Laying the Death Penalty to rest

The American justice system, while aptly conceived and seemingly well-intentioned, remains relentlessly vulnerable to human error. The irreversible nature of killing someone, given the known realities of potential innocence, defies the constitutional spirit of justice, designed specifically to protect citizens from an over-reaching government. When the GOP held one of its many presidential primary debates at the Reagan National Library in September, there was a momentary revival of this relatively silenced topic reintroduced into the national discussion.

Debate moderator Brian Williams prefaced a question to Rick Perry, the sitting governor of Texas, by mentioning the 234 executions carried out on Perry’s watch, but was interrupted when the crowd stood in cheering ovation. Williams wanted to know if Perry had ever “struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any one of those might have been innocent”. The inquiry, though artfully dodged by Perry, aimed at the one execution that refuses to fully dissipate from Texan media - that of Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted of arson by a notoriously flimsy prosecution for the deaths of his three children.

For decades, Texas has distinguished itself as the unrivaled champion of death penalty enforcement, executing 475 people since capital punishment was nationally reinstated by the Supreme Court in 1976 (Gregg v. Georgia) following a 3-year break nationwide. In contrast, Pennsylvania has executed three in that same time frame - and those were willing participants.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center website, out of the fifteen individual counties that lead the nation in executions, nine can be found in Texas. In addition to the unique brand of “Texan conservatism” fueling policy-making in the Lone Star state, virtually every level in the state’s judicial system, including the appellate courts, are filled by elections. This understandably causes prospective candidates to counter political perceptions of being “soft on crime” by perpetually demonstrating their perpetual willingness to comply with rampant death sentencing.

Proponents of capital punishment continue to base their support for its use on its effectiveness as a deterrent against capital crime, but the hard data supporting this belief remains non-existent. The DPIC website reveals that people are over fifty percent more likely to be murdered in states with a death penalty than those without one.

The recent execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia marks yet another example of a likely innocent man being murdered by the government on behalf of the people. 650,000 of those people signed petitions for clemency, to no avail. Davis was killed, despite multiple recantations of testimony, new eye-witness testimony implicating a probable culprit - even a letter from Pope Benedict addressed directly to Georgia’s Governor, later forwarded to Georgia's Board of Pardons and Paroles.

President Obama declined to commute Troy Davis’ death sentence. According to White House spokesman Jay Carney, “it is not appropriate for the president of the United States to weigh in on specific cases like this one, which is a state prosecution”. However, most presidents have granted pardons for criminals duly prosecuted by states - just not typically for cases involving murder. Eisenhower commuted a condemned murderer’s sentence to “life without parole”, as did Millard Fillmore way back when; and both of those cases involved convicts widely known to be guilty, unlike Davis.

Historically, Americans have argued if the Constitution’s 8th amendment applied to the death penalty with respect to its protection from “cruel and unusual punishment”. Other western societies have effectively ended this timeless debate. Canada abolished the death penalty in 1976. The United Kingdom hasn’t had an execution since ‘64. The UN human rights chief recently called for a universal ban on the death penalty for several compelling reasons, including its “inappropriately vengeful character”.

European states were required to ban the death penalty in order to gain membership into the European Union. All 27 of the EU nations readily complied to this requirement, leaving a continental moratorium on execution in its wake. Soon, the United States will be joined only by third-world despots, stubbornly clinging to this barbaric exercise of state power.

Ultimately, Jesus Christ, himself a victim of state-sponsored execution, could have the final say on this contentious matter. If a case challenging the “cruel and unusual” clause goes before the current Supreme Court, there’s one mitigating circumstance that could factor in: six of the nine sitting justices happen to hail from the Roman Catholic tradition. Considering the abolitionist stance of the current Pope, as well as that of his predecessor, John Paul II, perhaps a ruling against this practice looms near.

Since 1973, there have been 138 people exonerated after being sentenced to death row due to the introduction of evidence proving their innocence. Beyond that, our criminal justice system prides itself on being predicated by the concept of “rehabilitation” and “behavioral correction“. Obviously, executing someone negates this possibility.

The potentiality of killing an innocent person demonstrates a “miscarriage of justice”, clearly unacceptable by all religions, moral codes and legal systems known to man. A systemic process plagued by state-to-state inconsistencies calls for the implementation of a federally mandated “life without parole“ maximum penalty. The judicial integrity of any self-respecting Republic should evolve accordingly.