< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
While running some errands in historic downtown Salida
the other day, I was offered the opportunity to sign a
petition for a recall election concerning our district
attorney, Ed Rodgers of Cañon City. I declined,
even though I was informed that failure to sign the
petition meant that I must be in favor of coddling
cop-killers.
The impetus for the recall goes back to Sept. 28, 2001. After a dog-shooting was reported in Penrose that night, Frémont County Deputy Sheriff Jason Schwartz took into custody two 24-year-old twins, Jason and Michael Stovall. One of them had a handcuff key and a couple of loaded pistols. In the back seat of the patrol car, they got free, killed Schwartz and escaped on foot.
They stole a pickup in nearby Florence, and then put three rounds into Tony Bethel, a Florence police officer now paralyzed for life. A long chase and search ensued, punctuated by gunfire. They were captured on foot the next day near Salida.
Naturally, it was the talk of town during the next week, and we all figured that this was an open-and-shut death-penalty case. So I was rather surprised when Rodgers announced a plea-bargain: each Stovall brother would get life plus 892 years.
Rodgers explained his reasons. But from where I sit, you have to make the assumption that nobody pleads guilty when the death penalty is on the table -- what have they got to lose by going to trial?
And, given that most of this happened at night, identifying which brother did what would be nearly impossible. To get a conviction beyond all reasonable doubt, one brother would have had to testify against the other -- and the witness, of course, would not get the death penalty.
So, with the best outcome one could reasonably imagine, Rodgers could have got one death penalty. And even with a conviction, the special three-judge panel might not have ordered the Big Needle -- our legislature set those up in capital cases because juries weren't producing a sufficient number of executions, but the judges haven't been as eager to execute as the General Assembly had hoped.
Further, any half-smart defense attorney would have put the victim, Deputy Jason Schwartz, on trial. It may not be right, but it is how trials work in this country.
Schwartz's sloppy police work -- he did not even pat down the Stovall brothers before putting them in his patrol car -- would have come up. So would his record at the La Veta Police Department, where residents petitioned the town board not to retain him when his probationary period ended -- they said he was officious and abusive. And the fact that Schwartz had worked illegally until shortly before his death -- there was a domestic restraining order against him, so he wasn't supposed to be carrying a gun.
As I said, this may not be right, but it is how things work. And by not going to trial, Rodgers avoided this -- Schwartz could remain officially a hero who died in the line of duty, rather than whatever ogre the defense might have constructed at trial.
So although I was mildly surprised that the D.A. did not seek the death penalty, I wasn't upset about the plea bargain -- it seemed the best for all concerned.
However, some people are so upset that they're circulating petitions to recall Rodgers on account of the plea bargain. Some of them are local cops, who have said they can't do their jobs properly if they don't have a D.A. who will stand behind them.
Now, I would agree if Rodgers had refused to prosecute, or dealt this down to something like illegal discharge of a firearm. But that's not the case.
And I would find this police position consistent if the cops wanted the death penalty for all murderers. But I don't recall any such statements after one downtown derelict killed another with a cap-and-ball revolver in Salida.
So what these recall advocates seem to be saying is that they want two standards of justice. One is when an ordinary citizen is killed; in that case, 20 years or a life sentence or whatever is appropriate, as far as they're concerned. The other is when a peace officer is killed -- then only the death penalty is appropriate.
It's hard for me to see how this fits into the goal of
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
that is inscribed over the
front door of the U.S. Supreme Court building.
Instead, this seems more like a variation on the hate-crimes laws, where the appropriate punishment for a crime depends on the status of the victim, not on the severity of the crime. And with this recall petition, the victim's occupation should be a factor, too?
Why should the murder of a peace officer be any more heinous than the murder of any other citizen?
Like most worthy purposes, the goal of equal justice
under law
is unattainable, but isn't that the course we
should be trying to steer?
Instead, the trend seems to be in the opposite direction, toward unequal justice, based on the victim, rather than the crime.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 2002 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >