To:         The Dallas Times Herald
Date:      January 24, 1989
Subject: John Paul Penry - Capital punishment/Excuses for murder
Result:   printed

Dear Editor,

The question with convicted murderer John Paul Penry, who is retarded and also was abused as a child, should not be whether he is morally guilty or innocent. We are all innocent, as far as that goes. We were born into a world we didn't ask for, and our basic nature was formed by biological and environmental factors we had no control over. Everything we are is what we were given. John Paul Penry was an abused child, and he will always be; that is the terrible thing about child abuse.

The question is, rather, shouldn't society - also innocent - have the right to protect itself against a proven threat to its well being? And must it use its limited resouces to preserve and protect that threat?

People think in terms of justice when considering questions of crime and punishment. But justice can never be served; there are always conflicting considerations. John Paul Penry was a victim. That is unjust. But the woman he raped and killed, her family, and society are also victims, and that too is unjust. Because of this inherent conflict, justice is not a meaningful, useful concept.

John Paul Penry should be executed. Not because he is a morally guilty or evil person - as they say, there go we but for the grace of God. We should not think in terms of revenge and punishment. We must be careful that he not suffer in the execution of his sentence, because of our desire for justice. But, still, we must protect ourselves from future new injustices that might well be perpetrated against other innocent victims if the irreparable injustice of his life is not ended.

That's unfortunate. That's ironic. But it's the best we can do.

Thank you, John Vehon