The governor of New Jersey signed the execution order for the death penalty there on Monday, making that state the 14th to abolish state-sponsored homicide but the first in more than 40 years to give up the practice.
Among the nations we consider our peers, only China continues with the death penalty. The other nations that routinely execute people include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, Mongolia and Singapore.
Here in Alabama, we have had a pause in executions while courts and state officials wrangle over the procedure for administering death. Perhaps, during this pause, we might reconsider the reasons for resuming executions.
The only reason for the death penalty that holds any weight is simple retribution: Someone carried out a heinous offense and the public wants to strike back. It is a natural urge, but not among our more noble instincts. Unfortunately, when someone has been innocently slain, an execution does not put things to right.
As nations have become more civilized, other reasons have been put forth to defend executions: the death penalty as a deterrent or that society should not bear the cost of incarcerating a murderer for life. Various studies have shown that execution is not a deterrent for murderers, who more often act out of passion in the moment than plan their crimes. The South accounts for nearly 80 percent of executions in the United States, but this region has the nation's highest murder rate. Meanwhile, it costs $1.3 million less, on average, to imprison a convict for life than to execute him.
Most troubling, however, is that advancements in DNA testing have shown we sometimes convict the wrong people. Since 1989, 210 inmates have been exonerated by DNA tests, according to the Innocence Project, which has spearheaded efforts to broaden DNA testing. Two of these mistaken convictions have been discovered in Alabama.
"Thousands of cases have been closed and innocent suspects freed with guilty ones punished because of the power of a silent biological witness at the crime scene," the U.S. Justice Department says on its Website.
Certainly some people were wrongly put to death before DNA testing became available in the mid-1980s. In all likelihood, others on death row now would be exonerated if DNA testing could prove guilt or innocence in their cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to reconsider DNA testing for Tommy Douglas Arthur, who waits on death row in Alabama for a 1982 murder in Muscle Shoals. The court found that Arthur missed a deadline in filing his appeal. His execution is on hold while the court considers lethal injection challenges. Amazingly, this state doesn't require DNA testing for murder defendants, even though the tests may provide the most reliable way to determine guilt or innocence.
Ironically, efforts to make executions more humane have made this anachronism more palatable to the public. While many might find a guillotine, a firing squad or a hangman's noose barbaric, lethal injections comes off as modern and civilized. The debate too often has turned on whether the method is acceptable rather than if executions are the best response to a terrible crime. If retribution is our justification, why make executions painless?
Most people still support the death penalty. It is not likely to disappear in Alabama any time soon. Certainly not under Gov. Bob Riley's watch. But this can be a time, as we work out the methods of the death chamber, to open up a more candid discussion about what we are doing and why.
Among the nations we consider our peers, only China continues with the death penalty. The other nations that routinely execute people include Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Yemen, Vietnam, Jordan, Mongolia and Singapore.
Here in Alabama, we have had a pause in executions while courts and state officials wrangle over the procedure for administering death. Perhaps, during this pause, we might reconsider the reasons for resuming executions.
The only reason for the death penalty that holds any weight is simple retribution: Someone carried out a heinous offense and the public wants to strike back. It is a natural urge, but not among our more noble instincts. Unfortunately, when someone has been innocently slain, an execution does not put things to right.
As nations have become more civilized, other reasons have been put forth to defend executions: the death penalty as a deterrent or that society should not bear the cost of incarcerating a murderer for life. Various studies have shown that execution is not a deterrent for murderers, who more often act out of passion in the moment than plan their crimes. The South accounts for nearly 80 percent of executions in the United States, but this region has the nation's highest murder rate. Meanwhile, it costs $1.3 million less, on average, to imprison a convict for life than to execute him.
Most troubling, however, is that advancements in DNA testing have shown we sometimes convict the wrong people. Since 1989, 210 inmates have been exonerated by DNA tests, according to the Innocence Project, which has spearheaded efforts to broaden DNA testing. Two of these mistaken convictions have been discovered in Alabama.
"Thousands of cases have been closed and innocent suspects freed with guilty ones punished because of the power of a silent biological witness at the crime scene," the U.S. Justice Department says on its Website.
Certainly some people were wrongly put to death before DNA testing became available in the mid-1980s. In all likelihood, others on death row now would be exonerated if DNA testing could prove guilt or innocence in their cases.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to reconsider DNA testing for Tommy Douglas Arthur, who waits on death row in Alabama for a 1982 murder in Muscle Shoals. The court found that Arthur missed a deadline in filing his appeal. His execution is on hold while the court considers lethal injection challenges. Amazingly, this state doesn't require DNA testing for murder defendants, even though the tests may provide the most reliable way to determine guilt or innocence.
Ironically, efforts to make executions more humane have made this anachronism more palatable to the public. While many might find a guillotine, a firing squad or a hangman's noose barbaric, lethal injections comes off as modern and civilized. The debate too often has turned on whether the method is acceptable rather than if executions are the best response to a terrible crime. If retribution is our justification, why make executions painless?
Most people still support the death penalty. It is not likely to disappear in Alabama any time soon. Certainly not under Gov. Bob Riley's watch. But this can be a time, as we work out the methods of the death chamber, to open up a more candid discussion about what we are doing and why.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment