the hate of those involved. I am merely witness to the execution.
By agreeing to witness the state-sanctioned death of a murderer I am consciously and deliberating agreeing to alter who I am forever. Will it help? When a police officer puts on his/her uniform and goes out on the streets every day and sees all they see and experiences all they experience - it changes them forever. They must think, at times, like the criminals they seek. Is this sacrifice or just part of the job? Is it worth it? I don't know. I won't know until it is "too late."
I'm going a long way from simply looking into someone's eyes.
Dawn
I am most of the way through Pickett's book now. When I had insomnia at 3 a.m. I read a few chapters. It is dawn and I am reading it still. How have I come to read so much about death the past few weeks?
I only just began reading the details and past news accounts of Christopher Scott Emmett's crime. Last night I reviewed the archives, the coverage we gave this crime almost six years ago. I suppose the natural response would be to feel a desire for revenge. I have not seen the photos of the crime scene. I have not spoken with the victim's family. I have had only brief conversations with attorneys and officials.
It's not how I would have wanted to do this story. As much as I wish I did, I don't have the luxury of a week devoted to only this execution. That bothers me. I must sandwich in the death of a human being with the graduation of high school students, with the concerns of preservationists over the destruction of historic buildings, with various awards various groups are giving various people. Life goes on even as death looms.
I only just began reading the details and past news accounts of Christopher Scott Emmett's crime. Last night I reviewed the archives, the coverage we gave this crime almost six years ago. I suppose the natural response would be to feel a desire for revenge. I have not seen the photos of the crime scene. I have not spoken with the victim's family. I have had only brief conversations with attorneys and officials.
It's not how I would have wanted to do this story. As much as I wish I did, I don't have the luxury of a week devoted to only this execution. That bothers me. I must sandwich in the death of a human being with the graduation of high school students, with the concerns of preservationists over the destruction of historic buildings, with various awards various groups are giving various people. Life goes on even as death looms.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Getting it right
I'm reading a book called "Within These Walls." It's written by a Texas Correctional Facility Chaplain named Carroll Pickett. Rev. Picket attended 95 executions while he was chaplain. I called him, not so much as a reporter, but as someone who needed some help and guidance before attending this execution.
I asked the same questions the men on death row asked. "What can I expect? What will it be like?" And he told me. It was not a formal interview and strictly for my own peace of mind so I won't repeat it here. But it comforted me. But then again, that's what ministers do and I thank him for it.
Pickett's book arrived today. I've already read half of it. I had to smile. The media are so accurately portrayed in one sense - moving among protestors for comments, wanting interviews from victims, families and the condemned. That's our job. It's what we do. Those who would use the execution of a man/woman to make headlines are out there obviously. Some media will embellish, lie, leave out things and to make things up to sell newspapers - as Pickett writes, I suppose. But those papers wouldn't exist if people didn't keep buying and reading them. It is what people believe of the media that's perception, and based on a few bad journalists. Just as so many people believe all people on death row are evil and deserve to be there, or that all police are corrupt and mean and able to be "bought."
How much of our lives are governed by perception rather than a searching out of the facts? How often do we get both sides of a story before making a judgment?
How cruel we are to each other. We don't understand, or appear to understand. We are too willing to let one bad experience forever color our opinions. He's right though. Reporters can be callous - as can police officers, as can anyone who deals so frequently with the horrors, or the relentless tragedy of life as those in our professions do. But Rev. Pickett did say one thing that I can't get out of my head. "Get it right," he said. "Get the last words right. The media hears what it wants to hear. They hear what they expect to hear. Get it right."
He was talking about Emmett's last words. Listen, he encouraged. Listen carefully to what he says, not what you expect. I don't know what I would expect him to say. How do you imagine that? If he turns his head I may look him in the eyes, but then again, what will I see? What will I see when I look into the eyes of John Langley's family? What resides in the eyes of daughters and sons and family who don't have John Langley and who haven't for six years? I want to get Emmett's words right, but I want to get their words right as well.
In Rev. Pickett's book he writes that the only way to do his job, regardless of how he felt personally about the death penalty, was to remain neutral. I am struggling to remain neutral, even as I read the accounts of Langley's brutal death. Langley had no last words. No one was there to comfort him as he died. No one was there to look into his eyes. No one was there to hear what he might have wanted to say before he slipped into eternity.
How do you "get it right"? How do you reach a balance, or do you? How do I find that fulcrum where the crime, the bludgeoning of a man with a brass lamp, tips the scales with acknowledging the fear of a man, even a murderer, strapped to a gurney in front of a room full of strangers who will watch him, in the most vulnerable moment of his life?
How do you get it right? You don't. There will be people who hate me for having compassion for Emmett, people who will hate me for not having enough compassion for Emmett. There will be letters from those who are angry I didn't advocate against the death penalty. There will be those who are angry I don't want the Death House humming 24/7 with executions. I don't, as the saying goes, have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to be a reporter and to some degree, a compassionate human being. I don't think anyone is right. I'm just here to report on what I witness, what people say, what people feel, how I am moved - or not, by what I will witness.
Christopher Scott Emmett will be moved this weekend. He'll leave his current facility and be placed in a cell in the Greensville Correctional Facility where he'll begin to count down the hours and days he has to live. He will do whatever it is prisoners do. He will sleep, think, maybe pray, maybe not. He may read, cry, swear or sing. He may stare at his own reflection - if there is a polished surface to stare into. He may be calm, he may not. He may relive the night he killed Langley - although some accounts say he doesn't remember killing him. He may replay the confession in his head - just as prosecutors replayed the taped confession he gave the night of the murder.
Whatever he does, whatever he says. Whatever Langley's family does or says. Whatever happens, I just want to get it right.
I asked the same questions the men on death row asked. "What can I expect? What will it be like?" And he told me. It was not a formal interview and strictly for my own peace of mind so I won't repeat it here. But it comforted me. But then again, that's what ministers do and I thank him for it.
Pickett's book arrived today. I've already read half of it. I had to smile. The media are so accurately portrayed in one sense - moving among protestors for comments, wanting interviews from victims, families and the condemned. That's our job. It's what we do. Those who would use the execution of a man/woman to make headlines are out there obviously. Some media will embellish, lie, leave out things and to make things up to sell newspapers - as Pickett writes, I suppose. But those papers wouldn't exist if people didn't keep buying and reading them. It is what people believe of the media that's perception, and based on a few bad journalists. Just as so many people believe all people on death row are evil and deserve to be there, or that all police are corrupt and mean and able to be "bought."
