The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 87, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 12, 1999 Page: 4 of 24
twenty four pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THE RICE THRESHER OPINION FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1999
Point/counterpoint
Retribution and deterrence: Exploring capital punishment
Heinous crimes require us to inflict severe punishments
Society is often forced into the regret-
table position of determining what to do with
those who refuse to follow its laws. The mat-
ter of which punishments to use and when to
use them is and has always been
the source of great controversy. Of
all of the punishments still em-
ployed in the United States, none is
a source of greater discord than the
death penalty.
The basic justification used by
proponents of the death penalty is
simple: By committing a heinous
crime, the criminal has forfeited
his right to live. The death penalty,
or any other criminal sanction, is
warranted because it serves as ret-
ribution for the crime.
The validity of retribution as a motivation
for punishment can be shown through the
example of the punishment of Nazi war crimi-
nals. Punishing these criminals serves no
purpose other than to pay them back for their
crimes. It does not rehabilitate them into
productive members of society, since even
those not executed would die long before
their jail sentences expired.
By committing a heinous
crime, the criminal has
forfeited his right to live.
These men are unlikely to ever commit
crimes again, so the punishment is not to
protect society from them, and it would be
foolish to think punishing them 50 years after
their crimes were committed will deter oth-
ers from committing similar offenses.The
sole ground for their pbnishment is that they
committed a crime and therefore deserve to
be punished.
Daniel
O'Malley
A similar justification of capital punish-
ment holds that penalties for crimes are ad-
ministered as society's method of expressing
outrage over the crime. No other penalty is
sufficient to adequately express the
horror and revulsion of those
Crimes which .society has desig-
nated as meriting the death pen-
alty. ^
One of the principle objections
to capital punishment is that it is
hypocritical of the state to say that
murder is wrong while it kills the
criminal.
While this line of reasoning
seems sound at first, it also implies
it is hypocrisy to fine a thief or
imprison a kidnapper. The fallacy
of this argument, then, is that it fails to recog-
nize the difference between an action per-
formed by a criminal and a similar action
performed by the government as a punish-
ment; execution is no more similar to murder
than imprisonment is to kidnapping.
Another common objection to capital pun-
ishment is that it costs more than life impris-
onment. This, however, is confusing eco-
nomics with justice. If capital punishment is
indeed the just punishment for a crime, then
it would be unjust to not apply it simply
because it costs too much.
To do so would be equivalent to freeing a
criminal from jail simply because it is too
expensive to keep him there. Thus, ques-
tions of cost are irrelevant in deciding if a
punishment is just or unjust.
When society is forced into the regret-
table role of punishing those who violate its
laws, it sometimes must deal with crimes that
transcend all codes of civilized behavior. In
these cases, the society is justified in impos-
ing the death penalty to adequately punish
the criminal and express its outrage over the
crime.
Daniel O'Malley is a Jones College freshman.
Anachronistic penalty merits suspension if not abolition
Once we begin to ignore emotional ap-
peals", we quickly see that no rational reason
exists for the continued use of the death
penalty.
The most frequently used argu-
ment to support the death penalty
is the deterrent argument. Advo-
cates argue that the death penalty
should be used because it deters
potential criminals from commit-
ting capital crimes.
This argument, if true, would
probably be compelling. However,
it has become a cliche to point out
that the death penalty is not a deter-
rent. Not only has this been shown
by volumes of research, but the
Supreme Court—in Gregg vs. Geor-
gia and many other cases — has concluded
on the grounds of this research that the
deterrent argument is simply empirically un-
verifiable. Unless death penalty advocates
are conspiring to hide some fascinating sur-
vey evidence, this approach becomes use-
less.
I have often heard death penalty advo-
cates coldly argue that the death penalty is
desirable because it saves money and "we
don't have to keep the bastards in jail for life."
Though I'm not convinced that is a good
reason, it is simply false. The cost of manda-
tory appeals and the imprisonment of death
row inmates is more expensive to the state
than the life imprisonment of the same pris-
oner. Even glowingly utilitarian arguments
such .as this fiscal one can be turned to op-
pose the death penalty.
Certainly, death penalty advocates would
rtot have us save money by allowing fewer
appeals for condemned criminals, thereby
increasing the execution rate of innocents.
