The Death Penalty: A Debate
author’s bias
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
author’s purpose
For each of the 4 articles, follow the 4 Steps of Reading a Text.
Identify the author’s bias in each of the 4 texts.
Identify the author’s purpose in each of the 4 texts. Be specific. For example, if the purpose is to entertain, you might say
that the author’s purpose is to “entertain the reader with a poem about what it’s like to lose your parents.”
Use context clues to determine the meaning of each underlined word in the articles.
After reading all 4 articles, pretend that you are a lawyer arguing for or against the death penalty in court. Write a 1-page
response that outlines your opinion on the death penalty. Do you think the United States should continue to employ the
death penalty? Why or why not? Use facts from at least 3 of the 4 articles to prove your answer. Remember you’re a
lawyer, so give lots and lots of evidence!
Article 1: Pros and Cons of Capital Punishment
Capital punishment, also dubbed the "death penalty," is the pre-meditated and planned taking of a human life by a
government in response to a crime committed by that legally convicted person.
Passions in the US are sharply divided, and equally strong among both supporters and protesters of the death
penalty.
Arguing against capital punishment, Amnesty International believes that "The death penalty is the ultimate denial
of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of
justice. It violates the right to life...It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. There can never be
any justification for torture or for cruel treatment."
Arguing for capital punishment, the Clark County, Indiana Prosecuting Attorney writes that "...there are some
defendants who have earned the ultimate punishment our society has to offer by committing murder with
aggravating circumstances present. I believe life is sacred. It cheapens the life of an innocent murder victim to say
that society has no right to keep the murderer from ever killing again. In my view, society has not only the right, but
the duty to act in self defense to protect the innocent."
And Catholic Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, writes "...the death penalty diminishes all of us,
increases disrespect for human life, and offers the tragic illusion that we can teach that killing is wrong by killing."
The death penalty has not always been practiced in the United States. The Depression era 1930s, which saw a
historic peak in executions, was followed by a dramatic decrease in the 1950s and 1960s. No executions occurred in
the US between 1967 to 1976.
In 1972, the Supreme Court effectively nullified the death penalty, and converted the death sentences of hundreds
of death row inmates to life in prison. In 1976, another Supreme Court ruling found capital punishment to be
Constitutional.
Latest News: Stanley "Tookie" Williams was put to death on December 13, 2005, by lethal injection by the state of
California. The case of Mr. Williams, an author and Nobel Peace and Literature Prizes nominee, brought capital
punishment back into prominent public discussion. Mr. Williams was convicted of four murders committed in
1979, and sentenced to death. Williams professed innocence of these crimes. He was also co-founder of the Crips, a
deadly and powerful Los Angeles-based street gang responsible for hundreds of murders. About five years after
incarceration, Mr. Williams underwent a religious conversion and, as a result, authored many books and programs
to promote peace and to fight gangs and gang violence. He was nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize and
four times for the Nobel Literature Prize. Mr. Williams' was a self-admitted life of crime and violence, followed by
genuine redemption and a life of uniquely and unusually good works. The circumstantial evidence against
Williams left little doubt that he committed the four murders, despite last-minute claims by supporters. There also
existed no doubt that Mr. Williams posed no further threat to society, and would contribute considerable good. The
case of Stanley Tookie Williams forced public reflection on the purpose of the death penalty:
-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to remove from society someone who would cause more harm?
-- Is the purpose to remove from society someone who is incapable of rehabilitation?
-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to deter others from committing murder?
-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to punish the criminal?
-- Is the purpose of the death penalty to take retribution on behalf of the victim?
Background: The vast majority of democratic countries in Europe and Latin America have abolished capital
punishment over the last fifty years, but United States, most democracies in Asia, and almost all totalitarian
governments retain it.
Crimes that carry the death penalty vary greatly worldwide from treason and murder to theft. In militaries around
the world, courts-martial have sentenced capital punishments also for cowardice, desertion, insubordination and
mutiny.
According to Amnesty International's annual report on official judicial executions, in 2004 there were 3,797
executions in 25 countries. More than 90 percent...about 3,400...took place in the People's Republic of China. The
remainder of the top four were Iran at 230, Vietnam at 64, and the United States at 59, followed by Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Kuwait, Bangladesh, Singapore, Yemen and Egypt
Capital punishment in the US is now officially sanctioned by 36 states, as well as by the federal government. Each
state with legalized capital punishment has different laws regarding its methods, age limits and crimes which
qualify.
