After mem­bers of the Wisconsin Senate passed a res­o­lu­tion call­ing for a ref­er­en­dum on rein­stat­ing the death penalt, a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel edi­to­r­i­al crit­i­cized the vote and urged mem­bers of the state Assembly to reject the pro­pos­al. ThoughWisconsin has not had the death penal­ty since 1853, the state leg­is­la­ture has con­sid­ered a rein­state­ment mea­sure dur­ing each of the past 20 years. The Sentinel voiced con­cerns about inno­cence, race, deter­rence, and a vari­ety of oth­er issues in its editorial:

The death penal­ty is moral­ly wrong. Lawmakers should sim­ply do the right thing and retain the ban. An irony is that this effort to restore the death penal­ty in Wisconsin comes when the nation has devel­oped qualms about the pun­ish­ment — as reflect­ed in a slowed pace of executions.

The dis­cov­ery of inno­cent peo­ple on death row has led to the doubts. This devel­op­ment points to the fal­li­bil­i­ty of our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. Should the issue of life or death be trust­ed to a sys­tem that can get guilt or inno­cence wrong? That ques­tion, which has prompt­ed much pause else­where, should do like­wise in Madison.

Yes, the res­o­lu­tion would lim­it the penal­ty to homi­cides sup­port­ed by DNA evi­dence. But sure­ly, its back­ers aren’t sug­gest­ing that check would make the penal­ty infal­li­ble, are they? After all, con­clu­sions from legit­i­mate DNA evi­dence may be erroneous.

There are oth­er prob­lems: It is almost inescapably applied in a racial­ly dis­crim­i­na­to­ry man­ner. It serves no crime-fight­ing pur­pose. And main­tain­ing a death row costs a fortune.

A small skir­mish has bro­ken out over stud­ies. But of hun­dreds of com­par­a­tive stud­ies — that is, stud­ies that com­pare states with the death penal­ty and states with­out it or coun­tries before and after drop­ping the penal­ty — none shows that the death penal­ty has deterred a sin­gle mur­der, as notes soci­ol­o­gist Ted Goertzel of Rutgers University.

Backers of the death penal­ty cite math­e­mat­i­cal stud­ies using what the experts call ​“econo­met­ric mod­el­ing.” Yes, some such stud­ies do show a deter­rent effect. Others, how­ev­er, show just the oppo­site: Executions actu­al­ly encour­age mur­ders. Right now, those stud­ies, what­ev­er their out­come, sim­ply can’t be trust­ed. They lack assur­ance that the math­e­mat­i­cal mod­els duplicate reality.

Yes, in the face of a heinous crime, the impulse is for revenge. But a civ­i­lized soci­ety must con­trol that impulse — a les­son the Wisconsin Legislature learned more than 150 years ago. Now, the Assembly must heed that lesson anew.

(Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 13, 2006). See Recent Legislative Activity and Editorials.

Citation Guide