- The Washington Times - Monday, November 27, 2000

Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun finally toward the end of his long service on the Supreme Court said he would no longer affirm death sentences because it had become clear to him that capital punishment was randomly applied. Some on death row had not received the basis of our system of justice due process.

Others, such as the late Catholic cardinals, Joseph Bernardin and John O'Connor, were against capital punishment because they believed that to be pro-life, one must adhere to a consistent ethic of life being against abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment.

On the other hand, supporters of the death penalty often agree with George W. Bush and Al Gore. During their third presidential debate, both candidates were asked why they were for the death penalty. Both answered immediately: "It's a deterrence." Without capital punishment, homicides would increase.

Neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Gore gave any factual evidence to support their position. They couldn't, because the great weight of evidence is against them.

In 1996, the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology reported that a survey of 70 leading American criminologists found that more than 80 percent of them said the death penalty does not lower homicide rates.

More definitively, on Sept. 22 of this year, an extensively researched New York Times survey revealed that the 12 states without a death penalty have homicide rates below the national average.

As Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center points out, "The average murder rate per 100,000 population in 1998 among states with the death penalty was 6.2 per 100,000. However, the average murder rate among states without the death penalty was only 3.2 per 100,000. A look at neighboring death penalty and non-death-penalty states shows similar trends."

Furthermore, with regard to the uneven fairness of the trials, I have reported on death-penalty cases for some 40 years, and it is an undeniable fact that since most of those on death row cannot afford experienced lawyers, many of those cases are handled by inexperienced court-appointed attorneys, some with little or no previous experience in capital cases.

As reporter Richard Perez-Pena noted in the New York Times on Feb. 12, "There are states like Texas, Alabama and Georgia, where the death penalty is frequently imposed, and there is no public defender system at all. Instead, judges appoint lawyers for poor defendants and set their compensation, often at low rates." Often very low rates, with minimal funds for investigators and forensic experts.

I interviewed the warden of a prison in Mississippi that had a number of prisoners on death row. I asked him whether it was true that three of them had no lawyers at all after their state appeals were lost. Their only chance to live was if a federal judge were to grant them a writ of habeas corpus so that their trials and sentences could be reviewed in a federal court.

The warden told me my information was accurate.

"Then what recourse do they have, since they have no lawyers?" I asked.

"Well," said the warden, "we have a prison library. There are law books there. They can figure out a way to try to get a writ of habeas corpus."

I asked him how much education those three prisoners had. He paused. "Well," he said, "they didn't have much schooling. But the law books are there."

In the Feb. 12 National Journal, Stuart Taylor former Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times and currently a writer for Legal Times quotes Gerald Kogan, a former chief justice of Florida who has also been a prosecutor and trial judge. Says Judge Kogan:

"There are several cases where I had grave doubts as to the guilt of a particular person" who was put to death.

Increasingly, men on death row some with execution only days and sometimes hours away are proved innocent and released because of DNA or the work of volunteer independent investigators.

With not many exceptions, the lawyers who lost the cases of these defendants were incompetent. And that's why Illinois Gov. George Ryan, who ran George W. Bush's presidential campaign in that state, has said: "Until I can be sure with moral certainty that no innocent man or woman is facing a lethal injection, no one will meet that fate."

But George W. Bush and Al Gore automatically support this random method of execution because it "deters."

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide