November 12, 2011 in Idaho

As Rhoades execution nears, Otter stands by death penalty

Fellow Catholics urging Idaho governor to commute sentence

• Print
• Email
• Share

Associated Press photo

The execution chamber at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution in Boise is shown in late October, with Security Institution Warden Randy Blades looking in. Paul Ezra Rhoades, who was convicted of killing three people in Idaho Falls and Blackfoot in 1987, is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection Friday.
(Full-size photo)(All photos)

BOISE – Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, a Catholic who once studied for the priesthood, is the only one who can spare the life of condemned Idaho inmate Paul Ezra Rhoades, a multiple murderer scheduled for execution Friday.

Otter, a supporter of the death penalty, has stuck by his position even in the face of pleas for mercy from the pope, the Swiss ambassador and the bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Idaho.

“It’s tough, it’s tough,” said Otter, a conservative Republican, when asked about balancing his faith and the death penalty. He’s been reluctant to discuss the matter as Idaho approaches its first execution since 1994, when murderer Keith Eugene Wells dropped his appeals and requested to be put to death. Unlike Wells, Rhoades has tried every appeal, exhausted every remedy, and still is fighting in federal court to challenge Idaho’s lethal-injection execution method as unconstitutionally cruel; a federal judge will decide Monday if that challenge should delay the execution.

An Idaho governor has commuted a death sentence once before. In 1996, then-Gov. Phil Batt agreed with Idaho’s pardons and parole commission and commuted the sentence of Donald Paradis from death to life without parole, amid questions about his original conviction; Paradis was released in 2001, after pleading guilty to being an accessory to murder.

There are no such questions in Rhoades’ case, however. His supporters simply plead for mercy.

“Paul is not the same man he was in 1987,” Rhoades’ mother, Pauline Rhoades, said in a statement. “Over the past 24 years, he has returned to being the same caring and unselfish person he was before we lost him to drugs. … He has taken responsibility for his actions, and he is doing everything in his power to make up for what he did.”

Otter told The Spokesman-Review this week, “I support the death penalty,” adding that it’s an issue he’s given a lot of thought to “all my life.”

“I think that as our criminal justice system … suggests, people have to be held responsible, and sometimes it’s to the max, and this is one of those cases,” Otter said. “They have to be held accountable for their actions.”

Rhoades’ crimes terrorized eastern Idaho in 1987, when two women and one man were murdered in the space of three weeks. The string of kidnappings, rapes and murders shocked the conservative community. Rhoades received the death penalty for the murders of Stacy Baldwin and Susan Michelbacher, plus two life sentences for the murder of Nolan Haddon.

Mia Crosthwaite, a Catholic activist in Boise and spokeswoman for Idahoans Against the Death Penalty, said, “It’s just morally wrong. It’s unnecessary. My children will be no safer next Saturday after the execution is done than they are today, because the state of Idaho is perfectly capable of holding Paul Ezra Rhoades in prison for the rest of his life and protecting society.”

But some Idahoans who’ve flooded Otter’s office with letters and emails in recent weeks disagree.

“Did he show mercy to his victims?” asked Sharann Nafus, of Blackfoot. “You are in our prayers,” wrote a couple from Idaho Falls, urging the governor to uphold the sentence.

Most of his messages in recent weeks, however, oppose it, including one from Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume, the personal representative of Pope Benedict XVI in the United States, who issued “a call for mercy beyond the strict confines of justice.”

The Rev. Michael Driscoll, bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise, wrote to Otter, saying, “Other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are more respectful of human life.”

Rhoades’ appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court was rejected Oct. 11, and Idaho’s state board of pardons and parole last week rejected his bid for a clemency hearing. Preparations for the execution are under way at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution south of Boise.

Crosthwaite said she and other Idaho death penalty opponents met with Idaho Department of Correction officials Thursday and were briefed on where they can protest, in a prescribed area at the state prison compound’s main gate south of Boise; a separate area will be set aside for protesters supporting the execution.

“They said dress very warmly, which we already knew, but that was very kind of them to point that out,” Crosthwaite said. “They said it’s going to be cold. We intend to be prayerful and peaceful and just be present.”

17 comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Notapatriot on November 12 at 7:08 a.m.

  Curious that the catholic church wants to make statements from a position of authority about protecting society. I guess they don’t read their own press.

• 

  Scoutster on November 12 at 7:49 a.m.

  Matthew 5:38-39

  Of course, that would only apply to practicing Christians.

• 

  mrd on November 12 at 8:02 a.m.

  Carry out the sentence pure and simple. Why do we have to keep supporting ruthless individuals like this in our prison system. The execution should have taken place years ago.

• 

  ericdx on November 12 at 8:04 a.m.

  Maybe the Catholic Church should concentrae more on protectinc the young men of society from some of their own (priests) instead of meddling in the execution of a man who deserves no mercy.

