In a crowd – gathering discussion, Sister Helen Prejean, C.S.J., argued for a moratorium on the death penalty this past Tuesday in Roussell Hall.
We heard testimonies from Sister Helen, a public defender, and a wrongly convicted death row inmate who was released after 10 years in prison.
The event was moving and informative, but for all the talk on tolerance and “fixing the system,” what Loyola’s Web calendar calls a “Forum/Debate/Discussion” was more a one-sided campaign. The poster did not state the type of event.
Sister Helen spoke passionately from such a perspective that it made me look at the death penalty differently.
She spoke for fifteen minutes and answered questions with a friendly and inviting demeanor. The other members of the panel did the same.
The only problem was that the panel consisted of three people – all opponents of the death penalty, complete with narrow judgments.
There was no debate about the success or necessity of the death penalty – only criticism. While I don’t condone capital punishment, I cannot take seriously a “debate” without debate.
After all, the event on the calendar was described as all three – forum, debate, discussion.
The wrongly accused prisoner, when you look at the facts of his case, seemed to be a victim of bad lawyers and even worse judges.
While his situation was unfortunate, and it is appalling how poorly “the system” handled evidence, it would have been much more effective to hear from an inmate who really did commit a crime.
Of all the death row inmates, what percentage of them really didn’t commit the crime? I’m not saying that those who kill deserve to be killed by means of capital punishment – it’s not my place to say.
I am saying that unless you address why and how we use capital punishment as a means to rid society of killers, you can’t address whether it’s good or bad as it stands.
You can’t use a small exception to the rule to address the larger picture.
What Sister Helen actually did was address whether it was effective in targeting the right people to put on death row. In this case, it was not.
But her argument is that capital punishment is wrong, and by using the wrong method by which to illustrate this, we can either blindly agree and say “NO!” to capital punishment, or we have to ask for more information.
Why does capital punishment work the way it does? If it doesn’t deter murderers from killing, what else could? What are the other options, and who can defend the establishment as it is or come up with something better before we do away with it altogether?
It doesn’t matter whether you believe in capital punishment.
The event was great for opponents of the death penalty and those who wanted a little information on an unfamiliar topic. But if you’re that fence-sitter looking for a real debate, you are better off watching Crossfire.
