Covering the death penalty trial of killer David Snelgrove for seven days last week and this I often felt like I was in a Saudi Arabian, Iranian or Chinese courtroom, where state-sanctioned murder stille exists, as it somehow survives–cynical word–in 29 of our own states.
Here were these admirable lawyers, the judge, expert witnesses for both sides with storied careers in medicine or psychology, all of them talking in intellectually sparkling tones about whether or not Snelgrove should be strapped to a table and killed. He’d murdered two elderly people, Glyn and Vivian Fowler, 84 and 79, 20 years ago. Of course it was heinous. No murder is ever not. But so is revenge killing, a premeditated and choreographed act of torture and terror that brings neither closure to family survivors nor deterrence, two rationales still braiding the state’s noose.
The constant talk of death as a “penalty” kept reminding me of “The Penal Colony,” that story by Franz Kafka about the aging executioner lovingly showing off his torture and death machine to a visitor (“each of these parts has acquired a kind of popular nickname,” the executioner says, an echo of our own perverted habit of giving nicknames to electric chairs and lethal injection tables), and lamenting the fact that it’s no longer in favor: “you will see that the execution has no support from the public, a shabby ceremony–carried out with a machine already old and somewhat old and worn.”
Our system, still popular, is also falling apart. We botch executions. We botch trials and sentences, as was repeatedly the case with Snelgrove. In Florida we condemn the wrong people to die, accounting for 29 of the nation’s 166 death row exonerations, and counting. Imagine that: 166 people wrongfully put on death row. Imagine how many were wrongfully killed, how many more will be. “But still and all, these are just numbers. They overwhelm the mind and then are easily forgotten,” Solzhenitsyn wrote about executions in his own country during Stalin’s reign. You may think we’re different because we dress up our death machinery in constitutional pretenses and invocations to justice and victims’ rights, and when all else fails, in cherry-picked slogans like “eye for an eye” out of the same book that also says much less metaphorically: you shall not kill. But we’re not different, and in this case we’re worse: Russia at least abolished the death penalty. We cling on.
The whole machinery stands on gallows of morally indefensible absurdities. Jury selection, that otherwise noble phase of trial, in death penalty cases isn’t much different than a Salem witch trial. It’s stacking the deck for killing. The clerk had to call in 150 potential jurors because so many of them would have to be weeded out just because they oppose the death penalty. By the time the 12 and alternates are picked death penalty defendants don’t face juries of their peers. They face juries capable of ordering a hit, and even then, only in the most cowardly way. None of the jurors would be pulling the lethal lever. None of them would even be sitting as witnesses to the murder they’d be recommending. Not even the prosecutors or the judge would be, though for anything like a death sentence, anyone with a hand in it should also be willing to be the executioner, or at least witness the death chamber. If that were the bar for qualification on a jury, there would be no such juries.
Then there are the legal absurdities. You can’t be tried more than once for the same offense. But with a little sophistry you can carve out an exception for the sentencing phase, ensuring even more room for error. Snelgrove was tried three times in the sentencing phase, because the first two times were either botched or unconstitutional. Those repeated re-trials should themselves be unconstitutional, and will be found so sooner or later. Juries recommended death 7-5 and 8-4 in two previous trials. Because of the lack of unanimity, in any other state Snelgrove would have immediately been condemned to life in prison without parole after that first recommendation.
It would have ended right then and there, 18 years ago, just as his defense lawyers argued it should in 2002. But no. The late Kim Hammond ordered death, and the grim comedy of errors began. Florida law changed in 2016, finally requiring a unanimous jury. (Voltaire was calling for the same requirement in 1766). Never mind that it was too late for the hundreds already killed. Snelgrove was again put through a third trial, ending Tuesday. Again a jury failed to reach unanimity, splitting 9-3. But a man’s life should not hinge on such luck of the draw, drawn out over two decades.
This time Snelgrove, a 47-year-old man with the intellectual capacities of an early adolescent, was immediately sentenced to what he should have been sentenced 18 years ago: life in prison. The judge with the lawyers’ eagerness sprinted to that decision, literally within minutes of the jury’s verdict, as if to ensure that it stuck before something could yet again undo it.
