I appreciate last week's column by Melissa Sidman '06, "Fate of the snipers: Murder by jury still murder," for opening the debate over whether the snipers who recently terrorized the Washington, D.C. area deserve the death penalty.
Sidman approaches the death penalty with a traditional strategy, by focusing on a particularly egregious crime and particularly egregious criminals (the snipers executed dozens of random murders and malicious woundings across the country). The logic behind taking on the death penalty in defense of the Washington snipers is straightforward. If an opponent of the death penalty is unwilling to stand up on behalf of the most heinous criminals, how can he or she oppose the death penalty in general without being a hypocrite? It is a fair question, and I respect Sidman's choice to approach the problem in a principled rather than a cynical manner.
The problem with her approach, however, is that it plays right into the hands of proponents of the death penalty, such as myself. Anti-death penalty activists often make themselves most visible during high-profile cases, such as Mumia Abu Jamal's or Timothy McVeigh's, which is politically illogical. If you want to win a fight, military or political, you have to attack your enemy where he is weakest, not where he is strongest. Attacking the death penalty on behalf of the Washington snipers is analogous to invading France by attacking the Maginot Line.
The best arguments against the death penalty are not moral in nature, for there is an extremely strong moral case for having the death penalty. I could not begin to do it justice in the space I have here, but the rhetorical question Sidman asks is instructive: "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?" Clearly, though, the answer is "No." Twelve states is less than a quarter of the Union, which means that more than three-quarters of states permit the death penalty. Furthermore, many states, such as Virginia, do not take their political cues from the Common-wealth of Massachusetts. Thus, an overwhelming majority of Americans have a different moral understanding of the death penalty than does Sidman, and it would violate the key liberal precept of respecting philosophical differences to assume that death penalty supporters are somehow "wrong." At Amherst, after all, for better or worse, there are no right answers.
The death penalty, however, while morally justified as a concept, can only be justified in practice if the state is executing the right people. In most cases it probably is, but in far too many cases, there have been terrible mistakes. Prosecutors ought to be more circumspect in deciding when to seek the death penalty, making certain that the evidence is especially tight in these cases. Death penalty opponents would do well to emphasize the particular murder cases where the normal safeguards of the criminal justice system fail, and these are rarely the high-profile cases that activists seem as attracted to as bees to honey. Instead, by prizing the cause of men like Jamal, McVeigh and the Washington snipers, death penalty opponents subjugate the concrete practical problems of large-scale implementation of the death penalty to the abstract, flawed (and for most of America, plainly unconvincing) moral argument that it is unjustified. Furthermore, the anti-death penalty movement becomes associated with the most murderous criminals, rather than with individuals, say, who were wrongly sentenced to death.
As a resident of Alexandria, Va., I am proud to live in a state that values human beings enough to enforce the death penalty against those who wrongly deprive others of life. Justice will be served by giving the Washington sniper suspects a fair trial and, if the evidence proves their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, by executing them.
Cases such as the Washington snipers demonstrate poignantly why the death penalty should be mended, not ended. Thanks in part to the activism of death penalty opponents, such as Sidman, who seize upon the highest of high-profile capital murder cases, I lose no sleep worrying that the death penalty could be abolished any time in the foreseeable future.
Lincoln Mayer '04
Death penalty justifiable
Melissa Sidman's column "Fate of the snipers: Murder by jury still murder" spouts unsubstantiated anti-death penalty clichés. Sidman makes several points in her attack on the death penalty, almost all easily refuted. Her claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional because of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment is blatantly false.
In fact, it is not grounded in the opinions of the framers, ratifiers, Supreme Court, Congress or critical opinion, (all of whom, of course, have not made nor would make this argument) but in an appeal to our conscience, whereby she equates capital punishment to "cold-blooded murder" and asks "do two wrongs make a right?" Because she makes no distinction between justified and unjustified acts, I can only assume that Sidman would also condemn imprisoning criminals as "cold-blooded kidnapping" and fining them as "cold-blooded stealing." Quite clearly she is in favor of the abolition of our current criminal justice system. Sidman later questions the deterrence effect of capital punishment, "proving" its ineffectiveness by citing that Texas, which has one of the highest murder rates in the country, uses of the death penalty. Sidman must be using the word "prove" in a new and mysterious sense, for no conclusions can be reasonably drawn from this single correlation, and indeed, there are numerous studies that show a significant deterrent effect from the death penalty. Admittedly, Sidman's argument that minorities are unfairly targeted is a critical issue; however, it creates no mandate to show leniency to two of the worst serial killers in recent history. Capital punishment is the most serious of issues. It requires thoughtful debate which is tainted by indefensible jargon.
Nathaniel Green '05
Labor not the solution for Israel
I was dismayed by the column in last week's issue of The Student, entitled "Polls disagree, but history in Israel favors Labor." It had many misconceptions about the current situation in Israel that necessitate correction. The overall premise of the article-that voting for a Labor government means peace for Israel-is flawed.
According to Chief U.S. Middle East Envoy Dennis Ross, Arafat was offered 97 percent of the West Bank, 100 percent of Gaza, $30 billion of economic aid and East Jerusalem as a capital. He rejected it. Rather than view the offer as a culmination of negotiation, Arafat viewed it as a springboard for further concessions. He went so far as to deny "the core of the Jewish faith" by declaring "that the temple didn't exist in Jerusalem, it existed in Nablus." Not only is Arafat not willing to face reality, but he uses terrorism as a means to address his hallucinatory ends. Hence, his subsequent turn to violence was in order to pressure the Israeli government and international community to offer even more. As long as Arafat is in power, Israel will have to take steps to defend itself against a pseudo-government that will never seek peace. Arafat is a leader who is unable to make the necessary step to turn from a revolutionary leader to an administrative one-he is unable to renounce violence as a means to extort political concessions.
The specifics of the column also are cause for concern. The column claims that, "Security is not impossible for Israel, as was proven in the relatively peaceful years between the first and second intifadas." In fact, 253 Israeli civilians and soldiers were killed during these "relatively peaceful years." No government can be expected to accept this kind of death toll, nor should it. Furthermore, Sharon as a political leader was mischaracterized. The incursions into Palestinian territory are not "retaliation." Rather, they are defensive in nature-to prevent future attacks by destroying the havens of terrorists. Sharon did not begin wide-scale incursions at the beginning of his term-it took until 2002 for him to launch major operations in the face of a breakdown of Israeli security. Interestingly, the number and severity of attacks has decreased significantly since then.
Finally, Sharon has taken steps to remove illegal settlements, as reported on CNN. Consequently, a government of Labor appeasement will make an already illusory peace impossible.
Jason Klinghoffer '06
Amherst Friends of Israel
Reaction rational and appreciated
In a public relations nightmare of epic proportions, University of Connecticut police opted to use pepper spray and dogs to fend off students charging the goal posts after their impressive 63-21 victory over Kent State on Saturday. Notably, it was the Huskies' final game at Memorial Stadium, their home for the past 50 years. UConn's decision has attracted national media coverage, nearly all of it scathingly negative.
I admire the decision that was made here at Amherst to allow the goal posts to come down without heavy police intervention. The public safety officials involved-both Amherst town police as well as our campus police-dealt with the situation with confidence and maturity and they deserve our praise, as do all other College officials that recommended that this rational and realistic approach be taken.
The dismantling of Pratt Field's west end zone goal posts after Amherst's inspiring upset victory over Williams was a spirit-booster, period. College sports fans have always had a unique and exhilarating way of showing their affection for the athletic achievements of their classmates, and that tradition must continue, even if it means a new line item in next year's College budget.
Bob Razavi '03