to execute or not to execute?
crimelibrary.com
When serial killer Gary Rigdway was spared the death penalty, it raised some questions. Among them: If Washington State will not execute serial killers, why do we have the death penalty? If Washington State will not execute Gary Ridgway, then who? Should the death penalty be imposed on others convicted of ‘lesser crimes’ (by which was meant ‘fewer murders’ — a problematic idea, to be sure)?
Well, the Washington State Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the uneven application of the death penalty, as demonstrated by the Ridgway case, does not mean that the death penalty should be abolished.
Disclosure: I am against the death penalty. I don’t think the state should be empowered to execute. And even if I did, I simply do not believe that we can ever devise a fair and failproof system within which to apply the death penalty. Racism, classism, differential legal represenation, variation in the philosophies of judges and juries, the plea bargain wildcard … It’s a bad system, period.
That said, I don’t know that I fault the court’s decision — in legal terms, it makes some sense to me. After all, we already knew that the death penalty is unfairly applied. New facts were not brought before the court — just another example. As the majority opinion states, it’s up to the citizens of Washington State to decide whether they want to abolish the death penalty.
So, do we?
Related posts:
I’ve always put myself in the anti-death penalty camp, but only just barely. The problem I always have is that no matter how much I’m against it, I can always see that there might, just might, be a time when I would feel it is completely and totally justified to use it.
Like, say … Ridgway?
I’m with you here: some people do things for which they should die. I don’t have an absolute moral position against killing, though perhaps I should.
For me, the key issue is is unfair and incorrect application — due to mistakes, discrimination, etc. There is *no way* to manage the system so that the death penalty is imposed only when it is “completely and totally justified” (even if we could all agree on what that means).