  If Rhoades wants mercy, let him ask for it from God, but I doubt he will get it. He deserves no mercy from man, he gave that up when he killed those three people.

• 

  Hunterman on November 12 at 8:04 a.m.

  It is just amazing the denial Otter is in that he will not be held accountable for this clearly defined christian fact that he will be held accountable for this lack of mercy and murder of a repentant man upon his (Otter’s) death. “Only the merciful will recieve mercy.” I am not a religious fanatic but truth is truth whether he wants to believe it or not. He claims to be catholic but in fact he is a hypocrite.

• 

  another_perspective on November 12 at 8:39 a.m.

  You guys in Idaho, want to take Karl Thompson off our hands while you are at it? He does live over there. You know in that $650,000 house he gave free and clear to his wife in the divorce.

• 

  meadman on November 12 at 8:41 a.m.

  To everyone involved (as well as all the posters on this story)

  Matthew 7:1 says “Do not judge or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you”

• 

  valleyman on November 12 at 8:59 a.m.

  @Hunterman: So you believe elected officials should let their religion trump the will of the people who elected them? Otter should say “my faith tells me to be merciful, so I grant this murderer clemency?” Does this also apply to politicians who oppose abortion? Should they equally get the right to overrule the will of the people who elected them?

  @another: To imply that Idaho should take Thompson and put him to death is despicable. You people really need to get a life. He was convicted. Asking for more than you got is sour grapes. He was guilty and was found so. LEAVE IT ALONE…

  @meadman: You can find almost anything you want in the Bible - Exodus 21:24; Leviticus 24:20, and Deuteronomy 19:21… That’s why it’s important to take it within context rather than as a literal directive upon one’s life… Besides, if you want to follow the literal meaning of Matthew 7:1, it would be immoral to sit on a jury called to pass judgement on another (guilty or not). Probably not what was intended there…

• 

  Shadedmuse on November 12 at 10:03 a.m.

  ANy Relation to Randy Rhodes on The radio.

• 

  davidthewhat on November 12 at 10:39 a.m.

  “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Hypocrites!

• 

  mkries2 on November 12 at 11:10 a.m.

  I don’t have a problem with Otter going through with this, but he needs to realize that he has punted his religion card.

• 

  riverlaw on November 12 at 11:29 a.m.

  I bet he claims to be “pro life.”

• 

  Rod_Foss on November 12 at 2:26 p.m.

  Scoutster: Matt. 5:38,39 is irrelevant. Jesus directed nothing in the Sermon on the Mount to gentile national governments or officials. The Sermon is a treatise on principles and actions for individual Christians within the context of the Kingdom of God (Matt. 4:17, which sets up the sermon event).
  The only way Otter could obey that is if Rhoades had struck him. If that didn’t happen, Otter is not bound personally or officially by Matt. 5:39.
  Hunterman: All NT scripture demanding a spirit and act of forgiveness is directed to the individual believer. Valleyman is correct, context is essential, and I’m sorry but your take is not “a clearly defined [c]hristian fact.” If the individual Christian refuses to forgive when it is asked of him/her by someone who has personally caused offense, that Christian is in trouble with God. Matt. 18:22 is a parable in response to Peter’s question of how often he should forgive. The parable illustrates that forgiveness was asked (not just automatic) and the people involved were ever-day citizens in interpersonal relationships. That parable cannot be twisted and stretched to excuse government officials for abrogating their duty in a case of murder.
  meadman: The reply to Hunterman pertains to your comment as well. Matt. 7:1 has absolutely nothing to with Otter as governor of Idaho. If Otter’s neighbor had stolen and wrecked his car and then asked forgiveness, and Otter wouldn’t do it, then the scripture applies.
  mkries2: For the reasons I gave Hunterman and Meadman, Otter has not punted his religion card.
  riverlaw: Is it OK for me to assume that the pro-life remark means you can’t see how anyone claiming to be pro-life could be for the death penalty? If it isn’t, ignore the rest of my reply. If it is, please explain this: 100% of unwanted babies sent to the abortion shredder were innocent, guiltless of any crime, much less capital. The tally now stands at 50 million, but somehow that’s not genocide or injustice. Yet guilty murderers (and I mean unquestionably guilty, as in this case) must be forgiven and live out their lives in relative, if mundane, ease at taxpayer expense in prison—our way of saying thanks?
  To all: Here’s a NT verse (post-resurrection Jesus): “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, For there is no power but of God…whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation [in this case it means “judgment”]. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil…if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.” Romans 13:1– 4.

• 

  SpokaneLiberal on November 12 at 5:24 p.m.

  If he allows the execution would it be acceptable for the Church to excommunicate him or deny him communion like it has done for those who support abortion?

  Good for the goose…..

