Making Death Expedient

We have all watched, and even participated in a variety of arguments that seem to be divisive - abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, the death penalty. The death penalty is (or should be) back in the news. While much of the world has banned the death penalty, the United States continues to practice it. Caution has entered the debate with the reality of innocent people sitting on death row. The kinds of crimes that result in a death penalty are frequently emotional and strike communities to the core. There is all too often a "rush to judgment." Police are under tremendous pressure to find someone quickly, and public prosecutors to bring quick justice. Perhaps that is why such an elaborate appeals process was put in place - to safeguard the innocent from erroneous convictions.

The appeals process for those on death row has been shortened before, however, re-evaluation of death row cases has found significant errors. One area of those reevaluations has been DNA technology. Officials have looked with some trepidation at the possible impacts of DNA evidence on cases already closed - and people already executed. In light of findings of innocence of a number of people sitting on death row, some states (such as Illinois) have declared a moratorium on carrying out executions. Now, we have the Republican's introducing legislation to shorten the capital appeals process even further. The legislation is called the "Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005," and was introduced in the House by Dan Lundgren, and in the Senate by Jon Kyl.

As I read the legislation (H.R. 3035 and S. 1008) the bill(s) change the ability of the Federal appeals court to review habeas corpus appeals that have been barred by state courts. I may be wrong, but I thought that was the whole point of appeals. That is the mechanism by which legal challenges arrive at the Supreme Court. In short, this stops the appeals process at the state court level. It also blocks certain types of appeals. As of this date, the status of both bills is that they were referred to the Judiciary committees and hearings have been held.

Is there a possibility that such legislation could pass? Apparently, yes:

"Virginia Rep. Bobby Scott, the ranking Democrat on the subcommittee considering the bill, conceded there was little chance of blocking it in the House.

"The House has been very supportive of anything that would strip the innocent of a fair hearing. This bill will ensure that more innocent people will be put to death," he said in a telephone interview."

There are problems, as mentioned above, with pressures around capital cases. There are also institutional problems that make matters even worse. As noted in the Capital Hill Blues article, the appeals process:

""... is critical. Often, the defendant's original lawyers are so poorly funded and so overworked that they cannot do the basic research that the case requires. That's why the error level is so high in death penalty cases," said one California defense lawyer, who asked not to be named."

The bills have prompted at least two excellent editorials. One is in the July 10, 2005 Washington Post titled " Stop This Bill," and the other is by Bob Herbert of the New York Times (7/14/05) titled "Convicted, Executed, Not Guilty."

The supporters of such bills generally cite the pain of "victims," and the need for swift justice. Who is "made whole" by the state murder of the innocent? Is the community safer when an innocent person is convicted and the guilty run free? Is our nation safer when the state can short circuit justice and incarcerate and kill its citizens?

I am personally against the death penalty, but this issue goes beyond one's support or lack thereof of the justice of the death penalty. It goes to the issue of basic rights within our society; to issues of representation and of real justice. Certainly there are those who would go back to the justice of the lynch mob. Grab the suspect and hang them. Forget trials and courts. Immediately remove the "threat" and allow the victims their "wholeness." But should "justice" operate this way? Is it even justice?

Keep your eyes open for these bills being forwarded to the Congress.

Posted by rowan at July 14, 2005 8:09 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |