So Gaskins was resting for life in ournstate prison when he made the mistakenof killing another murderer. This individual,nRudolph Tyner, was also thenguest of the state, courtesy of thenSupreme Court, although he had coldbloodedlyngunned down an elderlyncouple in their country store. A relativenof Tyner’s victims (subsequently alsonsent to prison) hired Gaskins to carrynout the justice that had been denied,nand it was for this last murder that henwas executed. In moments of provocahonnI am tempted to suggest that “PeenWee,” after a life of heinous crime, wasnexecuted for the only socially useful actnhe ever performed. No coherent principlenof justice emerges from his fate,nexcept perhaps this: that it is worse tonkill one of the prisoners of the welfarewarfarenstate than to eliminate a dozennof lis mere anonymous taxpayers.nObviously, race should never becomena question under the laws, andnmost especially the laws of capital punishment.nBut the opponents of thendeath penalty have made it an issue. Anpart of their case, and of the interferencenof federal courts into the processesnof state law, has rested upon thenclaim that the death penalty has beennracially discriminatory. I do not thinknthe case was ever really proved, and itnalways involved a convenient ignoringn*1=.~nChr<,.Ul«i A H.,..IP. <•( —tl”” CulturenH.n,»l,n’ hl’t- M’ln”KJ^J;^-^—n1 1 9-17-91nL.â„¢.._.„nT.. ^.(o.- .n.cuu», ,« »=rtK «.,„ S…… W,„n..„», «..>.,.r.. IlUno,. .Ii0,-«MnTh. »c<..o,d l„t,t„„. «. K=.,h «.!„ St..«. «o..f..d. Illl„=l. 61103-;061n’Z’„77.lZ.T.r.lf… I.=i….. .3. .= … M… =t.«.. «…,»,.. ,U.„„.. M,0,.7.6nrho«. J. Fl.«.,. I.. R«Vford ,..ntul., 9W !.0»h K.l= Str..,, .»cK.rd, 11U„=1. M103-mnThe…r. P..P.., Th. ^.V,.r, I..tU.». 9W f^r=h «.ln S».«. V,=»=H, Uli.oi. Ml«-706:n• iz:;:.:r;n:r„’!rrrz,r'”” “*”‘ â„¢-‘ °”- -“””‘ •— ‘*•* •'””‘—•” ‘”• “-“”•” °™’n•srj:;irr;-°;srjrn- <«*^^„^^^,n’ l-.s’^.im.’i’srr.,..™™*..-.n’ r,’:r’C^,n’=• s^’j^^-ssr”-‘””””n”• ;:;j:rssJiS::.’j:7s«i’K:c’i:;n. C*..F_0.m»™ ^ ^n,.«„W.N.„.^na .07*.*.^(.FWi>-«^-., — .-..n””^ .^X” !«::;:,”• °’â„¢”n11,993n130n10,751nii.iainS31n11.715nj;in(97nii.jLL,n•.’r.:;’,J.r;M;”:s;Drn13.500n500n11.332n11.832nSABn12.3B0n520n550n13.S00n” ir:;r:;.’^”rrr::::.”‘ r”^’^^!?/^”/?”^;^^n6/CHRONICLESnof the fact that the crime statistics arenalso racially unbalanced. The purposenof the claim was clearly to garner fornthe anti-death penalty movement somenof the emotional capital that alwaysnadheres to discussion of civil rights.nWe in the South have many evils tonanswer for from the days before thencivil rights revolution. Yet, contrary toncivil rights mythology, our error innthose days, broadly speaking, was not”nso much the oppression of excessivenpunishments to black criminals comparednto white criminals, as it was thentacit failing of relative indifference tonblack-on-black crime. At any rate,nthose days are gone. No black person isnconvicted of any crime in the South,nwhether the victim is black or white,nwithout a substantial black representationnon the jury. Gonvictions not sonobtained would be immediately overturned,nnor do I think public opinionnor the prevailing political powers wouldntolerate anything else today.nIn our state, historically among thenworst offenders in racial inequality,nthere are at present about forty individualsnunder capital sentence, awaitingnthe exhaustion of appeals: all but twonor three of these are white. (I writenfrom memory but the figures arenbroadly valid.) Obviously, the capitalnsentences are racially out of proportion,nwhether considering the generalnpopulation or the population of convictednmurderers, for those who areninterested in such statistics. But if therenis any discrimination going on in thenapplication of the death penalty, it isnjust as obviously against white murderers.nI cite this unseemly matter merely tonpoint out the dishonesty of the anti-‘ndeath penalty movement in this respect.nHaving made an impact but notna decisive one, it has turned to othernarguments. It has been contended (andnI believe it is sub judice still) that thendiscrimination is in the race of thenvictim rather than the perpetrator, thatnthe killers of whites are more likely tonreceive the death penalty than thenkillers of blacks. The kinds of liberalsnwho advance these arguments arenhardly noted for their careful veracity.nThey can be sure the media will neverncall them to account, and the officialn”conservative” spokesmen who replyninvariably concede all the importantnpoints of the contest before they joinnnnbattle.nSo I would like to see the real datanon this. But the contention is inherentlynimplausible. “Pee Wee” Gaskinsncould not be executed for killing 15npeople (all white). He was executed fornkilling one murderer (black). His lastnvictim (black) could not be executednfor wanton murder of two personsn(both white). In one of the statesnthought most likely to be discriminatory.nBut this does not begin to completenthe catalog of the absurdities that havenbeen forced upon the criminal justicensystem by the federal courts. It is notnjust that dangerous criminals are releasednor have their punishments mitigated.nEven where there are convictions,nthe Supreme Gourt has surroundednthe matter with rules thatnserve not only to make capital punishmentndifficult (which may be defensible)nbut to thrust into it a great dealnmore irrationality and inequity thannwas ever the case in the bad old daysnthat were supposed to be reformed.nA relative of mine served on the jurynat the trial of an individual who, on thenday he was released from prison, killednfive people, including a 13-year-oldngirl. (Griminal and victims in this casenwere all white.) The jury was sequesterednfor weeks, most of the time out ofnthe courtroom while the judge decidednnice points of what evidence theynwould and would not be allowed to seen(as is now standard). A conviction andna death sentence were finally securednby the sensible people on the jury —nno small achievement since defendingnattorneys these days routinely packnjuries with the most ignorant availablenjurors, who are easily confused andninhmidated — itself a travesty of thennoble Anglo-American institution ofnthe jury.nBut under the rules of the SupremenGourt, a mere wanton murder of fivenpersons did not justify the death penalty,nunless there were other circumstances.nThe “other circumstances”nwere that the killer had casually removedna change purse from one of hisnvictims, making his killing one conductedn”in the course of a robbery”nand therefore subject to death. But itndid not matter, since in a short time thensentence was overturned by a federalnjudge on the grounds of an allegedntrivial error on the part of the prosecu-n