How much of our lives are governed by perception rather than a searching out of the facts? How often do we get both sides of a story before making a judgment?
How cruel we are to each other. We don't understand, or appear to understand. We are too willing to let one bad experience forever color our opinions. He's right though. Reporters can be callous - as can police officers, as can anyone who deals so frequently with the horrors, or the relentless tragedy of life as those in our professions do. But Rev. Pickett did say one thing that I can't get out of my head. "Get it right," he said. "Get the last words right. The media hears what it wants to hear. They hear what they expect to hear. Get it right."
He was talking about Emmett's last words. Listen, he encouraged. Listen carefully to what he says, not what you expect. I don't know what I would expect him to say. How do you imagine that? If he turns his head I may look him in the eyes, but then again, what will I see? What will I see when I look into the eyes of John Langley's family? What resides in the eyes of daughters and sons and family who don't have John Langley and who haven't for six years? I want to get Emmett's words right, but I want to get their words right as well.
In Rev. Pickett's book he writes that the only way to do his job, regardless of how he felt personally about the death penalty, was to remain neutral. I am struggling to remain neutral, even as I read the accounts of Langley's brutal death. Langley had no last words. No one was there to comfort him as he died. No one was there to look into his eyes. No one was there to hear what he might have wanted to say before he slipped into eternity.
How do you "get it right"? How do you reach a balance, or do you? How do I find that fulcrum where the crime, the bludgeoning of a man with a brass lamp, tips the scales with acknowledging the fear of a man, even a murderer, strapped to a gurney in front of a room full of strangers who will watch him, in the most vulnerable moment of his life?
How do you get it right? You don't. There will be people who hate me for having compassion for Emmett, people who will hate me for not having enough compassion for Emmett. There will be letters from those who are angry I didn't advocate against the death penalty. There will be those who are angry I don't want the Death House humming 24/7 with executions. I don't, as the saying goes, have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to be a reporter and to some degree, a compassionate human being. I don't think anyone is right. I'm just here to report on what I witness, what people say, what people feel, how I am moved - or not, by what I will witness.
Christopher Scott Emmett will be moved this weekend. He'll leave his current facility and be placed in a cell in the Greensville Correctional Facility where he'll begin to count down the hours and days he has to live. He will do whatever it is prisoners do. He will sleep, think, maybe pray, maybe not. He may read, cry, swear or sing. He may stare at his own reflection - if there is a polished surface to stare into. He may be calm, he may not. He may relive the night he killed Langley - although some accounts say he doesn't remember killing him. He may replay the confession in his head - just as prosecutors replayed the taped confession he gave the night of the murder.
Whatever he does, whatever he says. Whatever Langley's family does or says. Whatever happens, I just want to get it right.
Time to convict
Defense lawyers will tell you, the faster a jury returns a verdict, the worse it is for their client.
Attorney Matthew Engle may have felt the verdict before he heard it. It only took the jury of five women and seven men just one hour to hand down the first death sentence in Danville since 1997.
Attorney Matthew Engle may have felt the verdict before he heard it. It only took the jury of five women and seven men just one hour to hand down the first death sentence in Danville since 1997.
First white man
According to past stories from The Register & Bee, Christopher Scott Emmett is the first white person to be sentenced to death in Danville, Va since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstatedthe death penalty in 1976.
Does Virginia punish only black men and not white? While I've been told that Governor Timothy Kaine is personally opposed to the death penalty, I was also told that he vowed to "uphold the laws" of the state when he was re-elected. How can something like putting a man to death - deserved or not - be reduced to an issue of race and politics? I'm shaking my head.
Death, the death penalty and executions are more multi-faceted than one would imagine. Break it into its simplest terms - What does the law say? Was the man convicted and sentenced to death? Will he die? Then go back. What does the law say - to a lawyer and a judge? If you break the law into its various technical functions, Emmett's attorney may have reason and grounds to have the execution commuted, or delayed or postponed. Or not. Those who might want Emmett to "pay" for his crime point out that Emmett has time to think about, plot and plan his escape from death - his victim, John Fenton Langely, did not. Who looked into Langely's eyes the night he died? Did Emmett? Only he knows, and he's not talking.
Does Virginia punish only black men and not white? While I've been told that Governor Timothy Kaine is personally opposed to the death penalty, I was also told that he vowed to "uphold the laws" of the state when he was re-elected. How can something like putting a man to death - deserved or not - be reduced to an issue of race and politics? I'm shaking my head.
Death, the death penalty and executions are more multi-faceted than one would imagine. Break it into its simplest terms - What does the law say? Was the man convicted and sentenced to death? Will he die? Then go back. What does the law say - to a lawyer and a judge? If you break the law into its various technical functions, Emmett's attorney may have reason and grounds to have the execution commuted, or delayed or postponed. Or not. Those who might want Emmett to "pay" for his crime point out that Emmett has time to think about, plot and plan his escape from death - his victim, John Fenton Langely, did not. Who looked into Langely's eyes the night he died? Did Emmett? Only he knows, and he's not talking.
PTSD
This week my editor offered to send me to a seminar for journalists on coping and preventing Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.
According to the National Institute on Mental Health:
"Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened."
Problem is, the seminar is the same day as the execution. Regardless, I'm not new to PTSD. I'm a trained Hospice volunteer, have spent time as a rescue volunteer and have done CPR on a couple of people. I've seen people die. I've seen traumatic incidents and violence. I've worked through PTSD.
Experts have discovered that talking about, processing and "debriefing" an incident immediately afterwards helps prevent or lessen PTSD. Journalists covering Katrina, journalists embedded in Iraq, journalists doing anything from crime beats to natural disasters know they're going into a situation where PTSD is likely, if not probable. So should we stop covering these events? Police officers, firemen, rescue workers, Red Cross workers, military men and women - we all put our sanity and our souls on the line to do the things that make up our jobs. Is PTSD just one of the prices we pay and the sacrifices we make? I think so.
