Death Penalty

On Tuesday (3/1/2008), the Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, announced a stay of excecution for Edward Bell, who was scheduled to be executed on April 8, and declared a moratorium on every execution in the state until the United States Supreme Court reaches a verdict in the case of Baze v. Rees (on the constitutionality of lethal injection). He defends this decision by arguing that since there is a national legal consensus that no execution using lethal injection can go forward until the Supreme Court's ruling, there is no reason to set a date for an execution which is going to be stayed by the Courts, either way. Kaine also stated that setting a date for execution and then halting the execution just hours before it is going to take place puts those who must prepare for the execution, including the family members of the victims and of the accused, in extreme agony for nothing.

Virginia law provides the death row prisoner with the option of choosing their execution method, lethal injection or the electric chair.  Only lethal injection cases are at issue in the Baze case which is why death penalty supporters are arguing that " a moratorium may unnecessarily delay justice in other Virginia cases"..

Death penalty supporters, you got it all wrong. First of all, any death row prisoner who wants to preserve its life for a while longer and is given this option by their State is obviously going to choose lethal injection over the electric chair because their case would be stayed until the Supreme Court reaches a verdict. Therefore Kaine's moratorium would not really affect Virginia's "justice".

Second of all, how and when did killing became justice? It is ironic that they think that a moratorium delays justice which means that they equalize the death penalty to justice. But real justice never kills. The death penalty is revenge not justice; it does not bring closure to the victims' families and it can kill innocent people, which is really not justice. It is arbitrary, unfair and more costly than life imprisonment. It prolongs the suffering of the victim's family, increases the pain of the family of the accused, destroys the conscience of the executioners and because of it, everyone has "blood on their hands". And what is really not justice is the fact that by accepting the death penalty we are indirectly teaching kids that sometimes and for some reasons killing is acceptable. Since it has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrence of crime then, why are we doing this to our children? The big question is, what are we doing to our society by accepting the death penalty? When trying to answer these questions, keep in mind that criminals are a product of our society.

I know that when we hear of atrocious crimes done to innocent victims, our first response is to think that "they should kill that person; that is what he/she deserves". I have that reaction sometimes. I also end up thinking, "what is justice? How can things like this happen? This person needs to pay for what he/she has done."  But, moreover, I know that the death penalty is an easy answer to the very complicated situation we are currently living and whenever we look for easy answers to complicated issues we end up making the wrong decisions. Let's stop this trend now by abolishing the death penalty. Hopefully this temporary moratorium in Virginia will transcend into a permanent halt of executions.

~Tania, DP Intern