Discussion of the death penalty in America is a political issue which is debated every fall on campus. More than 75 Brockport students attended the debate organized by adjunct professor Jeff Wicks on Wednesday, Oct. 20.Wicks said the last presidential race in which there were opposing views about the death penalty was in 1988 between George Bush and Michael Dukakis, who many believe lost due to his opposition to the death penalty.
Wicks shared statistics with the crowd to provide them with basic information about the history of the death penalty. The death penalty was re-enacted in the United States in 1976. As of two weeks ago, 14,030 people have been executed. Currently, there are 3,261 people on death row in the U.S., Wicks said.
Wicks also stated there are seven main issues surrounding the debate over the death penalty. The first issue is the possibility that those who are sentenced are innocent. The second is whether the death penalty serves as a deterrent for criminals.
Statistics from the FBI prove this to be contradictory since the murder rate in death penalty states is 5.5 per 100,000 people on average while in non-death penalty states the rate is 3.6 per 100,000.
The third issue is cost. The cost for a capital trial is more than double the cost of a life term in prison, Wicks said.
The fourth issue is race. There is a disproportionate number of minorities prosecuted which leads many to believe that the capital punishment system is biased. The last three issues are politics, morality and retribution.
Each debater was given 20 minutes to share his or her opinions on the death penalty. Arguing against it was William Easton, a defense attorney from Rochester who has spoken about the death penalty around the state for the last 10-12 years.
Easton said he recognized that there are religious and philosophical objections to the death penalty, but that the debate should focus on policy questions regarding the issue.
"If government can't give us life, it cannot take it away," Easton said is the most persuasive argument he has ever heard outside the policy argument.
Easton made five key arguments against the use of capital punishment. The first was that the penalty is unreliable since two percent of those sentenced are found to be innocent before execution.
"We have a fallible system," Easton said.
His second argument was that the judicial system is unfair.
"All systems that empower the death penalty will tilt toward the race of the victim," Easton said. Historically, the death penalty has mostly been applied to minorities, the homeless, outsiders and people with bad lawyers and poor political leverage.
His third argument was based on numbers. Due to the extra precautions taken within the courts to protect against wrongful convictions, the cost of capital punishment is excessive.
Easton also said he believed that the use of the death penalty disempowered us internationally, which was his fourth point in the debate.
He argued the death penalty was not a deterrent of future crimes, but rather it "fueled the flames of violence."
In Easton's final words of the debate, he described the death penalty as a mirage that distracts society.
In opposition to Easton's argument was Assistant U.S. Attorney Bret Puscheck. Puscheck captured the audience with a startling and graphic story of a recent Connecticut case regarding the murder of an entire family by two men. The men were also responsible for the rape and torture of the family members and documented the crime on their cell phone cameras.
"Considering whether the death penalty is a good thing, a necessary thing or a not-so-good thing, can we make the determination that some lives are absolutely worthless?" asked Puscheck, following the story.
Puscheck agreed that every life does have value, to some extent, but used examples of well-known criminals such as Jeffrey Dahmer, Adolf Hitler and Charles Manson to convince the audience that some lives do not.
"I submit to you that we must be prepared as a society to mete out punishment for those who must be killed," Puscheck said. He admitted that the process may be costly and unreliable at times.
Puscheck also used the advancement of technology in his argument, and how technology and the use of DNA allow for a more accurate conviction.
"We now have the technology in 2010 to move toward certainty," Puscheck said.
A main point in his argument was that with the death penalty the perpetrator will never be able to commit another crime. When sentenced to life in jail, they have nothing to lose and therefore will continue to commit crimes even behind bars, Puscheck said.
"In spite of all of our efforts, there are just some people beyond rehabilitation, beyond hope," he said.
Sophomore Joe Battista said he believed Puscheck won the debate.
"If you have a murder, it could go either way," Battista said. "But with the example Puscheck gave, those people shouldn't be alive."
"It's such a toss-up," senior LaTonya Wilcox said. "I can understand both sides of the argument - it depends on the crime.