Scholars debate death penalty at E.N. Thompson Forum
www.dailynebraskan.com/news/article_f97adf94-39e5-11e2-a027-001a4bcf6878.html#.ULunQd3lfOA.twitterNebraska Solicitor General J. Kirk Brown and University of Colorado Boulder Professor of Sociology Michael Radelet debated Wednesday night over the controversial legal, ethical and economic consequences of capital punishment.
The two presented their opposing arguments to a full audience at the Lied Center of Performing Arts in a debate entitled “The Death Penalty: Justice, Retribution and Dollars” as part of the E.N. Thompson Forum on World Issues “Religion, Rights and Politics” Series.
In his five allowed minutes of introduction, Brown asserted himself as a proponent of the death penalty and immediately addressed the issue of religion. “I was raised on the King James Christian Bible and the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill,’” he said.
Brown went on to explain that newer translations of the Bible have redefined the order to read, “thou shalt not murder.”
“Murder is defined as an unlawful killing. There can be no clearer example of a lawful killing than an execution ordered by a court of law,” said Brown forcefully.
Radelet responded with references to statistical evidence as well as sympathetic appeals and examples that addressed both the monetary and the emotional costs of the death penalty. The higher cost of an execution over life imprisonment was a point repeated by Radelet, though it was moderator and UNL College of Law Dean Susan Poser that provided concrete numbers that in California, $90,000 more is spent annually on a death row inmate than a maximum security prison inmate.
No comparable figures were available for the state of Nebraska, a point that Radelet criticized.
“The state of Nebraska refuses to do a study on how much (the death penalty) costs,” he said. “Before this building was built, I am sure they knew exactly how much it would cost. We know the cost of everything except the cost of the death penalty.”
Radelet suggested the funds dedicated to capital punishment should be instead allocated to programs to help victim’s families, a view likely shaped by the many conversations he has with family members of victims in his home state of Colorado. In addition to working with families, Radelet has conducted last visits with over 50 death row inmates, testified in high profile cases and written two books and numerous articles expressing his opposition to the penalty.
Brown, a University of Nebraska College of Law graduate served as the primary counsel in Nebraska capital murder cases for nearly three decades. He also served as the general counsel for the Texas Department of Corrections, where he witnessed over 20 executions in six years.
Radelet ended the discussion with a statement thanking audience members and underlining his belief in the importance of knowledge. “I firmly believe that the more people know about the death penalty, the more people will oppose it,” he said.
Stacy Anderson, executive director of Nebraskans Against the Death Penalty, agreed. Along with 15 volunteers, Anderson handed out informational flyers outside of the Lied Center, asking audience members to sign up for email updates and information from the organization. “Our mission is to educate Nebraskans on how the system actually works. Nebraskans are reasonably smart people and if they get the information, they will make the right decision,” she said.
Freshman Russian and global studies major Annie Himes felt educated about the topic before she came to the debate. “Honestly, I felt like the debate was a reiteration of the classic death penalty debate statements,” she said.
Nebraska is one of 33 states that authorize the death penalty. Eleven inmates currently sit on Nebraska’s death row, though the last execution in the state occurred in 1997 with the case of State v. Williams.
In his final statements, Radelet summed up his main points and then asked the audience, “The question here is what kind of society do we want to be?”