(04/27/05 12:00pm)
The death penalty is an unjust sentence, according to Irfan Khawaja, adjunct professor of philosophy and religion. Khawaja explained why he is against the death penalty last Wednesday night at the "To Kill or Not to Kill: Death Penalty" talk.
Khawaja listed three major arguments in favor of the death penalty and then rebutted each in his talk.
The main argument for the death penalty, Khawaja said, is the belief that some who have performed terrible acts deserve to die.
Opponents of the death penalty are divided in their response to this argument, he said. Some believe no one deserves to die, that people have a right to live no matter what. Others believe some criminals deserve to die. In this reasoning, there needs to be an "airtight, transparent case" to charge someone with the loss of their life, according to Khawaja.
"I want to suggest that even if people deserve to die, it is not just to kill them," Khawaja said.
Khawaja also warned against going to the other extreme. Being too lax causes problems as well, such as criminals getting off too easily. Khawaja would push for life imprisonment as a compromise.
Deterrence is another reason to support the death penalty. Proponents think that executing criminals will deter others from committing crimes out of fear for their own lives. The facts, however, do not support this claim. "It seems that there is no statistical case for the deterrence effect," Khawaja said.
Even if evidence of such an effect did exist, Khawaja said he ponders what the ratio between executed murderers and saved possible victims would be. If it is simply balanced, it is unjust; but how many more need to be saved for the death penalty to be morally permissive?
"You want to preclude people from dying, but you're killing people to prevent others from dying. What deters you from killing the wrong people? The answer is 'nothing,'" Khawaja said.
He said a third reason given in favor of the death penalty is the victim's family finding closure for the death of their loved one. Since the victim cannot be brought back to life, it is thought the next best thing is for the murderer to die as well.
Khawaja admits that this would be a very good argument if it could be shown to be true. However, "there is very little evidence that the death penalty brings closure," he said.
Khawaja said long-term studies of the effects of the death penalty on family closure are missing from the equation. There is no evidence that all families find closure when the murderer is executed, nor is there evidence that families only find closure if the murderer is executed. In fact, according to Khawaja, families very often find closure when the murderer is not executed.
"The problem is, people are different," Khawaja said. Some would like to get eye-for-an-eye type revenge, while all others need is to face the criminal. "(The closure theory) is too psychological a phenomenon," he said.
Khawaja also cited the cost of execution as another reason against the death penalty. The process involved costs much more than holding someone in prison for life.
Khawaja hopes that by putting proponents on the offensive, support will begin to crumble and the death penalty will be abolished within his lifetime.
"I take murder seriously, I just don't think death is the way to handle it," Khawaja said. The death penalty is "not compatible with justice."
Despite the controversial nature of the topic, there was no strong opposition to Khawaja's talk. "We invited many organizations to come out and present their side of the argument to have a very open forum on the subject," Tamie Victor, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) vice president, said. "There were some people who presented objective arguments," but the little controversy there was was "responded to with factual information."
One student brought up the fact that criminals sentenced to life without parole would inevitably die in prison anyway. "I believe that (Khawaja replied with) something along the lines of, 'Is it really the states' responsibility to say when a person should die or not?'" Victor said.
One student wondered if criminals with mental disorders are regarded in the same way with respect to the death penalty as those without disorders. Khawaja said if the criminals do not have disorders, they deserve to die. However, he said it is difficult to verify.
Racial and other biases in death penalty sentencing is another consideration. According to the ACLU Web site, "The death penalty has never been applied fairly across race, class and gender lines."
"I believe that the death penalty is a forgotten subject in civil liberties and I am happy that we had the pleasure of having Professor Khawaja come out and speak," Victor said. "I hope that the students at the College continue to show support to the ACLU."
Khawaja's talk was sponsored by TCNJ-ACLU, a chapter of the national organization dedicated to the preservation of all human rights guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
(11/04/04 12:00pm)
Following extensive debate among members of the Student Government Association (SGA), as well as a large crowd, a no confidence resolution against SGA Executive President Pedro Khoury failed by a vote of 10-17.
