George Bush is again clamoring for the ouster of a democratically elected leader; the financial world is crumbling under reports of widespread corruption, but there is some good news. In the last week, the Supreme Court ruled states may not execute the mentally retarded and that juries, not judges, shall decide whether to apply the death penalty.
In the case regarding the execution of retarded prisoners, the majority opinion cited “evolving standards of decency.” That’s good news, the notion that we are evolving toward a more decent society.
The death penalty is a snapshot of American decency. Once upon a time, the death penalty was a remedy for any number of crimes. As has always been the case in America, the death penalty has been applied more vigorously to the poor than the rich. For many years, African-Americans were subject to the death penalty via lynching, going to their grisly deaths with no due process, no protection of their rights and often for the most trivial “offenses,” such as asking for their wages or failing to show “proper respect” for white people. Indianapolis, Indiana was the first jurisdiction in American to execute a white man for the murder of a Native American, a rare instance in which the application of the death penalty was a milestone toward evolving decency.
At its core, the American death penalty is about politics, which is clear from an examination of the numbers behind Ring v. Arizona, the case decided Monday. Judges, although they dislike admitting it, are susceptible to political pressure. Like other politicians, judges do not like to be perceived as soft on crime. In Alabama, a jury recommends a sentence of life imprisonment or death. According to statistics gathered by the Southern Center for Human Rights, in 83 cases Alabama judges overruled a jury to sentence death rather than life and in seven cases overruled a jury to sentence life rather than death. Studies by the American Bar Association show a judge up for re-election is even more likely to pass out death sentences. Juries are appointed, not elected. Leaving the death penalty decision to juries is a step toward getting politics out of the process, but it’s just a start. We have a long way to go.
The United States executes more of its citizens than any other developed nation, very few of which even have a death penalty. Public opinion or “evolving standards of decency” allows us to execute people for few crimes. Gone are the days of stringing people up for cattle rustling or horse stealing. Today the death penalty is reserved almost exclusively for murderers.
Within the class of murderers, those who can afford effective counsel are often allowed to plead to a lesser charge – manslaughter or negligent homicide – and thus avoid the death house. Rural killers are less likely to get the death penalty than urban killers – rural district attorneys often don’t have budgets large enough to accommodate a lengthy appeals process.
Still, there are plenty of urban killers, public opinion will not tolerate all those executions. How do we reduce the numbers? The same way we do so many things in America: by race. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive a sentence of death than whites for similar crimes. Even at that, we’ve got too many to kill, so we are more likely to execute killers whose victims are white rather than black. It is this incredible unevenness in the application of the death penalty that caused Maryland Governor Parris Glendening to call a moratorium on executions in his state.
In Illinois, Governor George Ryan called a moratorium on executions because so many inmates on death row were shown to be innocent. That’s the death penalty in America today: one set of statistics says the public won’t allow us to execute all the guilty, so we execute selectively, sending a message that white lives are worth more than black. On the other hand, police and prosecutors are eager to railroad innocent citizens into contrived convictions.
When will our evolving standards of decency require us to stop this altogether?
Evolving Decency
George Bush is again clamoring for the ouster of a democratically elected leader; the financial world is crumbling under reports of widespread corruption, but there is some good news. In the last week, the Supreme Court ruled states may not execute the mentally retarded and that juries, not judges, shall decide whether to apply the death penalty.
In the case regarding the execution of retarded prisoners, the majority opinion cited “evolving standards of decency.” That’s good news, the notion that we are evolving toward a more decent society.
The death penalty is a snapshot of American decency. Once upon a time, the death penalty was a remedy for any number of crimes. As has always been the case in America, the death penalty has been applied more vigorously to the poor than the rich. For many years, African-Americans were subject to the death penalty via lynching, going to their grisly deaths with no due process, no protection of their rights and often for the most trivial “offenses,” such as asking for their wages or failing to show “proper respect” for white people. Indianapolis, Indiana was the first jurisdiction in American to execute a white man for the murder of a Native American, a rare instance in which the application of the death penalty was a milestone toward evolving decency.
At its core, the American death penalty is about politics, which is clear from an examination of the numbers behind Ring v. Arizona, the case decided Monday. Judges, although they dislike admitting it, are susceptible to political pressure. Like other politicians, judges do not like to be perceived as soft on crime. In Alabama, a jury recommends a sentence of life imprisonment or death. According to statistics gathered by the Southern Center for Human Rights, in 83 cases Alabama judges overruled a jury to sentence death rather than life and in seven cases overruled a jury to sentence life rather than death. Studies by the American Bar Association show a judge up for re-election is even more likely to pass out death sentences. Juries are appointed, not elected. Leaving the death penalty decision to juries is a step toward getting politics out of the process, but it’s just a start. We have a long way to go.
The United States executes more of its citizens than any other developed nation, very few of which even have a death penalty. Public opinion or “evolving standards of decency” allows us to execute people for few crimes. Gone are the days of stringing people up for cattle rustling or horse stealing. Today the death penalty is reserved almost exclusively for murderers.
Within the class of murderers, those who can afford effective counsel are often allowed to plead to a lesser charge – manslaughter or negligent homicide – and thus avoid the death house. Rural killers are less likely to get the death penalty than urban killers – rural district attorneys often don’t have budgets large enough to accommodate a lengthy appeals process.
Still, there are plenty of urban killers, public opinion will not tolerate all those executions. How do we reduce the numbers? The same way we do so many things in America: by race. Blacks and Latinos are more likely to receive a sentence of death than whites for similar crimes. Even at that, we’ve got too many to kill, so we are more likely to execute killers whose victims are white rather than black. It is this incredible unevenness in the application of the death penalty that caused Maryland Governor Parris Glendening to call a moratorium on executions in his state.
In Illinois, Governor George Ryan called a moratorium on executions because so many inmates on death row were shown to be innocent. That’s the death penalty in America today: one set of statistics says the public won’t allow us to execute all the guilty, so we execute selectively, sending a message that white lives are worth more than black. On the other hand, police and prosecutors are eager to railroad innocent citizens into contrived convictions.
When will our evolving standards of decency require us to stop this altogether?