Wisconsin's government is under the influence of a hasty campaign for capital punishment with only one illustration to back up the plea. After the murder of a freelance photographer in Manitowoc, Wis., DNA was matched to accused rapist Steven Avery when charred remains were found buried on his property. Although exonerated from rape charges after 18 years in prison, Avery now faces trial for first-degree homicide.
The horrific murder of Teresa Halbach was an unjustified act of violence against an innocent woman and Avery, if found guilty, deserves life behind bars. But the rally to reinstate a law that allows the execution of high-profile murderers should not be fueled by only one case.
No matter how heated any argument may get over the righteousness of the death penalty, each state institutes its own laws concerning the issue. Once decided, each state should stand loyal to its decision, no exceptions. The government should not allow state legislatures to change long-standing laws on a case-by-case basis and legislatures should only have this power if there is a reoccurring problem.
Sen. Alan Lasee and Tom Reynolds, however, are doing just that. They have turned the high profile murder trial of Steven Avery into a rally for the reinstatement of the death penalty in Wisconsin. No argument is being made to whether the evidence matches Avery to the murder and mutilation of an innocent victim. Instead, the issue is whether the murder itself is enough to convince Wisconsin voters that a murderer's life is the price of a victim's death. Wisconsin has held a position against the death penalty since 1853 and has seen its fair share of high-profile murders since.
So my question to the public is this: if one murder can result in a campaign for the reinstatement of an age-old issue, will each of the sentence regulations undergo debate when faced with a high-profile felony? Avery deserves a life behind bars without parole if convicted of first-degree homicide, but in a state that has voted to shut out the idea of punishing based on the theory of an eye for an eye, that should be enough.
The nation is cluttered with cases involving murderers, sex offenders and pedophiles worthy of severe punishments. Imagine the nation takes on the pattern of Wisconsin, examining punishment regulations on a case-by-case basis in the legislature. Not only will the courts be cluttered with the already exhausting appeals process, they may now be forced to make daily decisions regarding amendments of long-standing laws. The pattern should be broken before it overwhelms our judicial system.
With an issue as controversial as capital punishment, a debate that has spanned for years, the fact that Wisconsin has chosen to remain loyal to its position for more than one and a half centuries should send a message to the public. No murderer has ever influenced our courts so strongly before and Avery should not stand out.
How do the inhumane acts of Steven Avery compare to those of Ed Gein, the butcher of Plainfield? Surely no one can begin to find a murderer worthy of erasing the footsteps of that infamous Wisconsin murderer, which stirred up little debate regarding the laws of capital punishment.
No murder or murderer should deem more justifiable for death than another. Each case involves the loss of a life or lives, the heartache of a grieving family and the lingering question of why. The case of Steven Avery should not hold the power to change or even influence our state laws. A life behind bars should remain the punishment in a state that long ago decided an eye is not worth an eye.
