OPINION & EDITORIAL
The death penalty is unjust
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Rob Deters:
- SUVs and Earth Day do not mix (April 24, 2003)
- Lawlessness reigns in halls of Congress (April 6, 2005)
Related Stories:
- Bullets over the Beltway (October 23, 2003)
- Penalty offers few benefits (November 10, 2006)
- Expand the death penalty (September 18, 2003)
- Shall make no law ... (January 24, 2006)
by Rob Deters
Thursday, October 23, 2003
Looking at the statistics, John Muhammed is going to die.
Muhammed is the elder half of the sniper team that terrorized the Washington, D.C., area last year. He is being charged with a recently passed anti-terrorism law that makes it a crime to kill someone while committing a terrorist act. Muhammed may have indeed been terrorizing the citizens of suburban D.C., but he is no terrorist.
The New York Times published an editorial this week pointing out that Virginia, the first state he is being prosecuted in, has a law that makes only the person who pulled the trigger able to be charged with capital murder. The state of Virginia concedes that Mr. Muhammed probably did not pull the trigger, but that he was the “captain” of a “killing team” and therefore is able to be held responsible (i.e. die). It is terrifying to think of young Lee Malvo being essentially brainwashed into killing, but he still pulled the trigger, not Muhammed.
It is also notable that while Maryland is where the majority of the shootings occurred and where the crime spree began and ended, it is Virginia where prosecutors get first crack at Muhammed and Malvo. Why? You can’t execute a minor in Maryland, and Virginia has no qualms about killing juveniles.
Since 1976, 22 people have been executed for crimes they committed while they were under the age of 18.
The rush to try, convict and kill heinous murderers is an understandable emotion but one that an evolving society should try to keep in check. The families of the victims of the sniper duo no doubt want justice done. They should not, no matter how bitter, how angry or how bereaved, feel that justice would be done if Muhammed and Malvo are sentenced to death.
Law professor and practicing attorney Stephen Hurley overturned the Illinois death penalty statute in 1975 while defending two killers in a brutal double homicide. When asked about the death penalty, Hurley says, “I choose to believe there are ways of dealing with those people (criminals) that does not emulate their conduct under the color of law.”
The death penalty has no place in a civilized society, and no matter how heinous the crime, a true justice system could keep someone separated from society for life, but not take their life.
What argument can we provide for the death penalty?
How about its deterrence value? According to the FBI, in 2001 the South had the most murders, the highest rates of violence, and the most executions. Not much deterrence there.
Ten of the 12 states that don’t have the death penalty have fewer homicides than the national average. During the last 20 years, the homicide rate in states with the death penalty has been 48 percent — 101 percent higher than in states without the death penalty.
Law-enforcement officials have to believe it works, right? Wrong. In 1995, police chiefs were asked, out of six categories, which was the greatest deterrence to crime. The death penalty came in dead last. Only 1 percent thought it had any deterrent effect, while 31 percent thought treating drug abuse would make us safer. Of death-row inmates, 60 percent don’t recall the crime for which they have been convicted due to drugs or alcohol. Since they can’t remember why they are on death row, it’s unlikely they were considering the possibility of the gas chamber while shooting the convenience-store clerk.
Killing people has to be cheaper than keeping them locked up for their natural life, right? Wrong again. Capital punishment is punishingly expensive. In a report by the National Bureau of Economic Research, they estimated that between 1982 and 1997, the extra cost of capital trials was $1.6 billion. Just by charging Mr. Muhammed with a capital crime, the trial he will undergo will be far costlier than a non-capital one.
Almost no state provides district attorneys with special funds to try capital cases, so who pays for all this? You do.
For a while, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty was unconstitutional. In Furman v. Georgia, the death penalty was found to be arbitrary and therefore cruel and unusual punishment. The Supreme Court struck down 40 states’ death-penalty statutes. However, all the states had to do was rewrite their laws to follow the Supreme Court’s decision (making the death penalty more “fair”) and the death penalty could resume. Rewrite them they did.
Since then, nothing in the statistics, the costs or impact of the death penalty has borne out any justification for their reenactment.
The recent developments in DNA technology have also led to a revolution in death-row exonerations, yet the machine grinds on.
It’s not easy to defend someone who is a rapist or a murderer. Don’t think this is about being too kind to killers, because no one wants to spend life in prison. Besides, why let someone off the hook of a lifetime of penitence for a moment of vengeance?
John Muhammed is black, he is possibly mentally incompetent, and he is having the full force of the justice system bearing down on him. If all goes to plan, the state of Virginia will execute him.
That is the greatest injustice of all.
Rob Deters (rvdeters@wisc.edu) is a second-year law student.
