OCR Text |
Show I Editorial The Summer Chronicle - Page Four Honduran Sumnmiift Wednesday, August 16, 1989 is best hope tor peace ivrCA. American policymakers should have to radical, the Contras now have the that the perfect opportunity to lay down their recognized back in 1981 in the Nicaraguan Contras were a doomed cause weapons and participate the pluralistic seemingly from the outset. Had they possessed such civilian sector. As for now there in war and endless Nicaragua, keen foresight, years of misery, war death could have been avoided. appears to be a light at the end of the agreement from coming into fruition. The fact that the five Central American presidents are achieving so many regional peacev agreements should indicate to policymakers in Washington, D.C., that the people of Central America are fed up with war. The recent summit in Tela, Honduras, tunnel. For American politicians to disregard the Of course, this presents a dilemma for was an appropriate, ending the architects of the Nicaraguan war. significance of the Tela summit and to an organization composed of For one thing, U.S. policymakers will continue the reckless policies of the National Guardsmen, mercenaries, drug anti-climact- ic ex-Somo- za have dealers and sadists. a much more difficult time self-righteous- Reagan era would be condescending ly condemning Nicaragua when imperial aggression at its worst. At this point, the only road to peace in Central American presidents in Tela calls far worse offenses are being committed in for a dismantling of the Contras by early neighboring Honduras, Guatemala and El Nicaragua for the U.S. government is to halt all support for the Contras and design December. It also calls for the Salvador. of international Moreover, the Honduran Summit, like a more constructive policy toward establishment The war lasted peacekeeping troops along the border of past Central American peace agreements Nicaragua. too Nicaraguan long, and the results have Honduras and Nicaragua to prevent Contra (namely, Esquipulas, Alajuela and Costa eight years incursions. If the Contras defy the Del Sol), undermines the Reagan been counterproductive in every sense of word. However, it's not too late to end agreement, it is expected that the U.S. Doctrine of intervening in Third World the Congress will halt any further American nations via financing proxy armies. the mistake. aid. Henceforth, the example of the U.S. This was what the five Central American The prudence exhibited by the five government's failure in Nicaragua may presidents had in mind when they met at Central American president is laudable. thwart similar types of aggression in Tela. Their alternative solution is and peace in the region. Given the fact that the elections in other countries. Nevertheless, the U.S. government could The Bush administration would be wise to .Nicaragua next year will feature 21 'political parties ranging from conservative be the only obstacle preventing" the Tela take them up on this offer. The agreement reached by the five self-determinati- on burners could learn lesson from China Anti-fla- g The news out of China last week was at once tragic and ironic. It seems that one man was sentenced to life in prison and two others were given substantial prison sentences for g the man throwing paint at a giant portrait of Mao revered as the catalyst of the Communist revolution in China during a May uprising ifi TianarirnenSaare Trie 'Beijing Intermediate Court concluded the three men, ; all in their 20s,' were guilty of "counterrevolutionary destruction and counterrevolutionary incitement and must be punished severely." The men had thrown black and red paint at a portrait of Mao, a national symbol of sorts, when they were apprehended. In light of this country's outcry over the recent Supreme Court ruling which protects flag burning as free speech, it is particularly ironic that most Westerners will greet the news of these ludicrous punishments with disapproval and shock. Perhaps it would be wise for U.S. politicians and Tse-tun- A . citizens alike to consider the Chinese government's c reaction in this situation when pseudo-patrioti- flag-wavin- g, demagogues insist that flag-burni- protesters be jailed. Ken Southwick- - De at h pen a Ity, And rews' exec uti o n wrong With the execution of William Andrews tentatively scheduled for next week and the accompanying debate over the merits of the death penalty raging throughout the state, I can't help but recall a similar scene from 1987. It was two years ago, almost to the day that Pierre Dale Selby, Andrews' in the accomplice and trigger-ma- n now infamous Ogden Hi-Shop murders, was executed. As was with Selby's execution, I am experiencing a gamut of emotions while watching the events surrounding the debate over Andrews' fate. I am outraged at the Fi abhorrent and heinous crimes committed by Andrews and Selby. I grieve for the victims and their families. I am frustrated that it has been 15 years since that tragic day in Ogden and we're still not sure which course to take. And I'm disgusted by those who anxiously await Andrews' execution, planning to celebrate the death of a another human being with a beer and a few balloons. If we allow ourselves as many have to determine the validity of capital punishment based solely on the emotion of anger, it would be simple. The cry "Let's kill the bastards," heard far too often in this supposed Christian "nation and state of ours, would ring out even louder. Society's desire for revenge coupled with the subhuman desire to inflict suffering would triumph. However, we cannot permit ourselves to make what are literally life and death decisions based solely on this emotion, nor can we allow our government to enact laws based, on ad hominem arguments. For society to do this would be to intensify 'the very force we are ostensibly hoping to curtail: the force of evil, violence and blood lust. If we reject these emotions of the death penalty argument, which we must if we claim to be civilized, then we are left with philosophical justifications, none of which stand up under scrutiny. Consider the utilitarian argument that killing, a capital offender is good for society as a whole, that we must execute them no matter how unpleasant the task for the desirable consequences that will inevitably result. In particular, utilitarians cite deterrence as the best possible justification for capital punishment. However, the facts seem to refute this notion. There have been innumerable studies that show capital punishment is nof an effective deterrent. If it were, states which allow the death penalty would have lower capital crime rates than those that don't, but this is not the case. It is the certainty of punishment, not the severity, that serves as a deterrent. We don't need to kill in order to deter killing. Another side of the utilitarian coin is the economic argument. You've heard it: 'get rid of 'em and we don't have to waste any of our tax money keepin' 'em alive.' This argument is so preposterous it doesn't even deserve a rebuttal, but it would be worthwhile to note studies show it actually costs more money with the "super-du- e process", surrounding capital offenders to execute criminals than to keep them in prison for life. Ironically, when you consider most capital offenders are represented by state appointed attorneys , the economic utilitarian argument could almost be used by death penalty opponents. The other philosophical argument is summed up in the retributive theory. This theory states that the primary reason and justification for any given punishment is that pointed out by many in the last few days, there are circumstances surrounding his case which call into question the fairness of his 1974 trial. Andrews left the room before Selby began shooting, and he apparendy tried to stop Selby, to no avail. He was convicted by an jury selected entirely from Ogden. He was represented by a d lawyer who had been practicing law less than a year. is deserved. This is not to say that he is not punishment Retributivists are not concerned with culpable. And this is not to say that the consequences, deterrence or he should not be punished. There is otherwise. Simply put, justice arid no denying the fact Andrews morality require that the criminal committed gruesome acts, but he ' pay a price for his crime. does not deserve to die. This theory is nothing more than a It is clear that there are no d version of the primitive legitimate justifications for the death lust for revenge, couched in d penalty, either in Andrews' case or language designed to let the1 generally. And contrary to popular pseudo-thinkescape from his or opinion, it is possible to be against her conscience. It must be rejected. the death penalty and still despise Andrews' sentence, must be violent crime, long for justice and commuted. If not because the death feel for the victims. penalty is wrong in general, then Ken Southwick, a senior majoring because his case does not warrant in philosophy, is the Chronicle's such a severe penalty. As has been editorial editor. all-whi- court-appointe- 1 sugar-coate- high--minde- er ' te |