Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

System shouldn't strive for vigilantism

To the editor,

An editorial in yesterday's Wildcat illustrates the ignorance of the general population in regards to the death penalty. First, I agree that McKinney and company deserve to be punished for the horrible and brutal death that Matthew Shepard suffered. I take strong issue, however, with the idea that vigilante justice is what our court system should strive for.

In the U.S., the death penalty is applied to a disproportionate number of people of color and to the economically disadvantaged. Though some may advocate the "eye for an eye" philosophy, it is more expensive to execute someone than to house them for their entire life. (The appeals process is quite expensive).

This also doesn't take into account the pain of the families involved. Should Matt's family have to relive this tragedy during appeal after appeal? Should they be allowed to have some closure?

Probably most important, is that a quick execution acts as a Band-Aid. If we execute someone, we can say in our minds that they are deviant and that justice has been served. We don't have to look at what made them this way. We don't have to reach into our societal conscience and ask where this type of violent act comes from. The very fact that the lawyers even thought of presenting the 'gay panic' defense, tells us a lot about the prevalence of homophobia in our society. A swift execution is a great way to put the act out of sight and out of mind.

I would not even begin to excuse McKinney for his actions. What he did was most certainly brutal and without remorse. I do believe that Aaron McKinney will relive that horrible night everyday for the rest of his life. I do believe, by that very fact, that justice has been served.

Jonna Lopez

Sociology and political science junior