13 of 47

Unjust

Write now Article Tools

Page 2 of 2

gave false testimony. Though one ended in acquittal and the other in a new trial, these cases serve as examples that prosecutors are not saintly guardians of justice. They are merely lawyers trying to win cases.

The case that ultimately made me believe the death penalty is unjust was that of the Green River Killer. There was no misconduct by prosecutors. However, the reasons we were given for sparing the life of Gary Ridgway do not stand up to scrutiny, and the reason that makes sense is unacceptable in justice.

Gary Ridgway was charged with killing seven women, but was suspected in about four dozen murders, mostly involving prostitutes. His crimes were so heinous, and so many, that he earned the death penalty. However, the prosecutor had a "revelation" that the closure for forty-eight families by confession was better than closure for seven families by conviction. What happened, though, was he confessed to some murders in which he was not a suspect, and denied some murders in which he was a suspect. The coroner had ruled the death of one of his victims as drug overdose. His confessions opened wounds for some families, and did not bring closure to others.

Ridgway had been a suspect twenty years before his arrest. His calculations enabled him to continue his killing spree while investigators had him in their sights. He knew enough to say that two women whose bodies were found near Portland, Oregon were murdered near Seattle and dumped there. We know what he told us. We do not know that he told us the truth. He would have known of another serial killer, Robert Yates, who confessed to thirteen murders in one county in exchange for life in imprisonment, but was sentenced to death for two murders in another county.

When critically examined, it was not a "revelation" to bring closure that motivated prosecutors to let one of the most notorious serial killers in American history confess to forty-eight murders. It was a "realization" that the cost to supply adequate defense to withstand the appeals process would be in the millions of dollars.

Justice should never be forsaken for money.

I have no issue with the concept of the punishment matching the crime. We should all hope that an innocent person would never receive any punishment, but history suggests it has happened even in capital cases. It has happened not only because of mistaken identity and conspiracy, but also because those we entrust to guard justice sometimes succumb to greed and lust. However, when honorable people tell us reasons that do not make sense in order to preserve the right to seek the death penalty in other cases, when the real reason is money, we can no longer call the death penalty just.

Injustice for any means we have failed at justice for all. It violates the foundations of justice, what America stands for, and the pledge we take to our flag. We can never accept compromised principles and remain a principled society. More than that, though, we can never consider money a factor in principles. Otherwise, we truly are just greedy and vengeful, and not simply just.

Learn more about this author, Tom Koecke.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

• << previous page
• 1
• 2

Add your voice

Know something about Is the death penalty just or unjust??
We want to hear your view. Write now!