There are some people who have forfeited their right to live. The death penalty is as simple as that. The most shocking example is that of Charles Manson. Manson used charisma to create an apocalyptic commune, "The Manson Family," that shocked the United States with a number of grisly murders in California in 1969. The murders of Gary Hinman, the four residents of the Tate house (including pregnant actress Sharon Tate), and the LaBianca family were all attributed to the "Family." Charles Manson and four other Family members were convicted and sentenced to death in 1971-72. This is a clear cut case where five people forfeited their right to live.
In "Deadly Decisions" (Oct. 12), Michael Khavari argues that "Capital punishment must be abolished in order to create a criminal justice system that promotes rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism, rather than revenge and blood-lust." This all or nothing argument does not take into account positive changes that have been made in the death penalty system nor does it factor in whether someone has forfeited their right to life. The greatest change in the death penalty that has and is occurring is the inclusion of DNA evidence. A decade ago the use of DNA evidence to acquit numerous death row inmates was seen as a clear sign that the death penalty was faulty and should be abolished. Now, with the regular inclusion of DNA evidence as a reliable determinant of guilt, accuracy in the use of the death penalty has increased. Juries can now be 99 percent sure that person X killed person Y. In addition, lengthy appeals processes allow for the removal of all but a shadow of a doubt and help insure that a modern death penalty will never execute an innocent. As long as the death penalty is only used in the most heinous crimes when there is a high degree of certainty in the guilty verdict then there is little moral argument against it. Constitutional arguments based on the Eighth Amendment have not held muster in the Supreme Court except in the case of individual types of execution. When most liberal democracies abolish the death penalty it becomes uncommon, but not necessarily unusual. And assuming that execution of the guilty is not cruel in and of itself, most techniques used for ending life are very humane because of the minimal amount of pain caused. In addition I would like to note that carrying out this penalty does not prevent our prisons from being rehabilitation centers. It is unreasonable to say that these two are mutually exclusive. The death penalty is not about "quarantining undesirable individuals." It is about removing a right which a person has forfeited by committing a particularly heinous crime against his fellow man. It provides a system to prevent heinous criminals (like Scotland's Lockerbie Bomber) from being released.
Let's return to the gruesome tale of the Manson Family. In 1972, California enacted what was to be a temporary abolition of the death penalty. The sentences of all five members of the Family were commuted automatically to life in prison. Manson, a man who thrives in the manipulative prison environment, forfeited his right to live. He currently resides in California's Corcoran State Prison and is eligible for parole in 2012.
Joel Taubman\nSEAS I
Read More
IYER: Sports stadiums should sport more benefit to Virginia residents
By Arjun Iyer | YesterdayPast stadiums in other states show that Virginia has the potential to succeed at such a construction project, provided that proper measures are undertaken.
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 5 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | April 27, 2024The University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
