Speakers debate death penalty

Proclaiming "if we kill susceptable criminals, we won't stop crime in this country," Senior Law School Fellow David Rudovsky argued against the death penalty before 150 students in a debate yesterday afternoon at the Law School. But during the hour-long debate, former Assistant Attorney General Richard Willard, his opponent for the debate, spent much of time claiming that society still needs of the death penalty. "The theory that society becomes more decent as it evolves has been disproven in the twentieth century," Willard said. The debate, sponsored by the University chapter of the Federalist Society, was organized to show "alternative viewpoints not often brought out in the law school," according to the chapter's president. Past debates have included flag burning and the first amendment. Addressing three main points, Rudovsky provided a strong argument against the death penalty that many students said they agreed with. Rudovsky questioned the unusefulness of the death penalty, saying it does not deter further crimes. He used the example of New York where more police officers were killed when the death penalty was in effect than when it was abolished, to support his point. He went on to call retribution unjustifiable because criminals are arbitrarily chosen to go to death row. "I suspect the debate over capital punishment will continue because it provides an outlate for our failing justice system," Rudovsky said. The debate was structured to allow each speaker approximately 20 minutes to detail their position. During Willard's address, he discounted claims that constitutional amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment prevents the death penalty. Willard, who served as assistant attorney general in the civil division from 1983 to 1988, said the original intent of the nation's founding fathers was to prevent torture adding that they would consider death a fair punishment for some of the crimes committed in today's society. He also called for mandatory sentencing for specific crimes, including murders of police officer, first-degree murder, and murder by inmates sentenced to life. Following the speeches, students were able to question Willard and Rudosky on their positions and some said they arguments made by the two were pursuasive. "Professor Rudovsky disuaded me," College junior Liza Herzog said. "I came in here pro-capital punishent, but after hearing his strong argument, the I may have changed my mind." "I agree with Rudovsky, he laid out a better argument, but I wasn't happy with the arguments either way," said Marit Anderson, a first-year law student. Staff Writer Riz Shavelle contributed to this story.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.