Execution

We executed Billy Ray Irick on August 9, 2018. And, yes, the “we” is all of us. All of Tennessee executed him through our elected and appointed officials. Were we wrong? No we were not in error, regardless of what some may claim.

There was no “rush to judgment.” Mr. Irick was accorded a trial. He was given over 30 years of appeals. Justice is based on action, and not necessarily how the judgment is administered. If the judgment is unfair or unjust, it is subject to appeal. But if it is distasteful, onerous, or even painful, it is not subject to appeal. Irick’s appeals were not substantive: was he innocent or guilty? They were focused on the process of satisfying the requirements of the law and not the substantiative issue of guilt.

One argument was his mental state. Did he have the cognitive ability to recognize that what he did was wrong? Recall that he fled, and attempted to hitchhike out of town. (Tennessean 8/10) A mental incompetent does not understand culpability. The arguments that he was impaired ignore the fact that he did know that his actions were wrong and behaved accordingly.

The state has determined, rightly in the opinion of many, that violating the rights of others requires some remuneration. In the case of the ultimate offense, taking a life, there is no equivalent “payment,” outside of execution.

Biblically, “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,” was not a severe pronouncement of retribution, but a merciful, compassionate limitation of “revenge.” When the Old Testament law was promulgated, a person in power had an absolute right to exact any level of punishment on a person who offended him. For instance, injuring an “eye” could lead the offended power person to kill the offender. He often even expanded the infliction of retribution to the family of the offender.

An “eye for an eye” restricted the punitive measures to a level commensurate with the amount of damage. In the instance of murder, the limitation would extend to the ultimate sanction. That penalty is not required, and, our state has correctly mandated the consideration of aggravating factors. A particularly onerous murder may, and does merit the ultimate retribution. To ignore or deny that denigrates and depreciates the life of the victim.

Out of all the current coverage, there was only one article about the little seven year-old girl, Paula Dyer, and what she suffered. Did Mr. Irick gasp for air and turn purple? (Tennessean 8/10) Paula did. The reports mentioned that blood vessels had burst in her eyes, a sign of violent asphyxiation. She was found in a puddle of blood. Irick’s appeal to avoid any pain is poorly supported or buttressed by reality or justice.

We made a statement in this event. The value of life, even a helpless child, is inestimable. Interdicting that life is a capital offense. There is no conflict between justice and mercy. Mercy is linked with and inseparable from a demand for an accounting. Mercy granted a fair trial and appeal. No more can be legitimately claimed. Justice was served.