(Blip Saily (Bar Hwl
Death Penalty Remains Viable Punishment
I support the death penalty. It is funny
how five words suddenly place me in
the minority of society. The fact is that
support for capital punishment has dwin-
dled in recent years as
death penalty opponents
push for moratoriums and
even the elimination of the
system.
From time to time I, too,
concede that the death penalty system in
this country is in dire need of fixing if the
method is going to be continued to be used.
But the fact remains that the death
penalty is a lawful form of punishment
protected by the U.S. Supreme Court, the
body that ultimately decides whether ret
ribution for crimes is cruel or excessive.
In most cases, the court has ruled that
the death penalty is neither cruel nor
unusual. And I support that.
Death penalty foes often say that it is
hypocritical for society to on die one hand
work to protect life but with the other
seek to deprive criminals of theirs.
'Legal' Murder Unfair,
Unsuccessful Deterrent
Under no shadow of moral, polit
ical or cosmic fairness can we
defend the death penalty. The
foremost attempt at justifying the death
penalty lies in the desire
for retribution.
The old eye-for-an
eye philosophy should
be discarded as an exist-
Abby Nathanson
Point-Counterpoint
ing reasonable argument
because our justice system thankfully
doesn’t allow abused children to molest
their predator or try to rob a robber.
You can’t always even the score.
Applying the eye-for-an-eye adage
only to murder and then farther only
to some murders is arbitrary at best
On a more practical level of retribu
tion, the families of the victim need
closure. However, the closure should
be an emotional one, not a physical
act. Bringing the same kind of pain to
the innocent families of the murderer
at the seeming behest of the victim’s
family seems more like revenge than
healthy psychological closure.
The death penalty then becomes glo
rified blood money, equating the death
—oTTffitrdm’r with a return to the status
quo. How can society be balanced from
one death with the addition of another?
All we’re doing is increasing the
number of deaths, which society
should try to avoid whenever possible.
Proponents often cite this deterrence
from criminal murder as a good reason
to support the death penalty. While sta
tistics often are used in attempts to sup
port deterrence, they are inconclusive,
misleading and largely discredited by
both sides in the United States.
Further, at no point should an indi
vidual’s death be justified by deceptive
statistical averages and computed
demographic norms. •
The idea of deterrence rests on the
premise that a majority of murders are
conducted in a realistic, calculated man
ner and that the death penalty is admin
istered quickly and systematically. In
reality, a large portion of murders com
mitted in the United States happen in
fits of passion and under the influence of
drugs or alcohol, a far cry from a crimi
nal who carefully weighed his options.
A deterrent system works only when
punishment is administered quickly
after conviction. In North Carolina,
there are more than 200 inmates on
death row. Since 1984, about 20 of
these inmates have been executed.
However, in the last year alone, nearly
30 convicted murderers have been
taken off death row for varying reasons.
If the death penalty is supposed to be a
deterrent, the threat of imminent death
here seems particularly ineffective.
Some would argue that even if it’s not
an effective deterrent, maybe we at least
saved one or two lives out there and at
the very least we killed some killers.
Death Penalty Only Appropriate Punishment for Murder
The pursuit for justice. A painstaking and
necessary task that must be faced follow
ing a crime. Incidents involving extreme
ly serious crimes such as the taking of a life are
no exception, but perhaps pose
the greatest challenge of all.
It is when presented with mur
der that people are ultimately
forced to question how justice
can best be served, keeping in
mind the impact of the answer will not just be
felt by those direcdy involved in the case, but
by many others as well. These concerns can be
remedied by the implementation of capital pun
ishment in cases where the defendant has been
proven guilty of the murder they are accused
for beyond all reasonable doubt.
Administration of the death penalty is the
fairest solution to the difficulty of ruling the fit
ting sentence for the crime of murder.
So what exactly is fair? Is it fair to allow
someone who took the life of another human
They’re right - it is.
From the death penalty to abortion,
society has long placed a high regard for
the sanctity of life.
