The
death penalty has long been a point of debate; both sides make strong and
seemingly logical arguments to support their positions. It seems that there is
only one question that we need to ask to determine if the death penalty should
be abolished: is our justice system infallible? The simple answer is that there
is no perfect system of justice. In many cases mistakes, improperly informed
juries, un-proven scientific evidence, incompetence and misconduct can lead to
innocent people being wrongly convicted.
One
of the most common arguments of pro-death penalty advocates is the need for
justice; let the punishment fit the crime. A 2009 Dayton Daily News article seems to show that many of America’s
police chiefs agree with this sentiment. A survey ordered by the Death Penalty
Information Center of Washington, D.C found that 83% of the 500 police chiefs
surveyed favored the death penalty in first degree murder cases. Kettering
Police Chief James O’Dell told the Dayton
Daily that he believed in the sanctity of life but “there are some people,
I just have to say, the death penalty was made for.” (Beyerlein).
Another
common argument in favor of the death penalty is the need for closure for the
family of the victim. Mark Klaas is the father of Polly Klaas who was abducted
and murdered in 1993 by Richard Allen Davis; Polly was twelve-years-old at the
time. When asked if he believed that the execution of Richard Allen Davis would
bring closure, he responded:
I believe his execution would bring closure to
my daughter. She is the one that he contemplates as he acts out in his prison
cell. It's not going to change my life one way or the other. But I don't invest
a lot of time or energy in thinking about Richard Allen Davis. He's dominated
my family's life quite enough as it is. I'm content to see him at least be on
death row and know that at some point he may have to face that final judgment
(Brooks).
Lora Owens was one of about 50 people who witnessed the
highly publicized execution of Stanley "Tookie" Williams in December
2005. Lora is the stepmother of Albert Owens, who was shot and killed by
Williams during a robbery almost 30 years ago. She described the experience as
“very difficult,” she went on to say: "I don't take pleasure in that, but
I do believe that the justice system worked.” After the execution Owens was
described as appearing to be willing to forgive Williams as she told reporters:
"Even a man like Tookie Williams deserved to have someone who loves
him,"(Victim’s)
Bud Welch described his experience with the death penalty
quite differently. Prior to April, 1995 Bud Welch was a self-described death
penalty opponent; that changed for a brief period following the death of his
daughter, Julie, in April 1995. Julie was among the 167 people killed in the
Oklahoma City bombing carried out by Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols. For
months following the death of his daughter Welch focused on little other than
revenge, he didn’t feel the need for a trial, only retribution. During those
months of focusing on revenge Bud made daily trips to the bombing site, he was
also slowly killing himself with increasing alcohol abuse and cigarettes. With McVeigh’s
trial fast approaching bud was making one of his daily trips to the bombing
site when he had a revelation: "I realized his execution would not be part
of my healing, I was able to get rid of the anger and need for revenge."(Velasco)
Bud would later be one of five family members of the victims to ask the jury to
spare McVeigh’s life. Three years after the bombing Bud met with Bill McVeigh,
Timothy’s father, and found an instant connection with him: "I realized
both me and Bill McVeigh would bury our children," he said. "When
your children die, you bury them in your heart." (Velasco) Bud went on to
become an outspoken opponent of the death penalty, a board member of the
National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and president of Murder
Victims' Families for Human Rights.
Balancedpolitics.org
states the following on the pro-death penalty side of the debate: “DNA testing
and other methods of modern crime scene science can now effectively eliminate
almost all uncertainty as to a person's guilt or innocence.” With that in mind,
it would seem that we should be confident that know innocent person will be
executed. We have all, to some degree, been led to believe that forensic
science is “proof beyond a reasonable doubt,” but is it? A study of the reliability of modern forensic
science by the National Academy of Science stated:
With the exception of nuclear DNA analysis,
however, no forensic method has been rigorously shown to have the capacity to
consistently, and with a high degree of certainty, demonstrate a connection
between evidence and a specific individual or source. (NAS 7)
According to The
Innocence Project as many as 50% of all wrongful convictions that were later
overturned due to DNA evidence could be attributed to un-validated or improper forensic science
making it the leading cause of wrongful convictions. They further point out that DNA testing is
only possible in about 5-10% of all criminal cases that make their way into our
courts.(“Innocence”) Despite recommendations made by NAS, there are no federal
guidelines regarding the use and standards of forensic science in the
courtroom. When faced with new and unproven “scientific evidence” or “expert
testimony” the presiding judge must determine if it will be allowed as
evidence, often without fully comprehending what he is ruling on.
