For What It's Worth

Today will be my last day in the office as an intern for InCASE. I've enjoyed the learning process and the time I've been able to spend under Will's "wing". I'd like to leave with a blog about thoughts of mine over the course of the summer.

First, to mention the trial process. I've seen that if the defendant can afford a lawyer, the prosecutor is less likely to try for a capital offense because it uses up a lot of money, but since most death row offenders can't afford a lawyer, they face death trials because the prosecutor chooses to try for a death sentence because they like their chances of winning.

Secondly, money shouldn't be the deciding factor of some one's life.

Thirdly, where is the money going? To the death penalty trial processes? How is that serving justice and providing for a better society? Why not put it towards victim families, organizations for the mentally ill, rehabilitation treatment, etc...?

Fourth, part of the death penalty problem comes with the question of "What is the worst of the worst?" Well, unfortunately, it largely depends on towns/counties, the media, and heinousness of the crime. It's also a matter of public opinion. The decisions that are made saying a case is the worst of the worst is saying that some acts are worst than others...but they're all murders! Equality doesn't exist in this system. The nation's most prolific serial killer, Gary Ridgway, murdered 48 women (prostitutes) yet didn't receive the death penalty in a death penalty state, Washington. Instead he received life in prison with no parole due to a plea agreement in which he confessed to the murders and helped locate the bodies. So what does this say? That you can take a life but your life will be spared because you helped law enforcement clear some unsolved cases? I do think life should be spared, but rather, this goes to show that the death penalty as a response to any criminal behavior no longer has "validity and should be repealed, because it is impossible to administer with justice and fairness". Because wouldn't killing 48 people be the worst of the worst?

Fifth. We should be held to a higher standard. Our laws do not allow us to rob the robber or rape the rapist, so why should we kill the killer? "Laws are made to protect people, people are not made to protect the law!"

Sixth. Should the U.S. be more unified on death penalty policy rather than state ruled? There are clearly a lot of differences between northeastern states versus southern states, but would one consistent law be able to better serve society?

Lastly, what would it take to make sure that everyone receives a fair trial? In this system, I'm not sure if it's possible. Just the fact of arbitrariness doesn't allow for everyone to receive a fair trial because one murderer could be tried for death whereas another one is tried for life in prison. Who's to decide?

These are just some of the things that have allowed me to better form my perspective on the execution process. Working for a moratorium specific coalition has given me the opportunity to fully research the cause and get a look as to what the system is. I fully support a moratorium on the death penalty, and I argue that it should, indeed, be abolished due to the injustices and unfairness of the process, as well as the immorality of it's purpose. Not only is it unfair to the offenders, but I see it as unfair to the family members of the victim as well (well, depending on what their views are on the death penalty...I guess the system is prejudice on that as well)!

...Don't forget about the family members of the victims! Be respectful of the grievance process by simply allowing it to take place.