Editorials
Saturday, December 26, 1998

The pope’s appeal to
end death penalty

POPE John Paul's appeal for abolition of capital punishment in his Christmas message bears special significance because it comes a month before he travels to the United States. The pope made the appeal as he spoke to tens of thousands of people from many countries from the central balcony of St. Peter's Basilica. Later, in remarks to a crowd of Italians in St. Peter's Square holding banners against capital punishment, the pope said: "I repeat my appeal to defend human life and ban the death penalty." His statement was one of the strongest he has ever made for an end to the death penalty and deserves consideration by Americans who support capital punishment. It represents the sentiments of millions of citizens of other democratic countries.

The United States in the only Western democracy to practice capital punishment. Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, about 500 persons have been executed. Our prisons hold 3,500 men and women under sentence of death.

In 1972 the U.S. Supreme Court voided the death penalty laws of all 32 states with such laws, ruling that the penalty was being imposed arbitrarily. But four years later the court approved capital punishment laws that had been revised to meet its objections. Since then 38 states -- Hawaii is not among them -- have reinstated the death penalty.

Public opinion polls show strong support for capital punishment in all areas of the country and among virtually all population groups, so winning repeal of death penalty laws will be a formidable task.

Still, there are many who feel like the pope that the state should not be taking lives. There is also strong doubt that the death penalty deters crime, particularly because of the years-long delays that are common before the executions are performed. A national poll of police chiefs and sheriffs found that the death penalty was rated the least cost-effective way to reduce violent crime.

Other objections are that those executed are disproportionately poor and black and that they are frequently denied adequate legal representation.

The pope is scheduled to meet with President Clinton in St. Louis on Jan. 26 and may raise the issue of capital punishment with him. Earlier this month the Missouri supreme court postponed a planned execution that had been scheduled for the day after the meeting. Perhaps that meeting can be a start of a renewed effort to abolish the death penalty in the United States.

Panhandling ban

THE Hawaii County Council has approved a a ban on "aggressive" panhandling, but the county should be prepared for the cost of defending it against legal challenges. Courts across the country have disagreed as to whether such laws infringe on beggars' constitutional right to free speech. The ordinance is bound to face a vigorous challenge.

Asking a person for money in a public place may be as protected under the First Amendment as asking someone to join a union, contribute to a charity or vote for a particular candidate. It probably does not fall under the limited protection of commercial speech because there is no proposed exchange of money for goods or services. Limits on commercial speech are aimed at protecting the public from fraud or misinformation.

However, the Council proposal would ban only "aggressive" panhandling. The question is whether such language could be applied to the union organizer, the political campaigner or the charity fund-raiser without violating free speech rights. If not, the Big Island ordinance faces a rough battle in the courts.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has jurisdiction over Hawaii, is reviewing a judge's preliminary injunction against a Los Angeles ban on aggressive panhandling that was approved last year. It prohibits panhandlers from asking for money in a confined space, at an automatic teller machine, a bus stop or similar place where people wait for public transportation. It also prohibits panhandlers from following someone and trying to intimidate them, threatening them or using abusive language.

The American Civil Liberties Union argues that such ordinances are unnecessary because there are laws already on the books prohibiting abusive, dangerous or harassing conduct. The fact that panhandling is annoying is not a justifiable reason for treating it differently from other types of speech. Sometimes free speech can be annoying, which is why it needs constitutional protection.

Aloha balloonists

HAWAII yesterday became the unscheduled destination of three balloonists attempting to complete the first nonstop trip around the world. They were defeated by the weather but emerged unscathed to spend Christmas in the islands. The crew abandoned the effort after losing the strong winds they needed to cross the Pacific to the west coast of North America.

The voyage of the 272-foot-high hot-air and helium balloon began in Marrakech, Morocco, on Dec. 18, and, if successful, would have ended in Western Europe.

If the balloonists had reached the coast, they would have broken the distance record set on another attempt to circumnavigate the globe earlier this year.

Hawaii has known many dauntless explorers -- the ancient Polynesian voyagers, Capt. James Cook and other British seafarers, the early transpacific aviators and the astronauts who splashed down in the Pacific after venturing into space. Balloonists can now be added to that intrepid list.

We extend our traditional aloha to our unexpected Christmas visitors -- Richard Branson, Steve Fossett and Per Lindstrand -- and extend our best wishes for any future adventures.

---

Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited Partnership

Rupert E. Phillips, CEO

John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher

David Shapiro, Managing Editor

Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor

Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors

A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor