Floor debate on HB 200, May 10, 1973 (partial, transcribed by Walter Long from the audiotape)

Floor Debate on House Bill 200

Texas House of Representatives

63rd Legislature; May 10, 1973.

THE CHAIR: . . . THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. WASHINGTON TO SPEAK AGAINST FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 200.

MR. (CRAIG) WASHINGTON: Mr. Speaker, and Members, I think you all know how I personally feel about reinstating the death penalty, so I won't take very much of your time, but because I feel so very deeply about this issue, I couldn't go home and sleep well at night knowing that you voted on it without having your conscience appealed to. I don't want it to ever be said that you voted in favor of the death penalty not knowing the full consequences of what you were doing. Now, I'm sure that you're going to pass this measure by a large margin, but I'm gon' do what they call in my district, I'm gonna put it on your mind. Now, I sat on Criminal Jurisprudence Committee and I know full well that no documented evidence has been indicated to you here on the House floor nor in that Committee to show that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. And if you are doing it for that reason, then you ought to be fully satisfied, as grown men and women, accepting your responsibility, that the death penalty is gonna do what you wish it would do, and that is deter crime. But history teaches us another lesson. All of the documented evidence indicates that there has not been an increase in capital murders since we've had a moratorium on the death penalty. In fact, there has been a decrease. These statistics are available, they were available to the committee. So, I think that to say that it's a deterrent to crime is to appeal to an emotional response, that is, to make you think that you're doing the right thing for the right reason. Now, I believe that you're doing it for the right reason in your own minds, but I firmly and sincerely believe that you're doing it, you're doing the right thing in your minds, but for the wrong reason. There's a book by Hugo Adam Bedau, called The Death Penalty in America, and it indicates at page 333 that every abolition state, that is every state where for one reason or another where the death penalty has been suspended or terminated, whether or not it was later restored, there's no correlation between the status of the death penalty and the homicide rate. The facts are legion, but again, I know you're going to do this thing. I want to appeal on a moral ground. I'm not going to address myself to the Constitutional validity or the legality. My question is one of morals, that is whether the government has a right to take a human life, and I submit to you that only in the most extreme circumstances where we are sure of our reason and we are sure of the result, should we resort to this the final of all punishments, because if we make a mistake there is no way on God's earth that we can rectify that mistake. I'd like to read for you the sentence of death that's pronounced in a capital case, when the person has been found guilty by a jury and the judge sentences that person to death. This day, this cause being again called, the State appeared by her district attorney, and the defendant A.B. was brought into court in person in the charge of the Sheriff for the purpose of having the sentence of law pronounced in accordance with the verdict and judgment herein rendered and entered against him on a former day of this term, his counsel also being present. And thereupon, the defendant A.B. was asked by the court if he had anything to say why said sentence should not be pronounced against him, and he answered nothing in bar thereof, whereupon the court proceeded in presence of the said defendant to pronounce sentence against him as follows: It is the order of the court that the defendant A.B., who has been adjudged guilty of murder and whose punishment has been assessed by the verdict of the jury at death, shall before the hour of sunrise on, and naming the day of the week, the blank day of blank, A.D. 19 blank, at the state penitentiary at Huntsville, Texas, be caused to die by the passage through his body of a current of electricity of sufficient intensity to cause his death, and by the application and continuance of such current through the body of said A.B. until he is dead. And that the clerk of this court issue a death warrant in accordance with this sentence directed to the warden of the state penitentiary at Huntsville, Texas, and deliver such warrant to the sheriff of this county to be delivered by him to the said warden together with the said A.B., and the said A.B. is remanded to jail to await transportation to Huntsville and execution of this sentence. That, in my opinion, is murder. It's the most vicious kind, that you tell that person the day and the appointed hour of his death. And you do it in the name of the State and you do it in the name of justice, as Mr. Williamson so ably pointed out. There was once an occasion before we'd reached a state of development in this country where certain classes of people were called indentured servants and slaves. And there was once a ship that traveled from this country to England where they did not have slaves, and the law in England was that, once a person, though in bondage, sets foot on free soil, that of England, he was forever a free man. And a slave went over on a ship to carry a load and he set foot on the docks, and the abolitionists there in England tried to require that he stay there in England, and the American lawyers came over from this country and they brought the writ of habeas corpus, then called the "Great Writ," that is, they wanted to test the validity by which this person should be allowed to stay in England. And I submit to you that the same argument that was used there is used here, and that is, look at the precedent that's set. The American lawyers said, we cannot allow this to happen, this man must come back . . . this slave must go back to England . . . go back to America, because if you allow this one instance to happen you will set a precedent and that precedent will be so great that it will overturn all of the law of the colonies, that of America. And the judge in his considered wisdom, after hearing all the facts and studying the law of England and of America, said, "Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall." Mr. Cobb cannot tell you with the certainty that you need to know in your mind before you send some person to die in the electric chair in Huntsville that it will deter crime, and if you do it for that reason, then you ought to have him, and require of him to tell you and to prove to you that you're doing the right thing, because you're killing another human being, and you're going to have to face your God one day. And if you've done the wrong thing for the right reason, you won't help yourself at all. I ask you, "Let justice be done though the heavens may fall." I know you're going to vote in favor of it, but those of you who can, vote your conscience, vote your conscience, do what you know is right, don't do, the people who send us up here don't know any more about the laws that we pass, we, it's our responsibility, the buck stops here. If you believe in your heart and your mind and your soul that the death penalty is right, vote "aye." But if you have a question about it, if you have not been . . . if it has not been proven to you beyond a reasonable doubt that it is right, and that it is moral, and that it does deter crime, vote "no."

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield.

THE CHAIR: GENTLEMAN YIELDED THE FLOOR, MR. WILLIAMSON. THE CHAIR: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. COBB TO SPEAK FOR FINAL PASSAGE. THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. LELAND TO SPEAK AGAINST FINAL PASSAGE OF THE BILL.

MR. (MICKEY) LELAND: Mr. Speaker, Members, I sincerely rise before the house, my heart very heavy, my tear glands very full. All the time we have considered before the House the death penalty, I've been trying to read a Book that many times I forget to read but most of the time I try to follow the principles therein. This Book is called the Bible, and I read in the Bible, Chapter 20 of Exodus, and I quote, And God spake all these words saying, and I miss a few lines, Thou shalt not kill. And God spake all these words saying, Thou shalt not kill. And God spake all these words saying, Thou shalt not kill. There was another passage of the Bible that I read, and this Bible said, and I'll be through, Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Members.

THE CHAIR: THE CHAIR RECOGNIZES MR. COBB TO CLOSE ON FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 200.

MR. COBB: Mr. Speaker, fellow Members, again let me say that I understand, appreciate, and believe me, I think that we all do, the words of Mr. Washington and Mr. Leland. I might just begin by saying, however, that there are other Biblical references, if Biblical references are going to be the basis on which this appeal is made. In the Book of Genesis, the ninth chapter, sixth verse, Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed, for in the image of God made He man. In the Book of Exodus we read as follows: He that smiteth the man so that he die, shall be surely put to death, but if a man comes presumptuously upon his neighbor to slay him with guile, thou shalt take him from mine altar that he may die. And finally, in the Book of Numbers, Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of the witness. Moreover ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death, and the land cannot be cleansed of the blood that is shed therein, but by the blood of him that shed it.

MR. WILLIAMSON: MR. SPEAKER DOES THE GENTLEMAN YIELD TO THE QUESTION?

THE CHAIR: MR. COBB WILL YOU YIELD TO MR. WILLIAMSON?

MR. COBB: YES.

THE CHAIR: THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS MR. WILLIAMSON.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Mr. Cobb, also on the same vein that the previous speakers had mentioned and what you're addressing yourself to now, are you aware that the Ten Commandment . . . the Commandment of the Ten Commandments that says "Thou shalt not kill" clearly under Biblical law had absolutely no reference to the State, but was directed to the individual, directing the individual in the code of their personal conduct and not the conduct of the State.

MR. COBB: I appreciate your bringing that to the House attention also.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Were you also aware, Mr. Cobb, that under the Mosaic Law, after all it was Moses who received these Ten Commandments and gave them to the people, that under the Mosaic Law, which he also received from the same divine province that he received the Ten Commandments, that harsh penalties, capital punishment was instituted, and that instead of a humane type of death that we in modern society have attempted to reach, the most humane type that we can, that we are a . . . that we have attained this as opposed to under the Mosaic law for the type of punish . . . the type of crime had to do with the type of death and carrying out the idea that the hand for the hand and the eye for the eye that under the Mosaic law that if you were . . . killed someone with the sword you died by the sword, that if you, uh . . . that certain penalties, for instance that if, uh, if . . . read if you want to . . . members would like to . . . if you . . . I think most everyone has one of these grey Bibles in their desk . . . If you look at page 119, you can see some of the penalties of death prescribed under the Mosaic law, and this was after the Ten Commandments, for instance, that if a man went to bed with his mother-in-law, they were put to death by fire, that if a man went to the . . . and this type of thing. Are you aware of that, Mr. . . .

MR. COBB: I certainly was not, Mr. Williamson, and for the additional Biblical edification, I am in your debt.

MR. WILLIAMSON: Thank, thank you, Mr. Cobb.

MR. HOLLOWELL: MR. SPEAKER, WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD FOR ONE SHORT QUESTION?

THE CHAIR: MR. COBB, WILL YOU . . . THE GENTLEMAN YIELDS MR. HOLLOWELL.

MR. HOLLOWELL: Before I asked that question, you made reference to this, and my question is predicated upon the Biblical reference you used, Numbers. Would you read that statement in Numbers, very short, one sentence; then, I want to ask you a question about it.

MR. COBB: Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be put to death by the mouth of the witness. Moreover, ye shall take no satisfaction for the life of a murderer which is guilty of death, but he shall be surely put to death. And the land cannot be cleansed of blood that is shed therein but by the blood of him that shed it. And the reference, did you say?

