Series 2558: Constituent Correspondence, 2000-2003
38815
From: <Sharpjfa@aol.com> BC: Governor Musgrove Created: 6/8/2000 1:34 PM Subject: Re: Executing the innocent/ new column, 6-8-00 Message: > THE ABOLITIONISTS' COP-OUT > By Jeff Jacoby > The Boston Globe > > June 8, 2000 > > > Should capital punishment be abolished because of the risk that an > innocent defendant might be killed? It is an increasingly popular argument. > But is it a principled one? > > When the New Hampshire legislature voted in May to repeal the state's > death penalty, state Senator Rick Trombly reversed his lifelong support for > executing murderers. "If scientific evidence shows that we're making > mistake > after mistake after mistake," he said, "the legislature ought not to allow > for the possibility of that mistake being made. The only way to do that is > to > abolish the death penalty." > > By "mistake after mistake after mistake," Trombly did not mean that New > Hampshire had repeatedly sent innocent men to the chair -- New Hampshire > hasn't executed anyone since 1939. Nor could he have been talking about any > other state. In the 24 years since the Supreme Court authorized the > resumption of capital punishment, 620 convicted murderers have been > executed. > Not one has subsequently been proven innocent, despite the intense scrutiny > these cases draw from death penalty foes. > > What Trombly had in mind were the DNA tests that in recent years have > led > to the release of 63 convicted inmates, including eight men on death row. > Opponents of capital punishment argue that these tests raise grave new > doubts > about the reliability of criminal justice in America. > > Trombly is not the only one the opponents have persuaded. In a recent > column, George F. Will concluded that "Actual Innocence," a new book by > death > penalty abolitionists Barry Scheck, Peter Neufeld, and Jim Dwyer, "compels > the conclusion that many innocent people are in prison, and some innocent > people have been executed." Conservatives in particular, he said, should > not > assume too hastily that death row inmates are really guilty. "Capital > punishment, like the rest of the criminal justice system, is a government > program, so skepticism is in order." > > On the contrary. The growing infallibility of forensic science should if > anything increase, not lessen, our confidence in the accuracy of criminal > verdicts. And if that is true of convictions in general, it is especially > true in death penalty cases, which are subject to multiple levels of > post-trial review and intricate layers of due process. Of all the sanctions > in our criminal code, a death sentence is the *least* likely to be the > result > of error or caprice. > > Nevertheless, let us suppose the worst. For the sake of argument, let us > assume that the death penalty -- despite all our best efforts, despite all > the safeguards and caution built into the system -- leads to the deaths of > a > few innocent people. Is that a good reason to do away with capital > punishment? > > Of course it isn't. Every institution that is of benefit to society also > poses risks to society -- including the risk that innocent victims will > die. > Patients die on the operating table because their surgeon made a mistake. > Forty thousand Americans die in car accidents every year. Are those good > reasons to abolish surgery and interstate highways? Anyone who said so > would > be dismissed as a crank. > > Should policemen be allowed to carry guns? After all, if law enforcement > officers go armed, innocent victims will sometimes lose their lives, as the > recent deaths of Amadou Diallo in New York and Cornel Young in Providence, > R.I., so tragically prove. If death penalty abolitionists really want to > make > sure that no one is unjustly killed by an agent of the state, they ought to > call for disarming cops. > > But *is* that what they really want? Is it the threat to innocent life > that truly galvanizes the abolitionists, or is it simply their visceral > dislike for capital punishment? > > No one who genuinely worries about the legal system putting innocent > people at risk can afford to waste time denouncing the death penalty. Not > when probation and parole are costing so many Americans their lives. In one > 17-month period, the US Department of Justice calculated in 1995, criminals > released "under supervision" committed 13,200 murders (and 200,000 other > violent crimes). Why is it that the enemies of capital punishment never > have > a word to say about *those* innocent victims? > > To say that society should refrain from executing murderers for fear of > making a mistake is not noble. It is a cop-out. A soldier on the > battlefield > who refuses to shoot at the enemy lest he inadvertantly hit the wrong man > is > no moral hero, and neither are those who demand that all murderers be kept > alive so that we never face a risk -- however tiny, however remote -- of > executing an innocent defendant. > > Granted, it is not easy to condemn someone to death, still less to carry > out the sentence. Executions are irrevocable and irreversible; to take away > anyone's life -- even a brutal criminal's -- involves an assertion of moral > certainty that might make many of us tremble. > > But trembling or not, we have a duty to carry out. A duty to proclaim > that murder is evil and will not be tolerated. That it is the worst of all > crimes and deserves the worst of all punishments. And that while we will > bend > over backward not to hurt the innocent, we will not let that paralyze us > from > punishing the guilty. > > > > > (Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe.) - Attachment Filename: C:\archives\governor\mail\Governor Musgrove\_attach\Re_ Executing the innocent_ new column, 6-8-00\Mime.822
Attachments
re__executing_the_innocent__ne/mime.822