The final Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment hearing was held on September 23 and among those testifying were a former U.S. Senator, a New Jersey Police Chief, and a Chief of the Forensics Division of the Maryland Public Defenders Office. All spoke of how they were not philosophically opposed to the death penalty, but had serious misgivings about its application.
Maryland’s former U.S. Senator Joseph Tydings (pictured) said that Maryland has to “be willing to spend the money” if it wants to keep the death penalty. He argued that adequate counsel for defendants was needed and testified that one person is freed from death row for every eight executed since 1976. Acknowledging the cost increase it would entail, Tydings explained, “Just the cost of compensating counsel, it will at least double what’s being spent now, if not triple.” Tydings pointed to a study released by the Abell Foundation this year that found Maryland has spent nearly $200 million over the past 30 years on its death penalty system. He said he believed that it would be “fiscally impossible” to provide a fair system.
West Orange, N.J. Police Chief James Abbot had served on a New Jersey death penalty commission and found that states are incapable of carrying out the death penalty quickly, cheaply, and accurately. He said he would not want to put his family through the process of a capital case if he were killed in the line of duty. He further explained that his now 10-year-old daughter would likely be 30 by the time his killer would be executed. “I would rather she moved on and got the help she needed,” Abbot said. In addition to finding that nationally victims’ services were severely lacking and needed funding, he pointed out, “The reality is there is no closure in capital cases, just more attention to the murderer and less to the victim.” When pressed by a commission member about family victims’ wishes, Abbot testified that he knows victims’ relatives who no longer spoke to each other because of the process and that if families knew life without parole was a maximum sentence offered, they could “take some solace in it.”
Patrick Kent, Chief of the Forensics Division of the State Public Defenders Office testified about the limitations of DNA evidence in trying to avoid wrongful convictions. He stated that even when DNA is available against a defendant in a trial in has not always proved to be a guarantee that someone is guilty. He pointed to cases where human error and misconduct have led to the use of DNA evidence against innocent defendants.
The bi-partisan Commission was formed by Maryland’s legislature and is due to release its findings by December 15, 2008.
(A. Dominguez, “Death penalty commission holds last hearing,” Associated Press, September 23, 2008). See New Voices, Victims and Costs.
