EDITORIALS: A Call for Examination of Death Penalty in Tennessee

The Tennessean called for a more just legal sys­tem as a state leg­isla­tive study com­mit­tee on the death penal­ty con­tin­ues to meet. The com­mit­tee began its work this year after a series of embar­rass­ing mis­takes in apply­ing the death penal­ty in Tennessee. Executions cur­rent­ly are on hold due to a lethal injec­tion chal­lenge brought last year by a death row inmate. The edi­to­r­i­al called the com­mit­tee’s work a ​“sliv­er of hope for improve­ment” after ​“cost­ly con­fu­sion and prob­a­ble mis­car­riages of jus­tice in cap­i­tal mur­der cas­es.”

The edi­to­r­i­al notes, ​“This is clear­ly an area where Tennessee must seek effec­tive reform of its sys­tem. Not only are there cas­es of inno­cent peo­ple being sen­tenced to death because of faulty rep­re­sen­ta­tion, a lack of legal under­stand­ing of the cap­i­tal sys­tem leads to fur­ther delays in dis­po­si­tion of cas­es, keep­ing inmates in lim­bo on death row for decades and pro­long­ing the pain for the fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims.” They added, ​“The final­i­ty of exe­cu­tion demands that we put an end to mis­takes in the sys­tem.”

The full edi­to­r­i­al may be found below:

Tentative steps being taken toward fairness in the system
Today’s Tennessean Topic: State examines the death penalty

After a num­ber of years in which Tennessee has seen legal twists and turns, cost­ly con­fu­sion and prob­a­ble mis­car­riages of jus­tice in cap­i­tal mur­der cas­es, there is a sliv­er of hope for improve­ment.

It is trag­ic that it took lives being lost in the process, but for the sake of peo­ple on Tennessee’s death row; mem­bers of the legal sys­tem; elect­ed offi­cials; and the pub­lic at large, we look to the leg­isla­tive study com­mit­tee on the death penal­ty for a more just sys­tem in the future.

The com­mit­tee began its work this year, after the 2006 exe­cu­tion of Sedley Alley was ques­tioned because of DNA evi­dence that could have impli­cat­ed a dif­fer­ent per­son in the slay­ing of a 19-year-old woman; after lethal injec­tion, one of two exe­cu­tion meth­ods used by the state of Tennessee, was sus­pend­ed by the gov­er­nor over ques­tions about its effec­tive­ness, then rein­stat­ed, then sus­pend­ed again pend­ing a U.S. Supreme Court deci­sion about sim­i­lar con­cerns in Kentucky.

While oth­er states resumed use of lethal injec­tion after the court deci­sion, Tennessee cas­es remain on hold because of an addi­tion­al legal chal­lenge brought last year by a death-row inmate.

Also, the state reluc­tant­ly had to release anoth­er inmate, Paul House, ear­li­er this year after 22 years on death row for a crime experts say he did not com­mit. While the state has dropped attempts to have the ail­ing House exe­cut­ed, they plan to retry him in March.

Since the state insists on apply­ing the death penal­ty, it at least needs to do a far bet­ter job of ensur­ing the right peo­ple are brought to jus­tice. The Associated Press report­ed that the leg­isla­tive com­mit­tee heard last month from Barry Scheck, a promi­nent defense attor­ney and co-founder of The Innocence Project, a legal cen­ter that spe­cial­izes in over­turn­ing wrong­ful con­vic­tions. Scheck rep­re­sent­ed Alley but was unable to per­suade state courts to release DNA evi­dence for test­ing. Alley’s pre­vi­ous lawyers focused on a men­tal-ill­ness defense and nev­er tried to use the DNA evi­dence that would have proved his inno­cence.

Scheck told the com­mit­tee that it could insti­tute reforms, such as edu­cat­ing Tennessee courts on order­ing DNA test­ing, and stan­dard­iz­ing police pro­ce­dures, such as pre­serv­ing crime-scene evi­dence and tap­ing con­fes­sions and eye­wit­ness state­ments.

Forensics and police pro­ce­dures are two pieces of the puz­zle; anoth­er is ensur­ing that mur­der sus­pects get ade­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion. The leg­isla­tive com­mit­tee also met last month with Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice Janice Holder and Justice Gary Wade to dis­cuss form­ing a com­mis­sion to train attor­neys in cap­i­tal cas­es and pro­vide funds for defense attor­neys who rep­re­sent indi­gent clients.

The Tennessee Justice Project, along with a num­ber of stud­ies by groups nation­wide, has found many death-row inmates receive inad­e­quate coun­sel because they are indi­gent or mem­bers of racial and eth­nic minori­ties. Prosecutors typ­i­cal­ly have near­ly three times the resources of pub­lic defend­ers and indi­gent-defense attor­neys.

According to the AP, Justice Holder said the Tennessee Supreme Court does­n’t have an opin­ion on cre­at­ing a com­mis­sion, but is reluc­tant to approve the idea with­out addi­tion­al fund­ing and with­out more infor­ma­tion on whether such com­mis­sions have worked else­where.

But this is clear­ly an area where Tennessee must seek effec­tive reform of its sys­tem. Not only are there cas­es of inno­cent peo­ple being sen­tenced to death because of faulty rep­re­sen­ta­tion, a lack of legal under­stand­ing of the cap­i­tal sys­tem leads to fur­ther delays in dis­po­si­tion of cas­es, keep­ing inmates in lim­bo on death row for decades and pro­long­ing the pain for the fam­i­lies of mur­der vic­tims.

Whether in sup­port of or in oppo­si­tion to a death penal­ty, the res­i­dents of Tennessee should have clar­i­ty, com­pas­sion and, espe­cial­ly, jus­tice for every­one. The final­i­ty of exe­cu­tion demands that we put an end to mis­takes in the system.

(Editorial Board, ​“Tentative steps being tak­en towards fair­ness in the sys­tem,” The Tennessean, October 16, 2008). See also Innocence and New Voices.