University of South Carolina Libraries
CapitalI Several states have answered President Nixon's call to reinstate the death penalty, 'ind hopefully South Carolina will follow suit. Murder has risen alarmingly since the Supreme Court rendered the death penalty inoperative. The ruling, which was conceived in an attempt to give the murderer a chance to redeem himself through rehabilitation and to do away with what many consider to be inhumane punishment, has turned into per mission to kill. What the Supreme Court forgot, and what South Carolina now has a chance to correct, is that the normal person has a right to be free from the threat of a convicted murderer who is released from prison asupposedly rehabilitated. Statistics show these mur derers are very likely to kill again. Whose right is more important, then, murderer or potential victim? The choice is obvious. Since the chances are not good that convicted killers can be rehabilitated, and since the parole system often relaeses these murderers, the normal person's right to live must take precedence over the murderer's. The parole system, as well as the rehabilitation system, some misguided idealists say can be modified and improved. Perhaps. But why sould hard-working tax payers pay to deep a depraved murder'er alive who has proved himself bereft of self-control and the ability to distinguish right from wrong? Finally, one must condider the argument that the death penalty is inhumane. However; a lifetime. in prison does not appear to be any better. Is it better to let a person rot in prison? 'Regardless of whether the death penalty acts as a deterent to murder, therefore, the death penalty should be reinstated. We don't need murderers loose on the streets, and we should not have to support their miserable li!ves. Fees Rob Rights To The Editor: would voluntarily pay to read to The Gamecock has wrongly inane, insane, profane and stated that Young Americans for munane? Freedom's opposition to man datory activity fees is because ofEdad.Feel political bias, and not based on "philosophical~- disagreement" with the fee system. L m YAF was founded for theEx ue purpose of protecting and securing individual rights. T h dtr Mandatory activity fees rob students of their individual rights. By opposing the fee Wagerlyunmesd system, YAF is asserting that wt oratcecnenn h each individual student should paknprbe oncmu have the right to decide if he (Jn24.usmoelee wants to pay for football tickets, cueanidecmrso.Bt movies, speakers, political yuddmng n eemn broups, student government, comn-tathsluinote abortion referral services, etc. prbemabettalmor Instead of questioning Cnrtltosfrasn opposition to the mandatory prosl activity fee and then supplying. Wa' l hscoeGen fictional answers perhaps The Sre osne ls h Gamecock should ask itself why woecmu rmPnltnt it supports the mandatory fee Bosmadfo ant system and supply an honest Banelthrb1)ndgth answer. Is it because of political cutro gycr,epcal bias? Is it because The eshtcly pain ar Gamcok kow tat o ne hweuld (Cunaiyptoead Sot Puinsh GAMECOCK OPINION Pro and Con Feb. 4, 1974 Our Mail Tower, Humanities, etcl) 2) (Fri ending the threat of pedestrian aftel fatalities 3) reducing air and app< noise pollution 4) slowing the Suci general pace of campus travel opin (imagine getting to class aliki relaxed!) and on and on... to et Folks could then trade their Cal cars for bikes, or skates, or a pair of All Stars. How about a monorail system? The whole point is this: the American "love affair with the automobile" is ended and change is in order. Rather than perpetuating an impossible situation USC could be innovative (imagine that!). Hurry Mr. Jones, you may still T'o 'I get a 10-speed for that 2-ton pig. I1b Robert G. Snite righ curr D isregarding ""ou Opinions"r* over To The Editor: prop to th ast Only days after Tom Jones smo makes public his desire to resign Fi a group of people not daily infri associated with the University , righ meets behind closed doors law cient: The South Carolina State Legislature is considering a bill which states "The only punishment for murder shall be death." Once again that body of alleged statesmen has shown itself to be totally incompetent and unprepared to effectively represent the needs of the people of this state. Reinstating the death penalty in South Carolin a cannot possibly achieve the desired goal of its proponents. Capital punishment is not a deterrent to murder. It is a statistical fact that the murder rate has constantly risen in this country regardless of the type of penalty imposed. A crime of passion, which most murders are, would not be stopped by the threat of death to the offender. Crimes such as this are the result of angry reactions to circumstances which cause the offender to commit the act without thinking. If the person is not thinking or is temporarily insane the death penalty could not be considered a deterrent to his actions. The only possible type of murder that the death penalty might be a deterrent would be premeditated murder. Even that is questionable. The putting to death of the guilty party achieves absolutely nothing. It does not bring back to life ther person who was murdered. Some say that justice is being served by putting the convicted murderer to death. This o,unds more like vengeance than justice, and we must not let ourselves confuse the two. Even more important is the possiblity of human error. Who can justify putting an in nocent man to death for a crime he did not commit? While thechancesof this happening are low, the fact remains that mistakes are made. If one innocent man is put to death for a crime he did not commit, that is one man too many. The death penalty is not the answer to the murder problem. The only thing that should be put to death is the bill reinstating capital punishment in South Carolina. drive. Second, "while most states require some form of permit to own or carry a firearm, and while our Constitution permits a citizen this "right", there are laws against an individual's "riht" to use his firearm on Edmmt oftesaitaitsarailailri oehuanonethi thtaindividual's"ihs r hiten iof: ucesr latant whireghawrds forthe liie.nbohcs,itste ntins voue,te andfaulty rgttdhetno otk h lifetof anotherfindividual me uisalized adaist an inut Creno-erh niae chn an.vr mme Aaofgie smkraret retdge woked,btIwl l ike injprytepcalyweoh toeroups areecofinedcwithiny Inisvitaidatl bilsmntoedimuuceiora rihteofhthesndividgalstoosmoke bu mkerer."iitd I wythsfrst,ssmothersareoewjlaw he dtorink theernkyofthatrikinhdrver ownh owcary of firearm, but eliee whle te wods"he ice all Ctetunpeis aei bthbaiofacutr ctizene th "erights theae mentutilizedlawsaagainstnan individual"'sdifrntae "right"AaloietroE uewingieamo osetwoothrs iic aply Alog the GAicrmaECOCK will ists situation--tlatasuh atmtt u all sie:ttrsi hehhrse"rghtnotenec ivda'f"reights"il are kerited.ven toth types, and undte rright heeae e aw 0 wors Whreaen oret tke te gingupon n indvidul's garee a allh tersdiillab. t t drnk,evry tat ha a prainte wies of non-smokners makin it llega to rinklnd wenteilled intured.tra