Panel Heatedly Debates Merits of Death Penalty

A panel on the death penalty played to a full house last night in the ARCO Forum at the Kennedy School of Government.

The discussion addressed terrorism and racial issues as well as the more traditional philosophical questions surrounding the death penalty, and was led by two pro-death penalty speakers and two panelists who were opposed.

Hugo A. Bedau, professor of philosophy at Tufts University, and Stephen B. Bright, attorney and director of the Southern Center for Human Rights, spoke against the death penalty.

David L. Schaefer, professor of political science at College of the Holy Cross, and Jeff Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, defended the use of capital punishment.

Bedau spoke forcefully about what he said he sees as the arbitrariness of the American justice system.

Schaefer said the three reasons to support capital punishment are “incapacitation,” “deterrence” and “retribution.”

Bright then took the floor to share his personal experiences as a lawyer and what he said he feels is the unfairness of the legal system.

He referred to an execution by lethal injection that took place two days ago in Georgia.

“[This recent injection] continues the pattern we see in the death penalty,” Bright said. “It’s imposed upon the poor. It’s imposed upon African-Americans. It’s imposed upon youth and the disabled.”

Jacoby argued that capital punishment was a moral and practical solution to certain crimes.

“[It’s] a fundamental matter of fairness. One who steals another’s life does not deserve to keep his own,” Jacoby said.

Members of the audience then joined the discussion with questions for the panel.

What was billed as discussion quickly turned into a heated debate, primarily between Jacoby and Bright. Jacoby jumped to respond to almost every question from the audience, insisting that the death penalty was inherently just.

“Talk is cheap, justice is expensive,” Bright said in response.