Ray
Krone, a former death penalty supporter, has traveled the world advocating for
the abolishment of the death penalty. He has spoken at high schools, law
schools and even to the Senate Judiciary Committee. What makes Ray such a highly sought after
expert on the subject? On April 8, 2002, Ray Krone became the 100th death
row inmate to be exonerated of all charges since 1973. It cost Ray more than
ten years of his life, with the first three spent on death row, to earn this
honor. Ray had been convicted and sentenced to death for a murder and sexual
assault that he did not commit. Ray is an excellent example of how un-proven
evidence and a misinformed jury can lead to an innocent person being found
guilty. The prosecutions entire case rested on the fact that Ray lived in the
general area, was a regular customer at the bar where the crime was committed
and knew the victim. The only physical evidence introduced during the trial was
a bite mark impression that the prosecutor told the jury proved that Ray
committed the crime (Krone). In reality bite mark evidence is controversial at
best. Experts disagree on the reliability and accuracy of bite marks as
evidence. A study conducted in 1999 by a member of the American Board of Forensic
Odontology found a 63 percent rate of misidentification using bite marks,
findings that Ray’s case seems to support (Santos).
Although
not death penalty cases the following two examples are current cases that serve
to demonstrate the imperfect nature of our legal system:
Warren
Horineck is currently serving 30 years in prison for the murder of his wife.
Warren’s case can only be described as one of the most unusual cases in the
history of criminal justice. Warren, an ex-police officer, was no angel, but no
one involved in the investigation, including the prosecutor, believes that he
committed this murder; no one involved in the case believes that a murder was
committed by anyone. All of the evidence in the case seems to support Warren’s
story that his wife committed suicide after a night of drinking. He was only
charged due to a strange Texas law that allows private attorneys to seek a
grand jury indictment without the involvement of the prosecutor. Despite the
fact that the prosecutor’s office recused themselves from the case and the lead
investigator, as well as the CSI, took the stand in defense of the suspect, he
was convicted. He was convicted solely on the testimony of a paid expert
witness, Tom Bevell, who specializes in blood spatter. Bevell testified that
the blood found on Warren’s shirt was the result of back spatter that had
occurred when he fired the shot that killed his wife. The coroner involved in
the original investigation has stated that the blood on Warren’s shirt and
pants was consistent with someone administering CPR. Anita Zannin, a blood
spatter pattern analyst, attempted to recreate the shooting only to discover
that, if it happened the way the blood spatter expert says it did, there would
be little if any blood on the shooter (CNN). Despite all of the evidence to the
contrary, Warren remains in prison. The jury later said that their decision was
based entirely on the testimony of Tom Bevell who still serves as a paid
“expert” witness.
The
case of the Winfrey family brings to light two even more troubling issues with
our justice system: official misconduct and how a suspect’s financial situation
can directly affect the outcome of their trial. Richard Winfrey Sr., Richard
Winfrey Jr. and Megan Winfrey were charged with murder. The only evidence
against them was a scent lineup in which blood hounds allegedly found their scent
on the victim, and the word of a jailhouse informant. Richard Winfrey Sr. and
Megan both went to trial with a court appointed attorney; they were both found
guilty. It took two years for Richard Winfrey Jr. to go to trial. During this
time, his family had saved enough money to pay for his defense. The defense
discredited deputy Pikett, the self-trained dog handler, and found reason to
believe that he had used commands to rig the outcome of the lineup. It took less than 15 minutes for the jury
to acquit Richard Winfrey Jr.. Richard Winfrey Sr. has since been acquitted and
Megan is still in prison awaiting an appeal. Additional cases involving Deputy
Pikett and his dogs are being scrutinized (Grissom).
As
I stated earlier, 83% of the 500 police chiefs surveyed support the death
penalty for first degree murder cases. However, when those same police chiefs
were given a choice between the death penalty and a sentence of life without
parole, only 47% favored the death penalty. When asked to list in order of
effectiveness methods of reducing violent crime the increased use of the death
penalty was overwhelmingly listed last. Hiring more police officers and
reducing drug abuse and an improved economy were listed as the most effective
methods of reducing violent crime. Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl said: “One
question is, what are we trying to accomplish with the death penalty? If it’s
deterrence, it doesn’t seem to get the job done at all. If it’s justice, that’s
another question” (Beyerlein).
