Death penalty challenged at debate
By Meghan Lewit, COM '03

Opponents of the death penalty won their argument during the College of Communication's Great Debate held Nov. 6 at the Tsai Auditorium. Students and experts in law and civil rights sparred during a lively, and occasionally heated, discussion on "Should the death penalty be abolished?" The outcome was decided by majority vote from the audience.

The three speakers on the affirmative side argued the death penalty is an ineffective and unfair punishment, while the three members of the negative team stated that the death penalty is necessary when dealing with perpetrators of the most brutal crimes.

Steven W. Hawkins, a civil rights advocate and the executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, opened the debate for the affirmative side. He argued that a nation wanting to send the message that murder is wrong is being hypocritical in carrying out executions. He also said a punishment that is irreversible does not leave room for redemption or forgiveness, pointing out that many families of murder victims do not want to seek the death penalty.

A large part of Hawkins' argument centered on the possibility of innocent people being executed. He said since the introduction of DNA evidence in courtrooms in 1993, 102 inmates on death row have been exonerated and released. He added that this number points to a high probability that innocent people have been unfairly put to death in the past.

"Who are we, with all our faults and foibles, to make the ultimate decision of who lives and dies?" Hawkins asked.

John C. McAdams, an associate professor at Marquette University's department of political science and lead speaker for the negative side, refuted many of the statistics put forth by the affirmative team, calling them "nonsensical numbers."

He said only about 1 percent of death row inmates have been found innocent, a much smaller number than 102, and many of the reversals were for procedural reasons, not because inmates were actually innocent.

"Please be skeptical of numbers produced by the other side," he said.

He also said opponents of the death penalty could not name a single specific case where an innocent person had been executed, and that several recent studies have shown that capital punishment is a deterrent to murder, although he agreed that other studies have shown the opposite to be true.

"I would rather take risks with the lives of murderers than take risks with the lives of innocent people," said McAdams.
Supporting debaters, including two Boston University students, spoke alternately following the lead speeches.

Sandhya Ganapathy, a senior College of Arts and Sciences student, focused on issues of economics and international relations. She said an execution costs an average of $2 million more per person than a sentence of life in prison.

She also pointed out the United States is the only Western, industrialized country with the death penalty, and the only nations with higher execution rates are China, Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

"Is that really the company we want to keep?" asked Ganapathy.

Diann Rust-Tierney, director of the American Civil Liberties Union Capital Punishment Project, spoke last for the affirmative side. She said the "death penalty is rigged by race and class," and poor people are more likely to be sentenced because they cannot afford quality legal care. She added that minorities are over-represented on death row.

Zachary Coseglia, who graduated from COM this past May and is currently a student in BU's School of Law, spoke second for the negative team, appealing to the emotions of the audience by describing in graphic detail the violent murder of a young boy.

He said for the most brutal and heinous crimes, there is no other just punishment, which will "ensure that known murderers never murder again."

Citing notorious criminals Timothy McVeigh and Osama bin Laden, Coseglia said, "Our gut tells us here that even a sentence of death is letting these guys off easy."

Ronald Rychlak, an associate dean and professor at the University of Mississippi's Law Center, added that the death penalty can be an important tool for prosecutors to negotiate with the defendant and gain more information.
At the conclusion of the speeches, members of the audience had a chance to share their opinions from the floor. The majority of people who spoke supported the affirmative side, opposing the death penalty.

Journalism Department Chairman Robert Zelnick moderated the event and judged the outcome. After the lead speakers concluded the debate by restating their main points, people voted by moving to either side of the room. After a short deliberation, Zelnick declared the affirmative side the winner.