NEW VOICES: Chief Circuit Court Judge Finds Death Penalty ​“Flawed Beyond Repair”

Judge Boyce Martin, Chief Justice of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, recent­ly con­curred in a cap­i­tal case and stat­ed his con­clu­sion that the death penal­ty sys­tem is now bro­ken beyond repair. Writing in Wiles v. Bagley on April 14, Judge Martin said that the death penal­ty is ​“so fun­da­men­tal­ly flawed at its very core that it is beyond repair.” He con­tin­ued, ​“Now in my thir­ti­eth year as a judge on this Court, I have had an inside view of our sys­tem of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment almost since the death penal­ty was rein­tro­duced in the wake of Furman v. Georgia. During that time, judges, lawyers, and elect­ed offi­cials have expend­ed great time and resources attempt­ing to ensure the fair­ness, pro­por­tion­al­i­ty, and accu­ra­cy that the Constitution demands of our sys­tem. But those efforts have utter­ly failed. Capital pun­ish­ment in this coun­try remains ​‘arbi­trary, biased, and so fun­da­men­tal­ly flawed at its very core that it is beyond repair.’ At the same time, the system’s nec­es­sary empha­sis on com­pe­tent rep­re­sen­ta­tion, sound tri­al pro­ce­dure, and search­ing post-con­vic­tion review has made it exceed­ing­ly expen­sive to maintain.”

Judge Martin called for a com­pre­hen­sive study of the costs of cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, espe­cial­ly giv­en the cur­rent eco­nom­ic cli­mate: ​“The system’s deep flaws and high costs raise a sim­ple but impor­tant ques­tion: is the death penal­ty worth what it costs us? In my view, this bro­ken sys­tem would not jus­ti­fy its costs even if it saved mon­ey, but those who do not agree may want to con­sid­er just how expen­sive the death penal­ty real­ly is. Accordingly, I join Justice Stevens in call­ing for ​‘a dis­pas­sion­ate, impar­tial com­par­i­son of the enor­mous costs that death penal­ty lit­i­ga­tion impos­es on soci­ety with the ben­e­fits that it pro­duces.’ Such an eval­u­a­tion, I believe, is par­tic­u­lar­ly appro­pri­ate at a time when pub­lic funds are scarce and our state and fed­er­al gov­ern­ments are hav­ing to re-eval­u­ate their fis­cal pri­or­i­ties.“

Wiles v. Bagley, No. 05 – 3719 (2009), (6^th Cir. April 14) (Martin, J., con­cur­ring) (empha­sis added, cita­tions omit­ted). See New Voices and Costs.