MR. HOLLOWELL: Yes.

MR. COBB: Numbers 35:30, 31 and 33.

MR. HOLLOWELL: All right, now here's my question. I think that is good Biblical authority for the death penalty. But Mr. Cobb, in that I saw no four classifications -- it said murderers -- and under your bill only four classifications can receive the death penalty. Now how do you reconcile your bill with this Biblical reference that you gave the House.

MR. COBB: Philosophically, philosophically, Mr. Hollowell, I don't know that I can because, because I do have some, some difficulty in singling out specific types of murder for which a life will be taken, as opposed to anyone taking . . . with malice aforethought taking another person's life. But you as an attorney know that, if we are to draft or attempt to draft legislation to meet . . . that ultimately will be challenged, and this we know, there's no doubt about that, we've got to do it in the framework of the Supreme Court opinion that . . . that rendered unconstitutional the death penalty. And I think it's for that reason that, not myself, but that certainly the Committee, felt that it had to be defined into the specific categories.

MR. HOLLOWELL: Well, one other short question and I'll let you go. Do you feel that, if we had made a provision in this bill saying anyone found guilty of murder with malice aforethought or premeditation shall be . . . shall receive the death penalty, in light of the Supreme Court decision, do you feel that the Court would have upheld that type of mandatory punishment under those circumstances?

MR. COBB: The consensus opinion of the committee that worked, labored, long and hard on the bill felt that it would, and that was sufficient for me.

MR. HOLLOWELL: Felt that they would have upheld . . .?

MR. COBB: It would not.

MR. HOLLOWELL: They would not have. If I made . . . several references to culture . . . Mr. Speaker, I will not yield. One of the things that developed in the committee and has been repeatedly . . . referred to and I went and looked this up after our debate the other day, because certainly some of you are gonna be challenged on the basis of how you could demonstrate, or what type evidence there was to show that the death penalty . . .

MR. WASHINGTON: Mr. Speaker.

MR. HOLLOWELL: . . . was . . .

MR. WASHINGTON: Parliamentary inquiry.

THE CHAIR: STATE YOUR INQUIRY, MR. WASHINGTON.

MR. WASHINGTON: Is the Speaker informed as a matter of parliamentary procedure, how Mr. Williamson being a Baptist only quotes Mosaic law?

THE CHAIR: THE CHAIR HAS NOT ADVISED, MR. WASHINGTON.

MR. HOLLOWELL: If I may, just very quickly, I know that you will be asked if this question, what evidence do you have?, I finally came across . . . and its in a copy of the working papers of the national commission on reform of federal criminal laws in a section dealing with capital punishment, and ran across some references that I think might be helpful to you and I think it speaks to the argument very eloquently raised by my esteemed colleague, Mr. Washington. First of all, let me say that FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, who many took exception to, but a great number of people felt speaks, or spoke, for the nation's law enforcement officers, stated that the professional law enforcement officer is convinced from experience that hardened criminal has been, and is, deterred from killing based on the prospect of the death penalty. In an ABA article published as a part of the criminal law section of the American Bar Association, law enforcement officers cited the following typical instances where the death penalty evidences its deterrent value. And I want you to hear these, and you make your decision. First, criminals who have committed an offense punishable by life imprisonment when faced with capture refrained from killing their captor, though by killing escape seemed probable. When asked why they refrained from the homicide, quick response indicated a willingness to serve a life sentence, but not a risk of the death penalty. Secondly, criminals about to commit certain offenses refrain from carrying deadly weapons. Upon apprehension, answers to questions concerning absence of such weapons indicated a desire to avoid a more serious punishment by carrying a deadly weapon and also to avoid use of the weapon which would result in implementation of the death penalty, and finally, and this was corroborated by a number of testimony in this particular journal, victims have been removed from a capital punishment state to allow the murderer opportunity for homicide without the threat of his own life. This, in itself, demonstrates that the death penalty is considered by some would-be killers. And finally, the best argument of all is the one Representative Doyle gave. It was the approach of the lighthouse. There is no way statistically you can know how many peoples live [sic] you save by having the death penalty as a possible punishment; in like manner, there is no way that the lighthouse on the hill how many ships it saved by virtue of showing the reefs that it had to go around. I offer this to you as some evidence, I believe, of concrete proof of the fact that the death penalty will serve as a deterrent, and Texas, as I said, will be among the very first to attempt to write a statute within the dictates of Furman v. Georgia. And I hope that you will vote with us on final passage.

MR. CLARK: MR. SPEAKER WILL THE GENTLEMAN YIELD? I JUST WANTED TO FIND OUT IF HE KNEW MR. WILLIAMSON WAS STILL . . .

THE GENTLEMAN YIELDED THE FLOOR, MR. CLARK. THE QUESTION IS ON FINAL PASSAGE OF HOUSE BILL 200. RECORD VOTE IS REQUESTED. RECORD VOTE IS GRANTED. . . .

[VOTE IS TAKEN.]

Transcribed from Texas Legislative Library audiotape by Walter Long

Names have not been checked against a paper record for correct spelling.