Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, Common Pleas Judge Samuel Strauss (full disclosure: a cousin of one of the authors) was known as a tough but thoughtful judge. He used to declaim often that capital punishment was appropriate when implemented against a defendant convicted of a capital crime who had no remorse or regret, whose premeditation was extensive, and from whose murderous, malevolent tendencies the public and even other inmates require protection.
There are defendants who would seem to qualify per these criteria, and we have written on some of them. But there are few more worthy of the death penalty if convicted than the person responsible for the gruesome murders of four University of Idaho students, Kaylee Goncalves, 21, Madison Mogen, 21, Xana Kernodle, 20, and Ethan Chapin, 20.
IDAHO STUDENT MURDERS: BRYAN KOHBERGER PRELIMINARY HEARING SET FOR JUNE
Normally, with such cases, the risk prosecutors take is whether there is any doubt the accused actually committed the acts. Sometimes there is no doubt about that, as with the mass shooting in Buffalo, wherein the criminal acts themselves are actually witnessed by others, or when DNA serves as irrefutable evidence of involvement and/or culpability. Even then, judges and juries must first find the defendant guilty. If the trial of former Washington State graduate student Bryan Kohberger becomes a death penalty case, we believe the state must do whatever is possible to prevent the defendant from harming others again.
Traditionally, in civil cases, a preponderance of evidence is the bar that must be reached to establish liability. In criminal cases, courts set the bar higher — prosecutors in felony cases must convince the judge or jury that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, the evidence keeps mounting. According to the arrest warrant affidavit, it includes the single suspect’s DNA, the knife sheath found at the murder site matching the defendant’s knife, the videos of a car near the scene of the crime matching Kohberger's model and make, and his internet searches, with no exculpatory findings. But rather than evaluate the evidence, we are arguing here that if the defendant is found guilty, this would be a case where the death penalty is in order.
There are always those who want to ask victims’ relatives in a capital case whether they would prefer the death penalty for their loved ones’ murderers. We find this problematic, but for those who need it, there is already an indication that they would support it.
Yet, these measures of proof can be confusing and, in some ways, contradictory. For if there is any significant doubt regarding whether the accused actually committed the act — whether the case involves murder, assault, conspiracy, robbery, etc. — a defendant should be found not guilty, not just given a lesser sentence.
When it comes to a moral basis for the death penalty, the issue should be one of restitution, not of revenge. Even the old "eye-for-an-eye" standard in the Bible, at least according to the Talmudic interpretation, merely required financial compensation for a lost eye, not that an assailant loses his own eye as payback. However, we also agree with the classical liberal or libertarian point of view that, although the state is not here to protect us from ourselves, it does have the proper role of protecting us from the criminal threats that others might pose.
The insanity plea is not available for use in ameliorating criminal punishment in Idaho. We view this as a good thing. Plea bargaining is always an active consideration to avoid death, but we do not see any reason to believe that such a “bargain” would be appropriate for such a brutal, premeditated, and unprovoked mass killing of four innocent college students.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
These murders reflect precisely the criteria for which the death penalty is intended: premeditated, unprovoked, cowardly acts of agency by a malicious actor against helpless, non-provoking victims. There is no substitute for eliminating the life of the miscreant who slaughtered these college students.
Jeffrey A. Schaler Ph.D. M.Ed., (ijas@me.com) is a psychologist and a retired professor of Justice, Law and Society at American University’s School of Public Affairs, and a retired member of the psychology faculty at Johns Hopkins University. Richard E. Vatz (rvatz@Towson.edu) is psychology editor of USA Today Magazine and a retired professor of Rhetoric and Communication at Towson University.