Death Penalty

In a shocking move last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft ordered prosecutors in New York and Connecticut to seek the death penalty in a dozen cases. The 10 cases in New York and the two in Connecticut all involve minority offenders and the prosecutors had already opted against seeking the death penalty. Aside from the question of whether the order poses a threat to separation of powers as indicated in the 10th Amendment, this mandate flies in the face of common sense, suggesting that a severe punishment for capital crimes be universally imposed regardless of case facts acquired and researched by prosecutors handling the case.

While the idea of being "tough on crime" is appealing to voters, Ashcroft has clearly shown a lack of moral guidelines. Racial or economic factors might not be motives, but they certainly play a major part in both the convictions and visibility. The desire to impose the death penalty for all capital crimes, simply for the sake of balancing the punishment standards for all states, is sheer lunacy.

Ashcroft could achieve the goal of ensuring uniform standards across the country by lowering the execution rate, but instead, he seeks to impose a blanket raise. Since his problem is based on policy, he cannot - nor should he be allowed- to pass judgment on the fate of someone else's life.

The people and circumstances involved in capital crimes vary greatly, and, therefore, the punishment should fit the crime. There is a difference between the crimes of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and that of a woman who murdered an abusive husband. Imposing a uniform sentencing policy for cases so profoundly different is absurd. Only prosecutors who have spent time on the case and are knowledgeable about its particulars should determine when such punishment is warranted - as has been the policy up until this time.

If the motives of Ashcroft are examined, it seems that his mandate aims to prove that the death penalty is an effective solution for deterring crime. Since criminals have already been apprehended, convicted and on the verge of being put away forever, proving the new policy's effectiveness will be difficult. Also, if juries do not believe the death penalty is an appropriate sentence, prosecutors may find Ashcroft's mandate undermines their ability to convict.

The implications of this edict are very serious and show both a blatant disregard for the judicial process and a lack of faith in the intelligence and discretion of prosecutors. Supporters of the death penalty must realize that it is an extreme measure only to be utilized in uniquely abhorrent cases wherein there is absolute certainty of the guilt.

Ashcroft has overstepped his boundaries and cannot continue to impose his personal beliefs on others. The death penalty is very volatile and should only be used as an extreme option. Ashcroft's lack of moral guidelines and disregard for human life, state autonomy and prosecutorial discretion, are an insult to America and a poor showing of his character.