iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
GET UPDATES FROM Alec Baldwin
 
GET UPDATES FROM Mike Farrell
 

The Next Death Penalty Battleground

Posted: 10/25/2011 9:22 am

Georgia's decision to go forward with the execution of Troy Davis in the face of an international outcry calling for time, clarity and justice has, once again, galvanized anti-death penalty consciousness here at home. What passes for fairness in parts of this country, and make no mistake, we're talking about "parts of this country," is the issue. 16 states in the U.S. have no death penalty, four of them having done away with it since 2007. Of the remaining 34, some use it so rarely their citizens forget it's actually on the books. A quick glance tells us the most active killing states comprise the "Old South," and a look at the racial makeup of death row today suggests to many that it is a relic of slavery. But a closer look tells us even more.

One of the reasons the death penalty was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 was the arbitrariness of its application. Two identical crimes committed in the same state often resulted in different penalties: one death, the other life. That was supposedly fixed by the Court's Gregg decision reinstating capital punishment in 1976, which ordered "safeguards" to protect against that flaw and others. However, a recent study by the Death Penalty Information Center shows that 32% of the executions in the U.S. since 1976 came from prosecutions in only 15 counties, a number amounting to less than 1% of the total number of counties in killing states. Of those 402 executions, all but 20 (10 each in Arizona and Ohio) came from Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Alabama.

Clearly, one cannot rule out that racism and arbitrariness abound today. Justice Potter Stewart's determination that death sentences are "cruel and unusual in the same way that being struck by lightning is cruel and unusual" is no less true today than it was when he wrote this. Beyond reasserting his innocence and offering God's blessings on the soul of the guards poised to take his life, Troy Davis said of the struggle to end this barbarism, "I ask my family and friends to continue to fight this fight."

We believe this fight must be won. And as the effort goes forward in courts, on the streets and in legislatures across the U.S., our sense is that the politics and culture of California make it an excellent battleground for the next death penalty fight. California has a peculiar relationship with the death penalty. On one hand, California rarely executes people -- 13 killings in 33 years, the last of which was in 2006. In that same period, three times as many death row inmates have committed suicide or died of natural causes. On the other hand, California's courts sentence people to death faster than any other state, creating the country's largest death row by far, with 715 condemned men and women. More than 20% of death row inmates in the U.S. live at San Quentin. Two years ago, Los Angeles County alone sentenced more to death than the entire state of Texas. Long seen as a "liberal" state, California's embrace of capital punishment is odd. In part, the dichotomy reflects the state's politically diverse population, which spans the ideological, ethnic, cultural, and economic spectra. With vast areas of both urban and rural populations and strong, conflicting pockets of conservative and liberal voting blocs, it is actually more a plaid than a red or blue state.

However, this very diversity is the reason California, a bellwether, can lead the way in ending state killing in the U.S. Unlike most states, California cannot end its death penalty in the legislature; it must be done at the ballot box. The voters themselves -- in all their many creeds and colors -- must make that choice. And they are ready to do so. New polls tell us that 54% of Californians prefer life without parole to death. That support is even higher among California's new majority, comprised of Latino, African American and Asian voters. Californians are becoming increasingly aware that the death penalty costs hundreds of millions of dollars more every year than life in prison without parole. And, in what is one of the most significant developments regarding this issue in decades, opposition to the death penalty is now much less a partisan issue. Today, conservatives recognize it as an inefficient government system with costs that are out of control.

Work has already begun to give California voters a chance to replace the death penalty at the polls in November 2012. The SAFE California Act will replace capital punishment with life in prison without parole, require convicted murderers to work and pay restitution to a victims' compensation fund, and direct some of the money saved to solving more rapes and murders. It will bring the sharpest decline in U.S. death sentences, the largest reduction in the national death row population, and it will make a statement by the largest number of voters that public safety will be best served by ending the death penalty.

Troy Davis wasn't the first arguably innocent person executed in the United States, and he isn't the only potentially innocent person to sit on death row. Perhaps he understood, better than anyone, that Georgia's decision to take his life could pave the way to end executions across the United States. The price paid in such cases is a steep one. It now falls on us to see this hope become reality.

To help Californians do their part, please support, volunteer, and donate to the SAFE California Campaign.

 
FOLLOW POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 432
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (6 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SKSagar
Superconsciousness switched on the bigbang
01:24 AM on 11/09/2011
I am surprised to learn that different states in America have such widely varying yardsticks to determine the quantum of punishments. For the same category of offence the punishment must be identical not just in all states of US, but all over the World – though I know its impossible. There should be an international code of practice in this regard even in terms of facilities inside prisons. I know it will never happen.
For example a life imprisonment in American jails may be a paradise for some people who live well below the poverty line in many poor countries. I am wondering why people from these countries do not somehow manage to go to America, commit some crime and then live comfortably ever after.
09:40 PM on 11/02/2011
Check out Alec's interview on the Adam Carolla podcast today. Talks about some interesting things...big fan and I was happy! http://bit.ly/sr2iDM
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Rockett
11:20 AM on 10/31/2011
If it can be proven that they are actually insane then no I would not execute them, but I would commit them to a facility for the criminally
insane for the rest of their lives( no parole-no time off no leaving the facility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JTyroler
Hoping Congress doesn't destroy the nation.
11:09 AM on 10/31/2011
How many innocent people do we have to execute before we decide that the death penalty is not the best method of dealing with crime. In the states with the death penalty, the crime rates are actually higher than those states without the death penalty - according to Amnesty International USA.

Death penalty cases usually cost more than sentencing someone to life without parole.

Since the death penalty was reinstated, over 130 people have been removed from death row because they were later proven innocent.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
05:09 AM on 10/31/2011
Why should anyone who has already proven willing to end another's life be given a second chance to do so?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Rockett
11:24 AM on 10/31/2011
Excellent point, that is why we need the death penalty it makes sure that the particular individual NEVER get a second chance to harm another human being again!
09:41 PM on 10/30/2011
Sof those people who 100% oppose the death penalty, who thinks that if the people of Norway had the chance to give the death sentance to Anders Behring Breivik if they had the chance
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
09:29 PM on 10/30/2011
This article fosters a misunderstanding about the SCOTUS. "One of the reasons the death penalty was outlawed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972 . . . " The Supreme Court did NOT outlaw the death penalty. The Supreme Court cannot pass laws to make anything illegal. "That was supposedly fixed by the Court's Gregg decision reinstating capital punishment in 1976, . . . " The SCOTUS did not fix the problem of arbitrariness in the Gregg case. In 1972, in Furman v. Georgia, the SCOTUS found the death penalty statute in Georgia was unconstitutional. Since every state have very similar death penalty statutes, nearly all death row inmates had their sentence commuted. (In California, the California Supreme Court had declared California's death penalty statute unconstitutional. So, there were few, if any death row inmates in CA when Furman was decided.) Immediately after Furman, state legislators began redrafting new death penalty statutes. I have read that the 1st revised death penalty statute was passed 6 months after Furman. In Gregg, the SCOTUS found the revised statutes of Georgia, Texas, and Florida (3 cases were combined) pass constitutional muster. This is such a simple concept that courts don't pass laws, they rule on the laws constitutionality. I don't understand why this is so confusing to so many people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JTyroler
Hoping Congress doesn't destroy the nation.
11:29 AM on 10/31/2011
There were people on death row in California when Furman was decided. The most famous being Charles Manson and 4 of his followers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
01:24 PM on 10/31/2011
Actually, Manson was removed from death row by People v. Anderson. It was decided earlier in the same year as Furman and proceeded it by a matter of months. I made the same mistake and told my criminal law classes for years that the Furman decision removed Manson from death row. With some additional research, however, I discovered that he had already had his sentence commuted b/c of the Anderson case. California amended their State Constitution to reinstate the death penalty and then Furman was decided.
07:50 PM on 10/30/2011
Look into the reasons Illinois abandoned the death penalty. I grew up there and can tell you there was little concern about it when I lived there. My understanding is that they just decided that it was too flawed. The process of deciding who gets the penalty is biased. Sure, I am not thrilled about paying for people to sit in jail either, but as I understand it, sitting in death row and all the mandatory appeals makes the death penalty more expensive. As long as they can't do it again, I am satisfied. Being able to correct mistakes years later by letting people out, rather than just saying "oops" is an added bonus.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
02:31 AM on 10/31/2011
You are absolutely right that it is more expensive to seek the death penalty than life in prison. Most of the costs, however, are up front in the trial. There is a tremendously amount of work that goes into every aspect of death penalty cases. Even jury selection is different. I am a former prosecutor in IL. The office where I worked sought the death penalty against a defendant while I was there. The prosecutors sent out something like 300 questionaires to prospective jurors. Each questionaire was several pages long. They had to go through each one of those questionaires and that was before the actual jury selection began.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
04:51 AM on 10/31/2011
"As long as they can't do it again, I am satisfied."

You don't care how many guards or other prisoners they do it again to...?
02:27 AM on 11/03/2011
You are watching too many prison TV shows. A quick internet search shows less than 10 guards a year are generally killed in prison, and given that people on death row are a small proportion of the inmates and kept under higher security, I doubt they are responsible for many of these deaths. Of course, one death is too much, I am just saying that people on death row are probably not the threat you think they are. Same goes for killing other inmates.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Horatio Nelson
06:58 PM on 10/30/2011
Good luck with this California! How can a country that practices the death penalty claim a legitimate place amongst the civilized nations? Maybe you will inspire the rest of America to end this abomination.
photo
fratricide08
Yellow Dog Democrat
05:29 PM on 10/30/2011
You mention the "Old South" and then list "Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Alabama" but only Alabama is a member of the "Old South." Texas, Oklahoma, and Missouri aren't southern states in terms of the Old South and are certainly not southern in the usual geographical terms. Rather those states are an odd cultural blending of the South, Midwest, and West. Texas is probably the closest to being a true southern state but even Texas has a decidedly Western influence that makes it very different from southern states like Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina.

The premise of this article is intriguing and I believe there is a cultural legacy influencing today's implementation of the death penalty but the article fails to explore that premise in a meaningful way. As to the campaign to end the death penalty in California, I hope it succeeds.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
02:39 AM on 10/31/2011
I agree that only Alabama is probably the best fit for "Old South." Alabama, Texas, and Missouri, were all slave states. Oklahoma was not a state but I think that some of the indian tribes had slaves. That may have been the link the authors were aiming at. I also agree with you that the historical legacy's influence is an interesting issue that was not really explored.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MsLizabeth
Flaming liberal, burned out attorney
05:12 PM on 10/30/2011
Mr. Baldwin, I just watched a rerun of 30 Rock, and thought, I'd like to see Alec act with Kim Zimmer. How about it? You have some influence I believe.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Rockett
04:45 PM on 10/30/2011
I do not believe that, when a person willfully takes a gun into a 7-11 robes the place and kills the cashier to me he has shown prior intent and lots of forethought to bring a gun to commit a crime. Or when gang bangers take a AK-47 and sprays a neighborhood with bikers killing lots of. Innocent people- they know what they did and did it anyway- they deserve the death penalty .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swooth
truthtellr
05:43 PM on 10/30/2011
What if the person has a mental illness? A disease or condition that is out of his control, do we kill them? If a person has a mental illness, should their condition be treated?

Both situations you mentioned could be acts of passion, where they are not acting in their right mind. Do we seek help for them or just lump them all together as murderers and kill them all.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Martin Rockett
06:05 PM on 10/30/2011
If the person is truly mentally I'll they need to admit them to a mental institution for the rest of their life ( no leaving ever) if they become sane again by some miricle of modern medicine then execute them!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
07:25 PM on 10/30/2011
The mentally ill are the first ones we should execute.

