Government professors debate death penalty

By Alex Massey, News Writing Student

A debate on the death penalty pitted two political science professors against one another in an event sponsored by the College Republicans and Young Democrats on campus recently.

"As American citizens, we ask law enforcement and our military to do the very thing we are debating: to take a life," said political science professor Dana Glencross, speaking in favor of the death penalty.

Glencross wore a pastel yellow dress at the debate, which was attended by about 100 people, most of them the professors’ students. They had been primed to attend by the promise of a lively interchange.

“The death penalty is not for retribution," she said. "The purpose is for public safety. Those who take a life forfeit their own."

Political science professor Markus Smith started by pointing out the role racism plays in assigning the death penalty, particularly in Southern states. Smith spoke against the death penalty.

Dressed in his Taekwondo uniform — white pants and a white tunic — Smith opened by stating the U.S. is one of only four countries that carry out the death penalty. The others are Saudi Arabia, Iran, and China. That’s not good company, Smith said.

Smith said Southern states have openly dualistic judicial practices regarding race, which favors Caucasians over African Americans.

He added that 80 percent of those executed in the U.S. are executed in Southern states. Texas, which is the number-one state for executions, has never executed a white person for murdering a black person.

Glencross argued that the death penalty is not applied discriminatively.

She also noted that women rarely receive a death penalty verdict. She said the system that issues the death penalty, as well as any other verdict, can be flawed. She said 50 percent of death penalty verdicts are overturned on appeal.

The moderators, an officer of the Young Democrats and an officer of the College Republicans, asked questions of both of the debaters. The first came from the College Republican for Smith: "Is the Death Penalty constitutional? Would you call it cruel and unusual punishment?"

Smith replied that the death penalty ought to be declared unconstitutional, and cruel and unusual in that it deprives a person of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Glencross was asked a question pertaining to the jury selection system. She reiterated her point that the system needs to be fixed if racist tendencies exist in it.

She was then asked if she felt the public was well educated about the death penalty, to which she answered that public opinion polls only favor the death penalty until other options are given, such as life in prison without parole.

Glencross was asked if the death penalty was just, in that it doesn’t make a perpetrator live with the crime he committed. Glencross replied, "We must make sure no other crime like it is committed by the same murderer."

Smith replied to a question about the cost of the death penalty by saying that life without parole is cheaper because of all the appeals and other business that comes with execution.

Both professors addressed the deterrent effect of the death penalty.

Smith said if execution was a deterrent, then the South wouldn’t continue to execute 80 percent of those put to death. Smith said the majority of murders are crimes of passion and that is why the logical fear of execution doesn’t enter into the minds of most murderers.

Glencross answered that the death penalty is a deterrent in instrumental murders, which involve planning, not passion.

She also argued that life in prison is a harsher penalty.

“It is more inhumane to imprison someone for life than put them to death,” Glencross said.

Smith said that economic standing affects proper representation in court.

"Poor defendants are more often wrongfully convicted [than the rich]," he said.

Glencross closed by stating that "It’s about public safety. [Smith] is walking away from a chance to save lives," she said.