In an edi­to­r­i­al high­light­ing pub­lic sup­port for the sen­tenc­ing option of life with­out parole in death penal­ty cas­es and the need to take steps to pro­tect against exe­cut­ing inno­cent peo­ple, USA Today recent­ly stat­ed that life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole is a ​“fit­ting replace­ment” for the death penal­ty. The edi­to­r­i­al praised the his­toric enact­ment of a life with­out the pos­si­bil­i­ty of parole statute in Texas and oth­er recent activ­i­ties around the nation that seek to address prob­lems with cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment. It noted:

For the past half cen­tu­ry, the nation has been locked — dead­locked might be a bet­ter word — in a bit­ter debate over the death penal­ty. But what if there is a middle ground?

With lit­tle fan­fare, a com­pro­mise has been gain­ing favor more than a decade, draw­ing sup­port as DNA evi­dence has exon­er­at­ed inmates on death row. Last week, it reached a mile­stone. Texas, site of one in three exe­cu­tions, gave juries the option to sen­tence defen­dants in cap­i­tal cas­es to life with­out parole rather than death.

All but one death-penal­ty state, New Mexico, now offers that choice, a marked change from the era when life sen­tences were a mean­ing­less illu­sion. But why stop at mak­ing life with­out parole just an option­al alter­na­tive to exe­cu­tion? It is a fit­ting replace­ment, assur­ing severe pun­ish­ment for the worst of crimes but with a safe­ty valve to pro­tect those false­ly accused or wrongly sentenced.

Evidence of the need pours in weekly now.

Five times in the past sev­en months, the Supreme Court has had to rein in state courts that mis­han­dled death penal­ty cas­es. On Monday, the court ordered a new sen­tenc­ing tri­al in a Pennsylvania case involv­ing shod­dy work by the lawyer for an accused murderer.

Last week, the court sent back cas­es from Texas and California that reeked of racial dis­crim­i­na­tion in jury selec­tion. Earlier, the court ruled against Texas (again) and Missouri (twice) in cas­es of exclud­ing rel­e­vant evi­dence, mak­ing defen­dants appear in shack­les and executing juveniles.

Just last week at the state level:

•An Oklahoma appeals court ordered a new tri­al for a man sen­tenced to death in a 1982 mur­der on the basis of tes­ti­mo­ny from a police chemist who has since been fired for poor and unre­li­able lab work.

•An Illinois man jailed for eight months and fac­ing the death penal­ty in his daugh­ter’s death was released when a long-over­due DNA test final­ly came back — negative.

•A for­mer North Carolina judge urged the state Legislature to impose a two-year mora­to­ri­um on executions.

Against this back­drop, the rate of exe­cu­tions has dropped 40% from its onetime high.

Since the death penal­ty was rein­stat­ed in 1976, the Supreme Court has tried to make clear that it is to be applied care­ful­ly and even­hand­ed­ly. Nevertheless, cas­es of incom­pe­tent lawyer­ing, sup­pres­sion of evi­dence, local prej­u­dice and oth­er affronts to jus­tice keep appearing.

The result is evi­dent in the num­bers who nar­row­ly escaped exe­cu­tion: While 972 peo­ple have been put to death since the 1970s, at least 119 have been tak­en off death row because of evi­dence they were wrong­ly con­vict­ed or sentenced.

According to a Gallup Poll in May, 74% of the pub­lic sup­ports the death penal­ty, but back­ing for cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment drops to 56% when respon­dents are giv­en the alter­na­tive of life with­out parole. Even in Texas, a Scripps-Howard poll last October found that while 75% sup­port­ed the death penal­ty, 78% favored the option of life without parole.

Already, life with­out the death penal­ty is the norm in a grow­ing num­ber of states. In addi­tion to the 12 that don’t allow it, five oth­ers have had no exe­cu­tions in more than 30 years; six have used it only once in that time.

Abolishing the death penal­ty and using life with­out parole instead can’t fix all the injus­tices exposed in courts across the nation. But at least no one would be exe­cut­ed as a result. (USA Today, June 22, 2005)

See Life Without Parole and Innocence.

Citation Guide