We are writing in response to Robert Zeis’ Feb. 20 column concerning the reinstatement of the death penalty in Iowa. Our response echoes the sentiments from a recent meeting of the Pro-Life Committee of Saint Thomas Aquinas Catholic Church and Student Center.

We are concerned with Mr. Zeis’ emotionally charged column in favor of the death penalty as an answer to so-called “gruesome and sinister” crimes. While emotion is a natural response to injustice, this issue demands rational thought since the fate of human beings is at stake. First of all, it is difficult to correlate abolishment of the death penalty and a perceived increase in crime, or crimes that are “more sinister and gruesome” for that matter. The ability of a reinstated death penalty to reduce such violent crime seems dubious, because many violent crimes are committed either (1) in the heat of passion with no consideration of punishment or (2) in cold blood with a belief that the perpetrator will evade punishment.

Another problem with the death penalty is that it is often applied in a classist and racist manner. According to Pax Christi USA Backgrounder on capital punishment, “90 percent of persons executed were convicted of killing whites, although people of color make up over half of all homicide victims in the United States.” Ecumenical Ministries of Iowa cites, “more than 95 percent of persons executed in the U.S. since 1930 were poor, and more than 50 percent were black, far exceeding the representation of those economic and racial groups in the general population.” Is this a true indicator of who actually commits crimes? Is this really how an objective system is supposed to operate?

Something else we object to is the fallibility of human judgment involved in administering the death penalty. Again in reference to the Pax Christi USA Backgrounder on capital punishment, 350 capital convictions within the past 20 years later revealed the innocence of those convicted. Of these people, 25 were executed. Mr. Zeis, is this justice for the innocent who were executed? We cannot “play God” with human lives when it is fallible human judgment that leads to administration of the death penalty. We overstep our bounds in doing so. Furthermore, that is why we have the appeals system. It is meant to guard against tragic errors such as the ones mentioned above. Then again, the appeals system is prone to mistakes as well. Mr. Zeis’ comment regarding technicalities and irresponsible juries raises another issue of fallibility. From a legal standpoint, only the members of the jury presented with all the facts are responsible and qualified to judge the significance of technicalities. Furthermore, the judgment of whether or not the death penalty is appropriate for a certain crime is a highly subjective decision in itself.

Another matter that concerns us is the level of vindictiveness expressed by Mr. Zeis. He seems to suggest that victims have the right to revenge upon the accused. However, there is no guarantee of revenge in our Constitution. True, death may serve as punishment, but punishment isn’t the only important issue at hand. The message sent to society in implementing the death penalty is just as important as the punishment. How can we teach that killing is wrong by killing? Why do we want to lower ourselves to the standard of the criminals by doing the killing ourselves? Maybe Mr. Zeis should ask himself if opponents of the death penalty like us are the real hypocrites as he seemed to insinuate.

Mr. Zeis also seems to imply that the death penalty is the only acceptable means of retribution for the families of the victims of heinous crimes. He seems to think that people who oppose the death penalty have no sympathy for victims and their families. Nothing could be further from the truth. We realize that the process of trying to put someone on death row puts many exacting tolls not only on the criminal, but also on the family of the victim(s). Highly publicized cases and the appeals system only delay the healing of the grief and the moving on that is so key for the families of crime victims. The families of the criminals also undergo the same tolls as everyone else in instances such as these. Also, ask yourselves: Does the death penalty give back the life of the victim? It does not, and it only compounds the injustice brought on by the criminal to begin with.

Something else we disagree with is Zeis’ example of the man who killed a police officer who was beating his brother. Mr. Zeis says that this man had no right to kill the police officer even though the police officer overstepped his bounds. This is problematic for several reasons: (1) Mr. Zeis seems to imply that law officers have greater rights than citizens. (2) People who have injustice committed against them by members of the law force can’t defend themselves. And (3) in the spirit of the death penalty issue, why is it that a self-defending citizen can’t kill a law enforcer overstepping his/her bounds, but the law can subjectively judge and kill a citizen who allegedly has done the same?

Furthermore, Mr. Zeis seems to imply that all people who are against the death penalty are “morally loose anarchists” who endorse abortion. Where is his proof? As a matter of fact, there are many organizations of morally sound and law-abiding citizens who oppose both abortion and the death penalty. Examples include the U.S. Catholic Bishops, the Seamless Garment Network, and Pax Christi USA. It is our sincere hope that anyone who reads this understands why we feel the way we do and what the fundamental flaws are in Mr. Zeis’ reasoning. We don’t look out for the rights of criminals at the expense of victims, and we are not hypocrites who believe that the rights of some

people are more important than the rights of others. If Mr. Zeis or anyone else has any questions about where we stand or why we feel the way we do, then I strongly urge him and any other interested party to come to our next pro-life meeting on April 1. It is on that note that we would like to close with an appropriate quote from Mahatma Ghandi: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”

Mike Pitula

Sophomore

Environmental Sciences

and Spanish

Brad Carlson

Sophomore

Entomology