SOYOUWANNA LEARN ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY?

For decades, the death penalty has been a controversial and divisive issue in American politics. Few debates have been so much at the forefront of public discourse, and for so long a time. Politicians, seizing upon the vehemence of public support for the death penalty, frequently use the issue for political gain. In 1988, Presidential candidate George Bush ran ads attacking Democrat challenger Michael Dukakis for his stance against the death penalty. In 1993, George Pataki ousted popular New York governor Mario Cuomo, seizing on the issue of capital punishment (which Cuomo firmly opposes).

The debate over capital punishment again took center stage recently when Illinois Governor George Ryan announced that he was issuing an executive order to suspend the death penalty while he determined what was wrong with his state's system. In the last decade, Illinois has executed 12 criminals, but has seen 13 others exonerated while awaiting execution. A new ad campaign by Benetton has also drawn attention to capital punishment, depicting interviews with inmates on death row in an attempt to evoke sympathy for their plight.

We'd like to analyze this controversial issue by providing some background info on the subject, and then presenting the arguments often made by both sides. And, as always, we want to strongly remind you that we're not taking a particular side here - we're just laying out the arguments. So please don't kill the messenger . . . ooh, bad choice of words.

1. LEARN ABOUT THE HISTORY OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

America's practice of capital punishment came to a temporary halt in 1972. In the controversial decision of Furman v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the nation's death penalty, in its current form, violated the Constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, the Court reacted to evidence that capital punishment was being disproportionately applied to minorities and the poor. In addition, the Court was troubled by the number of people who were executed only to be found innocent afterwards. (It was particularly challenging to integrate such exonerated individuals back into law-abiding society.)

Since the Court objected not to capital punishment itself, but only to its present implementation, many states revamped their procedures in an effort to assuage the Court's concerns. Their efforts proved successful; after four years, the Supreme Court effectively reinstated capital punishment in the 1976 decision of Gregg v. Georgia. Although the decision in Gregg reflected the Court's confidence that new laws minimized the severe errors in the system cited in Furman, most of those same criticisms against capital punishment continue to be expressed. Today, many liberals excoriate the death penalty as a punishment primarily for blacks and the poor; additionally, the advent of DNA testing has exonerated many on death row, creating a growing concern for the certainty of capital convictions.

Criticisms aside, the death penalty is well-supported by the U.S. public. All but twelve states currently impose the death penalty and almost three of four Americans polled support it (although almost half of African Americans oppose it). In 1999 alone, there were 98 executions, an increase of thirty percent from 1998.

In the political sphere, opponents of the death penalty are often derided as being "soft on crime," and all current major Presidential candidates publicly support capital punishment. Indeed, Presidential hopeful George W. Bush captured the Texas Governorship in part by promising more executions, and he dutifully kept his word: under five years of Bush's leadership, Texas has executed 119 people. In the past twenty-five years, the entire rest of the country has executed a little under 400.

Those on both sides of the issue present compelling statistics to support their arguments. Opponents of the death penalty decry the fact that for every seven people executed, one person on death row is found to be innocent. In addition, they cite evidence that suggests African Americans on trial for murder are four times as likely as Caucasians to be sentenced to death. Yet those supporting the death penalty note the correlation between the proliferation of executions in the 90s and the decade's dramatically shrinking crime-rate. So read on, and learn about both sides of the issue.

2. LEARN ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

"The death penalty deters crime"

The Argument: The threat of execution is enough to make criminals think twice about committing a capital crime. Professional criminals, like everyone else, are aware of the consequences of their actions; the existence of the death penalty will make such criminals think twice. From a utilitarian perspective, the taking of one life may be justified if it prevents the taking of other, innocent lives, whether through the incapacitation of the killer or through the deterrence of other potential killers.

The Response: It is irrational to assume that a criminal is going to carefully weigh the consequences of his actions before commiting a criminal act. Clearly, by the time he has decided to commit his crime, he has already disregarded other forms of punishment besides the death penalty, such as lengthy imprisonment. He is also likely to assume that he will not be caught anyway. Criminals to whom the death penalty is administered are anti-social individuals, acting contrary to and despite of the rules that law-abiding citizens live by. How is another law going to deter a lawless individual? Besides, the statistics on the matter are inconclusive, given the enormous number of variables that must be accounted for in determining why crimes are or are not committed.

"Those close to the victim deserve justice and will be given peace of mind."

The Argument: A murder shatters many lives, not just the victim's. Isn't justice for all an underlying principle of our legal system? Often, friends and families of the victim are tormented by the notion that the killer lives while the victim cannot; what kind of system values the killers' rights above their grief?

The Response: The values of our justice system place societal good above individual cries for revenge, however understandable they may be. Just as we don't put victims' families in the jury box, so too do we not allow them to determine sentences. Although families and friends of victims suffer terribly, executing the killer does nothing to bring back their loved one, the true source of their grief.

"The death penalty saves money."

The Argument: Many criminals live decades in prison making no contribution to society. Why should the tax dollars of honest non-murdering citizens be used to keep the next Jeffrey Dahmer in jail? That money should be put to better use: in the schools, to lower taxes, to reduce the debt.

