EDITORIALS: Philadelphia Inquirer — ​“Juries Know Better”

A recent edi­to­r­i­al in the Philadelphia Inquirer con­cludes the pub­lic is ready to scrap the death penal­ty in Pennsylvania, even if the leg­is­la­ture is not. According to the edi­to­r­i­al, juries opt­ed for the death penal­ty in just 3% of first-degree mur­der cas­es over the past four years: ​“Pennsylvania juries clear­ly are more com­fort­able with the alter­na­tive sen­tence of life with­out parole, which assures that first-degree mur­der con­victs will waste away behind bars.” The Inquirer cites sev­er­al dif­fer­ent rea­sons for what they called a ​“sea change” in atti­tudes toward cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment: “[M]oral qualms about gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned exe­cu­tions come into play for many jurors. There are also the wide­ly doc­u­ment­ed instances of wrong­ful death sen­tences lat­er being over­turned, and data that sug­gest the penal­ty falls unfair­ly on poor and minor­i­ty defen­dants who can­not afford to mount an effec­tive defense.” The edi­to­r­i­al con­cludes that replac­ing the death penal­ty with life-with­out-parole sen­tences is the best choice: ​“New Jersey abol­ished cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 2007; now Pennsylvania should fol­low that exam­ple.” Read full edi­to­r­i­al below.

Juries know bet­ter
May 20, 2011

Politicians, police, pros­e­cu­tors, and the state’s top judges may not be ready to face it, but aver­age cit­i­zens in Pennsylvania wise­ly have decid­ed it’s time to scrap the death penalty.

Over the past 4 years, juries opt­ed for the death penal­ty in just 3 % of 1^st-degree mur­der cas­es, accord­ing to an Inquirer analy­sis of data sup­plied by the state courts. That’s a stun­ning­ly low num­ber of death sen­tences, with only 8 peo­ple actu­al­ly con­demned since early 2007.

Not only are few mur­der con­victs being added to the state’s death-row pop­u­la­tion, but the last exe­cu­tion — of tor­ture-mur­der­er Gary Heidnik — occurred a dozen years ago, and only then because Heidnik halt­ed all appeals on his behalf.

Pennsylvania juries clear­ly are more com­fort­able with the alter­na­tive sen­tence of life with­out parole, which assures that first-degree mur­der con­victs will waste away behind bars.

The trend rep­re­sents a sea change, since the state has the dubi­ous dis­tinc­tion of hav­ing the 4^th-largest death-row pop­u­la­tion among the near­ly 3‑dozen states that still cling to the death penalty.

There’s no one expla­na­tion for the shift, but, sure­ly, the moral qualms about gov­ern­ment-sanc­tioned exe­cu­tions come into play for many jurors. There are also the wide­ly doc­u­ment­ed instances of wrong­ful death sen­tences lat­er being over­turned, and data that sug­gest the penal­ty falls unfair­ly on poor and minor­i­ty defen­dants who can­not afford to mount an effective defense.

Beyond dis­pute is that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is many times more cost­ly for tax­pay­ers, who often fund both sides of the years-long appeals pro­vid­ed as nec­es­sary con­sti­tu­tion­al safe­guards under fed­er­al and state law.

New Jersey abol­ished cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 2007; now Pennsylvania should fol­low that exam­ple. Fortunately, there are pro­gres­sive voic­es being heard.

A pro­pos­al by state Sen. Stewart J. Greenleaf (R., Montgomery), chair­man of the Judiciary Committee, to launch a bipar­ti­san com­mis­sion to look at the death penal­ty’s costs is a good first step. Better yet, a bill has been intro­duced that calls for abol­ish­ing capital punishment.

It’s an emo­tion­al issue, as evi­denced by Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille’s recent crit­i­cism of what he called ​“the zeal­ous pur­suit” of appeals in death-penal­ty cas­es. But the appeals process is jus­ti­fied when one con­sid­ers the 33 con­demned inmates who have had their sen­tences reversed over the last decade. This argu­ment is eas­i­ly set­tled. Follow the direc­tion of the aver­age jury and stop sen­tenc­ing peo­ple to die.

(“Juries know bet­ter,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, May 20, 2011). Read more Editorials on the death penalty.