Collegiate Times

Wednesday’s column by Jason Campbell “Lewis execution underscores immorality of death penalty” (CT Sept. 29), regarding capital punishment exemplifies the fact that his intellectually dishonest and inflammatory comments require a little perspective. While it is OK to have a certain point of view on a controversial issue, his statements are completely irresponsible to be put in the school’s newspaper and also just don’t make sense.

The irresponsibility of the column has nothing to do with what side of the issue he is on, but rather the hypocrisy in his statements. While it is OK to be against the death penalty, his opposition to the immorality of capital punishment is insincere, particularly in light of his stance on abortion.

No matter where one stands on an issue it is important to remain consistent in terms of supporting something on moral grounds. It reduces the argument to an ideology driven position rather than a consistent one.

Secondly, Mr. Campbell referred to the execution of Teresa Lewis as murder multiple times. He clearly lacks understanding of the definition of the term. Murder, as defined by Webster’s, is the “crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.”

Clearly, capital punishment is not unlawful in Virginia so the use of this word is inaccurate and serves no purpose other than to inflame. As a columnist, it is important to use the appropriate terminology rather than use the phrase “savagely murdered” just to stir an emotional response.

If he is going to say that the United States is one of the five countries responsible for 88 percent of the world’s executions, it is important to cite a source and provide proper context. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, while there have been roughly 1,200 executions in the United States since the capital punishment ban was lifted in 1976, his dishonest portrayal that the United States is a country that rejects “freedom and human values” is crazy.

Has he not paid attention to the government-sanctioned mass killings in the Sudan and Darfur? Has he not heard about the disgusting executions that take place in Taliban controlled areas under the authority of quasi-government agencies? The stonings and other primitive forms of execution that take place in third world countries can be labeled as “savage,” not the use of lethal injection in the United States, whether you support the death penalty or not. 

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new standard for moral judgment? Seriously? Clearly a man who denies the Holocaust and believes Sept. 11 was an inside job has absolutely no standing to define the moral compass of our country. Why are we degraded by giving that tyrant credibility in his condemnation of the United States?

Finally, it is intellectually dishonest when an opinion piece does not stay on topic but rather tries to include every unrelated hot topic issue one can. The fact that Mr. Campbell tried to include same sex marriage, health care, flag burning and education into a column about capital punishment is ridiculous and makes the column lose all credibility and appear as nothing more than an ideological diatribe. His stance on these issues and my personal beliefs have nothing to do with my objection to the piece. The fact that the Collegiate Times has lowered its standards to allow the column to be published is disappointing.

Michael Wendt

Architecture graduate student 

A version of this article appeared in the Oct 1 issue of the Collegiate Times.