Rethinking the death penalty
Published May 12, 2014
Editorial by Burlington Times-News, May 9, 2014.
Capital punishment is prone to error, which makes it unjust. Most of the world’s developed nations have figured this out. But the United States, unwilling to put aside a desire for revenge, continues to kill its own citizens; 32 states and the federal government still impose the death penalty. North Carolina is among them.
For now, there appears no real change ahead on this issue. So we ask at the very least for the states and nation to perform this task as fairly and humanely as possible.
A report released Wednesday by the Constitution Project, a bipartisan think tank that includes both death penalty abolitionists and death penalty supporters, calls for a complete overhaul of the process, from arrest to execution.
Given the human factor in capital punishment — prosecutors, witnesses, judges, jurors — we do not believe the system can ever be “fixed.” Add in the expensive labyrinth of appeals and the fact that often co-defendants in the same criminal cases face wildly different penalties, then it seems clear the death penalty should be reconsidered. Even more recent events, though, demand that changes be made no matter what. Changes that can reduce errors, misapplication and misconduct. Many of the recommendations of the Constitution Project would move the system in a positive direction, so policymakers would be wise to read the report closely.
The 208-page report offers 39 proposals — most of them reasonable, some crucial — including dropping the widely used three-drug execution cocktail in favor of the single-shot method. Administering a single overdose of a barbiturate, according to the report, would decrease problems associated with the administration of drugs as well as the risks associated with the use of paralyzing and painful chemical agents. Presumably, that would lead to fewer torturous executions such as the one that occurred a few days ago in Oklahoma, in which the condemned man said after the first injection that “I feel my whole body burning,” and in Ohio, where it took a convicted murderer 25 minutes to die.
The report says that there should be complete transparency in how the drugs are obtained, which has become an issue in Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas. Laws in those states bar disclosure of the sources of the drugs, without which condemned prisoners can’t determine whether their execution would violate the U.S. Constitution’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment.
Beyond the call for a more humane way to treat those sentenced to death there is the larger question of justice. Supporters of the death penalty and opponents owe it to their fellow citizens to seek changes in a system rife with errors. A recent study published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences concluded that at least 4 percent of death row inmates are likely to have been wrongfully convicted. While that represents a relatively small number of people, it amounts to a lot of innocent blood if they are executed. Any steps to lessen that miscarriage of justice would be welcome, particularly by the innocent facing death at the command of their own government.
Parts of this editorial appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
