editorial
The death penalty is
not a form of justice
Murder: It happens all the time. Reports of violent
crimes that result in a victim’s death fill the pages of
newspapers almost daily. How should society deal with con
victed murderers who have committed cruel acts of violence
against innocent victims? On Nov. 6, Oregonians will have a
chance to answer that question.
During the past year an organization which calls itself
“Concerned Oregonians for Justice” has worked hard to get
the death penalty reinstated in Oregon. Ballot Measures 6
and 7 call for an amendment to the state constitution that
will allow death by lethal injection to be used in cases of ag
gravated murder when the jury unanimously finds that the
defendant acted deliberately, without provocation, and is a
possible future threat to society.
The death penalty is considered by COJ to be a form of
criminal justice. In reality the death penalty promotes a
philosophy of an “eye for an eye” in society. It teaches that
revenge is the answer to murder.
Proponents of the death penalty argue that it will
decrease the number of violent murders that occur in socie
ty. They say that those individuals who are likely to commit
murder will think twice before they act knowing that the
penalty could be death should they get caught.
On the surface this sounds like a good argument, but a
careful look at the facts shows that there is no proof linking a
decrease in homicides to use of the death penalty.
The biggest collection of work to this effect was done by
Thurston Sellin. In a series of studies that he carried out
looking at states before and after they had a death penalty
and also comparing states with and without capital punish
ment laws, Sellin carefully documented that there was no
correlation between use of a death penalty and a decrease in
murder.
Another study (Bowers and Pierce, 1979), showed that
in New York State between 1907 and 1963, an increase in
homicides occurred within a month of executions carried
out under the death penalty. An average of 2-3 additional
homicides was reported. Bowers and Pierce called this
phenomena a “brutality effect.” They concluded that use of
the death penalty actually increased the rate of murder in
New York State, because it sent a clear message to the public
that killing was permissible in certain cases.
The death penalty does not decrease the rate of violent
murder in society nor is it an example of criminal justice. It
does, however, increase the chances of innocent persons be
ing charged with murder and put to death. Since 1900 there
have been 300 persons charged with murder in U.S. courts
who were later found to be innocent. Had there been a death
penalty, many of them would have been killed.
Supporters of the death penalty have also ignored other
important findings related to violent crime, such as reports
which indicate increased murders in areas where there is an
increase in unemployment.
Racism is also an issue since 49% of all people
sentenced to death have been black and 43% of those cur
rently on death row are also black. Studies carried out by
Robert Mauro, University Psychology Professor, and his
associate. Sam Gross, indicate that those who kill whites are
more likely to be sentenced to death than individuals who
kill blacks.
The bottom line is that the death penalty does not
decrease the rate of murder. It ignores social problems that
contribute to violent crime, it can lead to innocent persons
being put to death, it teaches the public that killing is a form
of justice, and it allows racism on the part of juries and
judges to be a deciding factor in whom should be put to
death. Vote no on Measures 6 and 7.
Oregon doily
emerald
The Oregon Daily Emerald is published Monday
through Friday except during exam week and vacations
by the Oregon Daily Emerald Publishing Co., at the
University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon, 97403.
The Emerald operates independently of the Universi
ty with offices on the third floor of the Erb Memorial
Union and is a member of the Associated Press.
General Staff
Advertising Director
Production Manager
Classified Advertising
Controller
Susan Thelen
Russell Steele
Rose Anne Raymond
Jean Ownbey
Ad Sales: David Wood, Marcia Leonard, Tim Clevenger,
Laura Buckley, Roberta Oliver, Laurie Noble, Jennifer
Fox.
Production: David Bryant, Sharia Cassidy, Kelly Cornyn,
John Dorsey, Stormi Dykes, Julie Freeman, Kathy
Gallagher, Dean Guernsey, Susan Hawkins, Kirk Hirota,
Karin McKercher, Lauri Neely, Kelly Neff, Curt Penrod
Tamye Riggs, Michele Ross, Peg Solonika, Tim Swill
inger, Colleen Tremaine, Eileen Tremaine, Hank Trotter.
Page 2A
Editor
Editorial Page Editor
News Editor
Managing Editor
Photo Editor
Sports Editor
Sidelines Editor
Entertainment Editor
Assistant Entertainment Editor
Night Editor
Michele Matassa
Costas Christ
Michael Kulaga
Mike Sims
Michael Clapp
Brent De La Paz
Sheila Landry
Kim Carlson
Mike Duncan
Sheila Landry
Associate Editors
Administration
Politics
ASUO
Student Activities
Features
Michael Doke
Paul Ertelt
Julie Shippen
Jolayne Houtz
Lori Steinhauer
Reporters: Sean Axmaker, Shannon Kelly, Allan Lazo, Lori
Stephens.
News and Editorial 686-5511
Display Advertising and Business 686-3712
Classified Advertising 686-4343
Production 686-4381
Circulation 686-5511
'Some people ro see you, mp ppesipenT—You* dkama speech <£*ch,Yo*
PP8ATfN<SG*CH,YOtf> image TECMMICIAN.YOUR KIT64EN REMODElER, ER.. ETCETERA -'
letters
Swallowing it
What he was saying: “And
when I became governor of
California 1 started this and I
continued it in this office, that
any issue that comes before me,
I have instructed Cabinet
members and staff, they are not
to bring up any of the political
ramifications that might sur
round the issue.”
What he was thinking: “And
if you’ll swallow this, you’ll
swallow anything.”
Reagan fans have been
swallowing some big ones
lately.
Keith Bowen
Eugene
Unchallenged
Constant rhetoric from the
Mondale-Ferraro campaign
takes issue with the Republican
party for failing to endorse the
ERA. But why should a political
party be inclined to endorse a
dead issue? Don’t Democrats
believe in the Constitution?
The Constitution of the
United States clearly outlines
the procedures through which
an amendment may be ratified.
Despite the fair and just intents
of the Constitution, a Democrat
controlled Congress ignored the
Constitution and extended the
period for ratification by an ad
ditional 3 years. The amend
ment still died. And nobody can
blame that on Ronald Reagan.
With regard to women, Presi
dent Reagan’s record is
unchallenged:
1. Under Reagan, a woman
represents the United States in
the United Nations.
2. Under Reagan, a record
number of women serve in the
president’s cabinet. More than
in any previous administration.
3. Under Reagan, a Hispanic
woman serves as Treasurer of
the United States.
4. Under Reagan, women ac
count for 57% of all the presi
dent’s political appointments.
5. Under Reagan, a woman
serves on the Supreme Court.
O’Conner, much more than a
token, is an outstanding Justice.
6. Under Reagan, 1,600 women
have been appointed (by the
president) to policy and
management positions in the
administration.
President Reagan's record is
clear. He supports progress and
opportunity for women.
Unfortunately. Mondale’s
political motives in nominating
Ferraro for VP are also clear.
Mondale’s record can’t stand
up to Reagan's, so he had to do
something to cloud the issue.
On November 6, don’t be
caught with your head in the
clouds — vote to re-elect Ronald
Reagan.
Eric Stillwell
Political Science
Only support
I am writing in reference to
Vice President Bush’s remarks
during his debate with con
gresswoman Ferraro. His
“concept of the vice presiden
cy” sees the vice president sup
porting the president’s policies
100%, both publicly and
privately. I disagree with Bush.
His attitude should not be a rule
of thumb for any vice president.
I would much rather see a
working relationship between
the vice president and president
where each maintains his own
private opinions while showng
solidarity in public. This was
Walter Mondale’s feeling when,
back in the Carter days, he
publicly endorsed the Soviet
grain embargo policy, while
privately expressing skepticism
about it.
It is beneficial to have
presidential advisers with dif
fering views. The president can
then review the full scope of an
issue and so formulate policy
accordingly. A president who
only has his opinions reverently
reinforced by his advisers can
not be formulating policy which
is in the interest of the entire
nation.
Shouldn’t the president hear
what the other side has to offer
before jumping the gun on an
issue? The vice president,
because of his proximity to the
president, is in a vital position
to enlighten him to these other
schools of thought.
A lesson can be learned from
President Kennedy's handling
of the Cuban missile crisis. He
surrounded himself with ad
visers who had many different
views for dealing with the situa
tion. forcing the president to
consider every option. This
resulted in a responsible, well
thought out solution to the con
flict. All presidential policy
should be formed in a manner to
ensure the strength and integri
ty of this country.
Bruce Abedon
Eugene
Moral outrage
As a Mondale supporter. I am
appalled by the behavior of the
RCYB and a new group called
Autonomen which
systematically violated my First
Amendment rights for over an
hour near the Marine recruiting
table in the EMU. I was called a
Nazi by the Autonomen group
for saying that Mondale offered
a Democratic alternative to
some of the policies of the
Reagan administration which
they were allegedly there to
protest.
As a blunt warning to such
fanatics, most of the students
protesting the Reagan ad
ministration policies are doing
so to further protect freedoms
they feel are being endangered
by Reagan's policies. They feel
that Reagan's policies would
possibly take away their rights
as citizens of a democracy. I
very much doubt that most
students at the University
would want to live in the sort of
political system advocated by
the RCYB.
Frankly. I feel moral outrage
at the unbelievable arrogance of
extremist groups who use
legitimate protest as a vehicle to
get a platform to totally
dominate open air discussions.
I think that it is completely
unfair for the RCYB and
Autonomen to abuse an open air
forum for the purpose of ramm
ing a totally intolerant political
philosophy again and again at
the expense of legitimate pro
test groups. Would such
fanatics please get away from
the serious business of political
discourse if their aim is to stop a
presentation of the issues.
Andrew Beckwith
Graduate student, Physics
Wednesday, October 17, 1984