Maryland and the Politics of Capital Punishment: the Lack of Honest Debate

The debate in Maryland over the death penalty lacks good clash and is characterized by the ignoring of important arguments.

More than most issues, the question ofwhether the death penalty should be maintained in Maryland seems tosuffer from a lack of public debate. There were opposing editorials in The Baltimore Sun, but no point\counter-point [Time to abolish the death penalty in Md.?” January 18, 2013].

In that semblance of a “debate,” Baltimore County State’s Attorney Scott Shellenberger argued that capital punishment: 1. is supported by public opinion, 48-42; 2. is reserved for only the most heinous crimes; 3. is sufficiently restrictive to ensure that only the guilty are found so; 4. allows that there must be a punishment for repeat murderers; 5. is an issue for which the expense is irrelevant to enacting proper public policy; 6. and is a matter for which mass murders require apposite justice.

Sister Helen Prejean and Delegate Heather Mizeur, respectively a
supporter of death penalty repeal and the legislative sponsor of repeal, argued
that capital punishment 1. doesn’t deter crime and is less effective than other
measures; 2. is racially discriminatory against those who murder white victims
(they do not even mention that the race of the defendant has been found to have
no effect on the likelihood of the use of capital punishment); 3. is
irreversible, leading to possible putting to death of an innocent person; 4. is
too expensive; 5. and is an issue on which public opinion is moving toward

In this exchange the proponent and opponents of the death
penalty talk past each other. The only direct clash is the likelihood of
verdict error. The combatants agree that public opinion is relevant, but
disagree what said opinion is on capital punishment, and they disagree
regarding whether cost should be even considered in the debate.

There is no discussion from opponents Prejean and Mizeur of the
critical importance of the availability of the death penalty: 1. what to do
about those who murder or order others’ murders after a
life-without-parole conviction; 2. what to do about serial murders of children;
or how prosecutors can bargain or plea bargain with a person who facesno
death penalty possibility.

In his State of the State address, Governor Martin O’Malley, consistent with the
debating shortcomings of opponents of the death penalty, also cites public
opinion polls without reference to their instability: when heinous crimes are
in the news, support for capital punishment rises, sometimes precipitously.
When Timothy McVeigh committed his grisly atrocities in Oklahoma City, a USA
TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll indicated that 81% of the public felt he should be

The Governor’s speech addressed none of the counter-arguments
against his claims supporting repeal of the death penalty, and he
didn’t even mention the issues of mass murder, murders of children, subsequent
murders or commissioning of murders by those who receive life-without parole,
and the bargaining chip denied to prosecutors.

Maryland may be a Democratically controlled state, but this does
not gainsay the need for full-fledged discussion of critical issues, especially
regarding the disposition of the most egregious criminal members of our state.

The Maryland citizenry is better served by honest confrontations
of the issues, particularly by those whose votes will determine whether the
tool of the death penalty protecting us from the worst of the worst will

We need all the issues and evidence addressed, not ignored until
it is too late.


Richard E. Vatz teaches Persuasion at Towson University and has
written often on the death penalty. He is the author of The Only Authentic
Book of Persuasion
(Kendall Hunt, 2012, 2013)



This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Paul Romney February 10, 2013 at 11:45 AM
The law and public opinion rightly considers cold-blooded killing as especially wicked. Capital punishment is a cold-blooded act. Other civilized countries get by without it. Mr Vatz ignores these considerations.
Paul Romney February 10, 2013 at 11:46 AM
I meant "consider".
Dudley Sharp February 10, 2013 at 03:56 PM
Murder and execution may, under certain circumstances, be cold bloodied, but let's no presume they are remotely equal. There is a vast moral differnce between crime and punishment, guilty murderer and their innocent victim. It isn't a matter of other countries, either civilized or uncivilized, getting byt without the death penalty. It is a matter of is it better to have the death penalty or not. As the death penalty is supported by justice, as all sanctions are and as the death penalty is a greater protector of innocent lives, all countires would be better off with the death penalty.
Sanchez February 11, 2013 at 01:03 AM
Regardless of what your stand on the issue is, Vatz makes sense as usual. As the liberals are fast to say in the firearm debate, "if it saves just one life" it is worth it. Meaning if ONE person is saved due to the threat of the death penalty, it should be kept as a punishment.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »