Oct. 6 USA: Capital punishment only justifiable in few instances The death penalty is probably the oldest form of punishment known to man. In ancient times it was carried out through such painful methods as impalement and crucifixion, and it is still practiced today in the United States by the more humane method of lethal injection. Some people believe that capital punishment in America should be abolished. They reason that it is unjustifiable, under any circumstances, to take a human life. There are, however, circumstances in which execution is justified. The 1st purpose of capital punishment, then, is to exact retribution on a criminal. Some people's crimes are so atrocious that they truly deserve to die. But the flaw in this reasoning is that there is no hard-and-fast rule for what punishment a given crime deserves. How can we prove a criminal deserves the death penalty? On what basis do we say that? One might argue that a murderer deserves to die because he has taken life; but does a torturer, then, deserve to be tortured? Eye-for-an-eye justice is about the only objective system of punishment there is, and it has long since been abandoned as barbarous. So what punishment does a given crime deserve? The answer is, simply, nobody knows. And since we cannot say with certainty that any criminal deserves the death penalty, we have no business executing him on those grounds. The 2nd justification for the death penalty is that it discourages other criminals from committing crimes. It acts as a deterrent, in other words. This justification makes good logical sense; if, by executing one murderer, we can scare a would-be killer into not killing someone, then we have saved an innocent life by sacrificing a guilty one. However, the death penalty, as it operates in the United States today, does not (according to most studies) deter crime. Why not? Because most murderers are not condemned to death and those who are get to sit on death row for a decade or more before they die. Execution is not a deterrent if it is uncertain and can come only years after the crime. So capital punishment is a deterrent only if it is carried out swiftly -- and on every offender. And we could not execute all murderers immediately after their convictions, since many men have been freed from death row on the basis of new evidence that proved their innocence. If we executed all convicted murderers immediately, we would execute many innocent men. So, the deterrent argument is an inadequate justification for capital punishment. There are, however, two cases in which the deterrent argument is valid. First, spies. A proven foreign spy should be promptly executed: if he is not, then hundreds of more spies will flood our country, steal its secrets and possibly bring their homelands to a position of power from which they could wage war on our country. The life of a spy must be made as frightening and uncomfortable as possible. Secondly, soldiers. A military deserter should be shot, since allowing him to live will promote a lackadaisical, low-discipline spirit in the army at large, and a country's army must be maintained in top form at all costs. So, the deterrent argument is a valid justification for capital punishment in the cases of soldiers and spies, but not for domestic civilians. The final and most valid justification for capital punishment is that some people are just too dangerous to be allowed to live. Following the Bolshevik Revolution, the Czar of Russia might at any time have escaped or been rescued from his prison. Then, by the simple fact that he was the Czar, might have turned the populace against the new Communist regime. His very existence constituted a threat to the government, and therefore, he had to die. Alexander the Great, too, was forced to kill his Gen. Parmenion, because he had recently executed Parmenion's son and could not afford an army-wide blood-feud. Such decisions are rarely pleasant for the rulers who make them; however, if the choice is between executing one man and allowing him to live and start a war which kills thousands of men, then die he must. So let us summarize our points. It is never justifiable to execute somebody purely for reasons of retribution. It is justifiable to execute a person for purposes of deterrence if and only if that person is a soldier or a spy. And it is justifiable to execute somebody if that person's existence poses a threat to public security. I wish to stress that no civilian should ever take it upon himself to execute anyone, and hereby disavow all responsibility for anything anyone might do as a result of reading this column. One final point: when we speak of executing a man, we ought to say "he should be executed" or "he should receive the death penalty" and not try to lessen the seriousness of the matter by use of such vague euphemisms as "he should pay the ultimate price." As certain men, with 151 executions to their credit, have done. (source: Viewpoint, Jeff Gaither, technicianonline.com) ILLINOIS: Death penalty sought in killings at college A pair of brothers accused of fatally shooting 2 Illinoisans before a college football game will be tried for armed robbery, a charge that could allow prosecutors to seek the death penalty in their murder trial. The brothers, who face 1st-degree murder charges in last month's shooting at a North Carolina State University tailgating party, will be tried first in connection with a home invasion in August. If they are convicted, prosecutors will have more of a case to seek the death penalty. Under North Carolina law, a person is eligible for a death sentence if he has a prior violent felony conviction. "Obviously, the home invasions took place before the murders," Wake County Assistant District Atty. Susan Spurlin said Monday. "We think it's important that a jury [that] is trying to make a decision about the appropriate punishment on the murder charge know about the criminality of their conduct prior to the homicides." Timothy Wayne Johnson, 22, and Tony Harrell Johnson, 20, are charged with murder for the deaths of Kevin M. McMann of Chicago and 2nd Lt. Brett Johnson Harman, a Camp Lejeune Marine from Park Ridge, on Sept. 4. The Illinois men, both 23, were shot to death in a tailgate area outside an NCSU football game. (source: Chicago Tribune) IOWA----re: federal death penalty trial Prosecution rests in death penalty case Federal prosecutors wrapped up their case Tuesday in the trial of a former drug kingpin accused of killing 5 people to protect his multistate operation. The focus of the trial, now in its 6th week, shifts to attorneys defending Dustin Honken, the 1st Iowan to face the death penalty in more than 40 years. Defense attorneys are expected to begin making their case Wednesday, calling as many as 11 witnesses to counter prosecution claims. U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett said he expects closing arguments to begin Monday. Honken, 35, is accused of engineering the slayings of three adults and two children in 1993. 2 of the victims were informants working with federal agents investigating Honken's methamphetamine manufacturing operation with ties in Iowa and Arizona. In the trial's 1st phase, prosecutors tried to link Honken, along with his girlfriend Angela Johnson, to the beating, torture and execution-style slaying of Greg Nicholson in July 1993. Nicholson, a former dealer for Honken, disappeared the day before Honken was scheduled to plead guilty to drug charges in federal court. On the same day, Nicholson's girlfriend, Lori Duncan, and her 2 daughters, Kandi, 10, and Amber, 6, also disappeared. Four months later, another informant, Terry DeGeus, disappeared. The bodies were found in 2000, buried in fields southwest of Mason City. Prosecutors wound up their case with testimony from Victor Murillo, a state criminologist who was among the team of experts who unearthed the bodies. He said fragments of five bullets taken from the grave sites matched the type of ammunition fired from the kind of pistol allegedly used in the slayings. The weapon has never been found, but prosecutors argue Honken and Johnson used a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun purchased at a Waterloo pawn shop. Honken's former best friend and associate, Timothy Cutkomp, testified that Honken melted it down and scattered its parts in a ditch along a rural road. Despite the similarities between the bullet fragments and the gun alleged used in the murders, Murillo said he lacked evidence to match the bullet to a specific make or model. He also said that about 20 different firearms use bullets of the same caliber. Under cross examination, defense attorney Leon Spies asked: "So you cannot say that any of the bullet fragments came from" the gun type in question? "It's only a possibility," Murillo said. The judge cleared the way for the defense case Wednesday when he rejected a motion to dismiss the case for lack of evidence. Honken's defense team argued that evidence and testimony from government witnesses was contradictory and preposterous. (source: Associated Press)
