“I’m not well informed …,” says Joshua Treviño (of the Texas Public Policy Foundation), mere seconds before announcing that “This is the system working” and “This is a win for the system in general” in the Duane Buck case. As he is saying this, Evan Smith (Editor-in-Chief of the Texas Tribune) can’t nod his head in agreement vigorously enough. This is the case where the Supreme Court finally stepped in to stay Buck’s impending execution on the grounds that racism played a role in Buck’s sentencing (as it did in the sentencing of five other men who were all awarded resentencing hearings. I wrote, at the time, that no one ought to mistake the last minute stay for evidence that the system works:

Even if the Supreme Court kicks this case back to Texas for a new sentencing hearing, and last night’s last-minute stay of execution doesn’t necessarily mean that they will, there’s no reason to presume that Buck will be spared another death sentence. Indeed, each of the five men mentioned just above were resentenced to death. Clearly, the prosecution has figured out that it’s possible to convey to jurors that they ought to be fearful of black men without actually putting someone on the witness stand to say those words aloud.

Treviño goes on to claim that his opposition is a result of a “modified Catholic position,” which he then explains by saying that Catholics think the use of the death penalty is a legitimate power of the state but that the state doesn’t do a very good job of it and so it’s problematic (which is, in fact, his position about everything the state does). Of course, this isn’t the Catholic position on the death penalty … unless the Pope doesn’t speak for Catholics when he calls for the commutation of death sentences and the worldwide abolition of the death penalty.

But the fun continues when Smith takes his turn: “I’m personally pro-death penalty. It may be a factor of having small children … and I happen to be sympathetic to the argument of law enforcement people being targeted as well and the prospect of the ultimate punishment for that.” I have no idea what he’s talking about. Is he suggesting that it’s somehow a worse crime to kill a police officer than to kill someone who isn’t wearing a uniform? If so, why? He doesn’t say. What’s more, like Smith, I have a family; unlike him, I don’t insist that we execute people; in fact, I vocally insist on not doing so. I don’t want my children to grow up in a country where our government has the power to execute some of our fellow citizens, even when those citizens do terrible things. The mere existence of the death penalty brutalizes us as a society, leaving aside the way it’s haphazardly carried out.

That, of course, is the eventual direction taken by the “debate” between Treviño and Smith. No matter how they feel about the death penalty, they can agree that it’s being carried out poorly. Except, of course, that this is the exact opposite of the point with which Treviño began his death penalty comments and with which Smith so excitedly agreed. In other words, when the Supreme Court stepped in to halt the Buck execution, the system worked. When no one stepped in to stop the Willingham execution, there might have been a problem. Buck — who isn’t dead yet — is guilty; Willingham — who has been dead for several years — might not have been. The system isn’t working; some guys just get lucky and some guys just get killed. I have a hard time seeing how any of this demonstrates a properly functioning system, rather than one that is arbitrary and capricious in the way it metes out punishment.

So … I hereby issue a challenge to the good folks at Bloggingheads: If you want to have a serious discussion about the death penalty, invite someone who actually knows something about the death penalty. In fact, invite me. I can talk about the systemic problems, I can talk about the moral problems, I can talk about murder victims’ families, I can talk about my own personal experience. I’ll be very happy to take part in an actual debate about the death penalty with anyone you might choose.

But, please, no more of these people who make a series of bizarre claims about the death penalty and don’t back them up in any way.