Wednesday, April 2, 1986 Daily Nebraskan Page 5
o
o
OMMOU
n
O
jvw Vm Li LJ v J LJ vj J
PRO
Thesis: Justice requires the impo
sition of death as a penalty for
murder.
Thesis summarily defended: Justice
is based upon meting out what is due.
Proportional response to criminal be
havior is the onlyjust rule criminals
should be punished in proportion to
the offense. Any deviation from this
rule, whether too little punishment or
too much punishment, constitutes
injustice. Just as it is wrong to punish a
bad check writer with a long prison
sentence (because of proportion
ality), it is wrong to forebear from
punishing a murderer with death.
James
Rogers
Thesis defended against select major
objections:
Objection One: Capital punishment
does not deter murder and is thus
unjustified.
Deterrence is not an adequate rule
of punishment. People who oppose
capital punishment on the deterrence
theory tend to ignore the "double
edged sword" aspect of deterrence. For
example, if death would be the most
effective method of deterring, say,
parking violations, then sole resource
to deterrence theory would require its
imposition. Yet the reasonable moral
intuition rebels at such an imposition
the punishment is obviously dispro
portionate to the crime, and is therefore
unjust.
Objection Two: The death penalty
is discriminatorily imposed. No and
yes. There are two aspects to this
argument. The first is that blacks are
more often sentenced to death for
murder than whites. This is no longer
true. Based on a survey of recent
studies, Michigan State law professor
Richard Lempert recently wrote that
"black murderers do not appear more
likely to be sentenced to death than
white ones."
A form of discrimination does exist,
however, based upon the race of the
victim.
Lempert observed, "greater retribu
tion is demanded when whites are
victims than when blacks are victims,
because the white-dominated society
values innocent white lives more than
innocent black ones." This is a repre
hensible result.
But the answer is not to then devalue
all lives, but to judicially value all lives
similarly; to value all victims' lives
Letter
f O- )
NRA member resents 'maniacal thirst'
For almost four years I have read this
paper. And although I often disagree
with its generally liberal view on top
ics, I enjoy reading them. But the false
information provided in the March 20
editorial on gun control prompted me
to respond.
First, I am a member of the NRA and
I resent being referred to as a person
with a "maniacal thirst." Although a
thirst for what was not stated, the con
text made it sound like blood lust. I fail
to understand how the over 2 million
people who belong tq the NRA can all
be stereotyped as to personality by
their membership in an organization.
That is like saying that all students
attending UNL are crazed Husker fans.
Second, I would like to ask the
source of the stated information that
"most crimes committed in the United
States involve handguns." According to
the 1984 Uniform Crime Reports for the
United States, of the 16,689 murders
irrespective of race and punish all
murderers equally.
Objection Three: Capital punish
ment is state-sanctioned murder. This
argument assumes its own conclusion
and, thus, is circular. Simply ex
amining an event externally does not
address the morality of the event. The
objection is like saying "imprisonment
is simply state-sponsored false impri
sonment" or that justly imposed fines
are morally the same as robbery. The
distinction between criminal activity
and justified state action is that the
state is responding to the initiator of
the aggression, it is not itself initiating
the aggression itself.
Admittedly the state kills when
imposing death. But reasonable people
sometimes kill justifiably. For example,
it's not murder if shooting an ax
murderer is the only way to stop him
from killing a baby. Why something is
done determines whether what is done
is right or wrong.
Objection Four: The state could
put a wrongly convicted person to
death. Obviously, all reasonable steps
should be taken to prevent such a
lamentable contingency, but the
argument itself is incorrect it
"proves" too much. If the merest of
possibilities of punishing a wrongly
convicted individual vitiates the justice
of the punishment, then all punishment
is to be rejected and not simply capital
punishment. For example, if a person
wrongly convicted of murder is im
prisoned for life and subsequently dies
in prison, this argument "proves" that
life sentences should not be imposed
upon murderers. After all, there is then
no way to right the wrong. If any
punishment survives this objection,
then capital punishment does as well.
Objection Five: Capital punishment
violates the biblical injunction, "Thou
shalt not kill." First, the more accurate
translation of the verse is that contained
in the New American Standard transla
tion, namely, "You shall not murder"
(Ex. 20.13). Second, most of the
"religious" people who so piously intone
this verse as an argument against
capital punishment are using the Bible
selectively. Only a scant 24 verses later,
the Bible affirms capital punishment:
"He who strikes a man so that he dies
shall surely be put to death. But if he
did not lie in wait for him, but God let
him fall into his hand, then I will
appoint you to a place to which he may
flee. If, however, a man acts presump
tuously toward his neighbor, so as to
kill him craftily, you are to take him
even from my altar, that he may die."
Rogers is a DN editorial page editor, and
a law and economics student.
committed that year only 44 percent
involved handguns. The crime with the
next highest rate of firearm use was
robbery with 35.8 percent, although the
percent of handguns used was not
stated. More robberies involved strong
arm tactics than firearms.
The last thing I would like to address
is the statement referring to handguns
that, "they are made with one purpose
in mind: to kill people." There are
handguns designed and manufactured
with hunting and target shooting in
mind. For example, the Thompson Cen
ter Contender and various other hand
guns are designed for accuracy at long
ranges as is needed for hunting or
target shooting. Although by the nature
of a firearm's purpose, to fire a projec
tile, they are lethal weapons quite cap
able of taking a human life, they have
other uses also.