Mass trauma, such as even witnessing an event - like watching the 9/11 events unfolding on television - can cause PTSD. So why do we do it? It's a way, I believe, for me as a journalist to convey what happens - what really happens when a man/woman is executed. As some people have told me, they supported the death penalty until they witnessed an execution. This includes police officers, chaplains and attorneys.
I'm going into this with no strong feelings one way or the other about executions. I would tend, as a human being, to understand the strong feelings of anger, a desire for revenge if a loved one were murdered. I'm told the families of the victims often celebrate the execution - but then come out somber and quiet themselves. The murderer gets more victims as their witnessing his death leaves the family who witnesses it, with PTSD or at least the disturbing complicity in a state-sanctioned murder.
As a Christian, I believe God forgives all - even the murderers - if they ask. It's part of my faith. No matter how heinous a crime, if a person asks for forgiveness and turns their heart and life over to God, they're forgiven. Only God sees the heart, but I believe as long as a person can draw a breath and ask for that, it's given. My faith then, sees executions another way. As a journalist I see things as a series of events and work to report them without bias or advocacy. Yet - at some point I've got to acknowledge who I am as I give readers a story about the execution of a human being.
I'm hoping this journal/blog gives me the debriefing (part of it anyway) and preparation I'll need to cope with what I'm about to witness. Others, I know, are thinking the same things I am - "How will I react?" or "What will it be like?" Chaplains have told me the men and women on death row ask the same thing. "What will it be like?" and "How will I react?"
The only thing is - the witnesses will walk away able to share their answers. Emmett will not.
According to the National Institute on Mental Health:
"Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, PTSD, is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened."
Problem is, the seminar is the same day as the execution. Regardless, I'm not new to PTSD. I'm a trained Hospice volunteer, have spent time as a rescue volunteer and have done CPR on a couple of people. I've seen people die. I've seen traumatic incidents and violence. I've worked through PTSD.
Experts have discovered that talking about, processing and "debriefing" an incident immediately afterwards helps prevent or lessen PTSD. Journalists covering Katrina, journalists embedded in Iraq, journalists doing anything from crime beats to natural disasters know they're going into a situation where PTSD is likely, if not probable. So should we stop covering these events? Police officers, firemen, rescue workers, Red Cross workers, military men and women - we all put our sanity and our souls on the line to do the things that make up our jobs. Is PTSD just one of the prices we pay and the sacrifices we make? I think so.
Mass trauma, such as even witnessing an event - like watching the 9/11 events unfolding on television - can cause PTSD. So why do we do it? It's a way, I believe, for me as a journalist to convey what happens - what really happens when a man/woman is executed. As some people have told me, they supported the death penalty until they witnessed an execution. This includes police officers, chaplains and attorneys.
I'm going into this with no strong feelings one way or the other about executions. I would tend, as a human being, to understand the strong feelings of anger, a desire for revenge if a loved one were murdered. I'm told the families of the victims often celebrate the execution - but then come out somber and quiet themselves. The murderer gets more victims as their witnessing his death leaves the family who witnesses it, with PTSD or at least the disturbing complicity in a state-sanctioned murder.
As a Christian, I believe God forgives all - even the murderers - if they ask. It's part of my faith. No matter how heinous a crime, if a person asks for forgiveness and turns their heart and life over to God, they're forgiven. Only God sees the heart, but I believe as long as a person can draw a breath and ask for that, it's given. My faith then, sees executions another way. As a journalist I see things as a series of events and work to report them without bias or advocacy. Yet - at some point I've got to acknowledge who I am as I give readers a story about the execution of a human being.
I'm hoping this journal/blog gives me the debriefing (part of it anyway) and preparation I'll need to cope with what I'm about to witness. Others, I know, are thinking the same things I am - "How will I react?" or "What will it be like?" Chaplains have told me the men and women on death row ask the same thing. "What will it be like?" and "How will I react?"
The only thing is - the witnesses will walk away able to share their answers. Emmett will not.
Ugly duckling vs swan?
Roy Peter Clark of Poynter.org writes about writing. He offers tips, makes comments, gives suggestions and writes wonderful columns about things he notices about writing. He's been a remarkable coach and source for my writing. Today he wrote an article about ugly ducks and swans and how writers leave out the negative details of a story to focus on the transition from "ugly to swan." It made me think about this blog. I responded to him with this comment:
"Thanks Roy. I just started my first blog - one about my preparing to witness the execution of a man on death row next week. I have been struggling with how to write the "obnoxious, horrible" details of how I feel about this event. How graphic, how real, how "warts and all" should I be?
How does what I'm writing best serve the story, the readers, myself? It's hard. Every day I learn more the harder it gets. Do I not worry about the reaction of readers? What's the fine line? How honest are we or should we be as journalists? http://www.apublicdeath.blogspot.com/
I've interviewed and am interviewing several chaplains who have witnessed and written about executions. I'm talking to attorneys and others. I'm willing to write whatever they're willing to go on record with. The struggle is how to avoid making it sound "hollywood" and to not let the ugly duckling into swan creep into my writing. I want it to be real. If real is ugly or nauseating or violent - is it responsible journalism? What's that fine line?"
None of us are saints. None of us are Satan. Some of us come closer to the absolute of either, but all in all, we all have our moments. I don't know Christopher Scott Emmett. I haven't spoken with him. In the remaining week - seven days - I won't get to know him. He's a man sitting on death row for what I was told was a horrible, bloody murder. I'll post court transcripts here later. I try to remember that there was a time before he did drugs. There was a time when he was a child and had a future - as we all did. He made bad decisions along the way. He decided to use drugs. He decided to kill his roommate. He decided a lot of things. How best do I portray this man, my writing of his crime, his execution and the process journalists (at least me) go through to bring the most responsible, accurate and informative story to my readers? Comments please?
"Thanks Roy. I just started my first blog - one about my preparing to witness the execution of a man on death row next week. I have been struggling with how to write the "obnoxious, horrible" details of how I feel about this event. How graphic, how real, how "warts and all" should I be?
How does what I'm writing best serve the story, the readers, myself? It's hard. Every day I learn more the harder it gets. Do I not worry about the reaction of readers? What's the fine line? How honest are we or should we be as journalists? http://www.apublicdeath.blogspot.com/
I've interviewed and am interviewing several chaplains who have witnessed and written about executions. I'm talking to attorneys and others. I'm willing to write whatever they're willing to go on record with. The struggle is how to avoid making it sound "hollywood" and to not let the ugly duckling into swan creep into my writing. I want it to be real. If real is ugly or nauseating or violent - is it responsible journalism? What's that fine line?"
