They say that justice delayed is justice denied. If that is the case, then surely the families of Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit can rightly complain that there is no justice in Montana.

The two men were murdered execution style in 1982 by Ronald Allen Smith, who during his trial confessed to the murder and said he had wanted to know what it felt like to kill someone. He also rejected a plea bargain for life in prison and insisted on the death penalty. He got his wish, and then, three weeks later, got cold feet, deciding apparently that he did not want to know “what it felt like” to die.

So now for 30 years, justice has been in abeyance. The state of Montana has repeatedly attempted to make good on the sentence that fairness demands, but Smith, his attorneys and numerous judges have made a mockery of justice by finding one reason after another why the execution cannot take place. The most recent complaint — which has bought Smith several more years, and his victim’s families many more sleepless nights — is that lethal injections are cruel and unusual punishment, even though they were instituted because society had wanted to find a kinder, gentler form of capital punishment than the electric chair, hanging or the firing squad.

Those of us who live in Montana and have any common sense at all just shake our head at this travesty. There has to be a better way.

One solution that occurs to me is to actually respect the law, and one way to restore respect for the law is to actually carry out sentences with certainty, alacrity and boldness.

Maybe we can learn from the case of Eddie Anderson.

I’m sure you’ve never heard of him; neither had I until I was searching old newspapers for something else and came across the headline that caught my attention: “Speed Marks Death Trial of Anderson.”

Actually it was the subhead that really jumped out at me: “Little more than a week after capture, killer judged, convicted and sentenced.” Oh my, how the American Civil Liberties Union would be all over that judge if it had happened today!

Now, I’m not necessarily in favor of justice happening at lightning speed, but if the alternative is giving a convicted killer 30 years to sit around and think about how asking for the death penalty was a bad idea, then I am in favor of speed over senescence.

The story from Dec. 29, 1933, in the Oakland Tribune reported that “Anderson was arrested, indicted, arraigned, tried and convicted in little more than a week. He was convicted of shooting to death Hewlett Tarr, Curran Theater cashier, during a holdup attempt last month.”

In fact, the murder had taken place exactly one month before, on Nov. 29, 1933, and when he was arrested on Dec. 18 for a bank robbery, Anderson seemed at first — like Ron Smith — to accept his fate as inevitable. He confessed to the killing of the cashier as well as to numerous other robberies committed during a recent spree. When his trial concluded a week later, he seemed eager to pay the price for his criminal recklessness.

Indeed, a story in the Daily Woodland (Calif.) Democrat reported on Dec. 27, 1933, that Anderson was perturbed that he had to wait an extra two days for his death sentence to be announced:

“Eddie Anderson, confessed slayer of Hewlett Tarr in the Curran Theater robbery, was in a hurry to get his hanging over with, jailers said. They reported he seemed annoyed at Superior Judge Louis H. Ward’s delay until Friday in sentencing him to death.”

But let us not presume that Anderson did not have a fair trial or an opportunity to defend himself. In fact, according to the Oakland Tribune, he even appealed his death sentence on the grounds that he had “turned state’s evidence against Louis Bernfield, asserted ‘brains’ in the holdup.”

However, his appeal was denied by the Supreme Court of California, and he was sentenced to death again on Dec. 3, 1934. He was then executed on Feb. 15, 1935, 78 years ago to the day as I write this.

Jeannette Tarr Samuel, the mother of Hewlett Tarr, the cashier who was murdered by Eddie Anderson, was unable to witness Anderson’s execution. California law at that time prevented women from attending. Nonetheless, she waited in an ante room while her brother-in-law Julius Samuel witnessed the actual hanging.

“I felt compelled to come,” Mrs. Samuel told the Oakland Tribune in a story published the day Anderson was put to death.

“I knew I could not see the execution ... But I wanted to be as near as possible when justice was done. My boy was shot down in cold blood. A finer boy never lived. If all boys were like he was, there would be no crime and no need for prisons.

“I feel sorry for the man who shot him, too, but his execution is in the interest of justice.”

Perhaps our society has lost its zeal for justice, or has forgotten that justice delayed is justice denied. This isn’t just about the death penalty. It is about society having the courage of its convictions, and defending right against wrong.

Carrying out the duly ordered execution of Ron Smith “in the interest of justice” may never occur. If it doesn’t, then what message does that send? To the families of Harvey Mad Man and Thomas Running Rabbit? To the people of Montana? To Ron Smith himself?

Not one of them will ever be able to say, along with Hewlett Tarr’s grieving mother, that “justice was done.” And that is a shame.