Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Panel Debates Death Penalty For Simpson

Gita Sitaramiah Staff writer

If he’s convicted of killing his former wife and her friend, would the death penalty be just punishment against O.J. Simpson?

A moderator posed that question to a member of a six-person panel that debated the death penalty Wednesday at Gonzaga University.

About 70 people filled Gonzaga’s Jepson Auditorium for the forum, “Different Voices on the Death Penalty: Why We Support/Oppose Capital Punishment.”

“The benefit (of executing Simpson) is more than usual because of the high profile of the case,” said John Wagner, a Gonzaga philosophy professor who supports the death penalty. “The benefit would basically be deterrence.”

Prosecutors in the double-homicide case against Simpson have decided not to seek the death penalty if Simpson is convicted.

Although she opposes the death penalty, Mary Pat Treuthart, a Gonzaga law professor, said she’s disturbed by the reasoning of prosecutors in not seeking the death penalty in this case.

Their decision appeared to be more about getting a conviction than seeking justice, she said. Also, there’s no formula to ensure that the death penalty won’t be sought more against disadvantaged people.

“The process is going to be a fallible one. I think that’s a problem,” Treuthart said.

The free event was sponsored by the Gonzaga Public Interest Law Project and the Peace and Justice Action League of Spokane.

Six panelists briefly described why they were for or against the death penalty during the first hour.

Micheal Holmes, who teaches criminal justice at Spokane Community College and is a former police officer, said he supports the death penalty because sometimes no other punishment is adequate.

“I think the death penalty is certainly open to misuse,” he said.

“But I also think there’s some cases where there’s absolutely nothing else that can be done.”

Nancy Nelson, who was formerly the director of the Peace and Justice Action League, said the death penalty raises civil rights issues, doesn’t save money and doesn’t deter crime.

“The reason the death penalty fails to deter is that 75 percent of crimes are carried out under the influence of drugs and alcohol,” she said.

After the panelists outlined their positions, moderator George Critchlow, a Gonzaga law professor, questioned them about some murder cases in the news.

Critchlow said he chose the O.J. Simpson case because the defendant is rich and well-known.

The panel discussion ended after members briefly fielded questions from the audience.