Death penalty is tool of inequality

Despite efforts of reform over the last few decades, the death penalty has failed to embody a sense of fairness, accuracy or equality. Instead, the death penalty has racial, economic and geographical biases that make it easy to abuse.

In an era where an emphasis of being hard on crime exists, the death penalty has risen to prominence. The supposed "war on crime" makes it easy to justify the death penalty.

In many cases involving the death penalty, the rights of the individual are not protected against the power of the state. Unfortunately, the power of the state is neither fair, nor accurate, nor equal in most circumstances.

Proving the question of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt is most essential in death penalty cases. Since 1974, over 90 people have been released from death row because they were proved innocent because of new scientific evidence. Many more have had their sentences commuted because questions lingered regarding their guilt.

Questions of innocence compelled Illinois Gov. George Ryan to commute the sentences of every death row inmate in the state to life sentences. When a convicted prisoner on death row is proven innocent years later illustrates an example of how the criminal justice system is failing.

It is much easier to receive the death penalty in certain areas of the country, despite the fact the crimes were often identical. Prosecutor discretion regarding what cases merit the death penalty results in geographic variance concerning the types of punishment received under similar circumstances.

Texas is a shining example of excessive use of the death penalty relative to the frequency of other states. In just six years, then Gov. George W. Bush saw 152 executions during his term as governor. No other state has even comes close to that number of executions in the nearly 30-year period since the Supreme Court ended the moratorium on the death penalty.

In a period of one year, the state of Illinois had over 1,000 murders, of which 2 percent received the death penalty. The nearly 100 state attorneys had no set standards of when to seek a death sentence, resulting in disparities between different counties and cities in the state.

For example, the unique case of the Illinois Fords Height Four placed four convicted murderers on death row for 18 years until they were exonerated. After their exoneration, the real killers were convicted of the same crime, yet the prosecutor decided not pursue the death penalty against these four men. One would wonder why the first set of defendants merited the death penalty as opposed to the second set of defendants on trial for the same crime.

The death penalty also has racial and economic biases that are evident. The ultimate decision of whether to seek the death penalty is made solely by the prosecutor. This individual-level decision is not colorblind.

Statistics prove that 50 percent of the victims of murders are African Americans, yet over 80 percent of the inmates on death row were convicted for the murder of white victims. This disparity highlights the relatively stronger efforts of prosecutors to seek the death penalty when the victim is white.

Prosecutors often follow different practices on when to seek the death penalty if the defendant is a minority. Thus, the death penalty embodies large racial prejudices.

Another bias in the death penalty is a tendency for poor people to be put to death at higher rates than those who can afford council. Defendants are supposed to receive the highest level of rights in order to make certain that guilt is determined beyond a reasonable doubt. These rights include access to council; however, many of the public defenders assigned to the poor do not fully investigate or defend the cases to which they are assigned.

Very few stipulations exist regarding the quality of the lawyer assigned to the defendant. In the case of Judy Haney, her trial was suspended for a day because her court-assigned lawyer was too drunk to continue. After the one-day suspension, Haney was convicted and sentenced to death.

The state of Texas has also argued that a defense attorney sleeping through a trial involving the death penalty is not grounds for retrial. Lower courts have upheld this belief and further appeals will be ruled on soon. Is it fair for people to be sentenced to death when they are assigned unqualified attorneys? Clearly, the answer is no.

Juries make their decisions on the evidence presented to them by the attorneys, and failure to present such evidence or fully represent a client could result in a death sentence. Having insufficient and unqualified council is a problem that predominantly faces the poor. In accordance with the Constitution, it is essential to provide people with a quality lawyer to ensure every option is pursued as to their innocence or guilt.

The death penalty has become a powerful political tool that is used to send a message about being hard on crime. However, in the process, the death penalty has become a tool of inequality and unfairness, resulting in the excessive execution of minorities and the poor relative to other factions of society.

Several improvements can be made to the death penalty system, should America choose to continue with it. The ultimate reforms will aim at creating equal opportunity for minorities and the economically disadvantaged. All offenders facing the probability of death must be provided with sufficient council. Public defenders should be held accountable for their actions and must not be allowed to represent their client while asleep or intoxicated.

In addition to the creation of a due standard for council, a due standard must also exist for prosecutors. Allowing for too much individual control over when to seek the death penalty has result in geographic and racial inconsistencies. State legislatures must adopt regulations that are more specific concerning when a defendant can receive a death sentence.

Until equity reforms are made, the Supreme Courts must recognize the inconsistencies in the assignment of death among geographic regions, specific cases, racial prejudices and economic situations by declaring a moratorium on the death penalty.

Source:

Bright, Stephen. "Will the Death Penalty Remain Alive in the 21st Century: International Norms, Discrimination, Arbitrariness, and the Risk of Executing the Innocent."