Since 1976, 1,004 felons have been executed in the US, distributed among the states as follows: Texas at 355
(35%), Virginia at 94, Oklahoma at 79, Missouri at 66, Florida at 60, Georgia at 39, North Carolina at 39, South
Carolina at 35, Alabama at 34 , Arkansas at 27, Louisiana at 27 and 149 among 25 states.
States and US territories with no current death penalty statute are Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin,
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.
Pros- Arguments commonly made for supporting the death penalty are:
-- To serve as example to other would-be criminals, to deter them from committing murder or terrorist acts.
-- To punish the criminal for his/her act.
-- To obtain retribution on behalf of the victims.
Countries that Retain the Death Penalty: Afghanistan, Algeria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Botswana, Burundi, China,
Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Ethiopia, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Laos, Lebanon,
Libya, Malaysia, Mongolia, Myanmar, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia,
Singapore, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United States of America , Vietnam,
Zambia, Zimbabwe
Cons- Arguments commonly made to abolish the death penalty are:
-- Death constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment," which is prohibited by the 8th amendment to the US
Constitution. Also, the various means used by the state to kill a criminal are cruel.
-- The death penalty is used disproportionately against the poor, who cannot afford expensive legal counsel, as well
as racial, ethnic and religious minorities.
-- The death penalty is applied arbitrarily and inconsistently.
-- Wrongly convicted, innocent people have received death penalty sentences, and tragically, were killed by the
state.
-- A rehabilitated criminal can make a morally valuable contribution to society.
-- Killing human life is morally wrong under all circumstances. Some faith groups, such as the Roman Catholic
Church, oppose the death penalty as not being "pro-life."
Countries that Abolished the Death Penalty:
Angola, Australia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Canada, Austria, Belgium, Colombia, Costa Rica, Czech Republic,
Denmark, Ecuador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Haiti, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Mexico,
Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, South Africa, Spain,
Switzerland, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Yugoslavia
Where it Stands: On December 15, 2005, two days after the state of California's execution of Stanley Tookie
Williams, the New Jersey Senate voted to temporarily suspend executions in its state. In passing this bill, New
Jersey legislators expressed concern about the risk of executing the innocent, and of racial and geographic bias in
the administration of the death penalty. The bill will be considered by the state Assembly in January 2006, and is
expected to pass and be signed into law by Democratic Governor Richard Codey.
Also in response to Mr. Williams' execution, in January 2006, the California legislature will consider AB 1121,
"California Moratorium on Executions Act," a measure to temporarily suspend executions in the state.
The Birmingham News, a consistent supporter of capital punishment in the past, now advocates that the state
abandon the use of the death penalty. In an editorial series published November 6 - 11, 2005, the paper stated that
there are serious flaws in the application of the death penalty in Alabama. It also said that the death penalty is
"inconsistent with the paper's commitment to a culture of life."
The state of Illinois continues to operate under a capital punishment moratorium ordered in 2003 by former
Republican Governor George Ryan, when, as a matter of moral conscience, he commuted the sentences of all 167
death row inmates...163 to life imprisonment and 4 pardons, based on their proven innocence or extraordinary
rehabilitation.
Article 2: Race and the Death Penalty - Is the Life of a White Person Worth More?
For decades, the debate about the death penalty has raged on. Race has always been, and continues to be a
significant aspect of any discussion regarding the fairness and appropriateness of capital punishments. Following
are recent findings, which highlight growing concerns regarding the fatal intersection between prejudice, racial
power struggles and criminal justice.
Latest Developments
The Penalty in Ohio: Recently, a comprehensive Ohio study concluded that in today's criminal justice system,
who lives and who dies depends, in large part, on race.
The Associated Press reviewed 1,936 indictments spanning from 1981 to 2002 and found that the only consistent
thing about capital punishment in Ohio is that it has been been repeatedly applied in an uneven, almost arbitrary
fashion.
Clearly indicated was another disturbing trend: defendants facing the death penalty for killing a White person were
twice as likely to be sentenced to death, than defendants charged with killing a Black person.
The Penalty in Kansas: A similar report in Kansas indicated that since the reinstatement of capital punishment in
that particular state, 44 potential capital cases involved non-White victims and yet none resulted in a death
sentence. On the other hand, eight defendants did receive death sentences. Their victims? White.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports the following:
* Nationally, over 80% of murder victims in cases resulting in an execution were White, even though only 50%
of murder victims generally are White
* 96% of states conducting reviews of race and the death penalty have discovered a pattern of either race-ofvictim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both
* 98% of the Chief district attorneys in death penalty states are White
* A Philadelphia study found that Blacks received the death penalty at a 38% higher rate than others when
comparing similar defendants and similar crimes
* A North Carolina study found that the odds of receiving a death sentence rose by 3.5 times among those
defendants whose victims were White
What's all the Fuss About?
