NATH ]
I 111 I! \TTALI ;
:e pat
Opinion
The Battalion
Page I I • Wednesday, September 17, 2003
fr]: 1
Dealing death sentences
Sentencing in capital cases must be
in the hands of juries, not judges
L
\m SiNtR* KRT (M\
(evolution machine di
Jon said. “MymoiE:
at it. The whole fat
>od entertainmemii
r DDRKC freiwi
you had to travdi
ne solid compett,
ild our own t
lewald. a highschw
livided into technic,
-rf'ormance compel
e dancing; technic;
I on precision. Ana
is for basics, tricks
ournament would be
rank,” said Drew
ild “DDR” freak
ibout it."
preparation for tour
actice,” Effertzsaid
the game is gettinf
ast year, the Supreme Court found in a 7-2 decision
that state judges cannot hand down death
sentences to state crimi
nals. The high court, however, did
not determine whether this stan
dard should be enforced retroac
tively, that is whether or not death row
inmates sentenced by only judges should
receive new sentences from a jury. On Sept.
2, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
that the standard should. Because of this, more than 1(X) people
;will rightfully receive a new sentencing trial where juries will
;determine their fate.
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees every
CU.S. citizen a “speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the
■'state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” This
clause applies to all criminal prosecutions, and the Ninth District
^appropriately applied this to the theory that the sentencing phase of
Mhe trial is part of the determination of guilt or innocence.
Warren Summerlin, the man at the center of the Ninth Circuit case,
i’was sentenced to death by a judge for the 1981 sexual assault and mur
der of a debt collector, according to The San Francisco Chronicle.
The judge in Summerlin’s case was later disbarred because of an
addiction to marijuana. This is why the fate of a person cannot be
left to a single person.
While a drug-addicted judge is an extreme example of why one
person should not be held responsible for another’s life, there are more
viable reasons.
Judges see hundreds of cases each year. Each of these murder cases
has its own grizzly details, and after hundreds or even thousands of
cases a judge sees in the course of his time on the bench, he may
become desensitized to these acts of violence or the fact that the
accused person has his own life. This could lead to a rubber-stamp
type ruling in which the judge relies too much on precedent.
A jury that is one-of-a-kind will be more affected by the
details of a case and the possibility that they might end some
one’s life. If a person deserves to die for a violent act, the jury
will recognize that need.
Some bloodthirsty death penalty advocates argue that juries are
more lax on criminals and would be less likely to hand down a death
sentence. This may be true, but surely it would be better to under-
assign death sentences than kill unnecessarily.
Not everyone might agree that the legal system should assign the
least amount of death sentences possible, however. Some argue that
a death sentence is a deterrent for would-be criminals to commit
violent crimes.
This is not true.
Canada abolished the death penalty on July 14, 1976, accord
ing to the Canadian Coalition Against the Death Penalty. More
than 20 years later, the Canadian murder rate is substantially
lower than that of the United States. In 2001, the FBI reported
5.5 U.S. murders per 100,000 inhabitants. In Canada, that
same statistic is only 1.78 per 100,000 citizens. To say that
execution deters murder is denying the truth in order to jus
tify undue killing.
These convicted criminals are not completely free of their
sentences. They will receive another sentencing trial in which juries will decide
their ultimate fate. This is how the founding fathers intended the U.S. Justice System to work.
Tony Piedra • THE BATTALION
Matt Rigney is a junior
journalism major.
Judges are better qualified to decide
if a death sentence should be given
ore than 100 prisoners scheduled to die in
Arizona, Idaho and Montana had their sen
tences revoked after a Sept. 2 decision by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that stirs up questions
about the effectiveness of the American judicial sys-
. While the overturning of the sentence
doubtlessly causes the convicted to breathe a
sigh of relief, it leaves the American public
asking more questions.
The decision stems from the 2002
Supreme Court case Ring v. Arizona,
which mandates that juries — instead of judges — deliver
death sentences. But the court failed to specify if the mandate
should be applied to all prior cases.
Those 100-plus prisoners affected by the ruling will get new
proceedings, unless the decision is reversed in an appeal that will
most likely be fded, according to The New York Times.
More disconcerting than the wording of the ruling, or if these
prisoners should receive life in prison or the death penalty they were
sentenced to, is the possible effect, the motivations and problems
of this decision.
What lead to the changes is blatant bias toward soft punishment,
yet the Supreme Court willingly and blindly backs it, ignoring the
possible threats of violence. This policy swings the judicial system
away from real responsibility and accountability.
The less likely severe punishment such as the death penalty is
given, the more likely a person is to commit a crime if he or she
believes there will be no consequences. With a reduced threat of actu
al punishment, the threat of more high degree crimes will propor
tionally increase.
According to The New York Times, legal experts say jurors
are more likely to be lenient, with only one in 12 willing to give
a death sentence. If the reasoning behind the Supreme Court’s
decision is solely to become lax on convicted criminals, some
thing is wrong.
Supporters of this law have claimed judges have the potential of
being partial, choosing to impose certain rulings based on their own
bias or reelection concerns. While judges may have personal convic
tions, they are no different than the 12 sets of personal convictions a
jury may have. Furthermore, juries can be easily manipulated simply
because of the fact that they are handpicked by the attorneys, often cho
sen based on their socioeconomic status and background.
While the evidence supports the concept that juries will be more
lenient, that doesn’t make the judges coldhearted killers. Judges are less
likely to be swayed by powerful legal rhetoric and emotional pleas and can
confront the facts head-on. Jurors who encounter this situation only once in
a lifetime may be more likely to feel personal attachment and guilt toward
sentencing someone to death and choose not to while ignoring legal impli
cations to do so.
No evidence is available that would indicate judges are merciless murder
ers, as some against capital punishment will portray them. It is doubtful that a
person who possesses the character to become a judge would turn and pass
out death sentences out of boredom or as a routine. If anything, the judges
would feel personal accountability toward the cases they cover but can manage
the legality of the issues at the same time.
This ruling implies that judges are unqualified to sentence, when in reality
they are the ones who have seen all levels of crime and could punish according
ly. The application of this ruling encourages light punishment of criminals and
strips justice from the victims. While the thought of 100 people receiving a second
chance seems optimistic and promising, it is actually an insult to the judges and victims
as well as a mockery of the judicial system.
Sara Foley is a junior
journalism major.
MAIL CALL
Texas A&M students
representative of U.S.
UC)
oratory
ng Unit
uitme'
In response to Eric Ambrose’s
Sept. 15 article:
\ feel that it would have been bet-
ter served the article to have shown
a baseline of the American popula
tion as a whole, when compared to
the universities’ enrollments. Instead
! of the University of Oklahoma pie
chart, one showing that the United
States is 75.1 percent white, 12.3
percent black, 12.5 percent Hispanic
and 3.6 percent Asian, as shown by
; the 2000 Census, would have been
i more informative.
I understand there is some over
lap concerning the percentages, but
some Hispanics claim white or
black and Hispanic, so they count
iunder two categories. Regardless, I
’think it would show that A&M is
somewhat more representative of
the United States than the article
would imply, this data would also
show that the University of Texas is
already under-representative of
whites compared to the national
percentages and yet still desires to
be more diverse.
If policymakers would put aside
PC words like “diverse” and honest
ly say, “we need to attract more
black students” that would be fine,
but minus the under-representation
of this one group, it would seem that
our campuses are already as
diverse as our great nation.
Randy Doolittle
Class of 2005
Scientific proof of a
creator not necessary
In response to Midhat Farooqi’s
Sept. 15 column:
Mr. Farooqi uses the argument that
for something to exist it must be dis
cussed in the scientific literature. He
infers that since there is no proof or
real evidence of “The Creator” in the
literature one cannot exist. The basis
for his opinion is that for a theory to be
viable it must be discussed and scien
tists must use it, like they do evolution,
to devise experiments and interpret
the data they collect.
Please re-check the literature. If
“Special Relativity” was not discussed
before 1905, does that mean it does
not exist? If quarks and quasars are
not discussed before 1920, do they not
exist? How about DNA before 1930?
Mr. Farooqi need look no further
than the all time bestseller to find
proof of The Creator. Direct obser
vations described in those writings
have been discussed for thousands
of years. That is proof enough for
me. Present that theory in the Texas
classrooms.
Paul Pausky
Class of 1978
Criticisms of evolu
tionary theory valid
Mr. Farooqi referred to the popularly-
cited peppered moths experiment,
conducted in a polluted forest near
Birmingham, England. Although there
are many reasons to dispute this
experiment entirely, the fact that the
photographs were staged by scientist
Bernard Kettlewell is one of the main
factors. This particular problem is not
simply that the moths were pinned to
the lichened tree-trunk. The entire
experiment was based on the theory
that since the moths supposedly rest
ed frequently on the darkened trunks
of the trees, the conspicuously white
moths were eaten, thus increasing the
population of the dark moths, and
voila! Natural selection in action.
However, it was eventually discov
ered that the moths do not normally
rest on the trunks of trees; instead,
they are found ‘“beneath small, more
or less horizontal branches, probably
high up in the canopies, and the
species probably only exceptionally
rests on tree trunks.’” Why this affects
the experiment to a great degree is
explained in an article published in
“The Scientist” by Dr. Jonathan Wells,
a professor at the University of
California-Berkeley.
Francesca Cunningham
Class of 2005
Evolution supported
by scientific data
Evolution is the glue that holds
together the diverse concepts of
biology. Evolution has been demon
strated in bacteria and viruses time
and time again. Antibiotic-resistant
bacteria illustrate the main concepts
of evolution, selection and mutation.
An antibiotic gives bacteria resistant
to it a selective advantage over oth
ers, leading to many resistant bacte
ria, and a useless drug. All organ
isms undergo random mutation.
Most in higher organisms go unno
ticed, because of more extensive
DNA with advanced repair mecha
nisms. Microbes do not have these,
and their mutation cah be demon
strated in real time.
Evolution has also been demon
strated in higher organisms. The
emergence of new gene variations —
mutation — and change in their pro
portions — selection — have been
observed in many animals, including
humans. Very dramatic changes
have been observed in fish and
amphibians in controlled experiments.
Indirect evidence compliments this
direct evidence. For example, DNA
sequencing, like fossils, allows sci
entists to form evolutionary trees.
Evolution has been demonstrated
and tested in a variety of settings,
and is so far the most plausible the
ory to explain the biological diversity
on Earth. Other theories, including
Intelligent Design and Creationism,
have not stood up to the same
scrutiny, and are therefore not scien
tific, i.e. they have no place in a sci
ence classroom.
Nick Anthis
Class of 2005