| |
||||||
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|
AT 17 YEARS OF AGE, John Lee Malvo, accused with John Allen Muhammad in the shooting spree in the area surrounding Washington, DC, is not old enough to vote, smoke, drink, rent a car, join the army without parental consent, or buy Playboy. But according to the US government, he is old enough to be executed. The alleged snipers are being tried in Virginia. The two men were going to be tried in Maryland, until Attorney General John Ashcroft stepped in. The state of Virginia has put 86 people to death since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, more than any state except Texas. Texas has executed more than 270 prisoners (with more than 150 of these occurring during the governorship of Ashcroft's boss, President George W. Bush). Nationwide, 19 people have been killed for crimes committed as juveniles since 1976. Virginia has executed three of those (second again to Texas, leading the pack with 11). The execution of juveniles seems to be something of a new trend in Virginia-the state killed the first juvenile in 1998, and the next two in 2000. In the past three years, the only countries to execute juveniles have been the United States, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Iran. Looking back to 1990, only the additional countries of Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen have executed juveniles. But even so, the United States is the Texas of the world when it comes to capital punishment-in the past decade, two-thirds of all known executions of child offenders were committed in the United States, according to a report released by Amnesty International in September. Until death do us justice Maryland does not allow juveniles to be sentenced to death. In moving the trial of the sniper suspects from Maryland to Virginia, Attorney General Ashcroft has the fate of John Lee Malvo in mind. "If convicted as an adult," said Ashcroft at a November 7 press conference, "the juvenile could face the death penalty." He later added, "It is appropriate-it is imperative-that the ultimate sanction be available for those convicted of these crimes," after specifically mentioning the death penalty as a possible sentence for both suspects and before citing Virginia as having "the best range of available penalties." In Ashcroft's mind, the "best range" of penalties clearly includes sentencing children to death. Yet there are good reasons for protecting minors from the long arm of the law's heaviest blow. According to a November 12 article in the New York Times, children and teenagers are less able to think for themselves than adults, more susceptible to outside influences, and have greater difficulty making decisions and recognizing the consequences of their actions. At the time of the snipers' killing spree, Malvo had been at Muhammad's side for almost two years, since he was 15 years old, after fleeing a mother who beat and periodically abandoned him. Muhammad controlled every aspect of Malvo's life-the activities of his daily life, where he lived, and a strict diet apparently consisting, at times, only of saltines. According to features about the pair in national newspapers, it seems that Malvo revered the older man with a feeling approaching worship. Clearly Malvo's juvenile status played a vital role in his relationship with and dependence on Muhammad. Yet the current administration has demonstrated a flagrant disregard for the laws protecting juveniles in the way it has handled Malvo's case thus far-police prevented Malvo's own court-appointed guardian from being present during the juvenile's seven-hour interrogation. Who knows if Malvo has any idea what Miranda rights are? Even the 41-year-old Muhammad seems confused by the machinations of the government-when asked, by the Virginia judge, whether he wanted a court-appointed lawyer, Muhammed said that he thought he already had one. If one thing can be more disgusting than another, then the sentencing of juveniles to death seems more clearly abhorrent than capital punishment for adults. The moral aversion toward executing children is reflected at the state level: while there are 12 states that forbid the death penalty, there are 28 states that forbid sentencing juveniles to death. It only took 18 states forbidding the execution of the mentally retarded for the Supreme Court to declare a national consensus on the issue and forbid it-it's past time for the Court to declare the execution of juvenile offenders unconstitutional. Graves, worms, and epitaphs Yet there are a number of reasons to oppose the death penalty in general, even when the criminal in question is an adult. To begin with, the system is still overwhelmingly racist. In 1972, the Supreme Court suspended the death penalty because the court determined it was being applied "arbitrarily." "Arbitrarily" in this case was a synonym for "mostly to black people." Although the majority of those put to death since 1976 have been white, blacks continue to be outrageously over-represented in capital cases. Nearly 40 percent of those executed since 1976 have been black, even though blacks make up only 12 percent of the population. According to a 2000 report by the Justice Department, in 80 percent of cases in which prosecutors seek the death penalty, the defendant is a racial minority. Some people justify their support of capital punishment by claiming that it deters crime more than a life sentence in prison. Most researchers disagree-in fact, some have argued that capital punishment actually increases crime because executions have a brutalizing effect on society; in other words, American culture is a violent culture in part because our government is a violent government. If the point of the death penalty is to deter crime and protect the citizenry, then it would seem that capital punishment actually does more harm than good. Capital punishment also costs a lot of money. If, as studies conducted by states suggest, each execution costs about $2 million more than lifelong imprisonment, then executing the roughly 3,600 prisoners on death row will cost the nation more than seven billion extra dollars. I'd rather my tax dollars were going to improve the standard of living-education, health care and social security- than the standard of dying. And making the appeals process faster is only going to ensure that more innocent people end up on death row. Even if the death penalty could be applied fairly (which it can't) and even if it deterred other criminals (which it doesn't), and even if it were cost-effective (which it isn't), it would still be wrong. Capital punishment is little more than institutionalized, government-sanctioned revenge. This is where the proponents of the death penalty start in with their last-ditch argument, creating horrifying and personalized scenarios: "If your sister were kidnapped, tortured, raped, and killed . then wouldn't you want the death penalty for her kidnappers, torturers, rapists, and killers?" Yes. I would want such people to be killed. But the purpose of government is not to pander to our basest, most vengeful desires. Rather, government is meant to save us from those instincts. This boy's life The Bush administration is going out of its way to ensure that the 17-year old Malvo will be sentenced to death. Ashcroft is calling for both Malvo and Muhammad to be put to death even before their trial has begun. Aside from giving Virginia jurisdiction over the case, the Attorney General has also decided that each suspect should be tried in separate courthouses. Apparently, Ashcroft is concerned that a jury seeing both defendants together would certainly notice the contrast in their age and authority. In such a scenario, smart defense lawyers could play up Muhammad's role as a manipulative mastermind, making a death sentence for Malvo less likely. This case also provides the first test for the Bush administration's controversial anti-terrorism law. Prosecutors have charged both Muhammad and Malvo under that law, which makes the death penalty an option if a murder is committed with the intent to intimidate the public or influence the government. As such, Virginia won't even have to prove which suspect actually fired the gun in order to sentence them both to death. As someone who invokes the sanctity of life for the lowliest stem cells, President Bush's enthusiasm regarding the death penalty seems especially outrageous. No matter how appalling the crime, the constitution still forbids cruel and unusual punishment and guarantees due process of law. In the case of John Malvo, the US government has unashamedly sought the cruelest of punishments, while its gestures toward due process have rung hollow. Juveniles are juveniles; they cannot be tried "as adults" without negating the purpose of a juvenile court system. Rule of law applied selectively is not rule of law. SARAH GREEN B'04 pleads no contest. |
copyright © 2002, The College
Hill Independent
last updated 11 22 02
Dana Goldstein takes on