Cellucci's Capital Error

Keeping a promise he made after last year's failed attempt to bring capital punishment back to the Commonwealth, Governor A. Paul Cellucci--now more confused than ever--has proposed a broad bill to make conviction of some 16 categories of murder punishable by death. Together with Lieutenant Governor Jane Swift, Cellucci seems to be relying solely on the horror of isolated incidents to win support for a cause which lacks both practical and ideological grounds.

Indeed, confused is perhaps the best description of the bill and its supporters. Cellucci and Swift have not exactly been bastions of consistency in their support of capital punishment. At one time both have been against the death penalty. The current bill, which they adamantly support, would allow execution for almost any type of murder.

Practically speaking, the bill makes little sense. Not only are violent crime rates in Massachusetts much lower than in those states which enforce the death penalty, but they have been declining rapidly in recent years. Thus capital punishment isn't necessary to deter crime, as Cellucci claims. The solution to lowering crime rates is to stop crimes before they are committed--through a well-trained and well-equipped police force--rather than execute those already convicted. To put it bluntly, the Commonwealth is doing fine without the death penalty.

But the most pressing practical concern of the bill is its inherent inability to prevent the executions of wrongly convicted inmates. Recently, Anthony Porter, an inmate on death row in Illinois, was freed merely two days before execution after a group of journalism students sought out and found the real killer. According to the Associated Press, Cellucci said the fact that Porter wasn't executed was proof the system works. The governor doesn't seem to realize that this kind of argument--that because private citizens took action to save a death row inmate, the death penalty system works--is completely absurd.

Whether Cellucci admits it or not, no matter how good the system is, there will always be those who fall through the cracks. This danger is heightened infinitely due to the irrevocability of the act. Under the death penalty, not only are innocents sometimes convicted, but it is extremely difficult to enforce a universal standard for those who are rightly convicted. Life without parole--a severe punishment which still recognizes human fallibility--is a more just alternative.

Perhaps capital punishment, with all its inherent flaws, might be acceptable to those whose thirst for revenge cloud their rational sense for universal justice before the law. But the majority of us know better.

Although the debate on the House floor will be fierce last year's bill was killed after an 80-80 tie--the current bill will mostly likely be rejected in its original form. If anything, Cellucci's proposal seems to be a misguided attempt to win conservative support through political grandstanding.

But we can never be too certain of anything in Massachusetts politics, and so we take this opportunity to reiterate clearly our position against the capital punishment. Hopefully, the House will see through the foggy logic of our befuddled state leaders.