The Dallas Morning News used the recent repeal of the death penal­ty in Maryland as an occa­sion to advo­cate for death-penal­ty reform in Texas. The edi­tors com­ment­ed on the over­all impro­pri­ety of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment: ​“At best, the death penal­ty is selec­tive­ly used state-sup­port­ed ret­ri­bu­tion, which has no place in a civ­i­lized soci­ety.” The edi­to­r­i­al sup­port­ed six pend­ing bills aimed at improv­ing the fair­ness of the death penal­ty. One bill would bar the use of infor­mant tes­ti­mo­ny in death penal­ty cas­es if the tes­ti­mo­ny was obtained from a wit­ness or accom­plice in exchange for favor­able treat­ment. Another bill would cre­ate cri­te­ria based on sci­en­tif­ic stan­dards for courts decid­ing whether a defen­dant has an intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty that would exclude him from exe­cu­tion. A third bill would intro­duce a Racial Justice Act into law to pro­tect against bias in death sen­tenc­ing. Read full editorial below.

Editorial: With death penal­ty bans gain­ing steam, what’s next for Texas?

There should be no debate that evolv­ing stan­dards of decen­cy mold the jus­tice sys­tem. If that were not the case, Texas judges could still hang horse thieves.

So it is impor­tant to note, here in the nation’s most active death penal­ty state, that law­mak­ers in yet anoth­er state, this time Maryland, have decid­ed to abol­ish the anachro­nis­tic pun­ish­ment of ter­mi­nat­ing human life.

Having lob­bied hard for repeal, Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley intends to sign the bill, passed by his Legislature last week, and make his state the sixth in six years to out­law cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. It would boost the num­ber of non-death-penal­ty states to 18 in all.

O’Malley asserts the jus­ti­fi­ca­tions cit­ed often by this news­pa­per: The death penal­ty has no proven deter­rent val­ue, is laced with racial bias and can­not over­come the inher­ent dan­ger of fatal error. O’Malley also argues that the cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment appa­ra­tus has been a colos­sal waste of mon­ey that should be put to bet­ter use in com­bat­ing the core con­trib­u­tors to crime.

At best, the death penal­ty is selec­tive­ly used state-sup­port­ed ret­ri­bu­tion, which has no place in a civilized society.

With its state Capitol and governor’s office con­trolled by Democrats, Maryland is half a con­ti­nent and polit­i­cal worlds away from GOP-held Texas, where sup­port for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment has tra­di­tion­al­ly been stronger than the nation’s. A UT-Texas Tribune poll last year showed the death penal­ty with sol­id major­i­ty sup­port in this state, regard­less of polit­i­cal par­ty and ethnic group.

That rais­es the bar for reform­ers in the Legislature who have filed sol­id bills to lim­it appli­ca­tion and improve the fair­ness of the death penal­ty. For exam­ple, one bill (HB 189) would ban the use of snitch tes­ti­mo­ny to send some­one to the death cham­ber, if the tes­ti­mo­ny came in exchange for lenien­cy or spe­cial treat­ment for the wit­ness. That’s a good stan­dard to enforce if the state wants to exact lethal justice.

Another bill (SB 750) would out­line a pro­ce­dure draw­ing on sci­en­tif­ic stan­dards to estab­lish whether a defen­dant had an intel­lec­tu­al dis­abil­i­ty that would rule out exe­cu­tion. The Supreme Court invoked ​“stan­dards of decen­cy” in a 2002 case, Atkins vs. Virginia, in bar­ring exe­cu­tion of the men­tal­ly retard­ed, not­ing that most states had already done so. Yet since then, Texas law­mak­ers have neglect­ed to devise a test for men­tal capac­i­ty, leav­ing it up to the courts. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals came up with cri­te­ria that invoked the char­ac­ter Lennie from Steinbeck’s nov­el Of Mice and Men as the type of per­son who ought to be exempt.

Texas is out­lier enough on cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment with­out using lit­er­a­ture as a guide for who lives and who dies. It’s time for a leg­isla­tive fix that removes Lennie from Texas law.

Bills in Austin that could improve cap­i­tal jus­tice
HB 189: Would bar use of snitch tes­ti­mo­ny in death penal­ty cas­es if obtained from a wit­ness or accom­plice in return for favor­able treat­ment or lenien­cy. By Rep. Harold Dutton, D‑Houston

HB 261: Would require sep­a­rate tri­als if pros­e­cu­tors sought the death penal­ty for more than one per­son for the same crime. By Rep. Borris Miles, D‑Houston

SB 87: Would require police to record inter­ro­ga­tions of sus­pects in mur­ders and oth­er vio­lent felonies and sex crimes. This could help com­bat the phe­nom­e­non of con­vic­tions based on false con­fes­sions. By Sen. Rodney Ellis, D‑Houston

SB 750: Would cre­ate a pro­ce­dure for courts to estab­lish whether a defendant’s men­tal defi­cien­cy ruled out exe­cu­tion. Finding would come from judge or jury before tri­al, based on sci­en­tif­ic stan­dards. By Ellis

SB 1270/​HB 2614: Would bar impo­si­tion of a death sen­tence that was sought or obtained through racial bias. Coincides with Dallas County District Attorney Craig Watkins’ call for a racial jus­tice law. By Sen. Royce West, Rep. Eric Johnson, both D‑Dallas

SB 1292: Would require state to test all bio­log­i­cal evi­dence in a mur­der case before seek­ing the death penal­ty. Would send a strong sig­nal to pros­e­cu­tors who might want to nego­ti­ate the mat­ter. The bill has bipar­ti­san sup­port and the back­ing of GOP Attorney General Greg Abbott. By Ellis.

(Editorial, ​“With death penal­ty bans gain­ing steam, what’s next for Texas?” Dallas Morning News, March 20, 2013). See Recent Legislative Activity. Read more Editorials.

Citation Guide