Finally, the Laci Peterson trial is over. Almost. Now that Scott
Peterson has been convicted for the murder of his pregnant wife,
Laci, he’s preparing for his Nov. 22 sentencing hearing.
Legal experts claim Peterson will be spared from execution. After
all, Californians typically favor jail time over capital
punishment. But, no matter the outcome of this case, it highlights
the ever-looming concern not only for Californians but for all
Americans ““ the death penalty.
In fact, capital punishment shouldn’t be an option in the
Peterson case or in any case like it ““ capital punishment
should be abolished.
Why? The answer is clear and evident. Capital punishment is not
only immoral and fraught with terrifying error, it also is an
outrageously costly system. The United States should follow the
lead of the state of Massachusetts ““ and, for that matter,
most Western nations ““ by no longer tolerating it.
Tonight, a man in Texas is scheduled to be executed. Troy Kunkle
is to be executed at 6 p.m., after having served 19 years on death
row for the murder of Stephen Horton. But following his death, will
justice have been served?
Many think so. In fact, the majority of Americans ““ over
70 percent as of May 2004 ““ support the death penalty for
those convicted of murder, according to a Gallup poll. Supporters
typically argue that it reduces crime, consoles victims’
families, and sets boundaries for both punishment and law. Others
cite the Biblical ethos of an “eye for an eye.”
But not everyone concurs. In fact, this past May, petitioners
urged Texas Gov. Rick Perry to override Kunkle’s sentence:
“It is an undisputed fact that this was a terrible crime. And
we, the undersigned, feel very much sympathy. … No one can
comprehend the pain (the victim’s family members) have
suffered. But we also oppose the use of the death penalty in all
cases on humanitarian grounds,” they wrote.
I agree. Our Constitution’s Eighth Amendment strictly
prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” but our death
penalty violates this phrase. In 1983, for example, a prisoner was
charged with 1900 volts of electricity three times before he was
finally dead.
The majority of the Western world recognizes that capital
punishment isn’t humane. But the United States lags behind.
Moreover, back in 1958, the Supreme Court concluded in the case
Trop v. Dulles that the country’s legal boundaries must adapt
to the “evolving standard of decency that marked the progress
of a maturing society.” Law must progress with time.
But there’s even more to this argument. The death penalty
isn’t fair.
The majority of inmates on death row today come from
lower-income areas. Unlike Scott Peterson with his top lawyers,
these men and women can’t afford slick and costly legal
representation for their trials. Instead, they obtain
state-appointed public defenders who often juggle many cases at
once.
Most death row inmates are then left with little personal
consultation, let alone meticulous attention to the collection of
evidence and witnesses, said Erin Callahan, western regional
director of Amnesty International.
Then there’s the issue of innocence. It’s happened
before and will happen again ““people currently on death row
will be found innocent. Of course, not all of them, and it’s
true that DNA testing helps. But our legal system and our own human
biases are imperfect. One man among many, Joseph
“Shabaka” Green Brown, spent over 14 years on
Florida’s death row. He was later found innocent and
released. Then, in 2000, Dennis Williams, after spending 18 years
on death row, was released after a Northwestern journalism class
confirmed his innocence via DNA tests.
There is the commonly used argument that capital punishment
reduces crime. But is this a valid argument to make? I don’t
think so.
The truth is that nobody can prove the death penalty has an
effect either way. Instead, this argument is unduly used (without
valid information or research) to help justify execution.
It’s a big misconception without definitive proof, Callahan
said.
So far, the majority of my arguments have been based on
morality. But “most people don’t seem to have moral
issues with the death penalty,” explained Callahan.
“They don’t feel like we need to work with the United
Nations human rights report. And they don’t often care
whether or not other nations find our system cruel.”
So let’s get down to basics ““ money talks. “It
is the issue of cost that has really resonated with Americans,
especially in the more conservative towns in California,”
Callahan said.
Amnesty International reports that the death penalty adds a
whopping $2.3 million to a criminal’s prison expenses. For
states facing a budget crisis, such as California, these extra
millions are all the more angering.
Here’s the bottom line ““ the death penalty is
archaic. There’s absolutely no reason why our human rights
laws should parallel nations such as Rwanda, Sudan or China ““
and, frankly, I find it disturbing that they do.
Our country needs to see change. The death penalty is flawed and
inhumane. It costs the state too much money, and there’s no
proof that it yields positive results. We should support our
Constitution evolving toward ever more positive standards of
decency. And, one day, I hope we will.
Fried is a second-year history student. E-mail her at
ifried@media.ucla.edu. Send general comments to
viewpoint@media.ucla.edu.