To the editor:

I am writing to voice my disagreement with M.C. Peck’s assessment in his Feb. 28 letter that the death penalty is necessary and practical.

In addition, I remain unconvinced that capital punishment is a “necessary evil,” and that it acts effectively as a deterrent.

Peck stated that upon killing, killers lose the right to live themselves, especially if the murder is premeditated. That is not a fair look at the crime.

Who are we to determine the value of human life? Condemning those who kill to the same fate as their victims lowers society as a whole.

None of us have the right to play God with others’ lives. Leading by example shows not only humanity, but courage and mercy as well.

He goes on to say that if the 1976 Supreme Court decision on capital punishment were repealed, all criminals would have a victory.

We would be supporting the rights of the criminals. What, though, are rights? Just because someone did a horrific thing does not mean they don’t deserve to live.

Everyone in our country deserves to live; they were given this right in the Constitution. The reason fueling the repeal of the Supreme Court decision is the discovery of 13 innocent people on death row in Illinois. Thirteen people, who were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Can anyone honestly claim that those are the only unfortunate such incidents?

Nothing can justify killing people who are not guilty of the crime, and because our justice system is not perfect, there will always be that chance.

I have to agree with him, that if it was my parents or my family who had been brutally murdered, I would probably wish their killer was dead also.

Almost anyone would feel that way if it was his or her family, but that doesn’t make it right. Most would consider it normal to feel that way after the initial shock of the murder.

They would want vengeance, thinking it would bring closure and justice to the family. Unfortunately, it wouldn’t.

After all is said and done, they are still left with a great loss. All that is accomplished is the taking of a member of someone else’s family.

The suffering from this loss creates a never-ending cycle of grief. In the end, the world is no safer or more just.

Peck concluded with the argument that we must have the death penalty as a deterrent. I disagree that having the death penalty really deters someone from committing murder. It is not sensible to believe that a person, who is in the mindset to kill, is going to stop and think about the consequences. Killing is often quite irrational, and one is gravely mistaken in thinking that murderers would ever take capital punishment into consideration.

The death penalty is nothing more than our society trying to replace what has been taken from someone else.

It seems a convenient political plank on which a candidate can appear to be hard on crime without any real initiative or proposing a new idea. Unfortunately the loss of a loved one can never be completely healed.

I think that putting people who have committed these terrible crimes away in jail for the rest of their lives brings about just as much justice as killing them would.

They should be kept in separate facilities and not given the same privileges as the other inmates.

When it comes right down to it, killing is still killing. Even when done in the name of justice, the taking of human life never has been and never will be right.

Leslie Berge

Freshman

Pre-business