The death penalty debate is stirring once again in Iowa. Governor Terry Branstad renewed his support for a limited death penalty in his weekly news conference yesterday.

He said he respected the viewpoints of those who opposed it, but still asked Iowa lawmakers to respect the desires of their constituents and vote to reinstate the death penalty.

There are limitations that proponents want to see implemented. The sentence would only be sought for two or more capital convictions, such as rape/murder, kidnapping/murder, etc.

The death penalty would only be used if there was incontrovertible physical evidence (e.g. DNA tests) that the criminal committed the crime. Circumstantial evidence would not be admissible in the penalty phase of a trial.

Prosecuting attorneys would not be allowed to seek the death penalty if those convicted had a history of mental disorders, had an IQ below 90, or were under the age of 18.

Clearly there is desire in the state for the death sentence to be brought back. There are many logical arguments against it, but the nature in which lawmakers want to use the sentence changes the debate.

There is the argument that the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment. That stems from the fact that much time is spent in the courts (both original and appellate courts) to give the accused every possible opportunity to appeal.

Yes, many of these appeals are used to the point of exhaustion. However, the more appeals an individual receives, the more definite his/her innocence or guilt can be. The accused only needs one appeal to be set free, but the state’s case must endure countless rigorous appeals.

The fact is, Iowa is lucky in having relatively few double capital crimes committed compared to the rest of the nation. The appeals process would not be lengthened that much, since there are very few cases that would warrant the death penalty. The state could easily pay for that increase in judicial cost.

There is another argument that the death penalty unfairly discriminates against minorities. While it’s true that minorities on death row have increased 460% from 1980 to 1994, it’s also true that whites on death row have increased 393% (1996 US Statistical Abstract). Whites still make up nearly 57% of death row inmates. Interestingly, they also make up 57% of the total prison population (Federal Bureau of Prisons). The death penalty does not discriminate any more than the “racial bias” that exists in the justice system.

Prosecutors would ask for death by lethal injection only in those double capital crime cases, not by arbitrarily selecting single capital cases like many other states do.

Another argument is that the death penalty doesn’t bring back the victim(s) the criminal killed. The opponents say it doesn’t provide any sense of real justice for the families of victims.

While it’s true the victim will not come back to life, I say let the victims’ families decide whether justice is being served. Ask the families of remorseless serial killer Ted Bundy’s victims whether they think he should have died. Ask TV host John Walsh what he thinks of the person who kidnapped, molested, then decapitated his 8-year-old son Adam. How about the parents of Des Moines woman Patricia Howlett, who had to endure the horror of hearing that their daughter was kidnapped, raped, stabbed and then set afire?

It is not bloodthirsty to want to see your loved one’s murderer die. Many of these people cringe at the fact the killer will still breathe the same air as their loved one. The murderer can still see, touch, smell, laugh and most importantly, live. Who are we to tell families that the murderer can’t lose the same freedoms he/she took from the victim?

Some say the death penalty is not a deterrent. That concept is hard to measure. It is impossible to prove not only that the death penalty does deter crime, but also that it doesn’t deter crime.

It’s also been said that it may even contribute to crime in our society. They compare countries without the death penalty that have low crime rates and draw conclusions based on that data.

The causal relationship between the death penalty and the existence of violent crime is a false analogy. Crime is a combination of many factors. Economics, personal morality and personal experience are just some of the contributing factors of criminal violence. To compare societies with different justice systems (especially those with less liberties for the accused) just does not provide a good argument.

I don’t expect those who oppose the death penalty to be persuaded by my arguments. There are good arguments that support their point. However, those of us who favor the death penalty have valid arguments as well that warrant the public’s attention in this debate. There are those in Iowa who do favor the death penalty, and their desires should be respected.

---

Robert Zeis is a senior in finance from Des Moines.