TO THE EDITOR:
I wonder sometimes if columnists in The Daily Tar Heel write for shock value. Why else would anyone include a ludicrous statement such as "Abolishing the Death Penalty Removes Individual Autonomy" (Dec. 4) in the the title? I doubt this is the only letter the DTH will receive regarding T.L. Moua's article.
I am unfamiliar with Moua's "normal definition" of murder. What I am familiar with is Webster's denotation (plainly, the taking of a life) and the biblical connotation/commandment (Thou shall not kill). Unlike Moua's definition, neither of these have fine print. Moua's statement "killing is not always wrong" reminds us of the pigs on Orwell's "Animal Farm" who amend their commandment "all animals are equal" to include "but some are more equal than others."
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declares life as an inalienable human right, and it calls on the state to protect this. Furthermore, our very Constitution declares protection of "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." Citizens' rights exist in "the state of reciprocity because they are bound in a social contract ..." Human rights, however, are not negotiable. They are inalienable.
How noble it is of Moua to acknowledge the fact that capital punishment is racially and socioeconomically biased and then, in the same sentence, dismiss this as a frivolous side note. If his distinction between murder and capital punishment is "justice," then through acknowledging "the strong statistical evidence" of biases, he has debased his argument.
Regardless of one's moral stance, the bigotry in the death penalty's application should make the call for a moratorium valid and imperative.
Gwenn Frisbie-Fulton
Senior
