 "Photo: Meaghan Jones")
 "Photo: Meaghan Jones")
Prominent state debaters argued both sides of the death penalty issue, causing many to re-evaluate their own belief systems Tuesday night.
Attorney General Jane Brady and Kevin O'Connel, president of Citizens Against the Death Penalty, debated the issue in front of approximately 65 students and community members in Memorial Hall.
The Civil Liberties Union, in connection with College Republicans, College Democrats, Campus Greens, Students in the Public Interest and Amnesty International, co-sponsored the event with Political Science Department Chairman James Magee as mediator.
Brady, a well-known activist of capital punishment, argued the affirmative of the conflict, focusing on its role as an institution in American society and a bastion of the legal system.
"The only justice system we have is the fair application of the law," she said. "I am not denying the emotional sentiment that exists in sending someone to death but I can only be responsible for ensuring a fair trial."
O'Connel countered with a blanket opposition to the practice, not discriminating against any kind of criminal, including terrorists.
"The question with Tim McVeigh and Osama bin Laden is not whether they deserve to die but whether we deserve to kill. I become Tim McVeigh and I become Osama bin Laden when we choose to engage in premeditated violence to solve a social problem," he said.
The two debaters clashed over the purpose of the punishment, with Brady defining it not as a means to prevent future crime but as a democratic form of revenge upon a terrible wrongdoer.
"The purpose of the death penalty is not deterrence," she said, "but retribution and punishment, taken from our history."
O'Connel opposed this idea with the observation that executing a criminal ends justice for that individual and is an extreme perversion of the notion of equal-handed justice.
"I would not call capital punishment 'retribution' but public revenge," he said. "As a society we do not believe rapists should be raped or arsonists should have their houses burnt down. Why then should a killer be killed?"
Brady said although Delaware has the highest per capita execution-rate in the country it's extensive due process system ensures the guilt of possible death penalty offenders.
Brady outlined the system of conviction for the death penalty.
The jury must find aggravating circumstances in addition to the crime and recommend capital punishment to the judge, who may or may not order the execution.
After the finding, she said, the convicted is entitled to a mitigation hearing in which the court hears from those who try to prove the good character of the prisoner.
She said the system has been forced to become as humane as possible through national and state-level legislation limiting the punishment to those over the age of 18 and mentally sane.
O'Connel reaffirmed Brady's claims with praises of the state's high quality of defense representation and forensic technology, but he argued these are part of the high cost associated with capital punishment.
"It costs roughly $2 million to execute someone in the United States and the bulk of that cost is not the appeals trials, but the investigation and the primary trial because of the extensive evidence required to get the death penalty," he said.
The financial discussion escalated to the morality of incarceration versus execution in which audience members asked questions based on logic and the implications of a life without parole sentence.
Race was another issue of contention with O'Connel, who said there have been more executions of blacks convicted of murdering whites.
Brady denied any deliberate discrimination based on race in the legal system.
"Is there a correlation? Perhaps," she said. "Was there intent? Absolutely not."
Senior Paul Gibson, president of the CLU, said the issue was chosen because of its popularity among students.
"At the first civil liberties meeting, we were doing introductions and one of the ice breakers was to say which issue you were most interested in and the death penalty seemed to be an overwhelmingly popular one," he said.
Junior Anthony Vuono said he came into the debate with strong convictions against the death penalty but the discussion made him re-evaluate his beliefs before returning to his original stance.
"It was civil, enlightening and fair," he said. "The two sides presented their cases very well, and I actually considered modifying my position throughout the discussion before being reaffirmed by the death penalty opponent in my original convictions."
Follow us on Twitter
Subscribe to our feed
Contact us through email
2 comments