To the editor:

I totally disagree with the assumptions and conclusions that Brian Coovert made in his article on the death penalty.

He argues that the positives of the death penalty far outweigh the negatives. What exactly are these positives?ÿ

The purpose of the death penalty is to discourage any criminal acts that would warrant such a severe penalty.ÿ

There is no substantial empirical evidence that the death penalty has helped to decrease violent crimes … so what’s the point?

The “negatives” that Mr. Coovert so coarsely refers to are the wrongful murders committed by the states on 85 innocent people.ÿ

At least there are only 85 known cases of unjustified state sanctioned murder, but there are probably more.ÿ

Hasn’t Coovert heard the saying that a hundred, no, a thousand, guilty men should be set free before one innocent man is imprisoned?

He also makes the argument that convicted criminals shouldn’t have any human rights.ÿI have to disagree with this idea.ÿIf we take away all human rights of criminals, we ourselves are guilty of the same crime they have been accused of committing. In fact, I am not so positive that we ourselves aren’t already guilty of such a crime.ÿ

By sending 85 innocent people to death, the states and proponents of the death penalty should themselves be stripped of all human rights, at least according to Mr. Coovert.

Also, DNA testing and scientific advancement will not totally eliminate all innocent people from being wrongfully convicted of a crime.ÿ DNA evidence isn’t even a factor in many cases, and science definitely will never able to solve all crimes without a doubt.ÿ

If this was the case, then, instead of courts, suspects would be sent to laboratories, and this is not only preposterous but something that is totally against the constitution and the ideals that America stands for.ÿ

Enrique Anaya

Freshman

Computer engineering