The Dallas Morning News called the death penal­ty ​“the great­est moral chal­lenge fac­ing law­mak­ers today.” In an edi­to­r­i­al address­ing con­cerns about Texas’ cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem, the paper not­ed the ​“dis­tinct and unac­cept­able pos­si­bil­i­ty of dead­ly error,” and called on law­mak­ers to impose a mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions while the sys­tem is stud­ied. The edi­to­r­i­al made sev­er­al sug­ges­tions as part of a ​“fresh look” at the death penal­ty, includ­ing the for­ma­tion of an inno­cence com­mis­sion, the elim­i­na­tion of death sen­tences for defen­dants who did not per­son­al­ly take a life, and the expan­sion of the gov­er­nor’s author­i­ty in murder cases:

Texas’ relent­less pace of state-spon­sored killing is the great­est moral chal­lenge fac­ing lawmakers today.

It is past time for them to con­front the grow­ing list of con­cerns about the lib­er­al use of the exe­cu­tion­er’s cham­ber. Legislative lead­ers should start the process by order­ing Senate and House com­mit­tees to study cap­i­tal jus­tice in Texas and doubts about its fairness.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst and House Speaker Tom Craddick will be issu­ing long lists of ​“inter­im stud­ies” to pre­pare the Legislature for the 2009 ses­sion. It would be a dis­ser­vice to the pub­lic to omit exam­i­na­tion of the grim busi­ness of send­ing peo­ple to their deaths.

This news­pa­per recent­ly called for an end to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment because of the dis­tinct and unac­cept­able pos­si­bil­i­ty of dead­ly error. We know that lead­ers in Austin are not deaf and blind to evi­dence of mis­car­riage of jus­tice. We call on them to act accordingly.

The areas of inquiry should include:

•Proposals to form a state inno­cence com­mis­sion to study the caus­es of proven or sus­pect­ed break­downs in justice.

Wrongful con­vic­tions have been uncov­ered across the state through DNA tests and oth­er advances in forensic science.

We feel a great sense of urgency from our van­tage point of see­ing a series of ghast­ly rev­e­la­tions in Dallas County. Thirteen men have been freed from prison because of local break­downs of jus­tice, includ­ing faulty police work and erro­neous wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Although these cas­es did not involve cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, it is hard­er to con­clude today that the pos­si­bil­i­ty of fatal error is a remote one.

Consider the 1989 exe­cu­tion of Carlos De Luna of Corpus Christi in the bloody stab­bing death of gas sta­tion clerk Wanda Lopez. Officials pro­duced no phys­i­cal evi­dence and no eye­wit­ness to the killing, accord­ing to a Chicago Tribune series, and Mr. De Luna went to his death even though anoth­er poten­tial sus­pect had been brag­ging about the killing.

A pro­pos­al for an inno­cence com­mis­sion – along the lines of what has been sug­gest­ed by Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson – cleared the Senate this year by a 20 – 10 vote, but it failed in the House. The idea needs a fuller air­ing than it got this year.

The plan was a sound one: Create a pan­el that includes mem­bers of the law-enforce­ment and legal com­mu­ni­ties and exam­ine weak­ness­es in the jus­tice sys­tem. Findings could be used to set new stan­dards for law enforce­ment.

•The exe­cu­tion of defen­dants who were involved in crimes but who did not per­son­al­ly take a life.

The legal term for this is the ​“law of par­ties,” and it is used to ensure that all mem­bers of a con­spir­a­cy pay for a crime they joint­ly plan and car­ry out. Generally, we have no quar­rel with the con­cept. As applied to cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, we do.

Texas is the only state that exe­cutes peo­ple through the law of par­ties. That is moral­ly objec­tion­able because jurors can guess wrong on a defen­dan­t’s lev­el of intent.

When Gov. Rick Perry com­mut­ed the sen­tence of death row inmate Kenneth Foster on Thursday, he expressed con­cern that Mr. Foster had been tried simul­ta­ne­ous­ly with the gun­man in that case. That, too, is worth leg­isla­tive scruti­ny, but the big­ger issue can­not be ignored, not with more than 80 Texas inmates hav­ing been con­vict­ed of cap­i­tal mur­der under the law of par­ties.

•The expan­sion of the gov­er­nor’s author­i­ty in murder cases.

The office now has lim­it­ed author­i­ty to offer exec­u­tive clemen­cy, such as wip­ing a con­vic­tion from the record through a par­don or less­en­ing a sen­tence. The gov­er­nor can only act upon a rec­om­men­da­tion of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

In death cas­es, the gov­er­nor can call a one-time, 30-day reprieve. But the office lacks the pow­er to call an emer­gency mora­to­ri­um on exe­cu­tions. A bill to pro­vide that author­i­ty passed a House com­mit­tee this year but got nowhere after that.

The gov­er­nor should have max­i­mum flex­i­bil­i­ty to react if events war­rant it.

•Calling a mora­to­ri­um on executions.

This has been our call for some time. Considering the sober­ing ques­tions that have been raised across the state, it is appro­pri­ate for law­mak­ers to give them­selves time to take a fresh look at capital punishment.

We’re not naive about the Legislature’s will­ing­ness to take on the sub­ject, since it would be polit­i­cal­ly cost­ly to look ​“soft on crime.” We’re look­ing for polit­i­cal courage, though. We’re look­ing for lead­er­ship that’s unafraid to call for debate and thought­ful review on life-and-death issues.

•Texas has exe­cut­ed 402 peo­ple since cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment was rein­stat­ed nation­al­ly 21 years ago. That is four times the num­ber of the sec­ond-most-active state, Virginia.

•Texas’ per capi­ta exe­cu­tion rate is sec­ond only to Oklahoma’s.

•374 peo­ple are now wait­ing on death row in Texas, includ­ing 364 men in Livingston and 10 women in Gatesville.

•22 men have been exe­cut­ed this year; five more are sched­uled to die in September.

(Dallas Morning News, September 2, 2007). See Editorials and Innocence.

Citation Guide