Fate of the snipers: Murder by jury still murder
By by Melissa Sidman, A View From the Field
Recently, there has been a great deal of fighting in the Washington, D.C. area. (No, I am not talking about the debate over the election results). The dispute concerns which region gets to try the snipers first. Montgomery County, Md. would be the most obvious place for a trial since that is where most of the shootings occurred. However, Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Virginia jurisdiction over the shootings. The reason for this decision is that Virginia would be more likely to sentence the shooters to death. With the exception of Texas, Virginia metes out the death penalty more frequently than any other state. Maryland also has restrictions on sentencing minors to death, which would leave one of the accused snipers, John Malvo, off the hook. Additionally, outgoing Governor Parris Glendening of Maryland imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in May of this year so that a study on racial bias could be carefully examined. On the other hand, Virginia has no comparable restrictions. Since I am from Bethesda, Md., I can certainly understand the anger directed at the shooters. My family, as well as many of my friends, feared even the most basic tasks such as pumping gas and going grocery shopping. High school students were not allowed to go out to lunch and athletic events were cancelled. As much as anyone, I want to see the snipers punished and justice served. However, unlike Ashcroft, I do not believe that sentencing them to death is the way to achieve justice.

Currently, 12 states, including Massachusetts, have abolished the use of the death penalty. Isn't it about time the rest of the states follow suit? In this era of terrorism where privacy and individual rights are being infringed upon, it is especially important for us to reconsider the use of the death penalty as a legitimate punishment.

The most glaring reason for getting rid of the death penalty is that it is unconstitutional. The eighth amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. Although the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that the death penalty does not violate the Eighth Amendment, who amongst us can rationally conclude that the cold blooded murder of an individual does not constitute a cruel and unusual punishment.

Moreover, the death penalty is morally wrong. The cliche that two wrongs do not make a right fits this circumstance perfectly. Just because someone committed a heinous act does not give us the right to commit murder. We live in a democratic, civil society. How is it possible then that we can inflict such inhumane punishment? Other Western nations, such as Germany, do not use the death penalty.

Another reason for abolishing the death penalty is that the majority of people on death row are minorities. A review of the federal death penalty conducted by the Justice Department and released in 2000 found that from 1995-2000, 80 percent of all the federal cases submitted by U.S. Attorneys for consideration of the death penalty involved minority defendants. Other findings by the report include that U.S. attorneys were almost twice as likely to recommend seeking the death penalty for an African American defendant when the victim was Caucasian as when the victim was African American. As of 2000, minorities made up 79 percent of the federal death row. These statistics indicate that the death penalty unfairly targets minorities and serves as the most vicious form of racial profiling.

A critical issue concerning the death penalty is its effectiveness. Does the death penalty actually deter people from committing brutal crimes? Texas, with over 300 people on death row, is spending an estimated $2.3 million per case, while its murder rate remains one of the highest in the country. Texas proves that while it is much more expensive to prosecute the death penalty, it is not any more effective.

On all of the above arguments, one can only conclude that there are many problems inherent with the death penalty. I encourage the jurors in Virginia to not allow their emotions to cloud their judgment and to choose a more humane punishment for the snipers.

Issue 11, Submitted 2002-11-13 16:28:21