But a person who mali
ciously denies another of
their right to live and is
convicted of first-degree
murder clearly has no
respect for this notion, and
April Bethea
Point-Counterpoint
I cannot support sending them to prison
for the remainder of their life -as many
death penalty foes propose - while their
victim lies for all eternity in a grave.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill expressed
a similar sentiment two centuries ago
when he said it is unreasonable “to think
that to take the life of a man who has taken
that of another is to show want of regard
for human life. We show, on the contrary,
most emphatically our regard for it, by the
adoption of a rule that he who violates that
right in another forfeits it for himself.”
Another argument against the death
penalty is that the method is barbaric,
Establishing the idea that arbitrarily
killing people is wrong, the aforemen
tioned argument ends up supporting its
opposition.
Sometimes innocent
people are wrongly con
victed and killed. If we
are trying to convince
people that killing inno-
cent people is wrong, we
should start with our own justice system.
It is society’s place to protect its
members, which it does better without
the death penalty. Yes, murderers would
live in a jail outside of society forever if
we abolish the death penalty, but we
wouldn’t be killing innocent victims.
And yes, many statistics attempting
to prove that death row inmates some
times get their cases overturned rest
more on legal technicalities rather than
actual innocence, but that doesn’t mean
that real mistakes aren’t made. Our sys
tem of conviction might be the best we
have, but it’s not foolproof, so our pun
ishments shouldn’t be life-proof.
Arbitrarily administering justice is
wrong too, and avoiding deadly mis
takes should be a top priority for our
justice system. There are huge dispari
ties in the numbers of criminals sen
tenced to death row that vary widely
by county within a state, region, race
and most importantly, socioeconomic
status. There are significandy more
black inmates than white inmates
placed on death row, yet North
Carolina historically executes more
white inmates than black inmates.
The lack of a systematic process that
relies heavily on prosecutorial discretion
is sometimes labeled as “good enough”
by death penalty advocates, citing the
“at least we’re killing some killers” idea.
The lack of that process, though some
what refined with the advent of aggra
vating and mitigating factors, suggests
flaws in the system, perhaps reasonably
enough for the public to doubt verity of
the convictions such that they warrant
an irrevocable punishment like death.
Moreover, a divided public should
not become a Gallup poll of death.
There is a reason we have a justice sys
tem with lawyers and judges rather
than mob hangings. The public is too
influenced by factors other than rea
son, logic and the details to justify the
death penalty on public support alone.
Ideally, the horrible guilt of ending
someone’s existence should be deterrent
enough for murder, but unfortunately,
it’s not Nevertheless, we should not let
passionate rage propel us into thought
less vengeance lest we sink to the despi
cable level of the murderers themselves.
Editorial Board member Abby
Nathansan, a junior psychology major,
can be reached at
abbyO I @email.unc.edu.
being to live?
Allowing a murderer to live will result in one
of two outcomes, both of which are a disgrace
to the justice system and to those seeking prop
Rachel Boren
Guest Columnist
go unnoticed.
While all of these actions would still take
place in jail, it cannot be denied that these plea
sures can still be enjoyed by the occupants of
the prison. The fact also remains that there is
still a person, or are persons, who have had all
of these wonderful opportunities unjusdy taken
from them by this killer, and never again will
be able to see the smile on a loved one’s face,
laugh with their friends or other simple plea
sures in life.
We must remember that there is nothing to
another form of “an eye for an eye, tooth
for a tooth.”
But punishments must be proportionate
to the crime committed, and severe
crimes deserve severe punishments.
Otherwise they are ineffective and might
not deter another person from committing
the same crime.
Tme, life imprisonment does signifi
candy reduce the chance that someone
will commit another offense, but many
crimes are punishable with life in prison.
For those convicted of multiple offenses,
their punishments might extend well past
their life span.
So while all crimes, whether minor or
heinous, deserve some form of punish
ment, the act of maliciously and intention
ally depriving another person of his life is
by far the most severe crime one can com
mit and deserves the harshest punishment.
Life imprisonment does not serve this pur
pose.
Further, the law does not forbid the
government from depriving another of life
DTH FILE PHOTO
A protester speaks out against the death penalty at the post office on Franklin Street in the fall of 1999. N.C. government officials have debated the
idea of a moratorium on the death penalty in the state in recent years but have steered away from implementing the policy.