• 

  Lewis on November 12 at 7:00 p.m.

  any chance of getting a extra needle for karl the klubber?

• 

  dudleysharp on November 12 at 11:12 p.m.

  Any good Catholic is free to support more executions, if they find such appropriate and remain a Catholic in good standing.

  The death penalty has always been morally licit in Catholic teaching and still is.

  The current restrictions on the death penalty, taught by the Church since 1995 is based upon a prudential judgement of the secular consideration of prison security and its ability to defend society.

  However, protection is a secondary effect of sanction. Justice or redress is the primary reason for sanction in Catholic teaching and remains so.

  Protection of society is an important outcome of sanction, but can never be the reason for it.

  The death penalty offers greater protection of society and of innocents than does a life sentence and, therefore, it is odd that the Church would chose a lesser form of protection, which is a greater risk to innocents.

  Had the Church properly evaluated her prudential judgement, she would insist on applying the death penalty more often.

  Of all human endeavors that put innocents at risk, is there one with a better record of sparing innocent lives than the US death penalty? Unlikely.

  1) “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx

  2) Opponents in capital punishment have blood on their hands, Dennis Prager, 11/29/05, http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2005/11/29/opponents_in_capital_punishment_have_blood_on_their_hands
  
  3) “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A

• 

  dudleysharp on November 12 at 11:16 p.m.

  The death penalty as pro life
  
  First, the “pro life” term was, originally, identified with the anti abortion movement, which still seems the most appropriate context.
  
  Secondly, in the context of the facts, yes, of course you can be pro life and pro death penalty. There is no contradiction.
  
  All sanctions are given because we value what is being taken away.
  
  Whether it be fines, freedom or lives, in every case we take things away, as legal sanction, it is because we value that which is taken away.
  
  How can it be a sanction, if we do not value that which is taken away? It can’t.
  
  In addition, more innocent lives are saved when we use the death penalty, thereby a pro life benefit.
  
  Deterrence
  
  All prospects of a negative outcome deter some. It is a truism. The death penalty, the most severe of criminal sanctions, is the least likely of all criminal sanctions to violate that truism.
  
  “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
  
  27 recent studies finding for deterrence, Criminal Justice Legal Foundation,
  http://www.cjlf.org/deathpenalty/DPDeterrence.htm
  
  “Deterrence and the Death Penalty: A Reply to Radelet and Lacock”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/02/deterrence-and-the-death-penalty-a-reply-to-radelet-and-lacock.aspx
  
  “Death Penalty, Deterrence & Murder Rates: Let’s be clear”
  http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/03/death-penalty-deterrence-murder-rates.html
  
  We have great care for innocents
  
  In at least three ways, innocents are more protected with the death penalty, than with lesser sanctions. Another pro life consideration.
  
  “The Death Penalty: More Protection for Innocents”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/05/the-death-penalty-more-protection-for-innocents.aspx
  
  The false innocence claims by anti death penalty activists are legendary. Some examples:
  
  “The Innocent Executed: Deception & Death Penalty Opponents”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/10/08/the-innocent-executed-deception—death-penalty-opponents—draft.aspx
  
  The 130 (now 139) death row “innocents” scam
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/03/04/fact-checking-issues-on-innocence-and-the-death-penalty.aspx
  
  “A Death Penalty Red Herring: The Inanity and Hypocrisy of Perfection”, Lester Jackson Ph.D.,
  http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=102909A
  
  The moral and religious arguments, in support of the death penalty, all have a foundation in respecting innocent life, therefore, when it is wrongly taken away, the highest form of sanction is provided.
  
  As in:
  
  Genesis 9:5-6: “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning…. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.”
  
  Chapter V:The Sanctity of Life, “Principles of Conduct: Aspects of Biblical Ethics” By John Murray, 1991 (first published 1957) by Wm. B. Eerdmans http://tiny.cc/4SFBY
  
  “Death Penalty Support: Religious and Secular Scholars”
  http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/07/death-penalty-support-modern-catholic.html

  “Pope John Paul II: Prudential Judgement and the death penalty”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2007/07/23/pope-john-paul-ii-his-death-penalty-errors.aspx
  
  “The Death Penalty: Neither Hatred nor Revenge”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/07/20/the-death-penalty-neither-hatred-nor-revenge.aspx
  
  “Killing equals Killing: The Amoral Confusion of Death Penalty Opponents”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2009/02/01/murder-and-execution—very-distinct-moral-differences—new-mexico.aspx
  
  “The Death Penalty: Not a Human Rights Violation”
  http://homicidesurvivors.com/2006/03/20/the-death-penalty-not-a-human-rights-violation.aspx
  
  “Physicians & The State Execution of Murderers: No Ethical/Medical Dilemma”
  http://prodpinnc.blogspot.com/2009/10/physicians-state-execution-of-murderers.html