FISCHER: Death penalty decisions must consider more than justice

I've heard a lot of people complain that capital punishment is a grave injustice committed by the state. However, when applied correctly, it is anything but an injustice. If capital punishment is to be rejected, it can't be on the grounds of justice.

In late 2004 Twayne Tuck broke into the home of 53-year-old Bernice Harris in the middle of the night and killed her with an automatic pistol. Harris' 8-year-old grandson, who had been awakened by the sound of the gunshots, witnessed his grandmother bleed to death.

Tuck then kidnapped Harris' two grandchildren and daughter, who he later raped.

Eventually Tuck was apprehended, and the three victims were not harmed any further.

A few weeks ago, the Dadeville Record reported that a jury in Tallapoosa County found Twayne Tuck guilty on charges of murder, rape, sodomy and kidnapping. His conviction was secured in part due to the testimony offered by Harris' grandson.

After Tuck was convicted, the jury handed down a recommendation of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, rejecting the prosecution's request for a death sentence recommendation.

Prosecuting attorney Paul Jones expressed his dissatisfaction with the recommendation saying, "I thought it was the type of case that called for the death penalty [and] I would not have asked for it if I didn't believe it was warranted."

I don't know about you, but when I read the details of this horrible, cold-blooded crime I have a hard time disagreeing with Jones. I have a hard time believing that someone like Tuck really still deserves to live.

Or take the case of Roy Ellis. Last Friday in Omaha, Ellis was sentenced to death for his brutal 2005 sexual assault (his third) and eventual murder of a 12-year-old girl whom he abducted after she got off a school bus. How can someone like Ellis claim a right to live?

The fact of the matter is that neither of these individuals, nor anyone who brutally takes the life of another human being, can legitimately make such a claim. To recognize such a claim is to go against the very foundations of our justice system.

We exist under a system in which all people are guaranteed certain basic rights and freedoms – unless they violate the rights of another. In that case, they forfeit certain rights and privileges fitting to the crime that they have committed. If you use your freedom to steal, rape or vandalize, you will be forced to give up some of that freedom to punish you for misusing it and to ensure you will not do it again.

When an individual uses his freedom to sexually assault someone, he forfeits his claim to that freedom. When an individual takes the life of an innocent human being, he forfeits his own right to have his own life protected.

It simply does not make sense to question the justice of executing someone who has committed murder.

There are other principles we ought to take into consideration besides justice, such as mercy and compassion, and whether capital punishment is truly the best option.

So is justice the only principle we ought to be using?

Absolutely not. A world that answered only to the demands of justice would be void of second chances, reform and worst of all, forgiveness.

The fact of the matter is that justice only works and only makes sense when it is coupled with mercy, with compassion and forgiveness and with an unrivaled respect for human life.

An eye for an eye is certainly just, but I would much rather live in a world that turns the other cheek.

This is not to say we should just give murderers and rapists a big hug and tell them that they are free to go, hoping that a good dose of forgiveness will set them straight.

But rather, we must recognize that there are other ways to satisfy justice - a life in prison is hardly a life and is certainly adequate in ensuring the safety of the community - while still showing compassion and offering mercy.

A murderer clearly has no respect for justice, but that does not mean that we forsake justice. By the same token, though he has not shown mercy, compassion or respect for life, we should still hold fast to these principles in our action.

The important thing that we have to realize is that even in clear cut situations where the crime is truly terrible and the evidence is overwhelming, capital punishment is still not the best option. It may be just, but it is not the best thing that can be done.

This legislative session, Nebraska has the opportunity to end this unfortunate practice. I urge you to write your state senators and encourage them to take a stand for mercy, compassion and respect for human life, as well as for justice.

Luke Fischer is a junior secondary education major. Reach him at lukefischer@dailynebraskan.com.