Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, October 15, 1995 TAG: 9510130010
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: 1 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: CODY LOWE
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
We collectively have decided those men are so dangerous to the rest of us that we can on longer tolerate their being alive. So we are about to employ the only absolutely sure method of guaranteeing they will never hurt any of us again.
But our method - any method of capital punishment - is bound to raise questions of effectiveness and morality. Is capital punishment ever justified? If so, when? Under what circumstances?
At the end of this column are addresses for both conventional and electronic mail. You are invited to tell us and other readers how you feel about capital punishment.
The subject appropriately stirs up passions. It is, after all, the ultimate punishment. No appeal. No reprieve. No parole.
There are some crimes so heinous, some criminals so dangerous that almost everyone would agree that they deserve death, even if we disagree over whether they actually should be put to death.
Even if we believe the punishment is deserved, facing death on such a scale begs us to re-examine the issue.
No rational person, no one who has thought about the issue, looked at it, read about it, can doubt that the system whereby we condemn people to death is far from any ideal of perfect justice.
People of color are far more likely than whites to receive the penalty. Poor people are far more likely than middle income or rich people to be executed.
We could conclude that poor, black people are more likely to commit murder than middle-class white people. We could conclude further that they are more likely to commit the particular kinds of murder that are eligible for the imposition of the death penalty.
I don't think anybody really buys that. It seems fairly obvious that continuing cultural biases against people of color and the poor make it easier for juries to send them to death.
Besides that, the question of the effectiveness of the penalty remains largely unanswered. It seems unreasonable to believe that the potential penalty has any effect in cases of murders of passion. In other cases, murderers plan carefully never expecting to be caught and punished. In still other cases, the murderers seem to want to be caught and don't care if the punishment is death.
In none of those instances does it seem likely that even a well-publicized and well-greased system of execution is likely to slow down the murder rate.
We also must acknowledge that an intellectual discussion of the relative justice or effectiveness of the "justice system" is hardly related at all to the demands of culture for revenge in particular cases.
Look at Ronald Goldman's father. He is justifiably outraged at what he sees as the absurdities of the justice system in the O.J. Simpson trial.
He is a man whose son - caught on a breeze of chance in the wrong place at the wrong time - was brutally butchered. He wants revenge. He believes that is also justice. What he sees is a year-long trial of a very rich man who can manipulate the system in such a way that nobody pays any attention any more to the slaughter of Ron Goldman.
What he sees is the cynical game-playing of prosecutors and defense attorneys who seem to have little concern for justice. They seem to care about fees and press conferences and legal maneuvers and one-upmanship. They seem to care little if at all for the lives of the two victims.
Goldman's thirst for revenge may be understandable, but is it a good enough reason to exact the death penalty?
What do you think? Should we execute some criminals? Is the current law adequate? Does the method of execution make any difference to your position? Does capital punishment work?
Send me a letter within the next two weeks in care of The Back Pew, The Roanoke Times, P.O. Box 2491, Roanoke 24010, or e-mail me at roatimesinfi.net by Oct. 15.
I'll write a follow-up column based on your responses.
by CNB