We've moved!

Social Icons

twitterfacebooklinkedinrss feed

Friday, July 9, 2010

Johns Defense Quibbles, Misses Overall Wrong of Capital Punishment

Cheering for the Ethan Johns defense team could get me beat up here in Madison, home of the family of Deputy Chad Mechels, the man Ethan Johns told a 911 dispatcher he shot and killed. But news that Johns's defense attorney are challenging the constitutionality of South Dakota's death penalty raises my hopes (slightly) for a constructive conversation on capital punishment.

Unfortunately, the defense strategy is unlikely to win. Even if it did, it would not abolish the death penalty. Johns's lawyers are challenging one specific provision of our death penalty laws. For us to kill a man, the state must demonstrate "mitigating or aggravating circumstances." The primary circumstance cited in the Johns case is that he shot Deputy Mechels "for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing a lawful arrest or custody" (SDCL 23A-27A-1.9). Attorneys Jeff Cole and Sid Strange argue that that standard is overly broad and is applied in an "arbitrary and capricious manner."

Sigh. The Johns defense team appears determined to play small potatoes. Their invocation of "arbitrary and capricious" stinks of the same technicality-wrangling that I hear from complainers who like to use the word "defamatory" to describe certain blog posts, thinking they'll scare me by using a big legal word that they don't really understand. There doesn't appear to be anything arbitary, capricious or overly broad about the prosecution's contention that Johns saw the uniformed cop, feared arrest, and responded with deadly force.

I suppose I can't count on attorneys Cole and Strange to make the big arguments. They're probably just doing the best they can, grasping for straws within the strictures of existing statute and a losing case. I wish they would just shoot the moon and argue that capital punishment in toto is immoral and unnecessary... but I suspect that other lawyers have tried that argument and run up against the brick wall of the judiciary's obligation to judge the law as written, not legislate.

The defense has yet to offer an argument that promises to either spare Ethan Johns's life or overturn South Dakota's death penalty. If we want to end state-sanctioned cold-blooded murder that puts us all on Johns's moral level, we'll have to do that ourselves through the ballot box and the Legislature.


  1. Cory,

    As a lonely conservative opposed to the death penalty, I think they are doing what they must (follow the law) as that is what lawyers are supposed to do.

    I also think it ludicrious for them to argue it is "immoral and unnecessary." We live in a republican democracy where our elected officials are charged with determining morality and necessity. To argue to the judge such a thing would only get the guy killed and them susceptible to being disbarred.

    Cory, lets let these capable lawyers do their job. In the meantime, let's do our jobs to communicate rationally and respectfully why it would be better to not have the government kill people outside the battlefield.

    P.S. Lest anyone accuse me of not being sympathetic to the family of this valiant law officer, I want to say I have a brother in law enforcement.

  2. I agree, Troy: the court is no place to argue morality and necessity. The lawyers have to argue in the context of the law and leave it to the electorate to handle the grand moral questions. Let's keep at it!


Comments are closed, as this portion of the Madville Times is in archive mode. You can join the discussion of current issues at MadvilleTimes.com.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.