I don’t doubt that even the prosecutors have their misgivings about these perversions of the justice system, considering the enormous amount of time and resources they have to devote to these cases when they could be prosecuting more pressing and common crimes. Not that state attorneys’ offices need much sympathy in this regard: they’re well funded, stacked and stocked. Public defender offices are not. They and their clients are paying the heaviest price, with death cases holding the system hostage by drawing massive resources away from non-death defendants owed more serious representation. That’s where justice fails daily, out of sight and, unconscionably, out of mind. The public at large doesn’t know, doesn’t care. All it sees, all it wants, is that killing. In the American South especially, as in most Islamic states–a blood affinity American death penalty fans prefer to ignore–the lust for death trumps any rational understanding of a justice more ethical than vengeful.
But Flagler County has a way of restoring one’s faith in justice once in a while, the way those three jurors did this week. Flagler is one of the rare counties in Florida that hasn’t had anyone executed–not when the death penalty was legal between 1924 and 1964, and not since it was restored in 1973. In a telling parallel, it is also one of the rare counties that, in a state that had more terror lynchings than any other (331), hasn’t had a single recorded lynching in its history. State-ordered executions of course are no different than lynchings. Barbaric in themselves, they’re intended as terrorism, as lynchings were, and disproportionately target blacks and minorities. We call it deterrence, a euphemism for terrorizing prospective criminals by making examples of the condemned. But it’s still lynching on an installment plan.
Snelgrove’s case is closed. The judicial torture chamber is not. We get to go through it all over again in Flagler next month with the case of Cornelius Baker, who murdered Elizabeth Uptagrafft in 2007 and whose previous jury also could not find unanimity to murder him in turn. And we’ll all again play our miserable roles, each in our little box of bluffed civility–judge, lawyers, jurors, family, bailiffs, press, spectators–each pretending, between our little bathroom breaks and lunch breaks and breaks for a good night’s sleep, that this is as normal as any other criminal proceeding, each suspending disbelief to pretend that this lynching in the making, this mob hit robed in all-rise sacraments, is justice.
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
CB from PC says
Fear of execution is what made populations more secure as potential criminals knew exactly what the outcome of committing certain crimes would be.
Those who committed crimes, and were not immediately caught were on borrowed time, not sheltered in sanctuary cities as is currently done.
Btw, have you checked the recidivism rates in most of the countries currently executing convicted criminals?
They also do not have an overcrowded prison problem.
William Miller says
So, you admire the justice systems of “most of the countries currently executing convicted criminals”. These would be China, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Pakistan. I wonder what these countries have in common.
CB from PC says
We have a justice system of checks and balances founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty (Unless of course, you Are Donald Trump, but that’s for another venue).
Because of this, have no problem permanently removing those who deprive others of their right to live, and families of their company.
As far as those other countries, it is up to them to figure out what “justice system” works for them to eliminate the problem.
Every culture is different.
And I personally do not give a shit what they do, as long as it does not impact the citizens of the United States.
Dennis says
These people should die for their crimes. That is the ultimate punishment that most prisoners fear. Imagine the fear of the two people he slaughtered.
Mike Cocchiola says
There is no circumstance that warrants state-sponsored execution. There are heinous crimes committed by heinous people and the guilty must be permanently removed from society. Life imprisonment with no possibility of parole should be a civilized society’s maximum punishment, Yes, I know that some would argue that we will incur the cost of incarceration, and yes I know the biblical reference to an eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. But we have advanced beyond that… or have we?
Mary Fusco says
Mike C. check with the family of the elderly man and woman that he murdered to fund his drug addiction. Maybe if it was your mother and father or grandparents you would have something else to say. Just saying.
BW says
Amen Mary.
CB from PC says
How about we have a check box on our Federal Income Tax form (because FL has no income tax) where X% amount of tax refund is donated to maintaining the lives of these criminals in prison.
That way the bleeding hearts can put their money where their beliefs are, and so can the rest of us.