The resolution, stating reasons why Khoury seems unfit for his position, was introduced at the Oct. 20 meeting by Lee Whitesell, senator of culture and society. These reasons included a lack of enthusiasm and a lack of the necessary experience needed to lead such an important organization, among others.
Chris Kuhn, SGA parliamentarian, made the motion to conduct a secret ballot, a non-debatable motion. Paul Harris, senior political science major and Black Student Union (BSU) trustee, approached the board, turned to the gathered public and asked, "Don't you see this as a conspiracy?"
The resoution was met with mixed reactions from some who supported it, others who were appalled by it and some who said racism was at the heart of it. Angelique Blann, junior biology major, said she thinks it is not fair to have a secret ballot. She, as well as many of the students, wants to know who voted for the resolution so students will be informed about the issue for the next election.
Support of the resolution goes against the decision the student body made to have Khoury in office as SGA executive president and, in turn, goes against what SGA is supposed to do to represent the students at the College. "The people have spoken," Dave Dziengowski, senior history major and president of the Inter-Greek Council, said.
Others believe the secret ballot, as well as the amount of abstentions in previous votes, make SGA seem cowardly. "Yes or no, no abstentions," Roy Johnson, Jr., senior psychology major, said.
Coming as a surprise to many SGA members, the resolution was developed in secret without the rest of SGA, as well as the student public, being informed. As a result, there was much opposition.
"This was not the way to go about this," Marco Zelaya, senator of culture and society, said at last week's meeting. According to Zelaya, the resolution was based on the opinions of a few SGA members who have personal issues with Khoury, and does not represent SGA as a whole.
Magda Manetas, SGA advisor and director of Student Life, also was uninformed of the resolution before last week's meeting. According to Manetas, no one came to her with concerns about the leadership of the organization. Without that step in communication, Manetas said, "it shouldn't have come to this," she said.
Khoury himself was unaware. "(You) didn't give me five minutes so I could tell you my point of view," he said at the meeting on Oct. 20. He felt that it was difficult to properly carry out his position even early on because of members' preconceptions of him.
Harris said at last week's meeting that he was informed by SGA Executive Vice President Brian Mulvihill that the no confidence resolution was being discussed as early as Sept. 1.
"How can you govern if this has been planned since day one?" Harris asked. He, as well as many others, believes Khoury was not given the chance to prove or improve himself.
Khoury said he was also misrepresented in the resolution. "I've read through some of the resolution. To say I don't accept criticism ... I think that's improper wording," he said.
Many students, senators, and others present at last week's meeting agree with the misrepresentation. "(Khoury) has more leadership than anyone I know right now," Jocelyn Charlon, Union Latina president, said of her working with Khoury through Union Latina.
Wanda Anderson, who has worked with many student leaders as advisor to SGA, said that Khoury does not lack anything as a leader - he simply has a different style than most.
Zelaya said he "has faith in the president," and Jon Cherng, senator at large, said he believes Khoury has a lot of potential in his position.
Some felt race was an issue in the development of the resolution. Although Khoury himself was unsure of whether or not this was a factor, others are convinced it was. "The arrogance of the resolution shows that (race) is an issue," Johnson said.
Matthew Civiletti, SGA vice president of administration and finance, disagrees. "This is not an issue of race," he said. "This is an issue of politics."
Despite the request of several students and SGA members, few spoke in support of or further explained the reasons behind the resolution. At the Oct. 20 meeting, Joseph Mulford, senator of business, said that "the bill wasn't created just to spite the person; the (reasons) were based on fact."
According to Gabriel Alonso, sophomore class president, the discussion surrounding the resolution is hindering SGA's main purpose - to govern and make a difference. "What's the point?" he said. If the resolution was passed, Khoury wouldn't have to follow it anyway.
Chris Tuohy, senior class secretary, agreed. According to Tuohy, the time and effort put into making and discussing the resolution could be better served on many other, more important things.
Following the vote, an emotional Khoury declined to comment. "Everybody spoke," he said.