None of us are saints. None of us are Satan. Some of us come closer to the absolute of either, but all in all, we all have our moments. I don't know Christopher Scott Emmett. I haven't spoken with him. In the remaining week - seven days - I won't get to know him. He's a man sitting on death row for what I was told was a horrible, bloody murder. I'll post court transcripts here later. I try to remember that there was a time before he did drugs. There was a time when he was a child and had a future - as we all did. He made bad decisions along the way. He decided to use drugs. He decided to kill his roommate. He decided a lot of things. How best do I portray this man, my writing of his crime, his execution and the process journalists (at least me) go through to bring the most responsible, accurate and informative story to my readers? Comments please?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
Declined
Christopher Scott Emmett declined my request for an interview. No reason given. Today I'll work on getting in touch with the victim's family. People ask me why journalists do this - "invade" the privacy and painful times of families. Trust me, I spend many a night lying awake wondering that myself. I do it for several reasons:
Journalists are the historians. We document the events of our communities. We record the facts, the comments and the events of the day on a daily basis so there is an unbiased account of what has happened. That involves deaths, fires, accidents, who won the spelling bee, who graduated, who was promoted, who stole, who robbed, who was DUI. It's ugly sometimes, but it's the truth.
By contacting the family after a tragedy journalists get the facts and the information directly from the family. There's less likely to be gossip and conjecture - things that happen when no information is available. People who want to know what happened so they can help, or people who simply want to know what happened, won't swamp the family with phone calls that require the family to retell and retell the event. If the public gets the basic facts in the paper they can wait until later to call, or they can find out when the funeral is or other information without bothering the family.
Journalists are the eyes of the community. We see a lot and report on it. If it were up to the police and the politicians the fire department nothing would be reported. We would have a "secret society" in which corruption, scams and violence ruled. There's a reason the first ammendment is the FIRST ammendment.
Journalists are the historians. We document the events of our communities. We record the facts, the comments and the events of the day on a daily basis so there is an unbiased account of what has happened. That involves deaths, fires, accidents, who won the spelling bee, who graduated, who was promoted, who stole, who robbed, who was DUI. It's ugly sometimes, but it's the truth.
By contacting the family after a tragedy journalists get the facts and the information directly from the family. There's less likely to be gossip and conjecture - things that happen when no information is available. People who want to know what happened so they can help, or people who simply want to know what happened, won't swamp the family with phone calls that require the family to retell and retell the event. If the public gets the basic facts in the paper they can wait until later to call, or they can find out when the funeral is or other information without bothering the family.
Journalists are the eyes of the community. We see a lot and report on it. If it were up to the police and the politicians the fire department nothing would be reported. We would have a "secret society" in which corruption, scams and violence ruled. There's a reason the first ammendment is the FIRST ammendment.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Can you hear me now?
At first I thought it was me. You know. You say good morning or ask someone how they are and they wave and say "I'm great," or whatever it is they say. Even if you say some nonsensical thing like "Giraffees ate all my garden flowers last night," people will still smile and wave and say, "I"m great! Good morning!"
So when people asked me what "big stories" I'm working on this week and I told them about the blog and the execution, it's like I said, "I'm great! Good morning!" because PRACTICALLY NO ONE wanted to talk about it. I got blank looks - like I'd responded in a foreign language. Two old friends are giving me the cold shoulder - as though by choosing to cover this execution I've somehow betrayed them because they're opposed to the death penalty.
A cop friend did respond jokingly - telling me this would either be the greatest story I ever covered, or that I'd end up someplace where people got real friendly around medication time. By choosing to allow this story to touch me, to touch my mind, my heart, my compassion - I'm violating all the rules for surviving relatively unscathed. But as a human being do I want to emerge untouched? Or am I open to changing the way I look at life forever? You can't go back. You can't undo the images. You can't undo the feelings.
Yet, how many times in our lifetime do we get to make a decision that alters our perception of life forever? What do you do when you hear that knock? I'm answering it. I won't know until I'm on the other side of the experience if I regretted opening the door or not. But my hand is definitely on the doorknob now.
So when people asked me what "big stories" I'm working on this week and I told them about the blog and the execution, it's like I said, "I'm great! Good morning!" because PRACTICALLY NO ONE wanted to talk about it. I got blank looks - like I'd responded in a foreign language. Two old friends are giving me the cold shoulder - as though by choosing to cover this execution I've somehow betrayed them because they're opposed to the death penalty.
A cop friend did respond jokingly - telling me this would either be the greatest story I ever covered, or that I'd end up someplace where people got real friendly around medication time. By choosing to allow this story to touch me, to touch my mind, my heart, my compassion - I'm violating all the rules for surviving relatively unscathed. But as a human being do I want to emerge untouched? Or am I open to changing the way I look at life forever? You can't go back. You can't undo the images. You can't undo the feelings.
Yet, how many times in our lifetime do we get to make a decision that alters our perception of life forever? What do you do when you hear that knock? I'm answering it. I won't know until I'm on the other side of the experience if I regretted opening the door or not. But my hand is definitely on the doorknob now.
Forever in your mind
What you'll witness will always be in your mind, someone told me today. You don't get away from it. You don't forget it. Forget looking into the eyes, he told me. Everything I see, from the walk into the prison, the color of the paint on the walls, the sway of the curtains as they're pulled back to allow witnesses to view the execution. It's all burned into your memory.
A history of death
In addition to the photo of Christopher Scott Emmett, The Virginia Department of Corrections sent this history as well:
Virginia Department of Corrections
History of Executions in Virginia
Public Hangings
Prior to the early 20th century, death sentences were carried out by the sheriffs of the locales by hanging the condemned on the courthouse grounds. Hangings were public in Virginia until the General Assembly decreed that they be conducted in private before selected witnesses in 1879. The last hanging occurred on April 9, 1909 in Bedford when Joel Payne was hanged for murdering his father‑in‑law. He had been convicted prior to the change in the Code of Virginia in 1908, which mandated that the electric chair at the State Penitentiary in Richmond be used to carry out all executions.
