Crystal Zarate Mary Morgan English 101-01 Essay #5 Final 11/21/2008 Death Penalty: Illegal or Legal The Baltimore

Sun article, How Can We Allow Uncertainty to Lead to Execution, written by Leonard Pitts Jr., addresses the death penalty and a specific case concerning a man in

Georgia sentenced to the death penalty. Pitts strongly states that he does not agree with the death penalty, and that a person should not receive the death penalty if there is not enough evidence. While Pitts has a strong topic, I dont think he developed his points strong enough to make a strong argument. I disagree with his view that the death penalty as biased towards class, gender and race; that it is too expensive compared to life in prison without parole, and that it is too cruel (19A). Pitts explains the background of a current execution case. Set in Georgia, Troy Davis was sentenced to death by execution October 27th, 2008. Instead of dying that day he was granted a delay by a court of appeal. Even with the delay, his life is still in question. If the court case fails, Davis will once again face the death penalty. Troy Davis has actually been condemned to death three times for the incident in question. Pitts explains that there is not enough evidence for someone to be sentenced to death under these circumstances and without the proper evidence there is uncertainty arising (19A). Mr. Davis was convicted in the 1989 death of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty Savannah, Ga., police officer who was trying to break up a parking lot altercation when he was shot. More materially, it follows a decision this month by the U.S. Supreme Court not to intervene in the case. Davis is connected to the crime by no forensic evidence. He stands convicted solely on the word of nine witnesses, seven of whom have since recanted. Of the two who have not recanted, one is a man who is said by some witnesses to be

the real shooter. Pitts recalls the background of the case. Without a believable witness and proper evidence, Pitts disagrees with giving Davis the death penalty. Without the proper evidence an innocent man could be put to death. Pitts explains that there is not enough evidence to condemn this man to execution. He also points out that right now no one really knows if Davis is innocent or not (19A). Pitts article also focuses on his strong disapproval of the death penalty. Pitts sees the death penalty as a prejudice action to many people and unfair when it comes to celebrities who get away clean. He also sees it as costly and unkind to the people. Pitts does not only disapprove the death penalty, but does not understand how the government could allow its citizens to die in such a horrible manor (19A). It is biased by race: Offenders whose victims were white are statistically more likely to be put to death than those whose victims were of some other race. It is biased by gender: Male offenders are statistically more likely to be put to death than females who commit similar crimes. It is biased by class: Those who can afford high-priced lawyers are statistically more likely to escape execution (paging O.J. Simpson) while those who can't are more apt to wind up in the death house. It has no deterrent effect. It is more expensive than the alternative: life in prison without parole. It is wrong - and not just wrong, but crude, cruel and immoral. No government should arrogate unto itself the right to put its citizens to death. To show his disagreement with the death penalty Pitts gathers up statistics and evidence of how the death penalty is and what it has done to the citizens today. He shows that some people are more likely be guilty and that some people can easily get out of the death penalty (19A). Even with the statistics, Pitts information is questionable because he does not say exactly where he got his information, so his information seems more like an opinion. Pitts has many excellent points when he describes his disagreement with the death penalty and I do agree with some of them. Even though I do agree with some of Pitts points, I also strongly disagree with his opinions about the death penalty: such as that it is biased, too

expensive and cruel. The very first disagreement Pitts starts to examine is that the death penalty is biased by race, gender and class (19A). I do agree that at times the death penalty is biased, but most of the time it is not. First I do not think that the death penalty is biased by race. Pitts says, Offenders whose victims were white are statistically more likely to be put to death than those whose victims were of some other race. It would be helpful to know where exactly Pitts got his statistics because it seems more like an opinion to me. Did he ever think maybe the white race is more likely to be put to death because they just do more crimes that gear up to the death penalty? I would agree with Pitts here if he had a citation on where he got this statistic, without this the reader does not really know if it is true. I also do not agree with Pitts when he says that it is biased by gender (19A). It is biased by gender: Male offenders are statistically more likely to be put to death than females who commit similar crimes. First, I do believe male offenders are put to death more than females, but today most men are the people who commit these types of crimes. Second, there must not be enough hard evidence or something questionable about the cases in which women have committed the same crime, but different sentence. Third, usually a jury and judge decide the fate of the accused, so really it is up to them what the sentence is. Also if the crime was committed in a bigger state or a small town the sentence may be different. So really it depends on the judge, the jury and the location. Pitts also gives a third reason on why it is biased: It is biased by class: Those who can afford high-priced lawyers are statistically more likely to escape execution (paging O.J. Simpson) while those who can't are more apt to wind up in the death house. Concerning celebrities, they do tend to get away with little punishment and usually never get convicted of real serious crimes. Although, I do think that there must be more to it. The media has a big

influence on what people think today, and it urges the audience to think that celebrities pay their way out. I do believe this is possible, but maybe there is more information in a case than the world knows, so the celebrity is not convicted. Concerning people that are wealthier than celebrities, yes it is possible. In addition, most people are probably not convicted because they hired accomplished lawyers. You never hear much about people these actions, but I also think it depends on the judge, jury and location. Someone who is from a small town is more likely to get away with paying a lawyer than someone in a big city. Being able to pay of a lawyer all depends on where you are, who it is, what your case is and the people that sentence you. Besides saying that the death penalty is biased in many ways, Pitts says that the death penalty is too expensive (19A). It is more expensive than the alternative: life in prison without parole. I strongly disagree with Pitts on this reason. Yes, it is expensive to kill someone with the death penalty, but it is far more expensive having to build state penitentiaries. The death penalty in the United States is usually killing a criminal by drug injections. So really the prison or the government would have to pay money to buy the injections, pay at least maybe six people to set it up, and to do it. Now if people were not sent to death and given life in prison, the prisons would be overflowing and towns would have to build multiple prisons. If you think about everything that would have to go into building a prison, the cost would add up to more than injections and those workers. First building contractors, land, workers to build it, facility needs, more police, security, nurses, lawyers, judges, workers, food and more would all need to be paid for. Plus I think prisons would have to include large amounts of security to make sure no one escapes. So really that would all add up to a lot more than drugs needed for the death penalty. I do not think that life in prison without parole would be less expensive.

The very last reason Pitts did not approve the death penalty is because its unethical. It is wrong - and not just wrong, but crude, cruel and immoral. No government should arrogate unto itself the right to put its citizens to death. I personally consider other countries when I hear of something like this. If you look at the United States compared to other countries we are far nicer to people given the death penalty. Today the United States uses injections far more than the electric chair, which was used in the past. People in other countries have to deal with worse death sentences than this. For example: beheading, firing squad, hanging, poison gas and stoning. All of these are not used in more than two countries, but they are still allowed in certain countries. Now compared to other countries the United States is far more kind to the citizens that are given the death penalty. Besides other countries having worse death penalties, I believe that the death penalty is not unethical because the people that are committing these crimes are acting the unethical. Most people who are sentenced to death have killed someone, so what is more unethical, the government killing the people that have done wrong or people killing people. Many cases involve people that just kill innocent people. Pitts should have thought about the victims that were killed, they could have been just innocent people too. Pitts uses strong evidence to explain his opposition to the death penalty, however his points are not supported. The article makes the reader question whether the justice system is fair and that uncertainty in a case is unacceptable because someones life is at risk. Pitts displays some strong points, but it would be more clear with more evidence and proper citations. With this information the article would be more accurate and convincing. Word Count: 1,799

Works Cited Jr. Pitts, Leonard. How Can We Allow Uncertainty to Lead to Death? The Baltimore Sun 27 October 2008: A19