Why not the death penalty?

Unfortunately, there are some among us who commit crimes that raise the question about whether Alaska should have the death penalty.

The ongoing trial of Christopher Rogers Jr. in Palmer Superior Court seems an appropriate time to ask.

Not that Rogers’ crimes may or may not rise to this level of punishment, but when somebody takes the life of another, debating justice inevitably includes an eye-for-an-eye.

Of course, there are those who will say it is never right to take a life, even if it is government policy. Still others argue it’s more expensive to sentence a criminal to death than to feed and house him until he dies anyway. And still others say death isn’t much of a deterrent to prevent similar acts, which is the premise of the ultimate punishment.

Punishment by imprisonment has two values. Deterrent is just one. The other is to keep bad people away from good people. Even if putting the needle or gas to a felon doesn’t prevent other murders, it makes certain that particular killer won’t get another chance to ply his trade.

As for expenses, when does it matter what justice costs? It boggles the mind that putting a felon to death is more expensive than feeding, housing and paying for medical treatment for, say in Rogers’ case, as much as 40 years if he lives to life expectancy.

It isn’t right to take another’s life, but we do it all the time for the cause of justice. We send soldiers off to war knowing full well some, if not many, will die. Doctors choose who gets life-saving organs and who doesn’t.

Had Rogers had his way, by his own admission, he would have killed more people — including police officers — during his Dec. 2, 2007 rampage that left two people dead. If the weapon he chose had been properly maintained, he may have accomplished his demented goal.

In the 37 states that have the death penalty, almost all say the crime needs to be premeditated and have at least one aggravating factor to merit death. Killing a police officer is considered an aggravating factor. Among those are the northwest states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana and nearly every Western state in the nation.

What do they know that we don’t know?

Hypothetically speaking, if Rogers had a functioning weapon and killed an Anchorage cop, a jury likely would be given the choice upon conviction of sending him to his death at age 29 or 30 or whenever his appeals would run out.

Instead, he’s probably going to die in prison.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in 2007 Alaska had a rate of 6.4 murders per capita compared to a national rate of 5.6 and 5.3 in the Western region, of which Alaska is a part. Texas, a state that executes more people than any other, had a 5.9 murder rate last year. In fact, over the last 10 years, Texas has shown a fairly steady decline from a 1998 rate of 6.8. Meanwhile, over the last 10 years, Alaska, a state that has executed no killers in that span, has been up and down from 6.7 in 1998 to the 2007 rate of 6.4. Texas executes. We don’t. Its rate has improved, ours hasn’t. You make the call.

Prior to 1976, according to the information center, Alaska put 12 people to their deaths. No telling how that affected the murder rate. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in 1972, but gave states the right to re-impose that punishment.

Perhaps it’s time for Alaskans to begin the discussion anew about whether we want to reinstate the death penalty. The Legislature will convene in a few weeks. Let them know what you think.

What kind of crime would it take for you to sit on a jury and impose a sentence of death?