death penalty news March 17, 2005
USA: Verbal Fisticuffs: Capital punishment - Righteous punishment or outdated biblical code? Argument: The most basic argument in favor of the death penalty is the notion that it acts as a deterrent. The promise of a clean bed, outdoor activities and the ability to live out the rest of your life in a cushy prison will undoubtedly not have the same effect on a potential criminal's decision as the threat of death might. Capital punishment is essential for maintaining order and low levels of crime in a civilized society. A: Justice is a concept that our government must incorporate into its actions, and some heinous crimes are, without doubt, worthy of a death sentence. Moral relativism cannot be used when dealing with capital punishment. When we begin to factor out righteous punishments, then we ourselves are committing crimes. We cannot doubt our ability to carry out justice in society. This quote from "Boondock Saints" summarizes my second point: "We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." A: Finally, I would like to deal with the issue of potentially innocent people receiving the death penalty. Today we have new capabilities, such as DNA testing, that make verdicts more accurate. Also, what of innocent people who receive life in prison? Our justice system operates on the idea that its verdicts are correct, if that was not assumed it would undermine the basic existence of the system. We must have either complete confidence in the courts or implement an entirely different method of distributing justice. --Evan Berard ----------- Rebuttal: The most damning evidence that stands in opposition to the effectiveness of the death penalty is whether or not it functions successfully as a deterrent. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2003 (published in October 2004) shows that the average number of murders in states with the death penalty is 530,000 in comparison to the 290,000 of states without capital punishment. Capital punishment has nothing to do with maintaining low levels of crime and a civilized society; in fact, it probably exasperates and coarsens civil society. R: Justice is more than a concept that is incorporated into the government's actions; it's a system by which our laws are written and enacted. Modern day justice should not incorporate simplistic, ancient codes like an eye for an eye; rather it should move towards a system that rises above the tactics of thugs and warlords. Moreover, justice in an unequal system is no justice at all, so we need not worry about moral relativism in our nation, and instead devote serious concern to the inequalities in our justice system. R: Even if DNA testing was 100 percent accurate and reliable, our nation would still be faced with the inequalities and injustices in the legal system that make the death penalty unjust. Amnesty International studies show that black and white murder victims are essentially equal, but 80 percent of the people executed since the death penalty was reinstituted were only for the murders of white victims. As for innocent people who receive life, if this is the wrong verdict, then the DNA tests that we presently put so much faith in can ascertain that and then justice can be served by reverting the sentence. Death is irreversible, and therefore, unjust. --Eileen Arnold (source: Commentary, Fairfield Mirror) Execute the death penalty - Capital punishment not the answer to deterring crime Remember the wild teenage weekends spent camping and sharing bottles of coffee brandy stolen from Grandma's liquor cabinet? How about cutting class in high school to head to the quarry for an impromptu cliff-jumping session? Or what about the time you and some friends hid behind the hedge on Main Street and pegged passing traffic with rocks? OK, so these are my memories I'm projecting as the universal stereotype of adolescence, but they all fall under the same heading: youthful indiscretions. No doubt, you can add your own hilarious hijinks to the list. So, too, can the Supreme Court of the United States; two weeks ago, the Court voted 5-to-4 to add murder to the list of youthful indiscretions by nullifying the death penalty for underage killers. The Court ruled that executing minor murderers violates the Eight Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." My question is this: When is executing any human being not "cruel and unusual?" The decision has the Supreme Court split, with Justice Antonin Scalia lambasting his fellow justices for implying that "American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world." What should be an issue of the basest of human rights - the right to life - has been cemented as a political volleyball. This isn't an issue of religious beliefs or politics. Instead, it is a reflection of the absurdity with which we govern ourselves as a society. We accept that humans are fallible beings who frequently make mistakes and improper decisions, even when confronted with evidence that directly refutes our position. We are a biased and highly subjective species. With this in mind, why do we think that we have the authority to make the ultimate decision with regards to a person's life? Condemning a person to death is an irreversible decision. I've yet to run into someone who's been resurrected, and I'm quite sure medical science won't harness the technology of reanimation in the near future. To have such a sentence handed down by one human to another is simply illogical. If even one innocent man has been the victim of unjust capital punishment, then the death penalty has failed us all. The argument that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent against murder is certainly solid, until one realizes that this argument is a straw man raised to move attention away from the pertinent issue - that of our fallibility as humans. Imperfect and subjective humans should never be tasked with deciding whether another human has the right to live or die. I'm not sure if some omnipotent god-figure granted each of us life, but I do know that I was never given the right to take another human's life. Even if we exist in an infinite random universe that operates with the imprecision of a craps table, there exists no rule book that states that I have the ability to remove others from the game as I see fit. Debating the nuances of the death penalty is akin to debating whether or not it is better to have the right leg amputated over the left. Either way, the handicap is the same. In this same way, we shift the debate from the entire issue of capital punishment to its meaningless details. Rationalizing state-sanctioned murder in exchange for another murder is folly, and it highlights the tragic irony with which we exist as social beings. Until we can be sure - without exception - that convicted killers really are killers, support of capital punishment is support of a mechanism of death that may be applied in error. Incarcerate the convicted killers and let your god sort out their fate at a later date. Supreme Court justices are made of the same imperfect flesh and bone as you and I. Let's hope they keep that in mind they next time they rule on capital punishment. Aaron Barnes (source: Mainecampus.com; Aaron Barnes is senior English major.)
