Major Analysis Project (final draft)

If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?

This question is frequently posed by opponents of capital punishment. If the prolific Green River killer received life in prison for murdering 48 women, they wonder, how can Washington’s judicial system justify a death sentence for someone who killed far fewer people? The Ridgway case has fueled an onslaught of arguments against the death penalty since his guilty plea six years ago. It even became the subject of a Washington State Supreme Court case: In State v. Cross, defendant Davya Cross used Ridgway’s sentence to challenge the imposition of the death penalty on him. The Court eventually determined that Cross’s arguments were a moral issue rather than a legal one, causing him to lose his case; even so, opponents continue to cite the Ridgway case in support of their claims. But while it may seem like convincing evidence, the Ridgway case often takes on too large of a role in an argument, causing opponents to lose sight of the much stronger supporting evidence – and ethos – their arguments require.

Capital punishment has been the subject of much debate among both lawmakers and citizenry in Washington for more than a century. The state executed its first defendant in 1904 under a statute requiring the death penalty for convicted first-degree murderers. In 1913, the death penalty was abolished in Washington; lawmakers reinstated it six years later with a necessary jury recommendation. Defendants continued to be executed until 1972, when the issue of arbitrariness in the death penalty was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia. That June, the Court ruled punishment unconstitutional by a vote of five to four. Death penalty statutes in 40 states (including Washington) were effectively voided, thus commuting the sentences of 629 death row inmates across the country. Just five months passed before Florida became the first state to rewrite its death penalty statute, eliminating problems cited in Furman. Washington followed, and its death penalty statute was reinstated in 1977 (“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America” and “Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State”).

Seventy-seven defendants have been executed in Washington since 1904. Between 1981 (when the Revised Code of Washington was last updated) and 2006, there were 254 aggravated first-degree murder cases across the state where the death penalty was an option. Prosecutors sought the death penalty in 79 of those cases. Juries returned death sentences in 30 cases. Of the 30 death sentences handed down, 20 have been reversed on appeal. Six defendants are currently on death row pending appeal and clemency hearings. Four cases have resulted in executions. Of those four, three have been “volunteers” – defendants who have waived appeals and allowed themselves to be executed. The method of execution in this state is lethal injection, unless the defendant prefers to die by hanging (Davidson).

A January 2008 edition of The Daily, the University of Washington’s student newspaper, included an opinion essay written by Ryan Morden. Entitled “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington,” Morden claims that capital punishment should be abolished because it is both inhumane and unjust. He cites as his main piece of evidence the life in prison without parole sentence Gary Ridgway received for murdering 48 women. Morden goes on to compare the Ridgway case to a more recent news headline:

Over Christmas break, two people shot a family of six to death in Carnation, a small town 30 miles east of Seattle. The murder was horrific, and people are calling for the death penalty. However, the message in our state is this: The more people you kill, the less likely you will be put to death thanks to the outcome of Ridgway’s trial. Remember, 48 killed is fine – six murdered is not. (Morden)

Although Morden points to the amount of time it can take for a defendant to die by lethal injection – referring to the application of the death penalty as “cruel and unusual punishment” – and to biblical passages that seemingly prove capital punishment is in conflict with the Bible, the overwhelming majority of his argument relies on the audience’s agreement with his evaluation of the Ridgway case (Morden).

Taken at the surface, Morden’s comparison between the Ridgway case and the Carnation mass murders appears legitimate. However, when you consider the mitigating factors in Ridgway’s case that often go unmentioned, it becomes clear that Morden is offering a false comparison. Ridgway’s arrest in 2001 yielded enough information to charge him with only seven of the Green River killings, despite police suspicion that he had murdered dozens of other women in the region during that time. King County prosecutor Norm Maleng agreed to a plea bargain only because of pressure from victims’ family members, who demanded the information that would provide closure to the deaths of their loved ones. This is not to say that Ridgway deserved to live: Most people would probably agree that, if any case merited the death penalty, Ridgway’s was it. Yet the extenuating circumstances essentially eliminated the possibility of Maleng seeking the death penalty. Do the facts of one particular case mean Washington should refuse to execute all future defendants? According to Morden, the answer to that question is a resounding yes.

What is so interesting about Morden’s essay is his abandonment of the typical evidence for arguments against capital punishment. Rather than going on about cost and racial and socio-economic factors, Morden presents rarely-cited evidence in support of his claim. This move had every possibility of success: Rather than rehashing old statements, Morden could have given death penalty supporters even more reason to reconsider their positions. Instead, though, his evidence lacks credibility. “In some cases, it’s been known to take from 30 minutes to an hour for a criminal to die, causing the recipient to undergo intense suffering until his body finally gives up,” Morden states. He goes on to argue that “lethal injection might as well be called ‘concentrated chemical domestic warfare’ without the ‘war’ part” (Morden). What the audience doesn’t know is where this information came from. Did a doctor say this? Or was it posted on Wikipedia by some kid with too much time on his hands? The author’s failure to disclose his sources affects his ethos, because the audience has no way of knowing how reliable the rest of his
essay is.

Morden’s ethos is also affected by the negative attitude he takes toward a segment of his audience. As a staff writer for The Daily, Morden should be aware that his audience consists of fellow college students. He appears to take advantage of the assumption that college students are generally liberal, and that liberals are generally more likely to oppose capital punishment than conservatives. Morden makes several cutting remarks toward conservatives: “Even members of the College Republicans can agree that putting an innocent person to death is wrong,” he says (Morden). The author goes on to take shots at John McCain’s “straight talk” style and at Fox News, which is commonly considered to be a right-of-center news network. Although he may not have meant anything disparaging by these comments, they still weaken Morden’s credibility as a writer – and particularly his credibility among the exact group of students he wants to convince of his viewpoint. It is unlikely that conservatives would take his essay seriously, let alone bother formulating a response. Because of this, Morden’s essay does nothing to further the capital punishment debate.

Like Morden, Kenneth H. Davidson of the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) uses the Ridgway case as evidence to support his argument that the death penalty should be abolished. But the biggest difference between the two articles lies in how they use the case. Morden cites it as his main piece of evidence; Davidson, on the other hand, lets the case take a backseat to more reliable data and expert testimony. In December 2008’s “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty,” Davidson claims the Washington State Legislature should fund a “thorough, multi-disciplinary study” of the death penalty system (Davidson). His article is presented in a question-and-answer format, which allows him to pose a series of questions that someone without an established opinion on the subject might ask about the death penalty. For example, has the death penalty been fairly and evenly applied? Furthermore, does the death penalty serve a significant public good, which justifies its costs?

Davidson provides thorough answers to each question, frequently citing the Ridgway case in response. He states the following concerning the benefits of the death penalty versus the benefits of life in prison without parole:

Mark Prothero, who represented Gary Ridgway, questioned the function of the death penalty as a form of punishment. He described Mr. Ridgway’s solitary confinement in a windowless, six feet by 10 feet cell, where he serves his life sentence without the possibility of parole. Twice a week he is taken to a larger, windowless room for an hour of exercise… He has no hope of this routine changing. Mr. Prothero asked: “Is the death penalty really the worst punishment?” (Davidson)

Unlike Morden, who makes the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” argument, Davidson uses the Ridgway case to support his assertion that capital punishment is a form of “state-assisted suicide” (Davidson). He points to the fact that three of the last four executions in Washington were voluntary, with defendants actually preferring death to a life in prison without the possibility of parole. If the defendant wants to die, Davidson argues, is capital punishment really punishment at all?

Davidson’s article differs greatly from other opinion pieces on the subject. Most authors argue for their particular viewpoint – either pro- or anti-capital punishment – in hopes that, if they argue forcefully enough, the audience will eventually adopt their position. Davidson, however, wants his audience to arrive at their own conclusions. His goal is simply to provide the appropriate information that will enable his audience to make an informed, logical decision. But this is not to say that Davidson remains completely objective. Although his opinion remains (for the most part) masked by the included facts and data, it is clear that Davidson personally opposes the death penalty. Davidson’s decision to not be as forward with his personal opinion makes the audience more comfortable with his article. Those who support the death penalty are more likely to take his arguments seriously, to carefully consider the evidence and formulate an opinion without feeling pressure from the author to agree with him.

What makes Davidson’s article so effective is the amount of evidence he provides in support of his claim. While Morden offers almost no real evidence, Davidson includes data from a variety of reliable sources. He cites the American Bar Association’s study on racial disparities in the application of the death penalty; exonerations through DNA testing reported by The Innocence Project; and a recent study by death penalty scholar Joanna Shepard, who determined that capital punishment deters murder in only six states (Washington is not one of the six). Davidson also provides examples from several previous death penalty cases. Furthermore, Davidson himself is a reliable source of information on the subject. In addition to being a former chair of the WSBA Committee on Public Defense’s Death Penalty Subcommittee, he also received the WSBA’s highest honor, the Award of Merit, for his 2007 Death Penalty Study. Davidson’s qualifications provide a strong appeal to ethos, which increases the likelihood that the audience will take his argument seriously.

Opponents of capital punishment have every right to ask the typical “If Gary Ridgway got life, how can anyone get death?” question. It is perfectly valid when taken at face value. After all, if a state with an active death penalty statute refuses to impose it on arguably the most prolific serial killer in American history, how can it justify a death sentence for anyone else? This question could puzzle even the most ardent supporter of capital punishment. But problems arise when opponents refuse to explore the Ridgway case beyond face value. Extenuating circumstances, such as the decades that passed with the Green River case going unsolved, or the desire the victims’ families had for closure, are too often ignored. Instead of delving into the messy details of a case, opponents prefer to make sweeping generalizations that will further their arguments – even if it means sacrificing the truth their audiences deserve.

This is not to say that opponents should stop using the Ridgway case to argue against the death penalty. Rather, they should consider how they are using it. If, like Morden, your claim rests almost entirely on the Ridgway case, you probably need to rework your argument. It is extremely difficult to apply the outcome of one case to all others; more importantly, though, it is an argument that any skeptical audience would likely reject. However, if you follow Davidson’s model and let reliable data and expert testimony shine, the Ridgway case can still be used to create a link between your claim and your evidence. Most people would agree that the question at the heart of so many opponents’ arguments is a good one. But if you want to distinguish yourself from other death penalty opponents and actually have an impact on Washington laws, what really matters is the supporting evidence – and ethos – you need to prove your claim and win over your audience.


Works Cited

“Constitutionality of the Death Penalty in America.” Death Penalty Curriculum. 30 Jan. 2009
http://deathpenaltycurriculum.org/student/c/about/history/history-5.htm.

Davidson, Kenneth H. “Time for a Hard Look at the Death Penalty.” Washington State Bar Association. 2 Dec. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://www.wsba.org/media/publications/ barnews/davidson1208.htm.

“Legal History of the Death Penalty in Washington State.” Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. 30 Jan. 2009 http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/HistoryOfWashingtonDeathPenalty.htm.

Morden, Ryan. “Let’s Kill the Death Penalty in Washington.” The Daily of the University of Washington. 17 Jan. 2008. 31 Jan. 2009
http://dailyuw.com/2008/1/17/lets-kill-death-penalty-washington/.