Opinion
Wisconsinites must reject death penalty
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Brad Vogel:
- Wisconsin State: are you kidding? (April 10, 2006)
- Camel's back (February 15, 2006)
- Small towns define Wisconsin (April 17, 2006)
- It's cold! (February 20, 2006)
- A new King for council? (April 20, 2006)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
A great deal is at stake in Wisconsin this autumn. The proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage is galvanizing proponents and detractors alike. Gov. James Doyle is slouching toward the November election with black clouds overhead. A September primary will determine whether Rep. Mark Green or County Executive Scott Walker will challenge him at the polls. A season of decision is shaping up.
Yet one decision Wisconsinites may face looms above the rest. As the autumn leaves begin to change hue, voters will likely be asked to vote on a matter that, quite literally, is one of life or death.
Recently, the state Senate approved a resolution calling for a statewide advisory referendum on the death penalty. If the measure passes the state Assembly this spring, the electorate will sound off during the Sept. 12 primary.
The Senate should be commended; voters should have a chance to weigh in on the weighty issue. Voters should, however, vote no.
The death penalty has no place in Wisconsin. Principled points of opposition abound, but even on a practical, experience-based level, the death penalty seems to fit our state about as well as a Shaq sneaker fits a 12-year-old. Wisconsin has been without it since an explicit ban in 1853.
Unfortunately, the grisly death of Theresa Halbach will likely be used as leverage in the political push for capital punishment. Surely the alleged acts of Steven Avery and his nephew rank as some of the most despicable in recent times. The monstrous memories of killers like Jeffrey Dahmer and Ed Gein also hit home here in Wisconsin. No matter how heinous the crime, though, extinguishing the life of a fellow human being without justification based on self-defense or national defense seems unnecessary.
Three main defenses seem to summarize support for the death penalty. Capital punishment, it can be argued, has three positive outcomes: it deters, punishes and removes a threat. All these points of support, however, seem insufficient under scrutiny.
Deterrence depends on a certain level of cognition in a would-be criminal. By and large, those who commit crimes "worthy of the death penalty" are in some sort of mental derangement that precludes awareness of a legal consequence. Psychology should in no way excuse the product of a person's actions, but it should be considered when devising a penalty mechanism. A public quartering might have served a deterrent purpose for law-abiding citizens in the past, but the modern reality of relatively sterile, concealed executions in other American states today has diverged from that conception.
In assessing the punitive death-penalty rationale, questions also arise. If unnecessary to protect life or liberty, is authorized vengeance that results in death a fitting punishment? Does the finality of death prevent some offenders from later realizing the enormity of their crimes, actually diminishing the punitive element? Does the irreversible nature of the punishment and the imperfections of the judicial system call the practice into question generally? Given the lack of a definitive answer to these questions, it seems best to err on the side of no capital punishment.
Finally, capital-punishment advocates can submit the most legitimate defense of their position: incapacitation. The death penalty removes a threat from society. It certainly does — as well as some non-threats. In frontier Wisconsin, before Madison had even been founded, this argument rightly won the day. Death was the only effective way of truly eliminating a serious threat to society.
As Pope John Paul the Great pointed out in the tract "Evangelium Vitae," however, the modern prison system offers a similarly reliable means of preventing a violent criminal from interacting with society, saying the death penalty should be used only "in cases of absolute necessity, in other words, when it would not be possible otherwise to defend society. Today, however, as a result of steady improvement in the organization of the penal system, such cases are rare, if not practically nonexistent."
Technological advancements and security realities have created a serious contender for the utter effectiveness the death penalty alone could provide in the past. Maximum-security detention facilities make any manifestation of the death penalty — whether a firing squad in Utah or a hanging in Delaware — look excessive.
This is not to condone the fact that Wisconsin Supermax inmates have televisions and air conditioning. Prison should not be a trip to the day spa. It should be punishment. It should also recognize the possibility for reformation, however. Even the worst of offenders can repent. Notorious Crips gang leader Stan "Tookie" Williams, for example, had taken to writing children's books before his execution in California last year.
Personal reformation is not necessarily a justification for release. Instead, it is merely a consideration in this debate. Individuals can, absent the death penalty, transform themselves and become moderately productive. Costs can certainly be prohibitive, but reducing prison amenities is a better solution than continuing to kill criminals.
Finally, for those who loathe abortion, opposition to the death penalty makes for a more consistent pro-life ethic. It is easy to empathize with proponents who point out the deep suffering and trauma of family members affected by the worst types of sexual assault and murder, but it raises questions about just how dearly a pro-life individual holds his conviction about the bedrock dignity of all human beings. While a serial killer harms society more than an innocent fetus, the belief that human life is sacrosanct should trump punitive motivations for capital punishment.
Admittedly, the death penalty fits squarely into the tradition and culture of the West. Progress, however, allows American society the opportunity to step beyond a traditional practice based on grim realities and necessities. We have arrived at a time when we can do better than the death penalty. It is possible to secure the peace, prevent recidivism and mete out appropriate justice without stooping to the level of taking an eye for an eye. Tradition is a valuable guide, but it should not be an iron straitjacket.