As for the bill presently being lob
bied that would change the Gun Con
capital punishment
is an easy way out
for a society that
hasn't been able to curb
violent crimes. It's the
desperate man's answer
to a desperate
situation.'
-Ad Hudler
V J
h
2 f
it
: '('
' :
1 i r 5
I At
J
6 Frroportional
response to crimi
nal behavior is the
only just rule crimi
nals should be pun
ished in proportion to
the offense. Any devia
tion from this rule,
whether too little pun
ishment or too much
punishment, constitutes
injustice.'
Jim Rogers
OF
CM
Brief letters are preferred, and longer letters may be edited. Writer's
address and phone number are needed for verification.
reference
trol Act of 1968, 1 feel that it should be
passed. The Gun Control Act of 1968
has proved totally ineffective at keep
ing firearms from criminals. It has only
made things more difficult for the
owners of stores which sell firearms.
Keeping criminals from using firearms
will not be accomplished by laws that
restrict or prohibit the ownership of
legally manufactured handguns. The
narcotics laws of the United States are
an example of the failure of such laws.
Although it is illegal to possess con
trolled drugs without a medical pers
cription, the illegal drug trade in the
United States is a multi-billion dollar a
year business.
The United States has a problem
with crime of all forms, but stiffer
penalties and different attitudes toward
crime are the best present answers, not
gun control laws.
. Ronald L Miller
senior, computer science
It will be the same song, but a dif
ferent verse.
Talk up at the statehouse later
this week will change from taxes and
ag woes to that obstinate perennial
favorite, capital punishment.
Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha again
has proposed that Nebraska repeal its
death penalty. Every year, the proposal
seems to go nowhere. Tempers flare for
a second or two. Emotions abound on
the floor. But the idea eventually is
shelved to wait for another year.
Ad
Hudler
I really don't expect to hear any new
arguments for or against the death
penalty this year; the same ones have
been used for years. The problem, how
ever, is that the issue is clouded with
misconceptions. In addition, senators
sometimes fear that if they don't sup
port the death penalty, their constitu
ents will think they don't want to con
trol crime.
One of these misconceptions is that
the death penalty deters crime. Some
professional social psychologists tend
to disagree.
William Bowers and Glenn Pierce of
the Center for Applied Social Research
at Northwestern University remind us
in an America magazine article that
most killers plunge their knives or pull
the triggers out of "momentary passion
or from deep-seated aberrations."
Murderers are sick people. Most are
mentally unstable. They often are
hungry. Thus, they often base their
reactions on survival, not rational
thought.
Florida, which leads the country in
executions, reported an increase of 14
percent in crimes in the first six
months after the state's reinstatement
of capital punishment in the 1970s.
Until we are able to compile some
fancy report that accurately reflects
the effects of capital punishment on
crime, we're stupid to use it as an
argument for keeping the death penalty.
There's just too much disagreement
right now. We don't know enough.
Another misconception: People often
fail to realize that capital punishment
discriminates against minorities and
the poor.
Of the approximately 1,000 crimi
nals on death row in the United States
today, about 45 percent are black.
Blacks make up about 15 percent of the
total U.S. population. The big-time
mobster or daddy's rich little boy who
1
( AJCfcoo .'').
f tr l :
ft f
can afford a good lawyer probably won't
face death. The poor black who pulled
the trigger out of desperation will fry.
Having a good lawyer is the key to free
dom in our legal system. But good lawy
ers cost money. And that's something
most criminals don't have.
But put away all the fancy statistics,
all those studies. The main argument
against capital punishment is that it
seems to go against everything society
believes in. We believe in the value of
life, so much that we can't seem to put
a price on it. We spend millions of
dollars every year trying to reform the
mentally disturbed and juvenile delin
quents. We seem to think we can
change criminals, turn them into "good"
people. By killing people for commit
ting crimes, we're actually condoning
murder. We get so upset with people
who kill that we in turn kill them.
Another interesting twist: Some
states recently switched from using the
traditional hotseat to lethal injection.
They claim the injection involves less
pain than electrocution. Does that
make it all the more acceptable? And
what about those families of murder
victims who want an eye for an eye?
Don't they partly support the death
penalty because they want the mur
derer to suffer like the victim did?
Maybe we're just frightened. We
don't know enough about criminal
behavior. We don't know how to "cure"
criminals. We know little about how to
decrease the number of repeat offend
ers. Capital punishment is an easy way
out for a society that hasn't been able
to curb violent crimes. It's the desper
ate man's answer to a desperate situa
tion. Chambers' bill is a turn in the right
direction. Instead of putting transgres
sors on the hotseat, Chambers wants to
give them a mandatory 30-year sent
ence. We need it. An Associated Press
article in Tuesday's Lincoln Star said
more than half the convicted murder
ers in this country served less than
seven years behind bars in state pri
sons. The problem, it seems, lies in the
courts. Chambers' bill would help take
care of that.
Some folks say it isn't harsh enough
for the violent crimes committed by
John Joubert or Michael Ryan, two of
Nebraska's celebrated murder suspects.
"Kill them," they say, worried about
their own children. "Kill them."
These are the words of a species that
we consider to be the most rational on
earth.
Hudler is a senior journalism major and a
Daily Nebraskan editorial page editor.