In Gregg vs. Georgia, the Supreme Court
ruled that the death penalty was not "cruel
and unusual," and since that ruling, most
opponents of the death penalty have aban-
doned this approach.
r"—'rT
9
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY'S
Columbia University offers
fxplore our environmental immersion
■Earfh and its pf°9ram$ ^ beautiful
J.... • Biosphere 2 Center campus in
dynamic
■ . the Sonoran desert of
ccosvstcms! *
Arizona. Undergraduate
students can enroll in the
challenging Biosphere 2
curriculum to earn college
course credits.
Columbia University
UNDERGRADUATE PROGRAM Offerings:
■ EARTH SYSTEMS
FIELD SCHOOL I & II
Session I — 6 weeks: June-July 2000
Session II — 4 weeks: July-August 2000
■ BIODIVERSITY INSTITUTE
5 weeks: June-July 2000
I EARTH SEMESTER
16 week^" January-May 2000
September-December 2000
" UNIVERSE SEMESTER
16 weeks: September-December 2000
Summer 2000 program also being planned
Phil
Mayor
However, I do not consider the argument
a lost cause. In that ruling, the majority opin-
ion defines cruel and unusual punishment in
a subjective way. Punishment is defined as
cruel and unusual when the society
comes to see it that way.
The majority of justices in this
case pointed out that the continued
administration of the death penalty
indicates that society does not con-
sider such a penalty to be cruel and
unusual. Yet this claim overlooks
the fact that opponents of the death
penalty are not allowed to sit on the
jury in capital cases. Of course ju-
ries continue to administer death
penalties when opponents are not
allowed to deliberate. Thus the en-
tire cruel and unusual argument must be re-
examined.
There are also concerns about the admin-
istration of the penalty. Opponents point out
that a huge percentage of current death row
inmates suffer from some form of mental
retardation. Furthermore, in many states,
children under the age of 18 can receive the
death penalty. Contemporary research sug-
gests the death penalty is administered along
very inequitable lines, both racially and in
terms of class.
All of this perhaps doesn't suggest there is
anything wrong with the punishment itself,
but it certainly suggests that it should be
suspended until it can be better regulated. If
there is no way to prevent the penalty from
being inequitably applied (a case which is at
least plausible), then it should be eliminated.
Finally, there is the unending concern
that innocents will be executed. Even" if you
think the other arguments are unconvincing,
would we, as a society, prefer a system which
allows innocents to be legally destroyed to
one in which some people who might de-
serve death live? I pray that we do not.
Phil Mayor is a Will Rice College sophomore.
Contact Student Admissions at
(800) 992-4603 • admissions@bio2.edu • www.bio2.edu
A columnist's real motivation
SALARY, from Page 3
one who would take the time to re-
search a social problem like this one
must be acting not out of self-inter-
est but out of the goodness of his
heart. There's some hope for altru-
ism, after all.
Well, not really.
I honestly haven't developed a
sudden passion for the cause of sal-
ary equity. I'm simply trying to make
myself look like a Sensitive New
Age Guy (SNAG) because Esper-
anza is this Saturday and I don't
have a date yet. I've had personal
gain in mind all along.
But I might help bring about
change that would be in the com-
mon interest nonetheless. As the
policy theorist Charles Lindblom
held, "The test is agreement -on
policy itself, which remains possible"'
even when agreement on values is
not." In time, we may finally be able
to offer female applicants a better
sales pitch than, "Teach at Rice. Earn
oyer $18,000 a year less than your
male counterparts."
James Dallal is opinion editor and a
Lovett College sophomore. He can be
reached flfjdallal@rice.edu.
All Smoothies
are NOT
created equal
0
BRING THIS AD
AND RECEIVE ONE FREE
16 OZ STRAWBERRY WAVE
Smoothie Juic^IBfar
2559 Kirby " 711 ,.^fl4fi
W W W M 11 ( ) ( ) t tl 11 M S I, III ( I I I I I ( I'li.U ( ( 1111
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
McAlister, Jett & Tam, Mariel. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 87, No. 10, Ed. 1 Friday, November 12, 1999, newspaper, November 12, 1999; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth246661/m1/4/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.