Nancy Rowles, Victim’s Family Member, Supports
HCR 88 Before House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 26, 2007
Good afternoon. My name is Nancy Rowles. My husband and | have
traveled from Covington in northern Kentucky today because of the
importance of the resolution you are considering today. | certainly ap-
preciate the willingness of Rep. Burch to introduce HCR 88.
Chairperson Stein, thank you and all the committee members for
allowing me to speak.
It pleases me that this committee is willing to focus on the use of
the death penalty in Kentucky. My personal preference would be that
there be no more violence in my name.
Once, when | told a Kentucky State Senator that | did not want to
participate in any further death by execution, | was informed that it
was not me but the state that put people to death. | am the state and |
am hopeful that one day the state will abandon the death penalty. As
rampant world-wide violence prevails, Kentucky could become a bea-
con of peace and civilization by abolishing the death penalty. But, for
now that is not to be, and so today | am here to raise some questions
which | hope will help you support the study proposed by HCR 88.
| think we need to examine the common wisdom that says that execu-
tions help the survivors. Some justify executions claiming the survivors need them. | say from the
stated justifications for the death penalty erase “closure” for the victim’s survivors. The word is
meaningless in the context of losing any loved one. We remember those who have died whether
from advanced age or terminal illness at a comparatively young age or tragic accidents or, indeed,
murder victims. As a murder victim's survivor, | can tell you the issues are complex beyond other
deaths. Executing someone affords no solace to the actual loss, let alone closure.
| have been spared feelings of anger and vengeance. This has provided me the strength and op-
portunity to attend to the many family members who needed help as a result of my brother's mur-
der. Society is served when we may concentrate on the positive aspects of care, not the endless
emphasis on the perpetrator. There is an alternative for the convicted and it is life in prison without
parole, where he may consider his awful crime.
Who is served by the death penalty? Are the convicted served? Not so fast! Perhaps they de-
serve long incarceration in order to consider their deeds and be deprived of what we value most in
America—freedom.
Is the victim’s survivors served? Those who cheer at the executioner’s gate will still walk away
with numberless issues which center on the lost loved one, not the murderer.
Is society served? Hardly. Heinous crimes may be punished by a prison term for the rest of the
perpetrator's life at a far less costly price in every sense of the word. Ultimately, abolishing the
death penalty spares Kentuckians from entering the hell of taking another life as the murderer has
done.
| appreciate your listening to my personal commentary. | am well aware there are other consid-
erations such as legal, ethical and religious to take into account.
The passage of HCR 88 would provide a much-needed and balanced forum made up of women
and men of good will who could calmly and objectively study all the issues related to the use of the
death penalty in our state.
With this in mind, | ask for your support for HCR 88. Please vote YES today and open up a door
to review whether or not our state should continue to use our resources to kill a few of those who
kill others, or is there a better way to punish the violent and protect us from them.
You have kindly listened to me and | would return the compliment to others whose thoughts may
differ from mine. Thank you.
