This is a letter I wrote back in mid-May, 2002. I wrote the letter to the editor of the New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung about a article about an upcoming execution at Huntsville:
I hope reporter Erika E. Durham is satisfied. She was on the media list to witness the execution of Rodolfo B. Hernandez for the brutal murder of Victor Cervan, and I hope she attended. I remember hearing about the murder when it happened, and thinking how horrible it was for the victims. I had no sympathy for Mr. Hernandez when he was found guilty and sentenced to death for his crimes. I generally support the death penalty, although I am concerned with the slaps on the wrists we give those who turn state’s evidence and other deals the DA’s office makes in order to secure one conviction (for example, Hernandez’s brother-in-law only got four years for theft in the case).
What disturbs me recently, is the attitude of the New Braunfels Herald in regard to Hernandez’s execution. I get the general impression that your intrepid reporter was inconvenienced because the execution scheduled changed. I’ve been to death row, at the Polunksy Unit and to the death chamber in Huntsville recently, and I don’t understand her eagerness to witness a criminal’s execution. I see the death penalty as a last resort. Something reserved for those who have proven that they could no longer share in humanity. Durham’s attitude seems to be one of revenge.
I am especially outraged by the disregard she seemed to convey in her writing that Mr. Hernandez was diabetic. She wrote on April 22, 2002, “As a diabetic and the only man on death row in a wheelchair, Hernandez’s upkeep is far from average, with costly insulin shots required each day to keep the disease under control.” She then went on a litany of expenses that citizens spent on Hernandez and the money the San Antonio Police Dept. spent on visiting Hernandez to get information on other crimes. Information the SAPD deemed important. She even complained about the Last Meal, despite the fact that her source contradicted her concern stating, “There is really no money involved with the meal,” TDCJ spokesperson Larry Todd said. “As long as they request something that we have within the state system, they can have as much as they want.” Unbelievably, she even listed the amount it would cost to put him to death. Neither does she understand that the requested Last Meal is only a request, not a mandate.
Following Durham’s thinking, the Nazi’s had it right. When sick, handicapped, mentally ill, and other prisoners the Nazi’s deemed unfit came into prison camps they were allowed to die. No state money spent on on-going health care. The prisoner was condemned to death, why spend money on wheelchairs or insulin injections like Texas did for Mr. Hernandez.
Fortunately, I was pleased that the prosecuting DA in the case, William Schroeder, expressed concern over the way the death penalty was carried out. “We are so high on the idea of due process of law, which means fairness to everybody. If you’re going to put a man through this, then be fair to him, too.” Thank goodness the man who was responsible for seeing to it that Mr. Hernandez paid for his crimes understands the weight of the burden. It is shocking that the Herald can treat such a decision with such caustic flippancy, and hopefully it will assume half the responsibility it bears in promulgating such tabloid-style tripe that passes for journalism. The people who read the Herald deserve better.