Electrocutions
Electrocution was first used to carry out a capital sentence in Virginia on October 13, 1908 at the old Virginia State Penitentiary in Richmond. The chair was moved to the Greensville Correctional Center in Greensville County in the spring of 1991 and first used there on July 24, 1991.
In the early 1900's when the electric chair was first used, condemned prisoners were transported to the Penitentiary in Richmond about 15 to 20 days before the sentence was to be carried out. The sentencing court would set the date of the execution and would usually set a time frame during that day for the execution. Most courts would require that the execution takes place between sunrise and sunset but some would set narrower limits. Nearly all executions took place at 7:00 AM. and were presided over by the Superintendent of the Penitentiary. Records show that one Superintendent, Mr. J. B. Wood who served from 1910 until 1922, presided over a total of 91 executions.
Up until the 1950's, executions usually took place no more than 45 to 60 days after a death sentence. There were frequent respites or stays of execution ordered by the sitting Governors. These usually were of 30 days duration but were often renewed, sometimes totaling 90 or 120 days. These stays appear to have been issued to allow time for further review of the case by the Governor or the courts. The first execution that was significantly delayed due to appeals to the courts occurred in 1926 when an execution took place as a result of a case from Petersburg that had been appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. A period of over four years separated the original sentencing and the execution. It was not until the 1940's that delays due to appeals became frequent and then the delays were of short duration. In the 1980's long delays became common and the length of these delays started to increase.
During the first 25 years of operation of the electric chair, condemned prisoners were brought from the local jail to the Penitentiary in Richmond about 15 to 20 days prior to the date set for their execution. After the escape of two condemned prisoners from the Richmond city jail in 1935, most local sheriffs began to bring condemned prisoners to the Penitentiary on the same day they were sentenced. The practice of immediately turning over condemned prisoners to the Department of Corrections continues to this day.
The only woman to be executed in Virginia's electric chair was Virginia Christian, a seventeen-year-old, sentenced for murder in Elizabeth City County (now Hampton area). She was executed on August 16, 1912 for striking her female employer with a broomstick and then suffocating her with a towel.
The youngest person executed in the electric chair was Percy Ellis, a sixteen-year- old convicted of murder in Norfolk. He was executed on March 15, 1916.
The oldest person executed was Joe Lee who was convicted of murder in Caroline County and executed on April 21, 1916. Lee gave his age as 83 but it is believed that he was 68. In 1940 John McCann from Norfolk, who was 63 years old, was electrocuted for attempted rape.
A total of five people were executed on February 2, 1951. This was the busiest day for the electric chair. Four of the five were members of what is known as the "Martinsville Seven", all of whom were convicted of the rape of a woman in Martinsville. Three additional members of this group were executed three days later.
The busiest year for the electric chair was 1909 when a total of 17 persons were executed. This was the first full year of operation for the electric chair. A total of 15 persons were executed in 1910.
There was a 20-year period from 1962 until 1982 when the electric chair was not used. During this period the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 and the States were forced to pass new laws dealing with a separate sentencing phase of capital trials. Carroll E. Garland from Lynchburg, executed in 1962, was the last person executed in Virginia before the new laws were passed and put into use. Frank Coppola from Newport News, executed 1982, was the first person put to death in Virginia under the new statutes.
When executions were resumed they were scheduled at 11:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. The circuit courts were setting the date of the execution but were no longer setting a time. It is believed that the decision to delay the time of executions was to allow the condemned the benefit of most of his last day to contact the courts and for last visits, etc.
Witnesses to executions have always been required, and from 1909 until the present from six to twelve witnesses have been present for each execution. It was not until 1962 that the first women were selected as execution witnesses.
The electric chair itself is simply a homemade oak armchair with leather straps attached. It is the same chair that was used at the Penitentiary in Richmond and is believed to have been built there in 1908.
The modern electrical control mechanism was installed when the existing chair was relocated from the old Penitentiary in Richmond to Greensville Correctional Center in May of 1991. The equipment is designed to deliver electricity in two applications, each lasting one and a half minutes, for a total application of three minutes. There is a slight pause between the two applications. Five minutes after the conclusion of the second electrical application, the attending physician may certify that death has occurred.
Lethal Injection
Lethal injection became an option to the electric chair in Virginia on January 1, 1995. At least fifteen days prior to his scheduled execution, the death row inmate makes the choice between injection and electrocution. If the inmate makes no choice, lethal injection is automatic. Since lethal injections became an option to electrocution, all have been carried out at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. Executions take place at 9:00 P.M. on the date determined by the Courts.
The first inmate to be executed by lethal injection was Dana Ray Edmonds on January 24, 1995.
Approximately four days prior to the scheduled execution, the inmate is moved from death row at Sussex I State Prison to Greensville Correctional Center. While at Greensville, the inmate is housed in one of three cells adjacent to the Death Chamber.
The inmate is allowed contact visits with attorneys and non-contact visits with immediate family members, clergy and spiritual advisors during specified hours.
On the day of execution, the inmate may have one contact visit with immediate family. Attorneys, clergy and spiritual advisors are allowed to visit up until the time of execution.
For the last meal, the inmate may select any meal, or combination of items, from the institution’s 28 day cycle menu. The meal must be completed no later than four hours prior to the execution. The inmate is also allowed to shower approximately two hours prior to the execution.
A member of the clergy may accompany the inmate to the Death Chamber where he may offer words of comfort or prayer.
The inmate is escorted into the chamber just prior to the appointed hour. The curtains separating the witness room and the execution chamber remain open until the inmate is restrained to the table. Once the inmate is restrained, the curtains are closed and remain closed until the IV lines have been established, normally, one in each arm. The curtains are reopened and the Director gives the order to carry out the sentence of the court.
Condemned persons executed by lethal injection are injected with three chemicals. The first injection consists of Thiopental Sodium, which induces a state of unconsciousness. The second injection is Pancuronium Bromide, which stops breathing. The third and final injection is Potassium Chloride, which stops heart function.
When the Director is informed that death has occurred, the curtains are closed and the witnesses are escorted from the Death Chamber.
Execution viewing by victim’s family members became possible by Executive Order of Governor George Allen, July 1, 1994. For privacy purposes, victim’s family members view executions from a separate room adjacent to the Death Chamber.
Media witnesses and citizen witnesses view the execution from a second room adjacent to the Death Chamber.
Virginia Department of Corrections
History of Executions in Virginia
Public Hangings
Prior to the early 20th century, death sentences were carried out by the sheriffs of the locales by hanging the condemned on the courthouse grounds. Hangings were public in Virginia until the General Assembly decreed that they be conducted in private before selected witnesses in 1879. The last hanging occurred on April 9, 1909 in Bedford when Joel Payne was hanged for murdering his father‑in‑law. He had been convicted prior to the change in the Code of Virginia in 1908, which mandated that the electric chair at the State Penitentiary in Richmond be used to carry out all executions.
Electrocutions
Electrocution was first used to carry out a capital sentence in Virginia on October 13, 1908 at the old Virginia State Penitentiary in Richmond. The chair was moved to the Greensville Correctional Center in Greensville County in the spring of 1991 and first used there on July 24, 1991.
In the early 1900's when the electric chair was first used, condemned prisoners were transported to the Penitentiary in Richmond about 15 to 20 days before the sentence was to be carried out. The sentencing court would set the date of the execution and would usually set a time frame during that day for the execution. Most courts would require that the execution takes place between sunrise and sunset but some would set narrower limits. Nearly all executions took place at 7:00 AM. and were presided over by the Superintendent of the Penitentiary. Records show that one Superintendent, Mr. J. B. Wood who served from 1910 until 1922, presided over a total of 91 executions.
Up until the 1950's, executions usually took place no more than 45 to 60 days after a death sentence. There were frequent respites or stays of execution ordered by the sitting Governors. These usually were of 30 days duration but were often renewed, sometimes totaling 90 or 120 days. These stays appear to have been issued to allow time for further review of the case by the Governor or the courts. The first execution that was significantly delayed due to appeals to the courts occurred in 1926 when an execution took place as a result of a case from Petersburg that had been appealed to the U. S. Supreme Court. A period of over four years separated the original sentencing and the execution. It was not until the 1940's that delays due to appeals became frequent and then the delays were of short duration. In the 1980's long delays became common and the length of these delays started to increase.
During the first 25 years of operation of the electric chair, condemned prisoners were brought from the local jail to the Penitentiary in Richmond about 15 to 20 days prior to the date set for their execution. After the escape of two condemned prisoners from the Richmond city jail in 1935, most local sheriffs began to bring condemned prisoners to the Penitentiary on the same day they were sentenced. The practice of immediately turning over condemned prisoners to the Department of Corrections continues to this day.
The only woman to be executed in Virginia's electric chair was Virginia Christian, a seventeen-year-old, sentenced for murder in Elizabeth City County (now Hampton area). She was executed on August 16, 1912 for striking her female employer with a broomstick and then suffocating her with a towel.
The youngest person executed in the electric chair was Percy Ellis, a sixteen-year- old convicted of murder in Norfolk. He was executed on March 15, 1916.
The oldest person executed was Joe Lee who was convicted of murder in Caroline County and executed on April 21, 1916. Lee gave his age as 83 but it is believed that he was 68. In 1940 John McCann from Norfolk, who was 63 years old, was electrocuted for attempted rape.
A total of five people were executed on February 2, 1951. This was the busiest day for the electric chair. Four of the five were members of what is known as the "Martinsville Seven", all of whom were convicted of the rape of a woman in Martinsville. Three additional members of this group were executed three days later.
The busiest year for the electric chair was 1909 when a total of 17 persons were executed. This was the first full year of operation for the electric chair. A total of 15 persons were executed in 1910.
There was a 20-year period from 1962 until 1982 when the electric chair was not used. During this period the Supreme Court declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972 and the States were forced to pass new laws dealing with a separate sentencing phase of capital trials. Carroll E. Garland from Lynchburg, executed in 1962, was the last person executed in Virginia before the new laws were passed and put into use. Frank Coppola from Newport News, executed 1982, was the first person put to death in Virginia under the new statutes.
When executions were resumed they were scheduled at 11:00 p.m. instead of 7:00 a.m. The circuit courts were setting the date of the execution but were no longer setting a time. It is believed that the decision to delay the time of executions was to allow the condemned the benefit of most of his last day to contact the courts and for last visits, etc.
Witnesses to executions have always been required, and from 1909 until the present from six to twelve witnesses have been present for each execution. It was not until 1962 that the first women were selected as execution witnesses.
The electric chair itself is simply a homemade oak armchair with leather straps attached. It is the same chair that was used at the Penitentiary in Richmond and is believed to have been built there in 1908.
The modern electrical control mechanism was installed when the existing chair was relocated from the old Penitentiary in Richmond to Greensville Correctional Center in May of 1991. The equipment is designed to deliver electricity in two applications, each lasting one and a half minutes, for a total application of three minutes. There is a slight pause between the two applications. Five minutes after the conclusion of the second electrical application, the attending physician may certify that death has occurred.
Lethal Injection
Lethal injection became an option to the electric chair in Virginia on January 1, 1995. At least fifteen days prior to his scheduled execution, the death row inmate makes the choice between injection and electrocution. If the inmate makes no choice, lethal injection is automatic. Since lethal injections became an option to electrocution, all have been carried out at Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. Executions take place at 9:00 P.M. on the date determined by the Courts.
The first inmate to be executed by lethal injection was Dana Ray Edmonds on January 24, 1995.
Approximately four days prior to the scheduled execution, the inmate is moved from death row at Sussex I State Prison to Greensville Correctional Center. While at Greensville, the inmate is housed in one of three cells adjacent to the Death Chamber.
The inmate is allowed contact visits with attorneys and non-contact visits with immediate family members, clergy and spiritual advisors during specified hours.
On the day of execution, the inmate may have one contact visit with immediate family. Attorneys, clergy and spiritual advisors are allowed to visit up until the time of execution.
For the last meal, the inmate may select any meal, or combination of items, from the institution’s 28 day cycle menu. The meal must be completed no later than four hours prior to the execution. The inmate is also allowed to shower approximately two hours prior to the execution.
A member of the clergy may accompany the inmate to the Death Chamber where he may offer words of comfort or prayer.
