I am writing in response to your April 23 editorial entitled "A Verdict to Stand By," as a alumnus of UNC-Chapel Hill (B.A. 1989, J.D. 1994) and as a partner with the law firm that represented Ed Lemons. I am glad to see you thought the story newsworthy.
Unfortunately, your editorial contained several factual errors. Ed did not die three days before his scheduled execution. Ed's post-conviction appeals, which can take years to complete, had just begun. In fact, his constitutional claims had not yet been addressed by any court. In addition, we were not requesting the Department of Corrections to fund Ed's hospice care.
Finally, it is the secretary of the Department of Corrections, rather than Gov. Mike Easley, who is responsible for deciding who might benefit from the recently enacted statute regarding terminally ill inmates.
More disturbing than these errors of fact, however, are some of the assumptions underlying your piece. First, hemophilia is a disease that is present from birth. As reported in a recent Newsweek, nearly 100 percent of hemophiliacs receiving treatment in the early 1980s were infected with HIV. Many also contracted hepatitis C. It is simply irresponsible to report that these conditions were the result of destructive habits.
Second, your assumption that the death penalty is an effective deterrent contradicts many studies on the subject.
Finally, your statement that Ed's release to hospice care would open the doors "to future offenders and their lawyers" shows a misunderstanding of basic statutory construction.
This statute, which was enacted by our legislature (like it or not), applies only to those inmates who are terminally ill and is administered on an individual basis. How allowing a dying man to spend his final days in the company of his family would "diminish capital punishment sentencing" escapes me.
Sharon L. Smith
Partner, Unti & Lumsden LLP
