Debaser

On November 10th, 2009 John Allen Muhammad was carried to the death chamber and executed by lethal injection at the Greenville Correctional Facility in Jarratt, Virginia. Muhammad was better known as the "DC Sniper," who with the help of his accomplice Lee Boyd Malvo, was responsible for a reign of terror that resulted in at least ten deaths in and around the nation's capitol. Muhammad and Malvo would stake out a distant position and wait for some innocent victim to cross their rifle sights, whom they would then fire upon. Their actions were vile, cowardly, and disgusting. After they were caught on October 24, 2002 they were convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced. Malvo received life in prison, and Muhammad was sentenced to death.

For someone like myself--who believes the death penalty should be abolished--Muhammad is the absolute worst case scenario when it comes to defending my opinion. A deranged, unrepentant killer like Muhammad tests my position like few others could. Like I said, he's the worst. And while I am very sensitive to the desires of the victim's family members, I will continue to take the stand that capital punishment has no place in modern society.

First, the adjudication of the death penalty disproportionately disfavors minorities and the poor. In a country where 74% of the population is white, 1768 of the 3572 inmates on death row are non-white. Nearly 50%. It's not hard to ascertain why. Minorities are still economically disadvantaged in the USA compared to the white majority. Often, the difference between life and death is whether the accused can afford to hire a decent attorney or not. Public defenders are much like probation officers: Overworked, underpaid, and with far too many clients to serve effectively. Does anyone seriously think that OJ Simpson would have beat the double murder charges he faced in California had he not been able to buy his "dream team" of lawyers? Former Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black once said, "There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has." Ain't it the truth.

Many would argue that the death penalty is a deterrent to others. However, there is literally no accepted scientific evidence to support this. Murder--whether it be of the cold-blooded variety or a crime of passion--is not a rational act. For one to be deterred by the fear of being put to death, one would have to be in their right mind. I think it's fair to say that sociopaths, psychos, and those in a blind rage do not qualify as rational. Therefore, how could it be a deterrent?

It is also irrevocable. Once the punishment has been handed out it cannot be reversed. This is particularly unfortunate for those who may later be proven innocent. As just about anyone can tell you, our justice system is not perfect. Since 1992 DNA evidence has exonerated at least 15 death row inmates. And DNA evidence is available in only a fraction of capital cases. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that if there were 15 innocent people awaiting execution then there are certainly more on death row now who simply lack the appropriate scientific evidence to set them free. I would submit that if there is only one person who fits that description then there are far too many.

Some might also say that it's not fair to ask for tax payer dollars to go towards the health and housing of murderers and rapists. While I certainly understand that point of view, I wonder if those that hold that opinion know that it typically costs more to put someone to death than it does to keep them alive. This is due in large part to the lengthy appeals process that our justice system provides for the convicted. Maybe those same people think we should further limit the appeals process to make it a less expensive process. However, I can think of at least 15 people since 1992 who would probably disagree.

As I said before, Muhammad is the most difficult argument to make for someone like me. His was the very definition of an open and shut case. There is no doubt that he committed these awful, heinous murders, and that he is indeed deserving of severe punishment. So how can I advocate for his right to live (although not to live as he might choose)? Well, because for me, it really isn't about him, it's about us. In the end I believe a policy of capital punishment debases us as a people. I know many Christians point to "An eye for an eye" as it is written in the Old Testament. I would counter that Jesus himself was a victim of a wrongfully adjudicated death sentence (remember he was both poor and a minority). Not to mention, after Jesus came, the Old Testament became just that...old. You see, I always view Jesus as a rather forgiving sort and I find it hard to believe that he would want us to take away some one's opportunity for ultimate forgiveness by executing them. Who's to say that an inmate couldn't find redemption after twenty years in prison? Should they not be afforded the opportunity?

Now, I know that if God forbid, someone that I love were to be murdered that I might feel differently. While I would hope not, I think it's quite possible that if the authorities apprehended the guilty party and the court sentenced the offender to death, I would be more than willing to pull the switch myself. But then what would that say about me? That I would be willing to trade my own humanity for a hollow serving of revenge? And in turn, what then does the continuing existence of the death penalty say about us? The answer isn't pretty.

Sumo-Pop
November 22, 2009