NEW VOICES: Former Police Investigator Says Law Enforcement Doesn’t Need the Death Penalty

Terrence Dwyer, formerly with the New York Police Bureau of Criminal Investigation, recently chronicled the evolution of his thinking about the death penalty and whether it serves the needs of law enforcement. Dwyer cited several examples of recent exonerations and noted, “Clearly, by keeping the death penalty in place, we run the unacceptable risk of executing the innocent. Those of us in law enforcement do our best to take the guilty off the streets, and more often than not we get it right. But in a world where mistakes are inevitable, the death penalty has no place.” Dwyer also discussed the suffering victims’ families endure during the years of death penalty appeals: “Everyone in a capital trial — the prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigators and judge — knows that it will take decades before the case is resolved. But prosecutors still go for the death penalty, and victims’ families are left to endure endless trials and appeals.” Dwyer concluded that, “When [Connecticut] Gov. Rell vetoed the death penalty repeal bill, she kept in place a broken system that fails to deter crime, wastes $4 million a year and often adds to the pain of victims’ families.” Read full op-ed below.

July 20, 2010
More Than Reasonable Doubt About Death Penalty

There was a time when I would have agreed with Gov. M. Jodi Rell’s veto last year of a bill to repeal Connecticut’s death penalty. As a former New York State Police investigator whose job was to lock up murderers, I’ve never had any sympathy for vicious killers or qualms about them suffering.

At the same time, we should respond smartly to crime. I cannot conclude, as Gov. Rell did, that the death penalty works. Events just this past year have shown the death penalty could lead to gross miscarriages of justice.

Last August, new DNA evidence led state prosecutors to drop charges against Kenneth Ireland, a Wallingford man jailed for more than 20 years for a rape and murder he did not commit.

This case, in particular, should give us pause. Rape and murder together normally makes one eligible for the death penalty. Had Ireland been 18 rather than 16 at the time of the crime, he could have faced a death sentence. We can breathe a sigh of relief that Ireland did not end up on death row or, even worse, executed. But will we be so lucky next time?

This spring, George Gould and Ronald Taylor finally walked free after 16 years in prison. New DNA tests and testimony made it clear that Taylor and Gould were innocent of a 1993 murder in New Haven. Their release raised the number of murder exonerations in Connecticut to 4 in the past 2 years.

Clearly, by keeping the death penalty in place, we run the unacceptable risk of executing the innocent. Those of us in law enforcement do our best to take the guilty off the streets, and more often than not we get it right. But in a world where mistakes are inevitable, the death penalty has no place.

With the death penalty as a statutory sentence, though, some prosecutors seek it and set in motion a never-ending legal process. This is sad to watch. Everyone in a capital trial — the prosecutors, defense attorneys, investigators and judge — knows that it will take decades before the case is resolved. But prosecutors still go for the death penalty, and victims’ families are left to endure endless trials and appeals.

Though some want to shorten the legal process in capital cases, that is not going to happen. Because of past wrongful convictions, the courts have mandated safeguards. Capital cases will always be a marathon.

But there is an alternative. As a police investigator, I worked a brutal home invasion and murder of a mother, father and their 3 children in 2007, three years after the state court of appeals ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. This change in the law never hindered our work, but rather expedited the legal process. Within a year of the crime, the 2 perpetrators were locked away to serve sentences of life without parole, and the conviction was recently upheld on appeal. The media circus ended, the victims’ families had privacy to grieve, and everyone forgot about these killers. This is a smart way to punish and respond to murder.

Given the delay and wasted resources in capital cases, more members of law enforcement are questioning the death penalty’s effectiveness. Last October, in a nationwide poll, police chiefs rated increased use of the death penalty as the least effective way to reduce crime. The message is clear: The death penalty is not a deterrent, and law enforcement personnel don’t need it to do their job.

When Gov. Rell vetoed the death penalty repeal bill, she kept in place a broken system that fails to deter crime, wastes $4 million a year and often adds to the pain of victims’ families. Next time the death penalty comes up for debate, I hope the state’s political leaders will have the courage to repeal it and further Connecticut’s efforts to respond effectively to violence.

Terrence P. Dwyer is a lawyer, an assistant professor at Western Connecticut State University and a retired investigator from the New York State Police, Bureau of Criminal Investigation

(T. Dwyer, “More Than Reasonable Doubt About the Death Penalty,” The Hartford Courant, op-ed, July 20, 2010). See New Voices and DPIC’s report, “Smart on Crime.”