The inmate is escorted into the chamber just prior to the appointed hour. The curtains separating the witness room and the execution chamber remain open until the inmate is restrained to the table. Once the inmate is restrained, the curtains are closed and remain closed until the IV lines have been established, normally, one in each arm. The curtains are reopened and the Director gives the order to carry out the sentence of the court.
Condemned persons executed by lethal injection are injected with three chemicals. The first injection consists of Thiopental Sodium, which induces a state of unconsciousness. The second injection is Pancuronium Bromide, which stops breathing. The third and final injection is Potassium Chloride, which stops heart function.
When the Director is informed that death has occurred, the curtains are closed and the witnesses are escorted from the Death Chamber.
Execution viewing by victim’s family members became possible by Executive Order of Governor George Allen, July 1, 1994. For privacy purposes, victim’s family members view executions from a separate room adjacent to the Death Chamber.
Media witnesses and citizen witnesses view the execution from a second room adjacent to the Death Chamber.
Christopher Scott Emmett
The Department of Corrections sent me this photo of Christopher Scott Emmett today. It helps to have a picture of him. I didn't know what I thought he would look like.
Things are beginning to speed up for me now. I'm waiting to hear back about whether or not I'll be granted an interview with Christopher. I need to contact his attorney. I want to read the court transcripts. I want to talk to the police who investigated this case.
It's ten days until his execution. It seems like a long time, but it's not really.
Death House
I received a letter from the Department of Corrections today. In it they detail when I have to report and where, what I have to bring, what I can't bring and where I'll park for the execution. It struck me how much the letter is much like the media letters I recieve for any event.
It's kind of surreal. I've learned that witnesses will be briefed and following the "pre-execution briefing" we'll be escorted inside the facility to "the Death House" where we'll watch the execution.
Maybe it's me. But when I read "the Death House," (Their capitals, not mine), it stopped me short. So I went to the internet and "Googled" the name. "Death House" is what a lot of prisons with death row facilities call the buildings where they execute people. It's fitting, but so final. We'll all walk in but Christopher Scott Emmett won't walk out.
I learned that Public Radio has done an article on executions and I read a New York Times article on the people who make up part of the "tie-down team." They're the people who strap the person down to the table. Many of the guards who make up this team quit after so many years. It takes its toll, this killing people business. Movies have hardened us all to cheer for death. We applaud when the bad guy dies. New York Times reporter Bob Herbert quotes Chaplain Jim Brazzil in his article:
"Jim Brazzil, a chaplain with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said: "I usually put my hand on their leg, right below the knee, you know. And I usually give them a squeeze, let 'em know I'm there. You can feel the trembling, the fear that's there. The anxiety that's there. You can feel the heart surging, you know."
I've been warned by those who have seen executions and those who haven't, that it's something you never forget. When I started this assignment it was another event, although a solemn one, to cover. Now it's become something more and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the need to understand something deeper.
It's kind of surreal. I've learned that witnesses will be briefed and following the "pre-execution briefing" we'll be escorted inside the facility to "the Death House" where we'll watch the execution.
Maybe it's me. But when I read "the Death House," (Their capitals, not mine), it stopped me short. So I went to the internet and "Googled" the name. "Death House" is what a lot of prisons with death row facilities call the buildings where they execute people. It's fitting, but so final. We'll all walk in but Christopher Scott Emmett won't walk out.
I learned that Public Radio has done an article on executions and I read a New York Times article on the people who make up part of the "tie-down team." They're the people who strap the person down to the table. Many of the guards who make up this team quit after so many years. It takes its toll, this killing people business. Movies have hardened us all to cheer for death. We applaud when the bad guy dies. New York Times reporter Bob Herbert quotes Chaplain Jim Brazzil in his article:
"Jim Brazzil, a chaplain with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said: "I usually put my hand on their leg, right below the knee, you know. And I usually give them a squeeze, let 'em know I'm there. You can feel the trembling, the fear that's there. The anxiety that's there. You can feel the heart surging, you know."
I've been warned by those who have seen executions and those who haven't, that it's something you never forget. When I started this assignment it was another event, although a solemn one, to cover. Now it's become something more and I'm not sure why. Maybe it's the need to understand something deeper.
Saturday, June 2, 2007
A malfunctioning brain
Is criminal behavior inevitable? Yes, say some. According to CrimeTimes, "It has been established that four to six percent of boys of a given age will commit over half of all the serious crime produced by all boys of that age. That four to six percent is not going to be helped by counseling, better education, or tougher laws. To assume so overlooks the fact that most of these individuals lack the innate ability to benefit because of their dyslogic, lack of insight, lack of fear, impulsivity, and inability to realize the consequences of their actions or learn from experience."
Stong stuff. But wait. There's more from that same article.
"Their basic problem is not TV violence, poor parenting, poor teaching, broken homes, or poverty. There are too many good, law-abiding citizens who have grown up under these same circumstances. Such problems most certainly can contribute to crime and violence, but the basic problem in the hard-core offender is more likely to be a malfunctioning brain."
Did Christopher Scott Emmett have a malfunctioning brain? Did anyone test him? According to research out there, varying sizes of frontal lobes and a small amygdala impact our cognitive abilities. Does that mean there are people "destined" to find themselves on death row because they simply don't have the mental capability to make good choices? We don't hold the mentally retarded accountable for their criminal actions. Should we hold those with malfunctioning brains accountable?
Stong stuff. But wait. There's more from that same article.
"Their basic problem is not TV violence, poor parenting, poor teaching, broken homes, or poverty. There are too many good, law-abiding citizens who have grown up under these same circumstances. Such problems most certainly can contribute to crime and violence, but the basic problem in the hard-core offender is more likely to be a malfunctioning brain."
Did Christopher Scott Emmett have a malfunctioning brain? Did anyone test him? According to research out there, varying sizes of frontal lobes and a small amygdala impact our cognitive abilities. Does that mean there are people "destined" to find themselves on death row because they simply don't have the mental capability to make good choices? We don't hold the mentally retarded accountable for their criminal actions. Should we hold those with malfunctioning brains accountable?
Friday, June 1, 2007
Why write about executions?
I received one comment so far on this blog. The poster asked: "What will people actually read and/or take in? There is so much violence in our world already- many just avoid this topic altogether."
Maybe this won't be about violence. Maybe this won't be a story about a man being put to death. Maybe this will be about something else. I don't know yet.
