crimelibrary.com

When serial killer Gary Rigdway ^[1] 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 ^[2] 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 ^[3]. 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 ^[4].

So, do we?