Concerned Citizen says
This dude killed people and should have got the needle.
It’s ashame that innocent people were murdered in cold blood and will never know justice. A life in prison sentence is laughable at best and a slap in the face to the victims family.
Now you and I as well as the victims family will get to support this dude for the rest of his life. Ironic when victims families have to pay taxes that support the people that took their loved ones isn’t it?
@ Mike Cocchiola
As a former LEO and retired FF/EMT.
I can think of plenty of circumstances that warrant “state sponsored execution” as you put it. I have worked with the darker side of society on a daily basis. And there were times that I saw sickening acts of violence and could only shake my head. Knowing that the perp was going to sit in prison and most likely laugh and brag.
So I ask you. What gives another person the right to live when they maliciously murder someone?
Pogo says
@trump’s Republican religious fanatics/murder fans
and the governments of China, North Korea, and the Muslim governments of the world agree with you.
No surprises here – it checks out:
https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+countries+have+abolished+the+death+penalty&source=lmns&hl=en-US&ved=2ahUKEwi4wKv5gYnnAhVHB1MKHZ5TAcEQ_AUoAHoECAEQAA
Colonel Kurt says
This country is f*cked. Now we have states releasing felons by the thousands. In CA you can break into vehicles and steal what ever and not get arrested…WTF is this !!!!!!!! I for one DEMAND more executions of murders , rapist, and child molesters. Life in prison for ALL Strong Arm Robbery, Gang activity resulting in persons being hospitalized …… 10 to 25 for less violent crimes.
Dave says
You can’t teach a society that killing is wrong by using killing as the punishment.
It’s that simple. It makes no sense to have a penalty of death , all people learn is that killing is ok when they see their leaders killing others also.
2 wrongs dont make a right.
No more death penalty!
Just a thought says
I have mixed emotions about this. When I hear of these horrible crimes, my first thought is hang ’em high. But as time goes on the process gets bogged down and my thoughts turn more to just lock him up and throw away the key and be done. It’s not political or race or man or woman. In Flagler I personally met people on two sides of the death penalty. I knew Snelgrove’s father and spoke to Snelgrove many times before the crimes occurred. I also knew the couple that Luis Gaskins killed for which he is on death row for. Again, mixed emotions.
Outsider says
I recall a few years back where a man who killed his girlfriend was captured at the Wendy’s on Old Kings Road. As it turns out he was released from prison not long before he committed the murder. He was previously incarcerated for stabbing another girlfriend over a dozen times. The only reason he wasn’t given the death penalty was because that woman had the gall to fight and survive what would have killed 99.9 percent of any of us. Hence, he was only charged with ATTEMPTED murder. Had the first victim died, he probably would have been given the death penalty, ensuring the second victim would have been given the rest of her life to live. The fact is capital punishment IS an effective deterrent that ensures the killer will never take another life again, but alas, those anti-death penalty folks have guaranteed lives will be needlessly lost.
Brian Uptagrafft says
As the youngest son of Elizabeth Uptagrafft I would have to disagree with the author of this article. It’s obvious you have never had to clean your mother’s blood up from the home she was supposed to be safe in. Never had to witness your grandmother never live another peaceful moment from watching her daughter be ripped away only to never be seen alive again. By the way you never had to go through a trial where you see pictures of your mother with a bullet hole in her face. You speak of victims there is only one and she was stolen away far sooner than she should have been. All the things I have spoken about I have lived and still live with until this day. Maybe before you write a story about something you have absolutely no clue of you should look from all sides. I’m sure had you done the things I mentioned your view would probably change and you wouldn’t write such a one sided fictional story. This should be about justice for my mother,grandmother and my brother as you refer to them the victims. I’m sure you know best about it but I know what’s best for my family and it’s to make sure the beast that did this meet a fitting punishment. I won’t justify this article one more word let your readers decide if you know anything about what you talk about I’m speaking from experience.