Norm
Stamper, a police officer for 34 years, wrote an article speaking out against
the death penalty. According to Stamper a 20 year study has shown that 10 of
the twelve states that have abolished the death penalty consistently have
murder rates lower than the national average. He points out that cutting back
on appeals and attempting to speed up the death penalty process to save money
will only result in a greater risk of executing an innocent person. Stamper
goes on to say:
Our
communities would be exponentially better off by reinvesting the time, money
and resources we spend on trying to get a few people executed into crime
prevention measures that work. Spending scarce public resources on after-school
programs, mental health care, drug and alcohol treatment, education, more crime
labs and new technologies, or on hiring more police officers, would truly help
create safer communities.(Stamper)
In
a 2008 op/ed written by Ray Samuels, a police officer for 33 years and chief of
the Newark California police department, he expressed deep concern regarding
the death penalty. Ray began his article
with:
THERE
ARE three words you rarely hear from law enforcement: We were wrong. We do not
like to admit it, but, despite our best efforts, we sometimes get it wrong. A
lifetime in law enforcement has taught me that lesson and showed me that, when
it comes to the death penalty, the risk of a mistake is just too great.
(Samuels)
Samuels wrote the
article after several pieces of legislation designed to help prevent wrongful
convictions failed to pass because they were to “expensive”. Samuels points out
that abolishing the death penalty would save the state of California more than
$125 Million each year. He further points out that, if a mistake is made and an
innocent person is sentenced to life, there is a chance to correct the mistake;
once the death penalty is carried out there is no such opportunity.
In his article Samuals states that mistaken witness
identification and false confessions are the leading causes of wrongful
convictions. How common are mistaken eye witness identifications? According to Gary
L. Wells, professor of psychology at Iowa State University, it is far more
common than we might like to believe. Wells, who has conducted extensive
research into mistaken identification, says that out of 232 cases of wrongful
conviction he reviewed 177 had resulted from mistaken eye witness
identification. In a study conducted by Wells 200 crimes were staged; witnesses
were rounded up and asked to identify the “suspect” from a police lineup. Prior
to viewing the lineup the witnesses were told that the real suspect might not
be in the lineup. The actual suspect was present in the first 100 lineups, 54%
of the witnesses identified him correctly, 21% said they were not sure; the
remainder identified the wrong person. In the next 100 lineups the witnesses
were again told that the suspect might not be present and in fact he wasn’t.
Despite the fact that the “suspect” was not in the lineup 68% of the witnesses
identified a suspect. This is the results of what Wells has identified as
“relative selection”; when the real suspect is not in the room the witnesses
subconsciously focus on the closest match.(Wels)
The idea of confessing to a crime that we did not commit
seems unthinkable to most of us yet is happens. Why would an innocent person
confess to a crime that they did not commit? Those with a psychological
disorders, low IQ, compliant or suggestible personalities and anxiety disorders
are most at risk for false confessions. In many cases they may lack the ability
to comprehend the consequences of confessing. In almost every case of a false
confession obtained during an interrogation false statements or false evidence
presented by police have played a role. When faced with false statements such
as “we found your fingerprints” or “we have a witness” a suspect, particularly
those who’s memories are clouded by drugs or alcohol may begin to doubt their
own reality and simply accept what they are being told leading them to confess.(Perina)
According
to The Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics at year end, 2010,
there were 31558 prisoners on death row nationally. Four states, California,
Florida, Texas, and Pennsylvania held over half of all death row inmates in the
United States.(Capital) When we compare this information with the FBI murder
rate statistics for 2010 we find that California had 1811 murders, and Texas
had 1246 murders making them the two states with the highest murder rates in
the U.S. . Pennsylvania had 648 murders, giving them the fourth highest murder
rate coming in behind New York. No statistics were available for Florida.(Murder)
The statistics seem to call into question the deterrent effect of the death
penalty on violent crime. (Note: these Numbers are not based on per capita and therefore could be considered as skewed)
Deathpenaltyinfo.org
has published the “Innocence List”, a list of 140 people that they are aware of
who were sentenced to death but have since been proven innocent. They make it
clear that there is no way to be sure but based on the studies that have been
done they believe that between 2.3 and 5% of inmates currently incarcerated in
the U.S. were wrongfully convicted. To help put that in perspective if the
number was only 1% it would equate to 20,000 people. There is only one question
that we need to ask to determine if the death penalty should be abolished: is
our justice system infallible?
Sources For: Should the Death Penalty be Abolished
Sources For: Should the Death Penalty be Abolished
No comments:
Post a Comment