Someone who is sane could, at least in theory, be rehabilitated (why they would deserve that chance after ending anothers life aside).

The insane can never be trusted not to kill again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
01:30 PM on 10/30/2011
Ultimately, those who oppose the death penalty value the lives of murderers as much as innocent people.

They value their right to repeat their horrible crime more than innocent people's ability to live without fear of them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swooth
truthtellr
04:06 PM on 10/30/2011
Yes, I believe the value of the lives of murderers’ as much as innocent people. I believe human life is equally valuable.

Instead of taking one's life, what about life in prison with no chance of parole? You could live without fear of them repeating their horrible crime.
What about executing the innocent? You talk about innocent people
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
04:52 PM on 10/30/2011
Life in prison still affords them the chance to kill guards and other prisoners.

I don't support the execution of those for whom guilt is in doubt.

Given that you acknowledge the need to keep them from repeating horrible crimes...in the cases (and ONLY in the cases where there is no doubt) where we know they are guilty...why should we not execute them?
05:21 PM on 10/30/2011
Frankly I just don't want to pay to feed a guy who is never getting out of prison anyways.

It's a waste of my income on a waste of space.
04:10 PM on 10/30/2011
Ultimately, those who support the death penalty value killing innocent people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
04:53 PM on 10/30/2011
If you want to ignore my repeated statements about the limited cases in which I would advocate the use of the death penalty...sure...whatever.

Bottom line...you shouldn't be given more than one chance to hurt other people.
bcunnin679
Political Correctness, the enemy of free speech
01:22 PM on 10/30/2011
How many courts said Troy Davis was guilty?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
01:46 PM on 10/30/2011
Executing the likes of Troy Davis weakens the case for executing the people we are 100% sure did it.

Everyone should have opposed that.
bcunnin679
Political Correctness, the enemy of free speech
03:03 PM on 10/30/2011
You did not answer the question
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MsLizabeth
Flaming liberal, burned out attorney
05:19 PM on 10/30/2011
Davis won only in the court of public opinion. He was given a chance to present the evidence which he thought warranted a new trial. I read that the trial judge denied the motion for new trial with an opinion that was about 150 pages long and reviewed the defense's arguments thoroughly. I haven't found it online.

What laymen don't understand is what would happen if the court set aside the sentence. It would have to set aside the entire verdict and order a new trial. It's hell to try a case on twenty year old evidence and memories.

Dick Gregory took the principled view of opposing all death penalties, and stood vigil with the man who admitted torturing and killing James Byrd.

My view is that I don't want my nation to be in the company of the other nations who impose a death penalty. I respect the collective judgment of the civilized world that the death penalty is to be eschewed.
bcunnin679
Political Correctness, the enemy of free speech
07:13 PM on 10/30/2011
And I agree with Dick Gregory. At one time I was in favor of the death penalty until I found out the cost of execution. It is less expensive to keep someone in prison for 40 years than to execute them
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
disappointedliberal
TP candidate = Dem Wins
02:58 AM on 10/31/2011
F&F
photo
ljmck
Stand Up, Show Up, Speak Up
11:20 AM on 10/30/2011
Part of the problem is that jurors do not necessarily understand the instructions concerning death penalty application. Also, for heinous crimes, once they find someone guilty, they often believe that the perpetrator should get the worst punishment. If there were no death penalty, most jurors would be satisfied to apply life imprisonment.

Interesting article on juries and the way they understand -- or misunderstand -- the application of the death penalty here:

http://www.capitalpunishmentincontext.org/issues/juryinstruct
jack27
Freethinker
01:31 PM on 10/30/2011
Thank you for the link. It's a very good article.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
swooth
truthtellr
04:12 PM on 10/30/2011
Reading that article, I realize no other human should have that type of power. No human should decide to end the life of another without being charged with murder themselves. Thanks for the link.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
07:30 PM on 10/30/2011
So, you would ONLY allow murderers to serve on juries?

Wow.

You are redefining bleeding heart liberal by exponential measures...