The Response: A little-known fact is that it often costs more to execute a criminal than it would to keep him/her alive in jail. How can that be, you ask? Well the answer lies in two parts: (1) before a criminal can be executed, he/she gets several opportunities to appeal, and all of those transcripts, court officers, and (often state-funded) defense lawyers cost money; and (2) with all the added security, the per-person cost of keeping inmates on death row far exceeds the per-person cost of a normal prison.

"An eye for an eye."

The Argument: The Bible prescribes that an eye be taken for an eye, that punishment should fit the crime and therefore those who take another life don't deserve their own. When a society opts to punish murder with death, its decision emphasizes the fairness of laws and the consequences of actions.

The Response: As far as the biblical reference is concerned, there are many elements present in the Bible that we, as Americans, have forsaken (when was the last time you went to a stoning?). Moreover, while the Bible sanctions the death penalty, subsequent passages emphasize the need that it be applied sparingly and judiciously (even among murderers).

3. LEARN ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

"The death penalty is racially biased against African Americans."

The Argument: Statistical evidence conducted on cases of similar crimes found that African American defendants are over four times as likely to be executed as their White counterparts. A similar study noted that White defendants face almost no chance of execution when their victim is African-American. While African Americans make up only 13% of the U.S. population, over 40% of death-row inmates are African-American. In light of these gross inequalities, the continuation of capital punishment constitutes egregious discrimination.

The Response: Statistical surveys that purport to show racial inequalities in applications of the death penalty ignore the socioeconomic and crime-pattern differences. Although it is true that a disproportionate number of those executed are African Americans, it is also true that those on death row come disproportionately from low-income and high-crime geographic areas. That such areas are disproportionately populated by African Americans is a tragic correlation, painting a troubling portrait of a nation that lacks equality. But it is wrong and naive to hold the death penalty itself responsible for this injustice. The Supreme Court ruled as such in McCleskey v. Kemp (1987), rejecting the notion that this type of statistical evidence could be used to invalidate the death penalty.

"Mistakes can be made."

The Argument: Advances in forensic medicine and DNA testing are leading to more and more exonerations of convicted criminals. For example, the Innocence Project, organized by attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld, has reviewed hundreds of such cases, and secured the release of at least eight innocent prisoners. Even absent such technology it is always possible that new evidence will surface to prove an inmate's innocence. The carrying out of a punishment that cannot be reversed shows a confidence in our legal system that is not justified. Numerous cases have arisen where police or others were found to have lied or planted evidence, or where a trial was administered incorrectly, or where a simple case of mistaken identity occurred. Until we can prove that justice is being administered impartially and with a degree of nearly perfect certainty, there should be no such thing as an irreversible punishment. If this means never, then so be it.

The Response: While the criminal justice system is not perfect, it operates within a degree of certainty acceptable to the average law-abiding citizen. If no system of justice can be administered without perfect certainty of guilt, then the majority of criminals will go unpunished. The death penalty serves a legitimate punitive and deterrent effect on crime, and thus helps assure the continued safety of those who live within the law. The occasional execution of an innocent is a tragic event, one against which the system must be ever vigilant. But such errors are not inherent in the system itself, they are only the result of carelessness in its application. The remedy is not to dismantle the system, which would be detrimental to society, but to exercise even greater care in its administration.

"A government that imposes the death penalty is as bad as the murderer."

The Argument: Is it ever justified for a human (or government) to willingly take the life of another human? Isn't that what the killer did in the first place? Isn't the government just as bad as the killer? The Categorical Imperative says that one must act not based on utility but only on the ultimate values one embraces; if killing is evil, then it may not be done by anyone for any reason.

The Response: One of the foremost principles of freedom is "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." When someone takes someone else's life, he/she has violated these fundamental rights, and thus has given up the right to his/her own. It is not evil for a society to act to promote the greater good; the ends justify the means, at least when it is a guilty party who is punished.

"America lags behind the rest of the world by failing to ban capital punishment."

The Argument: More than half the nations of the world (and all of the so-called "developed nations," except for the U.S.) have outlawed capital punishment. Last year, America executed roughly the same number of people as Iran, a nation constantly criticized for its human rights violations. In an era in which the United States is attempting to take the lead on universal rights and free democracy, how can it continue to promulgate a punishment deemed draconian by many of its allies? Further, the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the nation's foundational document, prohibits the infliction of "cruel and unusual punishment." What could be more cruel than the taking of a person's life, particularly, as is often the case, by means of a device as barbaric as the electric chair?

The Response: In many ways America's uniqueness with respect to other nations reflects its economic and political advantages. Other distinctions, however, are not quite so complimentary; for example, the U.S. has a dramatically higher rate of violent crime than that of the nations of Europe. As such, capital punishment is the necessary means to keep crime under control. Besides, if we really took our cues from Europe, we'd also have to call soccer "football" and install bidets in our bathrooms. America is a leader, not a follower, and even where we are in the wrong we will remain so stubbornly and spectacularly, until we decide otherwise. It's the American way.