Speech giv­en by Former Florida Chief Justice Gerald Kogan 

Amnesty International Southern Regional Conference

Orlando, Florida

October 231999

Good morn­ing, every­body. It’s my plea­sure to be here this morn­ing and it’s worth the trip up from Miami to come to Orlando to speak before a group such as this. I was com­ment­ing to Joe before we start­ed that there are so many young-look­ing folks in the audi­ence and Joe very polite­ly said, I’m glad to know there are those who will be able to car­ry on after we’re gone.” Well, Joe, hope­ful­ly they will and, hope­ful­ly, you and I will be around a long time yet so we’re not going to have to rely on that necessarily.

In any event, I am going to approach this par­tic­u­lar top­ic, per­haps in a dif­fer­ent way than most of you might expect. First of all, let me tell you where I’m com­ing from. I’m look­ing at 40 years of expe­ri­ence with the Death Penalty. I, at one time, was the chief pros­e­cu­tor of the homi­cide and cap­i­tal crimes divi­sion of the Dade County State Attorney’s Office. It was my job, at that time, to pros­e­cute peo­ple who were, in fact, charged with cap­i­tal crimes. I, myself, asked juries to return the death penal­ty and exe­cute peo­ple who were charged with cap­i­tal offens­es. I instruct­ed the pros­e­cu­tors who worked under me in the State Attorney’s Office in cer­tain cas­es, that it was their duty to ask that the jury return the death penal­ty and, in many instances, the jury did just that.

After leav­ing the State Attorney’s Office, I went into the world of pri­vate prac­tice, doing basi­cal­ly crim­i­nal defense work. At that time, I rep­re­sent­ed peo­ple charged in instances with hav­ing com­mit­ted cap­i­tal offens­es. And there the role reversed, ask­ing juries not to send these per­sons to their death for all the rea­sons that most of you know and we try to apply.

I have rep­re­sent­ed in cap­i­tal cas­es, chil­dren as young as 14. I’ve actu­al­ly had to sweat out juries where peo­ple of the age of 15 and 16 could be fac­ing the death penal­ty. Those were the days before we bifur­cat­ed — and by that I mean, we had the sin­gle tri­al to deter­mine whether or not some­body was guilty of a cap­i­tal offense and whether or not they were to receive the death penal­ty. Now, of course you know, there are two phas­es to the tri­al. One is the guilt phase and the sec­ond phase is where the jury can inde­pen­dent­ly deter­mine whether or not the death penal­ty ought to apply. But back then, before the change, if the jurors found some­one guilty of a cap­i­tal offense and if they failed to rec­om­mend them to the mer­cy of the Court, in their ver­dict form, then the death penal­ty was auto­mat­ic. The tri­al judge had no alter­na­tive but to sen­tence that per­son to death. On the oth­er hand, if they did rec­om­mend the defen­dant to the mer­cy of the Court, the tri­al judge had no alter­na­tive but to go ahead and sen­tence them to life impris­on­ment. That, of course, has changed today, in many respects.

Upon leav­ing the pri­vate prac­tice of law, I became a Circuit Court Judge in Dade County, doing most of my work in the crim­i­nal courts divi­sion. I was Administrative Judge of the crim­i­nal divi­sion and, need­less to say, han­dled numer­ous cap­i­tal cas­es. Since 1987 until last year, for a peri­od of 12 years, I sat on the Supreme Court of Florida, actu­al­ly lis­ten­ing to the appeal on every case where a per­son was sen­tenced to death in the State of Florida by the tri­al court. I esti­mate that, in the last 40 years, I have par­tic­i­pat­ed either as a pros­e­cu­tor, as a defense attor­ney or a tri­al judge or as an appel­late judge on the Supreme Court in the dis­po­si­tion of more than 1200 cap­i­tal cas­es. I don’t know of any­one else in the State of Florida who has that kind of expe­ri­ence or, for that mat­ter, that kind vary­ing type of expe­ri­ence. So, when I speak to you, I speak to you based upon what, I hope, has been those things I have learned in the last 40 years.

Many times when I speak to groups, they are not friend­ly groups. I look upon this group as being a friend­ly group to the mes­sage I am about to give. But, for exam­ple, when you’re talk­ing to the Rotary Club in Gainesville, it makes quite a dif­fer­ence. But I like to start out by get­ting their atten­tion; by bring­ing to them, as best I can, first hand as to what hap­pens on a par­tic­u­lar day when, as Chief Justice on six sep­a­rate occa­sions, not to men­tion the 22 oth­er occa­sions when I sat on the Supreme Court, where per­sons were put to death under the law of the State of Florida and I was a mem­ber of the Court. on some cas­es, sign­ing off on that and say­ing, State, all of the require­ments of the law of this state have been met and you can pro­ceed with the exe­cu­tion,” and in oth­er cas­es say­ing, No, this per­son,” for what­ev­er the rea­son may be, should not be exe­cut­ed.” But as Chief Justice, I want to call to your atten­tion to what happens.

About 6:30 in the morn­ing, I arrive at the Supreme Court Building and the first thing I do is go to the clerk’s office and I check with the clerk at that time to find out whether or not there had been any last minute peti­tions had been filed for a stay of exe­cu­tion. Generally, by that stage, the answer is no, there have not been. At about a quar­ter of 7, we get a phone call from the Governor’s office, the Governor’s coun­sel. And the Governor’s coun­sel, after the usu­al pleas­antries like, Mr. Chief Justice, how are you this morn­ing, then the fatal ques­tion is asked. Are there any stays of exe­cu­tion?” And, of course, by that stage, there are none. And whether or not I had been on the major­i­ty of this par­tic­u­lar case, or whether or not I had dis­sent­ed and said in that dis­sent that this per­son should not be exe­cut­ed, the major­i­ty of the Court rules and, as Chief Justice, I have to con­vey the major­i­ty of the Court opin­ion to the Chief Counsel for the Governor. So, I tell the Governor’s Counsel, No, there are no stays.”

What hap­pens next is, the Governor’s Counsel con­tacts the war­den at the Florida State Prison where the exe­cu­tion is to take place. The war­den then asks the con­demned per­son whether or not they have any last words to say. Usually they don’t. Sometimes they do. Generally, their attor­ney, after the exe­cu­tion, will read a state­ment from the con­demned per­son. I am then told that the war­den is now hav­ing the hood put over the face and the head of the accused. They then tell me, Mr. Chief Justice, the elec­tric­i­ty has been turned on.”

Now, from that moment on, what goes through my mind is real­ly dif­fi­cult to describe. But I think that I basi­cal­ly can sum it up by say­ing, I just hope to God that this per­son is in truth and in fact guilty of the crime for which they have been con­vict­ed and I hope that this per­son meets all the cri­te­ria that the State has set out in the State law for the pur­pose of exe­cu­tion. That is a very, very trou­bling moment for me. An extreme­ly trou­bling moment, because the next voice I hear is, Mr. Chief Justice, the elec­tric­i­ty has been turned off and the doc­tor is exam­in­ing the pris­on­er.” A few moments go by, it some­times seems like an eter­ni­ty, then the Governor’s Counsel tells me that the doc­tor has pro­nounced the pris­on­er dead and gives me the offi­cial time. A very, very sober­ing moment, for some­body who 45 years before nev­er dreamed or thought that he would ever be in that par­tic­u­lar posi­tion, for I will be the only per­son between the State and the con­demned pris­on­er as to whether or not that pris­on­er lives or dies. It’s an awful respon­si­bil­i­ty. And you say to your­self, God, help us all if we have made a mis­take.” And there is no ques­tion in my mind, and I can tell you this hav­ing seen the dynam­ics of our crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem over the many years that I have been asso­ci­at­ed with it, pros­e­cu­tor, defense attor­ney, tri­al judge and Supreme Court Justice, that con­vinces me that we cer­tain­ly have, in the past, exe­cut­ed those peo­ple who either did­n’t fit the cri­te­ria for exe­cu­tion in the State of Florida or who, in fact, were, fac­tu­al­ly, not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed.

And you can make the­ses state­ments when you under­stand the dynam­ics of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem. When you under­stand how the State makes deals with more cul­pa­ble defen­dants in a cap­i­tal case offers them light/​life sen­tences in exchange for their tes­ti­mo­ny against the anoth­er par­tic­i­pant or, in some cas­es, in fact, gives them immu­ni­ty from pros­e­cu­tion so that they can secure their tes­ti­mo­ny. The use of jail­house con­fes­sions, like peo­ple who say, I was in the cell with so-and-so and they con­fessed to me.” Or using those par­tic­u­lar con­fes­sions, the valid­i­ty of which there has been great doubt. And yet, you see the uneven appli­ca­tion of the death penal­ty where, in many instances, those that are the most cul­pa­ble escape death and those that are the least cul­pa­ble are vic­tims of the death penal­ty. These things begin to weigh very heav­i­ly upon you. And under our sys­tem, this is the sys­tem we have. And that is, we are human beings admin­is­ter­ing an imperfect system.

I am often asked a ques­tion: Why does it take so long from the tri­al until the per­son is exe­cut­ed?” And I think many of you under­stand why, just based upon what I have told you so far. Because, in most instances, all of the judges that han­dle these par­tic­u­lar cas­es along the way, all want to be super care­ful that they, in fact, do not make a mis­take. And they take this very con­sci­en­tious­ly. And they try as hard as they can to give the con­demned pris­on­er every ben­e­fit of the doubt that is pos­si­ble. And this occurs because of the many peti­tions that are filed by defense coun­sel on the part of the condemned.

We are for­tu­nate in the State of Florida, although there are those who will not agree with me on this issue, that we do have a very com­pe­tent group of attor­neys. We call them the Capital Collateral Representative Office _​_​_​_​_​, who rep­re­sents con­demned pris­on­ers after they have been sen­tenced to death and after they’ve been incar­cer­at­ed and after the pub­lic defend­er or the pri­vate coun­sel who has rep­re­sent­ed them has long since been dis­as­so­ci­at­ed with the case. And they do a mag­nif­i­cent job to raise all of the pos­si­ble issues that can be raised before us. So, at least, the con­demned, for the most part, have had, hope­ful­ly, the best legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion that is pos­si­ble. But yet, there is always that doubt that always lingers in your mind as to whether or not these par­tic­u­lar peo­ple are fac­tu­al­ly inno­cent of this particular crime.

You know, it’s one thing to con­vict some­body of a crime they did­n’t com­mit, put them in prison, lock the jail cell. If you dis­cov­er a mis­take, well, at least you can go there and open up the prison door. You can let them out and you can say to them, Well, file a claim with the State Legislature and maybe we can com­pen­sate you for the mis­take that we made.” But it does­n’t work that way in a cap­i­tal case. You don’t dig up a cof­fin, open up the lid and then tell the accused, Oops, sor­ry. We made a mis­take. Just go on home, go on about your busi­ness.” It does­n’t hap­pen that way. And it’s because of the final­i­ty of this par­tic­u­lar pun­ish­ment, more than any oth­er, that caus­es judges to be super careful.

Now, I have had mem­bers of the State Legislature who have heard me speak this way and have crit­i­cized me and said that they are con­vinced in their own mind that we have nev­er exe­cut­ed an inno­cent per­son in the State of Florida. Well, I’m glad that they are pos­sessed of such great wis­dom. They who have nev­er tried a cap­i­tal case, who have nev­er presided over one, who have nev­er sat on the appel­late lev­el, who real­ly and tru­ly do not under­stand the dynam­ics of the crim­i­nal jus­tice sys­tem, are able to make a state­ment such as that. Now, I will leave it up to you whether or not their obser­va­tions are valid or whether some­one who has dealt with this all of their pro­fes­sion­al life has a bet­ter feel and a better understanding.

We cur­rent­ly have sit­ting on death row; it varies from day-to-day but rough­ly 380 per­sons that have been sen­tenced to death. Some have been there as long as 25 years. I remem­ber, and you all prob­a­bly do, the great human cry about Ted Bundy. Ted Bundy was exe­cut­ed back in the year 1990. And at that time, every­body said, Why has he been around so long?” But on the day that Ted Bundy was exe­cut­ed, there were 51 peo­ple sit­ting on death row who had been there longer than he has. And to this day, a great major­i­ty of that same 51 are still sit­ting on death row, their cas­es per­haps for­ev­er stalled in that particular position.

We find that the death penal­ty uses up resources in pro­por­tion that far out­num­bers what it real­ly should do. The Miami Herald, and this is an old sta­tis­tic, so you can bet your life that the sta­tis­tics are much high­er now, they esti­mat­ed back in 1988 that it costs, from the time of arrest to exe­cu­tion, tax­pay­ers of the State of Florida $3.2 mil­lion to exe­cute some­one; where­as a life sen­tence with­out parole would only cost the State $600,000. I heard the Attorney General of Florida, Bob Butterworth, give an esti­mate of any­where between $3 and $5 mil­lion to exe­cute some­one. These cas­es make up but 3%, numer­i­cal­ly, of the case­load of the Supreme Court of Florida. But yet, it takes upon almost 50% of the time of the Justices and 97% of the oth­er cas­es have to wait their turn to be decid­ed by the Court. And you have to say to your­self, is it worth all the time, all the effort and all of the uncer­tain­ty, the uncer­tain­ty being the one rea­son why I feel that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment is not a viable pun­ish­ment in any event, sim­ply because we can make a mis­take. And if we make a mis­take and we are human beings oper­at­ing in an imper­fect sys­tem and we’re bound to make mis­takes I sub­mit to you, for that rea­son, and that rea­son alone, that cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment should no longer be law of this State or any other state.

