With a new president in the White House, especially one who is the former governor of the state with the most executions per year, a new dialogue concerning the death penalty in this country is necessary. I strongly believe that discussion of the death penalty in the Untied States often moves in the wrong direction, addressing the wrong issues. People go around and around in circles, debating over personal ideals and morals that most hold sacred and few will ever change. As interesting as philosophizing about morality, effectiveness and religious and political implications can be, our conversations about the death penalty need only to focus on one question of primary concern: is our criminal justice system of equal fairness and consequence for every citizen under its jurisdiction? The answer is a resounding no.
First, there is the question of equal representation. Although all people accused of crimes have a right to legal counsel, the guarantee to representation alone is not enough to constitute equality. Those who can afford experienced and effective lawyers face a much more favorable result when dealing with a criminal charge. Underpaid, inexperienced and overworked public defenders do not entail equal representation. Private attorneys must build their practices and earn their salaries based on their reputation, hard work and results, whereas government appointed attorneys have much less incentive and time to do all that is possible for their clients. Even if a guilty verdict is unavoidable, the harshness of sentencing can be greatly affected by good legal tactics.
Then there is the question of DNA evidence. As recently as a month ago, two men in Texas were released from life imprisonment after over ten years in prison due to DNA testing they had previously been denied. It is tedious and expensive to find and analyze this type of evidence. Until all those accused are able to utilize these tests for their defense, regardless of cost, the Criminal Justice System remains imbalanced. Why do some have the access to this evidence while others do not? It all comes down to a matter of socio-economics, the same factor effecting equal representation. Those who have the resources can purchase a better outcome. When money and justice are so closely linked in a country with such a discrepancy of wealth among its citizens, it is a good indication that the justice system cannot possibly be fair.
I have not even begun to discuss the issues of racism and discrimination, but I could fill pages with documented evidence of unfair treatment in arrests and sentencing by police, juries and judges based on the race of both the defendant and the victim. In a country with such a heinous history of abusive treatment to those not considered white, it is shameful that a system possessing the ability to take away liberty, property and even life continues to discriminate against and punish citizens more severely because of their ethnicity.
More than just a few men and women have been released from death row after successful appeals or the appearance of new evidence. From this we know that in our system, sometimes the innocent are found guilty and some of these innocents are sentenced to die. Can we be sure all these mistakes are caught? Why did these mistakes happen in the first place? These are the pertinent questions. It is important to remember that our justice system is controlled and run by human beings. Human beings are imperfect creatures who make mistakes and hold prejudices and opinions the effect everything they do. Some do this maliciously, others unconsciously, but the result is the same: error and injustice.
Concerning an issue so controversial, there is a statement on which I think everyone can agree - life is a precious thing and the decision to take it away is a grave one. Death is irreversible. If we as a society wish to give the government the right to take away life as punishment without the use of system that will do it fairly and without prejudice or error, it seems to me that we are forgetting how serious taking away life really is. What right do we have to take life away when it is obvious that the system allotting this punishment is inherently flawed? Pick either side of the moral issue concerning the death penalty, but do not neglect the issue of flaws in our system. Unlike issues of right and wrong, the system can be empirically studied and can lead us to more certain conclusions.
Emily Haus is a senior who is majoring in English.
