“We’re victims, too.” These were the words uttered by Davida Oken, whose son is to be executed by the state of Maryland this year. Oken pleaded with Maryland lawmakers to pass a bill suspending all executions until a University of Maryland study is completed examining racial issues in the Maryland execution process. Oken points to “racial injustices and statistical disparities” as reasons for suspending her son’s execution.

In 1987 Steven Howard Oken brutally raped and murdered three women in a drunk and sedated rampage. His own attorney described Oken’s 16-day terror campaign, which claimed the lives of innocent victims, including his sister-in-law, in Maryland and Maine as “a script for a horror movie.” The evidence against Oken is unquestionable.

But his mother cries that she is the victim of a racially unjust system. Steven Howard Oken is white.

During his trial, prosecutors were able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oken had tortured, raped and shot the three women. The crimes were premeditated, as was demonstrated by the list the defendant made for objects he would need for the next killing – rope, glass cutter, surgical gloves, dark panty hose, etc.

Maryland reinstated the death penalty in 1978. Should Steven Oken be allowed to live? If the answer to that question is “no” then he ought not even be in jail.

We live in a society with laws. We have a civilian government elected to serve us. And above all, we have a just legal system. The term “just” is important; it means fair, impartial, equitable and honorable. Though we would like it to be, the American legal system is not perfect. “Just” means following the law and suffering the consequences of violating that law, so long as those consequences were in place when the violation occurred. Using those criteria, justice will be served when Steven Howard Oken is finally executed in Maryland.

Death is a fair consequence for brutal, premeditated murder. If one plans to take another person’s life, that person ought not live out the rest of his or her life on tax money amounting to some $30,000 per year. Allowing murderers to live in prison adds to the chance they may kill again. Are these factors fair to the rest of society? I care about justice and human rights. But I care about the well being of innocent society before I worry about those who have brutally murdered someone else.

There are problems with the death penalty in this country. Though the Oken case is very clear-cut, there are many cases that are not so easy to prosecute. There are charges that blacks are executed at proportionally higher rates than whites. Adding to the argument for banning the death penalty altogether is the passage of a moratorium in Illinois after that state realized that innocent victims had nearly been put to death. That is absolutely tragic, just as it is tragic when innocent people go to jail. This is why DNA testing must be allowed in all court cases to give the defendant every possible chance to prove innocence. We owe it to ourselves to never mistakenly punish innocent people, but especially in death penalty cases.

The death penalty is fundamentally just. If properly instituted, it should act as a deterrent to heinous crimes such as those committed by Steven Oken. But we should also keep in mind that the penalty should never be applied in a case where the defendant has not exhausted all means available to him – including all scientific methods – to prove his innocence.

-The writer is a junior majoring in international affairs.