Post by Anja Nieser on Sept 25, 2006 0:54:44 GMT -5
Is death penalty still needed?
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 2nd 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 2 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?
* * *
What do you think?
Should the death penalty be abolished in the United States? Send your
comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your
name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should
not exceed 100 words; voice-mail comments should be no longer than 30
seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published.
The Daily Herald will publish comments on Oct. 1.
(source: The 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 2nd 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 2 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?
* * *
What do you think?
Should the death penalty be abolished in the United States? Send your
comments to dhpolls@heraldextra.com or call 344-2942. Please leave your
name, hometown and phone number with your comments. E-mail comments should
not exceed 100 words; voice-mail comments should be no longer than 30
seconds. Anonymous and unverifiable responses will not be published.
The Daily Herald will publish comments on Oct. 1.
(source: The Daily Herald)