The AG race: King vs. Tyson on the death penalty

Mobile district attorney John Tyson, Jr., a Democrat, is taking on Republican incumbent Troy King for the office of Attorney General. The Democrats could have done worse - much worse - than Tyson when they selected their AG candidate. As you may remember, Tyson's opponent in the Democratic primary was Holocaust-denier and all-around-wacko Larry Darby.

Tyson's main campaign theme is that he is a seasoned prosecutor, in contrast to Troy King, who has little courtroom experience and had never prosecuted a case before he became Attorney General. I have a hard time being persuaded by that argument. The Attorney General represents the state's interests in a wide range of cases to which the state is a party, including those in which the constitutionality of state law is challenged. Prosecutorial experience may be helpful in exercising those duties, but it is not required; he rarely argues cases in court.

More important is the Attorney General's willingness to enforce the laws of the state and his basic philosophy on how the law should be interpreted and applied. On both those counts, I think that Troy King has performed superbly. Maybe not as well as his predecessor, Bill Pryor, but that's a bit of an unfair comparison. Before his appointment to the federal bench, Pryor set a new standard for Alabama Attorneys General that will be tough for anyone to meet.

None of that is to say that Tyson isn't a good guy. Based on everything I've read and heard, I think he probably is. And I'll bet if you sat him and Troy King down in a room, you'd find that they would agree on most of the issues. With at least one exception. Last week, the Birmingham News reported that the two candidates differ on whether the death penalty should be expanded.

One of King's proposals sheds light on a sharp difference in the two men's public stances on how to fight crime.

King wants the Legislature to change the law to impose the death penalty on people with multiple convictions for rape or molestation of children.

Tyson said that would be a mistake and would lead to more killing.

"I don't like serial rapists, either," Tyson said. "But as soon as serial rapists realize there's no additional consequence for killing somebody, they're going to do it. An experienced prosecutor would not have proposed that."

A better way to fight sex crimes against children, Tyson said, would be to provide more money for child advocacy centers. There are about 25 centers in the state, some serving more than one county. They are used to interview and counsel children who are suspected victims and to gather evidence for prosecutions. State funding for the centers has been cut in recent years. Tyson said he would work to reverse that and to open more centers.

King said the centers do important work and need more money, but he said Tyson's suggestion shows that he wants to fight crime by "expanding social programs."

"If you want to prevent that rapist from hurting a child, you let him know there's going to be a harsh penalty to pay," King said.

Tyson said serial rapists are already subject to life without parole and that the death penalty should be reserved for those who kill.

I'm actually sympathetic to Tyson's position on this. I also think that it may be the most "conservative" position. While many criminals may deserve death, there's a lot to be said for reserving the death penalty for only the most heinous crimes. There is a distinction of degree between murder and rape. The crimes committed by serial murderers and serial rapists are horrible - too horrible to think about, really - but punishment should reflect the degree to which a crime upsets the moral order; in other words, the punishment should fit the crime. Isn't "rape plus murder" more heinous than rape alone? If so, then shouldn't it be punished more severely? Assuming that torture and other "cruel and unusual" punishments are prohibited, isn't the severest of punishments death? Where do we draw the line between those crimes which merit a punishment of life without parole and those that qualify for the ultimate punishment that a civilized society can impose?

It is perfectly natural to react to those who commit these types of crimes with cries of "Let's hang 'em all." It is tempting, and even defensible, to advocate imposing the death penalty for a wider range of crimes. We do our best to defend civilization against the savagery of its enemies, but in carrying out that duty, it sometimes seems that even the sentence of death is inadequate. Unfortunately, as human beings, we are incapable of imposing perfect justice. We are often stuck defending familiar cliches like "make the punishment fit the crime," even when we know in our hearts that none of our punishments could possibly fit the crime. Under those circumstances, our only consolation comes through our faith that the final appeal will be heard by an authority higher than any man.