For me, I think it's important to know - if only for a few hours - who this man is, why he's being put to death. Maybe people don't want to know there's a human being beneath the crack addiction and the killing. Maybe there's not. Maybe I'll look into his eyes and see that the soul of Christopher Scott Emmett vacated the body of Christopher Scott Emmett a long time ago. Maybe there will be evil in those eyes.
Maybe there will be fear, or anger, or sadness. I don't know. Maybe I'll learn, as did the little girl who dared to venture into a haunted house to see why the shutters moved on windless days, that a kitten in need of petting was rubbing against them. Then again, maybe I'll see the doors of hell yawning open and the demons that torture those who kill now live behind those eyes. I don't know. But I'm willing to look. And if I'm willing to look, I hope my readers are willing to read about it.
That's why I started this blog. What was simply a story is becoming more than just facts about a man who killed his roommate. As Al Tompkins told me several days ago. "You are about to see a human being die. It is more than a newspaper story."
Maybe this won't be about violence. Maybe this won't be a story about a man being put to death. Maybe this will be about something else. I don't know yet.
For me, I think it's important to know - if only for a few hours - who this man is, why he's being put to death. Maybe people don't want to know there's a human being beneath the crack addiction and the killing. Maybe there's not. Maybe I'll look into his eyes and see that the soul of Christopher Scott Emmett vacated the body of Christopher Scott Emmett a long time ago. Maybe there will be evil in those eyes.
Maybe there will be fear, or anger, or sadness. I don't know. Maybe I'll learn, as did the little girl who dared to venture into a haunted house to see why the shutters moved on windless days, that a kitten in need of petting was rubbing against them. Then again, maybe I'll see the doors of hell yawning open and the demons that torture those who kill now live behind those eyes. I don't know. But I'm willing to look. And if I'm willing to look, I hope my readers are willing to read about it.
That's why I started this blog. What was simply a story is becoming more than just facts about a man who killed his roommate. As Al Tompkins told me several days ago. "You are about to see a human being die. It is more than a newspaper story."
12 Days
I have a very good friend whose cancer has just returned. My brother just served as pallbearer to his best friend who died from cancer - 49 years old. My mother is trapped inside Alzheimer's or has a severe cognitive impairment similar to Multiple Sclerosis. She is also recovering from a hip fracture. "There's a high mortality rate with hip fractures," the doctors tell me. Death is all around us.
There's no guarantee that any of us will be here in 12 days. There is a guarantee - not 100% - but a pretty good guarantee that Christopher Scott Emmett won't be. What do you do when you have a death sentence? What do you think about? Do you make your peace with God or curse Him? Do you wonder what it will be like - dying that is.
Talk to professional actors and they tell you they spend weeks, months even years "getting into character" for a big part. They want to understand the person they're playing. I probably spend far too much time doing the same thing. I want to look into the eyes, to research the background, to understand. I don't like so much to write as an observer on some stories - but more from the inside. It's what I do.
I don't want to write:
Christopher Scott Emmett was executed at 12:01 am as protestors from various anti-death penalty groups stood outside with candles in their hands. Emmett ....
I do want to look into his eyes and write about his passing and even his life in such a way that the reader must gaze into Emmett's eyes along with me. Maybe, hopefully, by the time they get past the lead, whatever it turns out to be, they will catch a glance of Emmett's eyes. By the third or fourth paragraph - if they get that far - since many readers don't - they'll be locked eye to eye with Emmett.
It's up to me to lock eyes with him first though.
There's no guarantee that any of us will be here in 12 days. There is a guarantee - not 100% - but a pretty good guarantee that Christopher Scott Emmett won't be. What do you do when you have a death sentence? What do you think about? Do you make your peace with God or curse Him? Do you wonder what it will be like - dying that is.
Talk to professional actors and they tell you they spend weeks, months even years "getting into character" for a big part. They want to understand the person they're playing. I probably spend far too much time doing the same thing. I want to look into the eyes, to research the background, to understand. I don't like so much to write as an observer on some stories - but more from the inside. It's what I do.
I don't want to write:
Christopher Scott Emmett was executed at 12:01 am as protestors from various anti-death penalty groups stood outside with candles in their hands. Emmett ....
I do want to look into his eyes and write about his passing and even his life in such a way that the reader must gaze into Emmett's eyes along with me. Maybe, hopefully, by the time they get past the lead, whatever it turns out to be, they will catch a glance of Emmett's eyes. By the third or fourth paragraph - if they get that far - since many readers don't - they'll be locked eye to eye with Emmett.
It's up to me to lock eyes with him first though.
Preparations
Will I look into Christopher Scott Emmett's eyes and dance the dance? Will I allow myself to connect on a very human level and become vulnerable and therefore deeply impacted by his execution; or will I stare at that space between his eyes and remind myself that he was addicted to crack and he killed a co-worker for $100 to buy drugs. How human am I? How far does compassion go? Am I there to report on an execution? Or am I there to chronicle the passing of a human being?
I'm making preparations for the execution. Back to business. What angle will I take, my editor asks. We are building the story. Christopher Scott Emmett, I learn from the internet sites, had a troubled childhood. He was in and out of juvenile facilities, saw counselors, made bad decisions and ultimately made the decision that would cost him his life. What do the opponents to the death penalty say? What do those who support the death penalty say. Background. Background. Then....
"Can you get an interview with him?" my editor asks. "I don't think the state will object if he's okay with it." There it is. In so many words, "Look into his eyes," my boss is saying.
Now I must contact Emmett's attorney and hope for an interview. The only question now, I ask myself, is what will I do if I'm granted the interview?
I'm making preparations for the execution. Back to business. What angle will I take, my editor asks. We are building the story. Christopher Scott Emmett, I learn from the internet sites, had a troubled childhood. He was in and out of juvenile facilities, saw counselors, made bad decisions and ultimately made the decision that would cost him his life. What do the opponents to the death penalty say? What do those who support the death penalty say. Background. Background. Then....
"Can you get an interview with him?" my editor asks. "I don't think the state will object if he's okay with it." There it is. In so many words, "Look into his eyes," my boss is saying.
Now I must contact Emmett's attorney and hope for an interview. The only question now, I ask myself, is what will I do if I'm granted the interview?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)