Now I want to talk to you about this. I know all of you or most of you are inter­est­ed in the abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty. But the abo­li­tion of the death penal­ty is not going to come about by try­ing to con­vince peo­ple that the death penal­ty is wrong, that it is not one of the things that a civ­i­lized soci­ety should do to any of its cit­i­zens, that it’s wrong to kill some­body to teach that killing is wrong, or that, in fact, the death penal­ty, despite the acci­dents in recent years that have hap­pened and all of you have read about that and under­stand that .that it is not cru­el or unusu­al pun­ish­ment. Simply because, whether we like it or not, all of the polls show us that 75% to 85% of the peo­ple of this coun­try and espe­cial­ly in the State of Florida, believe that we should keep the death penal­ty. And, of course, you know what they say to any­one who oppos­es the death penal­ty they put you in that cat­e­go­ry of, so-called, bleed­ing heart liberal.

Well, you have to remem­ber that you’re only going to have the death penal­ty abol­ished by leg­isla­tive action. You’re not going to see it come out of the Supreme Court of the United States. You’re not going to see it, in my opin­ion, come out of any supreme court of any state because, they too are con­scious of the fact that the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of the cit­i­zens of this coun­try, in fact, favor the death penal­ty. The way you’re going to have to do it is, you are going to have to do it by show­ing them: Number 1, the great­est obsta­cle, of course, is the fact that you can acci­den­tal­ly elec­tro­cute an inno­cent per­son, that despite what the politi­cians say, it hap­pens, unfor­tu­nate­ly, all the time.

Now, how do you know all this? Well, you’ll hear from Professor Mike Radelet lat­er on. He’s made a study of this. But I want to cite a sta­tis­tic to you that I find is mind-bog­gling. In approx­i­mate­ly the last 10 or 12 years, since DNA evi­dence has come to the fore­front, we have seen approx­i­mate­ly 75 per­sons sit­ting on death row through­out this nation being released because the DNA evi­dence showed that they were fac­tu­al­ly inno­cent of the crime for which they had been con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death. I sub­mit to you that that is a fright­en­ing sta­tis­tic, not only because of the 75 per­sons that are released but you have to ask your­self, how many per­sons did we exe­cute pri­or to the arrival of DNA evi­dence who would have been released, had we had that tool work­ing for us 25, 30, 40, 50 years ago? I sub­mit to you, the num­bers prob­a­bly would have been about the same as they are now.

And how about those peo­ple who are still sit­ting on death row today, who may be fac­tu­al­ly inno­cent but can­not prove their par­tic­u­lar case very sim­ply because there is no DNA evi­dence in their case that can be used to exon­er­ate them. Of course, in most cas­es, you’re not going to have that kind of DNA evi­dence, so there is no way and there is no hope for them to be saved from what may be one of the biggest mis­takes that our soci­ety can make.

We also have to show the mem­bers of the leg­is­la­ture and the pub­lic the tremen­dous costs in resources and ask our­selves whether it is nec­es­sary for us to spend on our high­est appel­late court 50% of their time deal­ing with only 3% numer­i­cal­ly of the cas­es that come before it. Is it real­ly all that impor­tant? And we learned a long time ago that the two main rea­sons for hav­ing the death penal­ty are: Number 1, a deter­rent effect. That some­how, by exe­cut­ing these peo­ple, we are going to cut down on the homi­cide rate in this coun­try. Well, we have learned that with one excep­tion, Washington, D.C., and why that is, I don’t know, every oth­er juris­dic­tion in the United States where the death penal­ty is not per­mit­ted, in those states, their rate of homi­cide dif­fers very lit­tle from those states that have the death penalty.

