Stay of Execution

A response to last week's Slant on the death penalty.

by Andrew E. Mathis

Michael Washburn's article in support of capital punishment contains some of the poorest defenses for the death penalty I've ever seen, and I've seen my fair share. Washburn piles logical fallacy upon logical fallacy, ending up with little more justification for the death penalty other than "because I think it's right." His parade of horrors as examples of cases worthy of capital punishment does little to advance his cause.

There are, as far as I'm concerned, four key reasons why people should oppose the death penalty, and Washburn barely addressed any:

1. The application of the death penalty in the United States is racist. Yes, Washburn mentions that blacks are executed more than whites, but he never addresses the real issue. Nevertheless, it is his jumping-off point that his "friends and fellow journalists side with capital punishment's foes, arguing that execution is, among other things, inherently racist." This becomes the strawman for much of his subsequent argumentation.

No reasonable person could argue that the death penalty is inherently racist, as no death-penalty law specifically mentions race and the 14th Amendment to the Constitution forbids such legislation. However, application of the death penalty in the U.S. has always been tinged with racism — so much so that it was on this basis that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment in Furman v. Georgia (1972).

And yes, while essentially the same court reinstated the death penalty with Gregg v. Georgia (1976), we rarely, if ever, see the provision of Gregg applied in death-penalty cases. If we did, capital punishment would be far more rare. Furthermore, while Washburn gives the veneer of authority by stating that more blacks than whites are executed because more blacks than whites commit crimes, he does not address the fact that a black defendant is more likely to receive the death penalty than a white defendant, and that if the victim is white, the likelihood of a death penalty being passed down is much higher.

2. Innocent people are being killed. If we should have learned one thing since several states have placed moratoriums on the death penalty, it is that there is no doubt that countless times, innocent people have been executed. Washburn does not address this point at all. He glibly speaks of criminals who "live comfortably for decades" who should be executed without considering that A) the increasing use of Supermax facilities is hardly "comfort," and B) at least if a person in a Supermax is eventually found innocent, the defendant isn't too dead to be set free.

3. The purpose of the law is not to enact revenge for citizens. Never mind that Washburn's popular culture examples — a movie about vigilantism, a science-fiction film and Japanese organized crime (which is what Yakuza is) — fall flat. Suppose we have a 100 percent guarantee that a perpetrator is guilty. It is still wrong to execute this person based on the argument that the victim's family deserves retribution. The victim's family, although aggrieved, is not the plaintiff in a murder case. The state is. Furthermore, an extension of the retribution argument is that those without victim families left behind are less worthy of state-sponsored revenge.

4. The role of the government should not be the taking of lives. This is a dangerous precedent and one that most civilized countries have sought to avoid — particularly since the end of World War II and the Cold War, when capital punishment was carried out by occupation governments.

While I do not support the death penalty for Mumia Abu-Jamal, I also believe strongly that the bullets that killed Daniel Faulkner were fired by Mumia. That his defense strategies have been, to be kind, erratic does not justify the state of Pennsylvania taking his life. Principled death-penalty detractors oppose the death penalty for Mumia not for any of the reasons that Washburn evokes, however, and thus Washburn's argument for capital punishment finally falls flat.

Andrew E. Mathis is a medical editor, part-time college professor and amateur Holocaust historian.