The Death Penalty: Which Side Are You On?
The highly controversial subject matter became the topic of conversation when Rick Halperin, one of the top four authorities nationwide on the death penalty, made a visit to Elon Thursday.
By Sydney Williams
The death penalty has changed over time, adopting different qualities through different circumstances. Amnesty International activist, Rick Halperin, continued this debate at Elon University on Thursday. “This is not a happy topic,” he said.
It is Halperin’s life mission to demolish the foundation on which the death penalty lies, and he contends it is simply a matter of when, not if. For Halperin, the death penalty stems from the disease of violence in this country.
Capital offenses have changed throughout time, from Colonial America to the present, but the death penalty still serves the same function, with the hope to deter people from similar behavior.
In the United States, 34 states have the death penalty, in addition to the federal government and the military. But who exactly receives the death penalty? Halperin asks. “We want to believe it is the worst of the worst,” he said, adding that not all death row inmates are guilty. He noted that 136 innocent people have been put to death over the course of American history, “How many innocent people have to be killed before America says, ‘Too Many’?” Halperin asked.
The human rights activist used the example of Kerry Max Cook, a death row inmate tried four times for a crime he did not commit. He was beaten and raped in prison and spent 23 years waiting for his freedom.
“What is the nature of punishment?” Halperin asked, noting that this is where the debate has always been. “Society has a right to be protected from violent offenders but what does it say about getting rid of people like that?” He said even people who are guilty of the most vicious and horrendous crimes, are still people. Halperin is not interested in seeking freedom for people who may not deserve it, but only means to protect their lives. The death penalty raises disturbing ethical questions. “Is it justice?” Halperin asked and he answered, “Well, not to me.”
Many Supreme Court cases have served the purpose of documenting how the criminal justice system has adapted and progressed. Cases such as Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright have established rights for the accused such as a court-appointed attorney. In the modern era, one must have to commit a homicide in conjunction with another felony to be sentenced to death.
“This institution should raise really profound and disturbing questions,” Halperin said. “Is hanging, gassing, shooting, chemically poisoning or electrocuting people the very best solution to some violent offenders that this country is capable of doing? Is that the very best we can do as a nation?”
