MANY of you went out last weekend. I sat in my Houston home mesmerized by the images on my local TV stations, hoping that my house wouldn't flood. The one blessing of the situation was that I could avoid the exhaustive coverage of the countdown to Timothy McVeigh's execution on Monday.
The focus on the routine minutiae of executions, from the wardens' preparations to explanation of exactly how the convict dies, ignored just how unique this case was. The focus on the poster boy for capital punishment takes attention away from watershed changes in attitudes toward capital punishment in America.
In the McVeigh case, both the person and the process were very different from what goes on in a typical capital murder case. The defendant came from a middle-class, intact family and was highly intelligent. And unlike 17 of the 19 other inmates on federal death row ("The Non-McVeigh News," The Washington Post, June 12), he is white. Unlike most defendants, he had skilled counsel from the moment of his arrest. Despite knowing his rights, he freely confessed, leaving no doubt of his guilt. Because of its open and shut nature, the entire process took only six years.
All of these are very different from what normally goes on. Such an easy case is rare. This may be why there seems to be a tone of national satisfaction - the case was free of many of the moral ambiguities that often come up in capital punishment cases.
These moral ambiguities are leading Americans to demand more of the justice system. The Republican governor of Illinois imposed a state moratorium on executions last February when he found out that since 1977, 13 death row inmates had been freed and only 12 executed ("Alive and Kicking," The New Republic, April 17). Not a good record, folks.
The realization that other states, including Virginia, have made mistakes has changed public opinion so that 51 percent of Americans actually favor a national moratorium on carrying out sentences until all this can be straightened out ("Mercy Seat," The New Republic, June 11).
This doesn't mean Americans are ready to give up the death penalty completely. A survey shows that 66 percent of Illinois residents approve of the moratorium but nearly 60 percent still think the death penalty is a good thing ("Alive and Kicking"). Thus declining majorities in support of capital punishment don't mean Americans have rejected the death penalty, but that the reality of capital punishment does not meet the ideal.
Another reality that Americans are beginning to reject is the fact that America executes the mentally retarded. The federal government gives them an exemption from execution, but 24 states still do not. One of these is Texas. Last week, the Supreme Court overturned a death sentence against Johnny Paul Penry, a man who is clearly mentally retarded, on the grounds that the jury had not been able to consider his deficiency as a mitigating factor.
In 1989, the Supreme Court refused to rule execution of the mentally retarded unconstitutional largely on the grounds that a public consensus did not exist against it. Yet it has agreed to hear a case this fall to determine whether this is still true. Since 1989, 12 of the 38 states that have capital punishment have exempted the retarded ("Death Sentence Overturned for Retarded Man," The Washington Post, June 5). A similar bill currently awaits the Texas governor's signature.
Executing the mentally retarded is an area where the legal system and public opinion are currently out of step. In several states where this practice still exists, surveys have shown strong majorities that support change. In Texas, where a prosecutor almost has to be incompetent not to get a death sentence, 81 percent of the public supported sparing the mentally retarded.
Negative attention during the presidential campaign has driven many Texans to examine our criminal justice system. It has produced not only the recent bill banning execution of people like Penry, but also has revived an earlier movement to institute a public defender system in Texas, a bill vetoed by then-Gov. Bush.
These changes fit within a larger national realization, to which politicians are slowly catching on, that one can demand fairness from the justice system and still favor law and order. This represents a huge watershed in American public opinion, which has always felt itself besieged by criminal hordes waiting at the gates.
The mass publicity surrounding the almost completely noncontroversial execution of McVeigh obscures the aspects of criminal justice that are controversial. Americans like the idea of giving criminals what they deserve, but are beginning to realize just how hard it is to carry out that ideal. We are finally beginning to try to define the meaning of the word justice. This is a Herculean task, promising a discussion much more newsworthy than the McVeigh execution, with no end in sight.
(Elizabeth Managan is a Cavalier Daily columnist. She can be reached at emanagan@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 14 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
