Dec. 2 WISCONSIN: Death penalty demands certainty Even death could not end the death-penalty debate. The federal moratorium on the death penalty that ended in 1976 has been followed by a sustained and increasing use of the highest punishment that American courts are allowed to mete out. The death penalty has come under additional scrutiny lately, as the 1,000th execution to be carried out after its reinstatement looms near. The state of Wisconsin stands to move into the middle of this imbroglio as state legislators consider legislation that would legalize the death penalty in one of the 12 states that still has a ban on the sentence. If a death-penalty bill were to pass, if would be the first time since 1853 that Wisconsin would have capital punishment in its law books. So why, after all this time, is this issue being rekindled? There has not been a crime wave that has prompted a public outcry for it, nor has there been a particularly visible crime that has shocked the state. If the state of Wisconsin is to seriously consider this, it is essential to look at all possible ramifications that could arise from its implementation. The death sentence has two ostensible purposes. The first purpose is to deter serious criminal activity. The rationale for this argument is rather syllogistic: If a state has the death penalty, criminals will be more reticent to commit crimes that qualify as capital cases, thus causing a decrease in the targeted criminal activity. While this argument is a staple for capital-punishment proponents, it is of a dubious nature. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the murder rate in states with the death penalty is disproportionately higher than in those states without it. Furthermore, this disparity has been increasing, even as murder rates have fallen. In 1990, the difference between the 2 stood at 4 %. By 2003, the gap had increased to 44 %. The 2nd - and more cogent - purpose is that some crimes are, by their nature, so heinous as to invalidate even the possibility of an attempt at reform, thus necessitating a punishment that is commensurate with the offense. Through the winnowing of history, murder remains the only crime with the requisite egregiousness to merit even consideration of the death penalty. There are some very specific instances where the death penalty would be applicable and would serve justice in a way that an ordinary punishment could not. For instance, a prisoner serving life who kills a guard is probably not too concerned with having extra years added onto his or her sentence. Although there are valid points supporting the use of the death penalty for select crimes, the most salient problem arises from the fallibility of the persons responsible for its application. Current counts put the number of death-row inmates exonerated of their crimes at more than 110, and there have admittedly been innocent men put to death. Marquette University political science professor John McAdams claims this is merely a result of realizing policy. "The mass public isnt particularly deterred by the notion there may be some innocent people on death row," said McAdams. "No public policy works perfectly - so theyre realistic about policy." This margin of error is due to the overbroad use of capital punishment. While murder should remain the standard at which crimes become capital, there should still be reluctance in applying the death penalty. Cases that are especially horrific, or where other types of punishment would not serve justice in an equal way, are the instances when capital punishment should be sought. Furthermore, the requirements to seek and convict on a capital crime should become more stringent. These requirements should include conclusive DNA evidence and not hinge on circumstantial evidence. The absoluteness of the death penalty - once carried out - leaves no margin for error. To look to what foreign governments suggest or statistical studies indicate should be an irrelevant factor for what Wisconsin decides on the death penalty. The basis for evaluation should begin with ones sense of justice, personal liberty and value of life. If the death penalty can achieve justice without endangering personal liberty through insufficient investigative means and error-prone decisions, then maybe reversing 150 years of history might not be out of order. (source: The Badger Herald (Mike Skelly is a senior majoring in finance and political science --Univ. Wisconsin) MISSISSIPPI: Triple slaying defendant loses appeal in Miss. death penalty case In Jackson, the Mississippi Supreme Court has rejected defense arguments that no physical evidence linked convicted murderer Alan Michael Rubenstein of Louisiana to a triple murder in Pike County. The court yesterday upheld Rubenstein's death sentence. Rubenstein, of Marrero, was convicted in 2000 in the slayings of his son, daughter-in-law and granddaughter. Prosecutors claimed Rubenstein killed the 3 in a cabin in Summit in 1993. The prosecution alleged Rubenstein killed the 3 to collect on a 250-thousand dollar insurance policy he had taken out on Krystal Perry. Months after her death, New York Life paid Rubenstein. Prosecutors say the Perrys, also from Marrero, had gone to the cabin to work through marital difficulties. Prosecutors say Rubenstein had arranged the trip and reported finding the bodies. (source: Associated Press) IOWA: Vilsack speaks out against death penalty again Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack says he doesn't think a recent proposal to reinstate a limited death penalty would make children any safer in Iowa. The proposal from some Republican state lawmakers would bring back executions in cases involving child molesters. Vilsack, a Catholic, says he doesn't think he can back it. Vilsack says his faith tradition doesnt support the death penalty and hes consistent and true to that faith. Although Vilsack goes against the Catholic faith in his support of abortion. Vilsack says he hopes the legislature doesn't "play politics" with the issue and will search instead for areas of common ground. Vilsack says its more expensive to execute someone rather than carry out a life prison sentence and he says the death penalty doesnt allow for a correction if someone is wrongly convicted. Vilsack says if the proposal had been in effect for the last 20 years, it would have resulted in only 2 executions in Iowa, raising the question of whether it would make children any safer. Vilsack says spending time on issues such as early childhood education, looking for innovative ways to enforce existing laws to protect our children and determining how to better monitor those whove molested kids in the past might do more to make things better for children in Iowa. (source: Radio Iowa) ******************** Talks may renew on limited death penalty Sen. Larry McKibben, R-Marshalltown, recently renewed his call for a debate on a limited death penalty on the same day it was announced a committee studying sex crimes and the punishment for certain offenses will not likely have any recommendations until after the Legislature convenes in January. McKibben, who has called for a debate on the death penalty since the last session, has said his efforts thus far have been stymied by political opposition from Democrats. "In doing so, they have created a de facto death penalty in Iowa," McKibben said. "When the perpetrator knows there is no additional punishment we can levy on them for murder, we have sentenced these girls to death. It's wrong for the Senate Democrats to block that debate." McKibben was referring to situations where a kidnapping and sexual assault has occurred. In those instances, life in prison is already a possibility, so McKibben argues offenders may think they have nothing to lose by murdering the main witness, which is the child victim. If they are caught, McKibben said, the punishment for killing the child is no worse than what they may already be eligible for. McKibben noted that all he is calling for is a legislative debate on the issue, but he said Democrats are so scared of the concept they will not even consider talking about it. "It's just dead wrong," he said. "What we did say as Republican Senate is that the death penalty in the case of a kidnapping, rape and murder of a minor child is something that ought to be debated in a chamber known as a place of public discourse. The fact is the Senate Democrats will not let us have a discussion." McKibben also hoped the interim committee he now chairs, looking into sex crimes punishments, would have included a study of the death penalty in its scope of work as well. But that was not the case. What the committee did spend a great deal of time discussing were the residency restrictions, which state that a sex offender who victimized a child cannot reside within 2,000 feet of a school or daycare. That law has been the target of a considerable amount of criticism from some in the legal community -- including prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. However, McKibben said he did not believe there would be any substantial changes to the law. He added that some definitions may be added and some other language may be clarified so that prosecutors can better understand legislative intent. Rep. Lance Horbach, R-Tama, also part of that interim committee, noted there are times when an offense needs to be considered on a case-by-case basis. He gave the example of a man in his district who was convicted of a sex crime for a consensual relationship a girl who was 14 years old at the time. The man was 18 years old. Now, a decade later, they are married and have 3 children. Yet they are being forced to move because of this new law. Horbach noted that may be a different situation requiring a different type of response when compared to a sexually violent child predator. (source: The Times-Republican)
