Put the penalty on ice
Pat Robertson stunned Michael L. Radelet. At the William & Mary Law School Friday, Robertson said that he supported Radelet -- a University of Florida professor and activist -- and his move to impose a moratorium on the death penalty. To have one of America's foremost conservative Christian leaders endorse a movement that is typically defined as liberal is stunning indeed.
Robertson's speech is representative of a growing movement in America in support of a capital punishment moratorium. A moratorium -- that is, individual states halting executions for a fixed period of time -- should be instituted, at least until concerns regarding capital punishment can be resolved.
Robertson cited the way the penalty is administered as the reason for halting its use. His concern is that blacks are not treated equally, as they are executed at a greater rate than any other race.
Other opponents of the death penalty believe the number of convictions that have been overturned are evidence enough to put a stop to capital punishment.
Whatever the reason, the statistics surrounding the issue make a strong case for ending the death penalty.
For starters, blacks that kill whites are more likely to receive the death penalty than blacks that kill blacks.
Equally important is the murder rate of states that abolished the death penalty -- 5.1 per 100,000 -- to those states that still administer capital punishment, 9.1 per 100,000. So much for the idea that the death penalty is a deterrent to violent crime.
The most powerful argument, however, is that the criminal justice system isn't as ideal in practice as it is in theory.
Since 1976, at least one condemned prisoner has been exonerated for every seven put to death. In the face of such numbers, how can we be sure that, in the approximately 620 executions since 1976, at least one person has been put to death for a crime they did not commit?
Combine these gross mistakes with the emotional atmosphere surrounding capital cases today, and convictions can be attained even under the most strained circumstances.
Robertson detailed the atmosphere outside the Texas prison where Karla Faye Tucker was executed in 1998, describing it as "bloodthirstiness." Often, in a rush to find a person to blame for a crime and exact retribution, society begins to skip important steps that help ensure that the correct people wind up behind bars. This rush for justice can lead to the phenomena of "echo chambers," where juries and society overlook strong contradicting evidence that could exonerate a suspect.
We expect those members of our society that break the rules to be punished. We also expect, however, that humans will make mistakes. Why then, do we still maintain a standard of punishment that will turn a mistake into the death of an innocent person?
Our legal system is designed under the tenet that it is better to let a guilty person go free than to imprison an innocent person. If we have, as statistics suggest, put some innocent people to death, then we must halt the death penalty immediately, until we can be 100-percent sure it will never happen again.
Supporters of the death penalty would say that society will never be 100-percent certain of anything. If we cannot achieve absolute certainty, then it means the death penalty should be abolished. Anything else would be inhumane.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Signing off from the 135th term
By Editorial Board | December 20, 2024At the end of our term, we thought it fitting to share with you which of our 28 editorials have been our favorites.
EDITORIAL: End the Batten Curve
By Editorial Board | December 5, 2024The Batten School must allow professors to design grading systems tailored to the needs of their own students.
EDITORIAL: Repressive classroom agendas cost students their education
By Editorial Board | December 2, 2024Religiously-oriented education is one of the most obvious manifestations of this regional specificity and one of the greatest drivers of censorship.