Pierre Tristam says
The reason a lot of what you said above–while legitimate just about anywhere and welcome here–would be prohibited in court as a victim’s impact statement, explains my column: justice in these cases isn’t calibrated to the tempers or wishes of families. Nor should it be. It is constrained to the strict if tendentious parameters of neutral and hopefully objective law as it applies equally to the defense and the prosecution. It’s why if any prospective juror had the sort of experience you had, or anything remotely close to it–if she had a family member who went through it, if she had too much knowledge of a friend’s experience with such a killing–she would be excused from serving on the jury more quickly than if she were an ardent supporter or opponent of the death penalty, because more than convictions, emotions are the bane of justice. Nothing I wrote diminishes your experience. But nor does it give you innate virtues to judge who does and who doesn’t “have a clue.” You have a particular experience that I thankfully do not have, but I hope you’re not suggesting that you wish I had it to somehow be more qualified, or that some of the points I’m making–which are really nothing original: I could cite several judges from the Supreme Court on down who’ve been making them more eloquently and persuasively for years, starting with John Paul Stevens, an old supporter turned opponent—-are automatically discredited because I never cleaned my mother’s blood off the floor. Those 166 exonerations and those centuries of combined delays and protracted proceedings for these death row inmates seem to me hints that the machinery is not nearly as oiled as you wish it, and that substituting blood for oil won’t make it more so.
fredrick says
Pierre while I agree with you in regards to the death penalty, Your comparison to our court system to China, Iran, Saudi Arabia is more of your drama…. Just like when you where on the radio a couple od weeks ago and you said Police enjoyed shooting people. I was glad to hear you getting called on it and glad you gave even a small acknowledgement, in your own way, that you may have been a little overzealous with your statement. You just lean to far and push good topics over the edge……
Pierre Tristam says
Curious that you’d object to my comparison with that comparison of your own, which manages again to be dismissive of the problems at the heart of both matters without—as is usual in your comments—never actually engaging the questions. Exactly how does the comparison to Saudi or Iranian courtrooms throw this over the edge? Is it because they kill more? Because they use swords or hang people in public? Because of lack of due process? What differences exist are bare degrees, and not by much: just because we clothe our approach in more ceremony, or truck the dead guy out in a white van immediately after the murder, doesn’t make any of the process more noble. In the end it’s still state murder. Of course the comparison rankles. We prefer to ignore it, because it demeans us to the level of those barbaric states. But that’s exactly what we are when we engage in the death penalty. You use your own comparison to my cop remark to deflect from the issue in that debate, though I’m glad you bring it up because it is in some ways connected to this one: the killing of nearly 1,000 civilians a year at cops’ hand is at least in some cases another form of execution that we’d rather not discuss. As with your discomfort with Iran etc., you’re quick to point to a comparatively minor miswording—like everyone else who’d rather not engage with the actual crisis—to keep the halo of sanctification on law enforcement. Because god forbid we should discuss overzealous policing when overzealous wording is so much more atrocious and lethal. Or is that over the edge?
Fredrick says
Pierre, Murder is Murder and I agree with that. Not excusable regardless of what country you are in, or how it is carried out as a form of “justice”, but to compare our court systems to those of the countries you mention is nothing but drama on your part but is how you do things. Just like your comment about police enjoying shooting people. Instead of discussing the topic you turn people off from discussing it. You know this, but it is your style. This is an editorial and just your opinion so obviously it is going to reflect you. Unfortunately your opinion comes out to often when reporting the news (your web site your rules, not a problem) but that is what news from both sides has turned into. We are no longer allowed to receive the facts and come to our own conclusion. I have family in law enforcement, I have family who is in law enforcement who has been shot at and who has shot back and killed a person. Do you really think that was enjoyable? Really?? Do you Really think Police enjoy killing people? Just like everywhere there are bad cops who do not deserve to wear a badge, there are those in military uniforms who don’t deserve to where them (ie abu ghraib and a million more instances). It is this throwing everyone or a situation into one pile, to the extreme like you do, that pushes stuff over the edge and not want to discuss the topic. Just sayin……
Born and Raised Here says
I beleive all Death Penalty cases should be moved to another county. Our county is to small and to many people know the case.