Letter: Call death penalty what it really is - retaliation

Editor,

Colin Donoghue's column in Tuesday's Daily Lobo on racism and the issue of the death penalty suggested to me an argument against capital punishment in general - the terms death penalty and capital punishment are actually misnomers.

My dictionary defines the verb "punish" as subjecting someone to loss of money or freedom or to physical pain for wrongdoing. The word "penalty" is even more innocuous, and neither includes death as part of its definition.

Punishment is appropriate and necessary in many situations. It is an integral part of child rearing - a parent uses it to modify the future behavior of an errant child. Conversely, capital punishment can produce no corrective behavior - its infliction eliminates the convicted person's existence.

Knowledge of impending death likely serves as additional punishment and can sometimes result in positively modified behavior - many death row convicts change their lives for the better. But, for the majority of Americans who are in favor of the death penalty, that doesn't matter. Half of them cite their reason for supporting the capital punishment as "eye for an eye," "the punishment fits the crime" or "they deserve it." Many even assert that it's entirely appropriate for the convict to experience the same fear and violence that he had perpetrated on his victim. Some even express a desire to execute the sentence themselves.

Consequently, I believe another word should be substituted for "penalty." Perhaps "retribution" would be better - it's defined as something given or demanded in payment, but it doesn't express the seriousness of the outcome. To me, the best fit is "retaliation":

To return like for like, especially to return evil for evil.

Sentencing someone to "death retaliation" is a more accurate term and, hopefully, more thought-provoking. It may spur Americans who haven't analyzed the purpose and consequences of the act to better understand what it accomplishes.

There is no question that perpetrators of crime, especially murder, must be separated from society for our protection, but incarceration is sufficient to protect us. Of course, it too could be vastly improved to everybody's benefit.

The death penalty doesn't produce the results its supporters desire; 11 percent of them cite that it acts as a deterrent as their reason for supporting it, but that benefit has yet to be borne out by the facts. Therefore, one can only conclude that capital punishment serves to satisfy the emotion of retaliation - something most of the world's societies have rejected on moral grounds.

The fact that the death penalty is applied unfairly with regard to race is a sufficient, but not solitary, reason to abolish it. Americans can and should pursue more rational and effective methods of dealing with our criminals. Capital punishment is a glaring defect on our ostensible desire to be regarded as the shining beacon of freedom and high moral standards.

David Castillo

UNM student