The Second, so obvi­ous­ly, I’ve known this for years it does­n’t deter. Because most peo­ple that are con­vict­ed of first degree mur­der and sen­tenced to death have either men­tal prob­lems, and by that I mean many of them are bor­der­line men­tal­ly retard­ed; there are those who are com­mit­ting these crimes as crimes of pas­sion that, for some rea­son, were nev­er charged with a sec­ond degree mur­der, which is a crime of pas­sion but rather the first degree mur­der; peo­ple who have been under the influ­ence of drugs, under the influ­ence of alco­hol. These per­sons, I can assure you, nev­er, ever would have been deterred and nev­er, ever thought about receiv­ing the death penal­ty as a result of their actions. The only per­sons that real­ly think about that are your so-called pro­fes­sion­al hit-peo­ple.” We used to call them hit men”, but I guess that’s not polit­i­cal­ly cor­rect any­more, I guess we may have hit women”. But the fact of the mat­ter is, those peo­ple don’t wor­ry about it because they know they are nev­er going to be caught and it’s very, very sim­ple why because they don’t blab to their friends what they have done, they don’t leave all sorts of clues behind, they don’t do it in front of wit­ness­es you’re nev­er going to deter them.

So, what does that leave us with? The last thing and that is sim­ply, Society’s revenge. And that is to take out Society’s revenge on the per­son who has transgressed.

Now there are cer­tain cas­es where you can prob­a­bly jus­ti­fy the death penal­ty and I dis­cuss this with many friends of mine. And I say to them, What would you do in sit­u­a­tions if Adolf Hitler were on tri­al for mur­der, for geno­cide?” or What would you do in the case of Adolf Eichmann?” and many oth­ers that we could name. And even my friends who are the staunchest oppo­nents of the death penal­ty say that, yes, there can be those cas­es where the con­duct of the indi­vid­ual is so egre­gious that Society does have the right to ter­mi­nate their exis­tence. But that isn’t what we are talk­ing about here. We are gen­er­al­ly talk­ing about per­sons who have com­mit­ted one homi­cide in their life­time, not peo­ple who have killed hun­dreds of thou­sands or mil­lions of peo­ple as an act of genocide.

And so, where does all this leave us? It sim­ply leaves us with the fact that, if we need to abol­ish and feel we want to abol­ish cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment, the first thing you’re going to need to do is sit down and begin to have a dia­logue with the gen­er­al pub­lic. Because the _​_​_​_​of the politi­cians will only help in a lim­it­ed man­ner because politi­cians, for the most part, have a knee-jerk reac­tion to this issue. And if they per­ceive the over­whelm­ing major­i­ty of the pub­lic are in favor of the death penal­ty, then they will not do any­thing at all to see to it that the death penal­ty comes to an end. Not when we have peo­ple who, as one of our State Senators said, I don’t care if we fry em or inject em, as long as we kill em.” I won’t tell you who that was, but he ran for the United States Senate as a Republican can­di­date in the last elec­tion. And if you have pub­lic offi­cials that have that atti­tude, you’re real­ly not going to get any­where. So think what you need to do, you’ve got to do this from the grass­roots. You have to explain to the cit­i­zen­ry what this is all about, that this is not an open and shut mat­ter of let’s do away with some­body because they did away with some­body else. It’s not a mat­ter to say, well, that par­tic­u­lar defen­dant who com­mit­ted a mur­der in a cru­el man­ner deserves the same type of fate as their par­tic­u­lar vic­tim. You’ve got to sit down, ratio­nal­ize this and talk to them in a calm and ratio­nal mat­ter that 1) this par­tic­u­lar prob­lem requires far more of our resources than this coun­try should be will­ing to invest and 2) because of the fact that you can make a mis­take, if for no oth­er rea­son, should allow you to say to your­selves that the death penal­ty should not be a viable penal­ty, not only in Florida, but through­out the nation.

And, per­haps, by doing that, not in the near future I don’t want to get any­body’s hopes up don’t count on the near future that the death penal­ty going to be abol­ished. But cer­tain­ly you can’t give up hope and you’ve got to work for the future and see what the future brings, even if it may be in the dis­tant future. Because any­thing that is worth­while deserves to be nur­tured and to be car­ried along until it comes into fruition.

And so, I want to com­mend those of you who feel that the death penal­ty is archa­ic, is some­thing that does not belong in a civ­i­lized soci­ety, in the path that you have cho­sen to see to it that the death penal­ty is final­ly abol­ished. And I know that when you hear the pan­el dis­cus­sion up here, you are going to be able to ask as many ques­tions as you like.

So, with that, I’m going to end my lit­tle talk to you. And, hope­ful­ly, I’ll be sit­ting on the pan­el here and will be very hap­py to answer any spe­cif­ic ques­tions. Again, I wish you all Godspeed in your work and thank you very much for hav­ing me here this morning.