Racial Disparities Exemplify Death Penalty Flaws
Undoubtedly, the death penalty is a highly
polemic issue. People have traditionally either
supported or opposed capital punishment on
rather definitive lines, but now a gray
area is beginning to form among those
who no longer hold steadfast in their
support of the system.
Many question whether the death
penalty is a suitable form of punishment.
They recognize something is not right
with the method but may have a hard time pinpointing
their uneasiness around the concept of state sanctioned
murder. So what is wrong with the death penalty?
Philosophically, it is somewhat rational to say that
someone who commits the ultimate crime - minder
- deserves to pay the ultimate price. However, in
reality the death penalty is not an issue that is dis
cussed in academic circles, in coffee shops or on the
editorial page of the school newspaper.
The death penalty is an actual system that is being
implemented in 38 states across America, including
North Carolina. It is a system that has placed more
than 200 people on death row in this state. It is a fal
lible human system that contains many flaws and
inequities.
Before we continue to execute our citizens, the
system must be corrected. The death penalty is taint
ed by racial bias. A study done by the UNC School
of Law and the Common Sense Foundation found
that defendants charged with killing a white person
in North Carolina are 3.5 times as likely to receive
er punishment for the crime
committed. By letting a convicted
killer live, they are being given
the opportunity to interact with
others, eat, dream, imagine, and
many other small joys that often
Viewpoints
Frances Ferris And
Elizabeth Ferris
Guest Columnists
prevent criminals from living a fine life in
prison, one that they do not deserve to experi
ence by any means. Life in a jail no longer
guarantees the appropriate degree of punish
ment for murder, in that the chances to experi
ence freedom impede on the confinement that
murderers deserve. A sentence to jail is not
what is fair, for this gives criminals a chance to
live that they have taken from other people and
thus do not deserve.
This is the scenario should the killer remain
in jail and not get released.
However, the other possibility remains of the
killer being granted freedom under such condi
tions like good behavior, and this is utterly sick
ening. The idea that someone who committed
one of the most heinous crimes known to man,
the taking of another human life, could ever
five outside confinement in the beautiful out
side is disturbing. The chance to commit the
crime again is at their disposal, and there can
never be a certainty that they would never
- it only states that it cannot do so without
due process.
The requirements for pursuing capital
crimes are such only a limited number of
criminal offenses can be punished by the
death penalty. In these cases prosecutors
have a higher burden to prove that a
crime was committed maliciously. Also,
numerous states require an automatic
appeal for cases in which the death penal
ty is sought to ensure that the accused
received fair representation.
Still, while I support the notion of capi
tal punishment, it does not take a genius
to realize that the application of the death
penalty in our country is flawed.
In recent years, 115 prisoners have
been exonerated after DNA tests proved
their innocence. This fact alone clearly
demonstrates a need to examine how the
death penalty is applied.
The Supreme Court has made some
leeway in improving the system by ban
ning the execution of the mentally dis
abled and ruling that only juries may
the death penalty. When a person of color kills a
white person, these odds only increase. This figure
should alarm us all because it exemplifies the fact
that people are being sentenced to death
simply based on their skin color.
Desmond Carter - scheduled to be
executed at 2 a.m. Dec. 10 - was con
victed in Rockingham County, just
north of Greensboro. Desmond is black,
and his victim was white. In this county,
though half of the murder victims are black, 90 per
cent of the cases that resulted in the death penalty
involved white victims.
Statewide, 40 percent of murder victims are black,
though of those individuals actually executed for
their crimes, once again, 90 percent of the victims
were white. The death penalty system in North
Carolina places more importance on the lives of
whites than those of minorities.
Further, the quality of representation that death
row inmates received is questionable. In October, the
Common Sense Foundation released a report that
found more than one in six inmates on death row in
North Carolina had been represented at trial by an
attorney who has been disciplined by the State Bar.
Desmond Carter is a part of this statistic. His trial
attorney, Doug Hux, was recently reprimanded by the
State Bar for making demeaning statements about a.
client to the press and for charging exorbitant fees.
