Section
Pepperdine Links
Online Publications
Riverside County officials arrested Raymond Lee Oyler on Thursday, Nov. 2, in connection with the raging Esperanza fire, which claimed the lives of five firefighters.
He is charged with multiple counts of arson, as well as several counts of first degree murder. This situation also lends itself to two “special circumstances” that have to do with murder while committing arson and the other addressing multiple murders.
As a result of these 28 charges, the district attorney may elect to seek the death penalty against Oyler. While these are heinous crimes in every sense of the word, Oyler should not be put to death. The government should not have the ability to put its citizens to death, regardless of the crime.
This is a tough scenario because the people who died were not ordinary people but citizens working to save others and their property. If Oyler did, in fact, commit arson, and subsequently murder, then he should be considered the scum of the Earth. But the death penalty has no place in the legal system.
Nothing gives the government the right to take life when it deems it necessary; actually, the eighth-amendment forbids cruel and unusual punishment. Taking a citizen’s lfe should be considered cruel and unusual, as almost all other developed nations have abolished the death penalty. This, coupled with the idea that the government should not be able to seize citizen’s property, including life, form a compelling argument against the use of capital punishment.
It is ironic that in order to punish convicted capital offenders, and to show possible offenders that murder is wrong, the government kills them. Hypocrisy is a bad way to convey a righteous position on issues of morality. There are no figures that can back up either claim that death penalty is a superior deterrent or that life without parole is more effective.
Since 1973, 123 death row inmates across the U.S. have been released due to new evidence out of more than 1000 sentences. In the past century, 23 cases of an innocent person being executed have been proven. This level of uncertainty casts serious doubts on the credibility of the death penalty.
However, guilt is actually not as important as one would think. Regardless of if a criminal is guilty, even if there is a confession, that person should not be executed. Guilt does not act as a mitigating factor for execution.
Life is the ultimate property. If the government accidentally seizes one’s house, then returns it, it is a hassle, but not the end of the world. On the other hand, if the government makes that mistake with one’s life, it cannot be undone. Since there is a chance for such a mistake to occur, the death penalty cannot be used. It is erroneous to think that even a couple mistakes are acceptable in this matter, even if the majority of executions is legitimate.
A basic tenet of most societies is that the taking of another’s life is wrong. Not only is the act socially unacceptable, but a sense of guilt or conscience often keeps people in line. We as a society should not condemn the act of murder by executing the perpetrator. Hypocrisy is a terrible way to enforce laws.
Execution is simply not an effective tool for deterring crime, nor is it a logical response to the ills of society.
Again and again, studies have shown that the use of capital punishment does not deter criminals any more so than threats of a “lesser” punishment.
The government should not have, under any circumstances, the right to take its citizens’ lives. Accordingly, it should not have the right to execute convicts that it deems worthy.
If the charges against Oyler are true, then he is a terrible human. He deserves the maximum sentence for his crime — life in prison without parole.
But no one should be executed.
Submitted 11-09-2006
MALIBU, CA