There's more. Additional reports are showing that it's not just the ultimate decision regarding punishment that's
biased, but rather the whole process - start to finish - thus, compromising the right to a fair trial.
Jury De-Selection in California: A sworn declaration by a former Prosecutor noted that Judge Stanley Golde
advised him during jury selection that "no Jew would vote to send a defendant to the gas chamber" and that the
practice of exclusion extended to Black women as well. This judge presided over more death penalty cases in
Alameda County than any other judge, therefore, the capital convictions in this county are coming under intense
legal scrutiny.
Strong Evidence of Racial Bias in Jury Selection in Texas Case: The New York Times, Washington Post, Dallas
Morning News and Houston Chronicle have all recently reported that Thomas Miller-El was granted a new trial in
light of strong evidence of racial bias during jury selection (They struck 10 out of 11 qualified Blacks). The court
found disparities in questioning methods and in the rationale ultimately used for striking potential jurors. A history
of excluding Blacks from jury service haunts this city where Prosecutors held 1960s training manuals instructing
them to avoid accepting "Jews, Negroes, Dagos, Mexicans or a member of any minority race on a jury, no matter
how rich or how well educated."
What's the Message?
These findings send a crystal clear message - taking a White life is more serious than taking a Black life, and the
fate of a Black person is less important than that of a White person.
Future of the Death Penalty
The future of the death penalty is uncertain. But it doesn't appear that it will be done away with any time soon. In
October 2004, a Gallup Poll found that overall support of the death penalty had gone from 80% (in 1994) to 66%.
Interestingly enough, when given the choice of life without parole as an alternate sentencing option, however,
support for the death penalty reduces to 50%.
Article 3: Who speaks for the victims of those we execute?
All over the country, news stories bemoan and hype the countdown to execution number 1,000. But where are the
stories regarding the ripple effects of the heinous crimes that these murderers were executed for committing? Who
is counting the victims?
A conservative estimate puts the number of victims of these 1,000 murderers at 1,895. Why do we hear so much
about the killers and so little about the victims and their loved ones who are left behind to pick up the pieces?
A small sampling of case histories will leave readers shaken.
Melvin and Linda Lorenz, and their son Richard were killed by Roger Stafford. Melvin stopped on a highway near
Purcell, Okla., to help what he thought was a woman whose car had broken down, but instead was ambushed by
Stafford and his brother, using Stafford's wife as bait. Less than a month after these horrific murders, the trio killed
six employees of a steak house in Oklahoma City.
In 1985, 13-year-old Karen Patterson was shot to death in her bed in North Charleston, S.C. Her killer was a
neighbor who had already served 10 years of a life sentence for murdering his half-brother Charles in 1970. Joe
Atkins cut the Pattersons' phone lines, then entered bearing a machete, a sawed-off shotgun, and a pistol. Karen's
parents were chased out of their home by Atkins. Karen's mom ran to the Atkins home nearby, where Joe then
murdered his adopted father, Benjamin Atkins, 75, who had worked to persuade parole authorities to release Joe
from the life sentence.
When Katy Davis observed three strangers outside her Austin, Texas, apartment, she walked away. Returning later,
she was attacked and forced to open the door by Charles Rector, on parole for a previous murder. The men
ransacked her apartment, abducted her and took her to a lake where she was beaten, gang-raped, shot in the head
and repeatedly forced underwater until she drowned.
Ruby Longsworth of Pasadena, Texas, met Jeffrey Barney through a prison ministry, then helped him get paroled
from an auto-theft sentence. Her kindness was repaid when Barney raped and sodomized her, then strangled her
with a cord. She had made the mistake of calling Barney "a bum" after she had gotten to know him better.
In 1965, Robert Massie murdered mother of two Mildred Weiss in San Gabriel, Calif., during a follow-home
robbery. Hours before execution, a stay was issued so Massie could testify against his accomplice. Massie's
sentence was commuted to life when the Supreme Court halted executions in 1972. Receiving an undeserved
second chance, Massie was paroled, but eight months later robbed and murdered businessman Boris Naumoff in
San Francisco.
Faith Hathaway was 17 when she was murdered by Robert Willie, whose story became the inspiration for the film
Dead Man Walking. Hathaway had just graduated from high school and was leaving for the Army the next day. She
was abducted after leaving a farewell party in Mandeville, La. Willie and accomplice Joseph Vaccaro had been on
an 8-day murder, robbery and rape spree. Hathaway was raped by both assailants and stabbed 17 times. She was
raped again after she died.
