A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the New York Times called Connecticuts deci­sion to repeal the death penal­ty part of a grow­ing move­ment against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment.” The edi­to­r­i­al attrib­uted the trend away from the death penal­ty to new research that shows gross injus­tice in its appli­ca­tion and enor­mous costs in con­tin­u­ing to impose it.” The prob­lem of arbi­trari­ness recent­ly came to light in Connecticut, where a pow­er­ful, com­pre­hen­sive study pro­vid­ed evi­dence that state death sen­tences are hap­haz­ard­ly met­ed out, with vir­tu­al­ly no con­nec­tion to the heinous­ness of the crime.” The Times also cit­ed racial bias, inad­e­quate rep­re­sen­ta­tion, and wrong­ful con­vic­tions as prob­lems inher­ent to the death penal­ty, say­ing that the sys­tem can­not be fixed. It is prac­ti­cal­ly impos­si­ble to rid the legal process of bias­es dri­ven by race, class and pol­i­tics.” Ultimately, the paper con­clud­ed, it would be bet­ter to abol­ish the death penal­ty entire­ly. Read the full editorial below.

April 132012

More Evidence Against the Death Penalty

Connecticut is poised to become the 17th state with­out the death penal­ty and the fifth in five years to abol­ish it. Gov. Dannel Malloy is expect­ed to sign the repeal bill approved by the Legislature in recent days.

Connecticut is part of a grow­ing move­ment against cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, with repeal mea­sures now pro­posed in California, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky and Washington. Other states like Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania are review­ing their death penal­ty laws.

This shift comes at a time when new analy­ses of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment show gross injus­tice in its appli­ca­tion and enor­mous costs in con­tin­u­ing to impose it. In Connecticut, a pow­er­ful, com­pre­hen­sive study pro­vid­ed evi­dence that state death sen­tences are hap­haz­ard­ly met­ed out, with vir­tu­al­ly no con­nec­tion to the heinous­ness of the crime.

In California, two for­mer death penal­ty pro­po­nents — a pros­e­cu­tor who draft­ed the 1978 bal­lot ini­tia­tive that expand­ed the state’s death penal­ty and a lead­ing sup­port­er of the 1978 law — are now cham­pi­oning a new bal­lot mea­sure to repeal the penal­ty. They point to a study show­ing that, since 1978, California has spent rough­ly $4 bil­lion on the death penal­ty to car­ry out 13 exe­cu­tions. The cost of our sys­tem of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is so enor­mous that any ben­e­fit that could be obtained from it — and I now think there’s very lit­tle or zero ben­e­fit — is so dol­lar-waste­ful that it serves no effec­tive pur­pose,” Donald Heller, the drafter of the 1978 mea­sure, said recent­ly.

Decades of research show that racial bias per­vades death penal­ty cas­es. Minority defen­dants with white vic­tims are much more like­ly to be sen­tenced to death than oth­ers; 35 per­cent of those exe­cut­ed nation­al­ly since 1976 were black, though blacks cur­rent­ly make up 12.6 per­cent of the pop­u­la­tion. The prob­lem of inad­e­quate coun­sel per­me­ates the sys­tem, with many indi­gent defen­dants sen­tenced to death after major blun­ders by court-assigned lawyers. And a hor­rif­ic num­ber of inno­cent peo­ple have end­ed up on death row: 17 con­victs with death sen­tences have been exon­er­at­ed with DNA evi­dence since 1993, 123 with oth­er evi­dence since 1973.

Any care­ful eval­u­a­tion leads to what the American Law Institute con­clud­ed after a review of decades of exe­cu­tions: the sys­tem can­not be fixed. It is prac­ti­cal­ly impos­si­ble to rid the legal process of bias­es dri­ven by race, class and pol­i­tics. The grow­ing num­ber of states recon­sid­er­ing this bar­bar­ic sys­tem is a wel­come sign. Capital pun­ish­ment, by over­whelm­ing evi­dence, should be abol­ished through­out the United States.

(“More Evidence Against the Death Penalty,” New York Times, Editorial, April 13, 2012). See Editorials and Arbitrariness

Citation Guide