There is much at stake when the geese fly south again this year. If you do head to the polls to have your say on the death penalty, Wisconsin's tradition for the last 150 years is the one to keep foremost in your mind.
Brad Vogel (bvogel@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in political science and journalism.
16 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Muckrakers
President’s Visit Marked a Speech to One of the Last Groups Not Critical of Him
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
I don't commend the legislature for putting this to the people. It is decided law. How many referendums has this state had on this matter? At least 10 in the past 50 years.
This issue, like an anti-gay marriage ammendment, are wedge issues meant to get people to vote extremely conservatively. Given the way Washington has run our nation, it's the only way conservatives can maintain a majority in the House and Senate.
1 innocent death is too many. It's time to call for a federal ban.
First, human life is not sacred. How can you defend the likes of Dahmer or Bundy? These people cannot be reformed. Most seriel killers have something wrong in their brains making it impossible to reform them. All too often there are cases of child molesters getting arrested who had past cases of molestation. I just don't understand. This guy molested children in the past, they put him in jail for 10 years, and then let him out, and they think he's not going to do it again?
The death penalty does serve the purposes you mentioned. Revenge is a reason in itself. I have seen executions, and I love seeing the criminals get what they deserve. It litterally excites me to see criminals die.
But revenge aside, it is a matter of practicality. Why spend thousands of dollars a year keeping the scum bag alive in prison? If you know he cannot be let loose again, what is the point? What is more important, spending money to feed and house a killer, or spending money to, say, help the poor?
Killers, rapists, child molesters, they are flawed human beings and have no place in our society. Human life is not special, least of all their lives. We need to make a choice in our society, and we should choose to value the lives of good, law abiding citizens; not murderers.
You bleeding heart liberals make me sick. I have seen the pictures of Dahmer's victims. I have seen many other pictures of innocent, murdered people. I have read stories about guys who rape, kill, and eat children www.crimelibrary.com I have seen the pictures of a canibal butchering another human, some german guy just a couple years ago. Go to www.ogrish.com and look up some pictures of what these "human beings" can do, and then tell me that they deserve to live.
BRAD
YOU ARE NOT TOEING THE PARTY LINE
THEREFORE YOU ARE A RINO
LOVE, MARK BELLING
Agreed! Life in the slammer without the possibility of parole is a better punishment anyway - it lasts longer.
"It should also recognize the possibility for reformation, however. Even the worst of offenders can repent. Notorious Crips gang leader Stan "Tookie" Williams, for example, had taken to writing children's books before his execution in California last year."
ahahahaahahahahahah. You're insane.
"1 innocent death is too many."
And what about the innocents murdered by killers that escape or are released from jail?
LOL! Mark Belling, you crazy bastard, you are sooooo right. Wing.
"You bleeding heart liberals make me sick."
Sir, the rest of your statement is disregarded because you called Brad Vogel a bleeding heart liberal. Umm...not quite accurate there.
Unless there's even a shred of doubt and if they know beyond ANY doubt that the person is guilty, then I say bring back the death penalty. I am very concerned about innocent people being put to death because of overzealous prosecutors or biased juries. Both are a major threat to our justice system. but if a defendant is found guilty beyond ANY doubt, and if the crime is severe enough to warrant a death sentence, then give it to 'em.
Just like Wisconsin, these yobs don't have to worry about a death penalty either. That's a pity, that is.
Four men who killed girl were on probation
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/article352557.ece
Four members of a gang that raped, tortured and stabbed to death a 16-year-old girl before shooting her teenage friend in the head and leaving her for dead were on probation at the time of the attacks.
If they catch the killer he should receive a stern talking to! And be sent to bed without his supper too!
***
A 57-year-old gas station employee died from a gunshot wound to the back during an armed robbery Saturday at a Citgo gas station at 3531 N. Teutonia Ave., police said.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=409373
Dear Anonymous, you argue that the likes of Dahmer and Bundy cannot be reformed, and thus, belong on death row rather than prison. The point of imprisoning men like this is not reform. It is to punish them, but more importantly, to remove them from society. Given that there is not error-proof method of capital punishment, this is the best and only way. (This is to say nothing of the sheer barbarism of the "eye for an eye" mentality.
As for observing executions because it "excites you to watch them die," I suggest you find a new, less disturbing pastime. Cheer up!
Good luck,
The Monona Flashlight
"All too often there are cases of child molesters getting arrested who had past cases of molestation. I just don't understand. This guy molested children in the past, they put him in jail for 10 years, and then let him out, and they think he's not going to do it again?"
So don't let him out. Keep in prison for life. Problem solved.
"It litterally excites me to see criminals die."
Please keep your perversions to yourself.
"But revenge aside, it is a matter of practicality. Why spend thousands of dollars a year keeping the scum bag alive in prison? If you know he cannot be let loose again, what is the point? What is more important, spending money to feed and house a killer, or spending money to, say, help the poor?"
Studies show that on average, it costs ten times as much to execute a prisoner as it does to keep a prisoner in prison for his or her entire life.
Costs ten times as much to execute a prisoner? Hell, I'll pay for the damn rope.
I do not agree with the death penalty
Who cares how much it costs! This is an ethical question, not a matter of nickels and dimes. It's perverse to think about the issue in such terms.
Gavrilo Princip
Sarajevo