Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 24, 2006 4:44:31 GMT -5
HERALD POLL: Is death penalty still needed
Daily Herald
Does the death penalty have a place in 21st century America?
Utah Valley State College students debated that question this week at the college's second annual symposium on the subject. This year's keynote speaker was Sister Helen Prejean, the noted death-penalty opponent whose book "Dead Man Walking" was made into a movie starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.
Sister Helen, who has been a spiritual adviser for both victims' families and condemned criminals, believes that the death sentence violates the sanctity of life and traumatizes society. She believes that innocent people have been executed, and urges states to abolish the practice.
While her concerns about executing the innocent are worth consideration, she may be unrealistic in asserting that no place exists for the death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous that allowing the perpetrator to live may be an affront to justice. In support of this view, many cite the Bible's call for an "eye for an eye," or other scriptures.
Perhaps it is true that one loses the right to live after committing terrible atrocities on other people.
But are Biblical references enough to justify the death penalty? Even Cain, the Bible's alleged first murderer, was only banished. Killing him would invite God's condemnation. In effect, Cain got a life sentence. Perhaps God wanted him to suffer with the guilt of his crime. Likewise, Susan Smith, who drowned her two small children, may be paying a higher price today than she would had she been executed. For Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 conspirator who was found eligible for the death penalty but got life in prison, execution would have been a kindness, making him a martyr in his own eyes and guaranteeing him a place in Paradise.
Maybe it's better the way these cases worked out, especially considering the fallibility of America's justice system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean absolute certainty. After all, courts are run by human beings. Evidence is not always conclusive. Witnesses lie. Lawyers vary in their competence.
The job of the jury, like that of a football referee, is to decide where to place the ball. It's a task that frequently requires judgment as opposed to mathematical precision. Unfortunately, there are holes in human judgment, and this can result in miscarriages of justice. Since the advent of DNA analysis, many individuals have been exonerated in connection with crimes for which they were duly tried and convicted in courts of law.
This built-in error rate raises an important question: Should society care? Are we willing to accept a few mistaken executions in our quest to punish evil criminals? At least with life sentences the option remains open to restore a person's freedom if new information comes to light. Death, on the other hand, is final.
Proponents like the finality. They say that death insures that this particular criminal will never commit another crime, which is true, but they often overlook the cost to society. If anyone has a right to ultimate appeals it is the person whose life is on the line; but prosecuting a case all the way to execution can cost up to $3 million. By contrast, it costs only $750,000 to keep someone in prison for 30 years.
Life without possibility of parole removes the criminal from society, and we all save money in the bargain. As a bonus, we avoid the chance of killing the wrong person.
But the argument against the death penalty doesn't end even there. The negative effect of executions upon executioners is often overlooked. Presumably, we're looking for good family men and women to work at all levels of civic life -- people who go to church, attend school plays and coach soccer teams. How would an executioner answer the inevitable question: "What did you do at work today, Daddy?" An uncomfortable answer would be avoided if the death penalty and its dark personal burden were eliminated.
Details like this don't trouble everyone. Many death penalty advocates make only a faint distinction between justice and revenge, and they're comfortable doing so. To them, the death penalty is appropriate for virtually any murder, regardless of circumstance, state of mind or past history. Anything less than death coddles criminals and mocks the memory of victims. Many proponents even like the idea that the criminal will suffer pain in the process, insisting that it's a small price to pay for the greater suffering that was inflicted on the victim.
Such passion is understandable. Emotion is part of life. But does it belong in the judicial process? If the death penalty cannot be served cold -- without emotion and without the infliction of physical suffering -- perhaps it should not be served at all. Justice is supposed to be neutral, which is exactly why injured parties are not allowed to serve on juries. Jurors are expected to decide dispassionately. When emotion enters the picture, injustice cannot be far behind.
But if emotion should be removed, what compelling argument is left to support the death penalty?
Daily Herald
Does the death penalty have a place in 21st century America?
Utah Valley State College students debated that question this week at the college's second annual symposium on the subject. This year's keynote speaker was Sister Helen Prejean, the noted death-penalty opponent whose book "Dead Man Walking" was made into a movie starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.
Sister Helen, who has been a spiritual adviser for both victims' families and condemned criminals, believes that the death sentence violates the sanctity of life and traumatizes society. She believes that innocent people have been executed, and urges states to abolish the practice.
While her concerns about executing the innocent are worth consideration, she may be unrealistic in asserting that no place exists for the death penalty. Some crimes are so heinous that allowing the perpetrator to live may be an affront to justice. In support of this view, many cite the Bible's call for an "eye for an eye," or other scriptures.
Perhaps it is true that one loses the right to live after committing terrible atrocities on other people.
But are Biblical references enough to justify the death penalty? Even Cain, the Bible's alleged first murderer, was only banished. Killing him would invite God's condemnation. In effect, Cain got a life sentence. Perhaps God wanted him to suffer with the guilt of his crime. Likewise, Susan Smith, who drowned her two small children, may be paying a higher price today than she would had she been executed. For Zacarias Moussaoui, the 9/11 conspirator who was found eligible for the death penalty but got life in prison, execution would have been a kindness, making him a martyr in his own eyes and guaranteeing him a place in Paradise.
Maybe it's better the way these cases worked out, especially considering the fallibility of America's justice system. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean absolute certainty. After all, courts are run by human beings. Evidence is not always conclusive. Witnesses lie. Lawyers vary in their competence.
The job of the jury, like that of a football referee, is to decide where to place the ball. It's a task that frequently requires judgment as opposed to mathematical precision. Unfortunately, there are holes in human judgment, and this can result in miscarriages of justice. Since the advent of DNA analysis, many individuals have been exonerated in connection with crimes for which they were duly tried and convicted in courts of law.
This built-in error rate raises an important question: Should society care? Are we willing to accept a few mistaken executions in our quest to punish evil criminals? At least with life sentences the option remains open to restore a person's freedom if new information comes to light. Death, on the other hand, is final.
Proponents like the finality. They say that death insures that this particular criminal will never commit another crime, which is true, but they often overlook the cost to society. If anyone has a right to ultimate appeals it is the person whose life is on the line; but prosecuting a case all the way to execution can cost up to $3 million. By contrast, it costs only $750,000 to keep someone in prison for 30 years.
Life without possibility of parole removes the criminal from society, and we all save money in the bargain. As a bonus, we avoid the chance of killing the wrong person.
But the argument against the death penalty doesn't end even there. The negative effect of executions upon executioners is often overlooked. Presumably, we're looking for good family men and women to work at all levels of civic life -- people who go to church, attend school plays and coach soccer teams. How would an executioner answer the inevitable question: "What did you do at work today, Daddy?" An uncomfortable answer would be avoided if the death penalty and its dark personal burden were eliminated.
Details like this don't trouble everyone. Many death penalty advocates make only a faint distinction between justice and revenge, and they're comfortable doing so. To them, the death penalty is appropriate for virtually any murder, regardless of circumstance, state of mind or past history. Anything less than death coddles criminals and mocks the memory of victims. Many proponents even like the idea that the criminal will suffer pain in the process, insisting that it's a small price to pay for the greater suffering that was inflicted on the victim.
Such passion is understandable. Emotion is part of life. But does it belong in the judicial process? If the death penalty cannot be served cold -- without emotion and without the infliction of physical suffering -- perhaps it should not be served at all. Justice is supposed to be neutral, which is exactly why injured parties are not allowed to serve on juries. Jurors are expected to decide dispassionately. When emotion enters the picture, injustice cannot be far behind.
But if emotion should be removed, what compelling argument is left to support the death penalty?