Friday, 4/11/97
Death penalty obscures justice
Punishment puts pressure on jurors, is applied
inconsistently
Although still in the midst of jury selection, the trial of
Timothy McVeigh has already struck a chord of controversy within
the American judicial system. Before twelve jurors can be seated to
determine who is responsible for the bombing of the Oklahoma City
Federal Building, each one must be questioned regarding their views
on the issue of capital punishment. Most legal experts agree that
the jurors’ perceptions of the death penalty will largely determine
who is selected for the panel, because their opinion of the subject
will affect more than just the punishment of the crime – it will
also directly impact the finding of fact.
The profound weight that is attributed to juror opinions of
capitol punishment indicates that the specter of death imposes an
unfair burden upon the judicial process. Jurors may believe a
defendant to be guilty of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, but
convict on a lesser count because of their reluctance to be
responsible for his or her execution. This is exemplified in the
case against Timothy McVeigh. Thus far, prosecutors have been very
careful to ask potential jury members whether they would be capable
of finding McVeigh guilty if they had knowledge that such a ruling
could lead to his death. A failure to ask such questions could be
disastrous, prompting sympathetic jurors to vote for a lighter
sentence than would have been given if the death penalty had not
been sought originally.
It is certain that the jurors presiding over the McVeigh trial
have been exposed to reports on the grieving families afflicted by
the federal building bombing, and that the prosecutors will further
attempt to elicit their sympathy during the course of the trial.
However, while jurors have and will continue to be subjected to
horrible images of the bombing’s aftermath, they will also bear the
additional emotional burden of deciding whether a young man will
live or die. Putting morality and religion aside, the issue of
capital punishment simply raises the level of emotional tension,
making the situation even more heart-rending, while obscuring the
ability of the jury to make a rational and objective decision. In
this way, even in cases of criminals who may be incapable of
undergoing rehabilitation, the utilization of capital punishment
actually has the potential to inhibit the administration of
justice.
The most significant problem with the death penalty is the
inconsistency of its application. The determination of who receives
capital punishment varies not only from state to state, but on the
individual level as well. There is no law that stipulates that
certain offenses require death as punishment – it is ultimately
left up to the whim of the district attorney’s office. As a result,
those with money and influence are often able to evade going on
trial for their lives. The wealthy or famous are never executed; it
is almost always the poor, nonwhite or uneducated that pay the
ultimate price.
There are countless examples of the inequitable application of
capital punishment. For instance, when O.J. Simpson was arrested
for the double homicide of his wife, Nicole, and her friend Ronald
Goldman, the district attorney’s office met with prominent
African-American leaders of the Los Angeles community in order to
conclude whether Simpson should be given the death penalty if found
guilty. Around the same time, an immigrant from Vietnam who spoke
little English was also arrested for the homicide of his wife.
However, because he had not achieved celebrity status, as Simpson
had, he was not afforded the privilege of having an elite group
argue his case directly to the office making the accusations
against him. Until the decision to seek and apply capital
punishment is made uniform, death should not be a penalty for
criminal behavior.
Before one dismisses the discriminatory nature of capital
punishment – yet another example of how our judicial system
revolves around money and political influence – I would like to
propose an answer to the problem. It is imperative that, if capital
punishment is to exist, it is at least applied evenly. If the law
specifies a crime as punishable by death, every person that is
accused of that crime should face the same penalty if convicted, no
matter what their race, class or education level. Individual
district attorneys should not be given the discretion to determine
who will be tried for their life and who will not. If they are,
then America does not truly stand by the democratic principle of
"liberty and justice for all."