Kenneth Boyd murdered his estranged wife Julie and his father-in-law, Dillard Curry in Rockingham County, N.C.
Julie and her children were living with Curry. Boyd entered the home and shot them both in the presence of his own
children, then ages 13, 12 and 10.
We must think about the lives that all 1,895 murdered victims affected. Every one had families, friends, relatives,
co-workers, neighbors. The combined loss is incalculable.
There is no end to horror stories like these. Jurors, who represent us, hear about horrific crimes and make tough but
appropriate decisions. With a yearly average of 15,000 murders, the fact that we are reaching 1,000 executions in
only a little more than 30 years is proof that capital punishment has been reserved for the worst of the worst.
The attention given to the execution of 1,000 murderers is repugnant, especially when the loudest voices think the
death of a convicted murderer is a tragedy. Yet the deaths and suffering of countless victims is only an easilyignored statistic.
Article 4: Executions Banned For Mentally Retarded
Supreme Court Does The Right Thing... 13 Years Later
by Helen Redmond
Texas death row prisoners Brian Roberson and Oliver Cruz were both executed on August 9, 2000. Oliver Cruz had
an IQ of just 64. Despite this fact, he was still executed under then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. As much as
10 percent of the death row population across the United States is mentally retarded with an IQ of less than 70.
Abolitionists won a major victory in the struggle to end the death penalty when the U.S. Supreme Court reversed its
former ruling and declared that executing the mentally retarded was a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s ban on
cruel and unusual punishment. We welcome this ruling and see it as a step toward ending the death penalty.
The court ruled in the case of Daryl Atkins v. Virginia. Aktins was reported to have an IQ of 59. The threshold
measure for mental retardation is usually an IQ of 70 or below. The ruling means that death sentences for as many
as 300 retarded death row inmates in 20 states will be commuted to life. Mental heath experts have estimated that
about 10 percent of the 3,700 prisoners on death row across the country are mentally retarded.
But this is also a bittersweet victory for some. "It came two years too late," said Yolanda Cruz, whose son Oliver
Cruz was executed in Texas in 2000. Her son had an IQ of 64. But she added, "In a way, I’m happy. I’m happy
there’s going to be mothers who won’t go through what I went through. People are changing, people are thinking
differently about the issue."
The United States, a country that touts itself as a leader in human rights around the world, stood virtually alone in
killing the mentally retarded. This barbaric practice was routinely criticized by the international community.
Executing prisoners with significant cognitive impairments has always been cruel and unusual. It is about
retribution and revenge against the most vulnerable in society.
As Larry Marshall, legal director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, said of the decision, "It didn’t start to be
cruel and unusual today, and yet we have killed scores of people."
Who are the mentally retarded who were put to death? One of them was Louis Mata. Mata was born with brain
damage. He was one of 15 siblings, and he often went hungry and was viciously beaten by his alcoholic father
when he was growing up. At age six, Louis suffered a fractured skull. His impoverished family did not seek
medical treatment for him. His IQ was measured at 63, but during the sentencing hearing of his trial, his lawyer
didn’t present evidence of Mata’s mental retardation or abusive childhood. He was executed in 1996.
Barry Lee Fairchild had an IQ that measured as low as 60. At his clemency hearing, he fell asleep. He was executed
in 1995.
Morris Mason had so little conception of his death that on his way to the death chamber, he asked a visitor to tell a
fellow inmate, "When I get back, I’m gonna show him I can play basketball as good as he can."
The court’s landmark ruling--which comes 13 years after a previous ruling that executing the mentally retarded did
not violate the Constitution--is another defining moment in the struggle to end the death penalty. Justice John Paul
Stevens noted in the decision that there was a "consistency in the direction of change."
In 1989, only two states banned the execution of the mentally retarded--that number had grown to 18 by the time of
the Supreme Court decision. And no state had gone in the other direction and lifted the ban.
Key to these changes has been grassroots activism. Anti-death penalty activists have consistently exposed the utter
barbarity, racism, and arbitrariness of the death penalty. Our activist tactics have put pressure on politicians and
state legislatures to pass anti-death penalty legislation--even when they didn’t want to. When the public learns the
truth about the death penalty, support drops.
International pressure has played an important role, too. Fifteen countries of the European Union filed a brief on
behalf of Daryl Atkins, and a group of senior American diplomats told the court that the practice of executing the
retarded was out of step with much of the world and a source of friction between the U.S. and other countries.
The justices of the Supreme Court would like us to believe that their decisions aren’t swayed by grassroots
activism. We know better, and their decision to ban the execution of the mentally retarded is proof.