New Voices

The results of a poll of police chiefs recently featured in DPIC's report "Smart on Crime: Reconsidering the Death Penalty in a Time of Economic Crisis" is now available in the form of a slide presentation on the Web, suitable for use in workshops or discussion groups. The poll, commissioned by DPIC and conducted by R.T. Strategies of Washington, DC, surveyed a national sample of 500 randomly selected U.S. police chiefs on questions regarding the death penalty and reducing violent crime. Although the police chiefs did not oppose the death penalty philosophically, they found it to be an ineffective crime fighting tool.  Among those surveyed, only 1% of the chiefs listed greater use of the death penalty as the best way to reduce violence. The poll also showed police chiefs ranking the death penalty as the least efficient use of taxpayers' money among programs to fight crime.  Most of the police chiefs did not believe the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder.

Access the slide presentation here; read DPIC's "Smart on Crime" report.

Sam Millsap, a former Texas district attorney from San Antonio, recently called for DNA testing in the case of Hank Skinner, who is scheduled for execution on March 24.  Texas has so far refused to conduct additional DNA tests on critical evidence from the crime scene that could support Skinner's claim of innocence. For the last decade, the state has blocked DNA testing of key pieces of evidence, including a knife that might be the murder weapon and a man's windbreaker found next to the victim's body, which had blood, sweat and hair on it. Skinner's trial attorney failed to investigate another potential suspect, a man who was a relative of the victim and wore a windbreaker like the one found at the murder scene.  Millsap stated, "Since 1973, 139 people in 26 states have been released from death row based on evidence of their innocence. Eleven of them were in Texas. Many of these people were freed because of DNA evidence. But DNA testing works only if we use it … It is cases like Skinner's that ended my lifelong support for the death penalty. Any system driven by the decisions of human beings will produce mistakes." Read full text below.

A recent editorial in Pennsylvania’s Patriot-News recommended doing away with the death penalty as a way to address the state budget crisis. "Problems are entrenched in the system and given its high cost, Pennsylvania should definitely put the idea of doing away with the death penalty on the table," the paper wrote.  Among the reasons cited was the fact that the death penalty in Pennsylvania is essentially a very expensive form of life without parole: "In Pennsylvania, with the exception of the three prisoners who were executed, death row already means life without parole. . . . the majority of death penalty cases in our state that move through the appeals process end up as life sentences or less."  The editorial also noted the risk of executing the innocent: "Of course, there is a competing reason, or really a sounding alarm, that also is causing more states to take a hard look at their death penalty. At least 139 death row inmates have been released after their innocence was established, including 6 in Pennsylvania.  This should shake our confidence."

More prosecutors in Texas are opting not to seek the death penalty, according to Randall County District Attorney James Farren, a trend that has been evident over the last decade and will likely continue.  Many prosecutors weigh the uncertainty in securing a death sentence against the high litigation costs as reasons for opting for other alternative sentences even when the death penalty is available.  "The facts of the case are a tremendous factor in the decision on whether to pursue a death penalty or not," said District Attorney Randall Sims of the 47th judicial district.  "You need to have a dead-bang cinch guilt-innocence case and one that you'll prove very easily the person on trial is the person who did it."

Farren points to the case of Levi King as the "quintessential example" of why district attorneys do not seek the death penalty in some cases. District Attorney Lynn Switzer of the 31st judicial district opted to pursue a death sentence against King, who was accused of killing three people in 2005. Even though he pleaded guilty to the crimes, the jury did not impose the death penalty. Switzer's office spent over $750,000 to bring King to trial, about 10% of the county's annual budget. The cost of the trial was a reason why county commissioners were forced to raise taxes and withhold employee raises last year.

Higher costs, the exoneration of innocent death row inmates and jurors’ expectation of DNA proof are all being cited as reasons for prosecutors deciding not to seek the death penalty in Indiana.  Recently, a high profile death penalty case cost the state $800,000 before it dropped the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea and life-without-parole sentence. "It's the taxpayer dollars, stupid, when it comes to the death penalty," said Indiana defense attorney Bob Hammerle.  "We've got a governor who says we don't have enough money to pay for higher education. What sense does it make to spend millions of dollars trying to execute someone when it's cheaper to keep someone in jail for the rest of their life?"  Adding to the decline in the use of the death penalty, Steve Johnson, Executive Director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, pointed to jurors’ reluctance to hand down death sentences. "I think there's a greater hesitancy to pursue it and file it by prosecutors," said Johnson. "I think among our group we talk about the CSI effect and if we don't have the DNA--if we don't have the physical evidence--I think juries tend to think that given the higher standard of proof that may apply anyway, that maybe this isn't the strongest case of the death penalty."  See video below.