Hopping online, I noticed under Yahoo News headlines that claims there are "racial disparities found in death penalty sentencing" Here's the link.
It claims that "Prosecutors in Maryland are much more likely to seek the death penalty in cases where blacks are accused of killing whites", according to research from a study conducted by the University of Maryland. Because of this already suspected fact, Gov. Parris Glendening (Democrat, naturally) pushed for a moratorium on the death penalty. New governor Robert Ehrlich (Republican, naturally) promises to remove the moratorium.
All this brings two thoughts to mind. First, the angry charge of racism against the death penalty is not only misguided, but its implications may create an increase of injustice, rather than the assumed want for an increase in justice. Death Penalty debate aside (face it, the ultimate crime should result in the ultimate punishment), we can say for sure that not all robbers are caught. Should we legalize stealing for the sake of fairness? Or legalize stealing temporarily until we decide what steps we can take to ensure stealing does not continue? This logic is applicable to murder and the death penalty. Methinks the real agenda is to outlaw the death penalty by charging it with racism. It's one thing to be up front about this, but this study from the University of Maryland isn't making any such claims.
The second point derives from the first in that if people are against the death penalty, fine, make your case. But arguing that the death penalty may be applied by racial bias isn't a very good argument for outlawing it. The reason being is that just because justice is applied unevenly doesn't mean those who were caught didn't deserve it. This is the same as getting pulled over for speeding or drunk driving, then complaining to the cops that other people were speeding or drinking and driving too. Just because not all lawbreakers get caught means those who do should be given reprieve. However, I'm inclined to wonder if the claims of racism (implied as they are) sit on the solid ground they claim to be? I've done no study or research and so this question is up in the air, but I wonder what the difference in likelihood of getting the death penalty is between murderers who murder people they know/family and murderers who murder strangers? It seems like there's more outrage, more emotion when someone has been taken by a senseless and random act of violence whereas when its a domestic dispute or something of that nature, its seen more as a horrible tragedy. Sad commentary as it may be, blacks and whites are more socially segregated than perhaps we would like, and so it is simply more likely that if a black kills a white, there's something of a greater chance that the criminal and victim were not related or knew each other well. As victims/criminals who are strangers to each other are more likely to draw more outrage than "in-house" crimes, naturally the death penalty would be meted out.
After all, the study compares the likelihood of getting the death penalty in which the victim was white. It said nothing about the likelihood of a white man getting the death penalty when the victim was black. I don't know if this "strangers causing outrage" theory is true or not, but the fact is that this "racial disparities" study would not account for that question (which itself would diffuse the argument that the death penalty is racist) and therefore is potentially misleading or dishonest, which would result in incorrect conclusions.
This piece of crap written on Jan. 7, 2003. You are free to steal or reference it at your discretion.