This is not the kind of attorney that should be repre
senting a client for his life, but it happens all too often.
break the law again. To avoid such doubts, it is
clear that the solution is to make absolutely sure
that the chances of the criminal killing again are
zero. This is the only way to ensure that the
convicted has no chance whatsoever of taking
another human life. And this can be done by
employing the death penalty.
Now, given these opportunities for convicted
killers to either lead a good life in prison or be
released to go on with life outside of prison
walls, both of which they are undeserving of, I
fail to see any deterrent to committing a crime.
Knowing that a person can kill someone else
and go pretty much scot-free certainly does not
hinder the decision to go through with a mur
der.
However, the possibility of death for such a
crime is unarguably more frightening and pow
erful than the prior mentioned “punishment." It
is only through administration of the death
penalty can we be more secure that crimes will
not go unpunished, and that they in no way can
Monday, November 18, 2002
impose a death penalty sentence.
Illinois Gov. George Ryan took a bold
step in 2000 when he issued a moratorium
on the death penalty in the state and initi
ated a review of the cases of 140 death
row inmates.
But the need to examine the death
penalty does not mean that the method
should be banned. All laws deserve exam
ination periodically to ensure that they are
applied appropriately.
The fact remains that the death penalty
is a viable form of punishment. It is
reserved to punish society’s harshest crim
inals for the most harshest crime - deny
ing an innocent person of their right to
live.
To make this deprivation of life punish
able by anything less than death would
not only be inappropriate - it would be
cruel and unusual.
Editorial Board member April Bethea, a
junior journalism major, can be reached at
adbethea@email.unc.edu.
The list of problems go on and on. The death penal
ty is also applied in an arbitrary manner, demonstrat
ing the disparity of justice in capital cases. Ernest
Basden, who will meet the same fate as Carter at 2 a.m.
Dec. 4, was convicted for the murder of Billy White.
Of the three co-defendants, he was the first to go to
trial and the only one to receive the death penalty.
However, Sylvia White and Lynwood Taylor, who
are due for parole in a few years, are responsible for
master-minding the crime. Basden, who became
involved in the final days of the plot, was the trigger
man but did not participate in planning the crime.
Still, his codefendants could one day go free,
though they are more culpable in Billy White’s death
than Ernest Basden. Ernest was merely a scapegoat.
The death penalty system is crumbling. It fails to
mete out equitable punishments, it targets minorities
and those who murder whites, and it does not pro
vide adequate representation to defendants.
Until these problems, among others, can be
addressed and correcdy, North Carolina cannot con
tinue to carry out executions. Call Gov. Mike Easley
at (800) 662-7952 or 715-4240 and tell him you do
not support the execution of Basden or Carter. Tell
him that until the death penalty can be imposed fair
ly and jusdy, he should declare an immediate mora
torium on executions.
E-mail Frances Ferris, a junior international studies
major, at fferris@email.unc.edu. Reach Elizabeth Ferris,
a junior journalism major, at eaferris@email.unc.edu.
happen again.
Employment of the death penalty is the only
way to penalize those guilty of murder. To those
opposed I ask what is a better solution? Jail is
not an equivalent consequence of homicide and
offers no closure for the family or friends of the
killed.
Clearly murder is too serious to warrant a
slap on the wrist or community service, so what
else is there? The choices stand; to let a killer
live or face the penalty of what they have done,
for justice does not allow both to simultaneous
ly occur. So between these two options, what is
the right sentence for murder?
To even consider the option of allowing a
killer to live is shameful. People must face the
consequences of their actions, and for an
extreme action such as murder, the severe pun
ishment of death must be given.
Contact Rachel Boren, a sophomore psychol
ogy major, at rboren@email.unc.edu.
9
— in
[ip
For more columns,
visit The Daily Tar
Heel's Web site.
• “Americans
Wrongly Assume
Death Penalty
Fairness,' by
Alicia Towler
• "Death Penalty
Fails to Deter," by
Josh Glasser.
•"Death Penalty
Illogical," by
Nicole Gallagher.
www.dailytarheel.com