From: Abolish - The Mailing List For People Working to Abolish the Death
Penalty [ABOLISH@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU] on behalf of Rick Halperin
[rhalperi@MAIL.SMU.EDU]
Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2003 1:18 AM
To: ABOLISH@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
Subject: NEWS:------USA
Nov. 12
USA:
Discussing the morality of capital punishment
Few debates are more emotional than a discussion on the morality of
capital punishment. Yet the topic is also one that's been subject to
marked shifts in public opinion in recent decades. In the 1970s, use of
the death penalty in the US seemed on its way out, only to swing sharply
back into favor in the 1980s and '90s.
But now, segments of public opinion are undergoing another change, due in
part to revelations about innocent defendants on death row.
--"I used to believe the death-penalty cases were investigated better than
anything else. What I found was exactly the opposite." - Mark Fuhrman,
author of 'Death and Justice'
It was the examination of this phenomenon - the assignment of death
sentences to those innocent of the crimes of which they are accused - that
caused two writers whose careers began in criminal justice to rethink
their own views about the death penalty.
Author Scott Turow worked as a federal prosecutor before writing his 1st
bestselling novel and representing death penalty inmates on appeal.
In his most recent legal assignment, he served on a commission appointed
by the governor of Illinois to examine the state's death penalty law.
He reflects on the experience in his new book, "Ultimate Punishment"
(Farrar, Straus and Giroux).
Mark Fuhrman, best known as a detective in the O.J. Simpson case, focused
on Oklahoma's capital punishment record in "Death and Justice" (William
Morrow).
Excerpts of the Monitor's interviews with each author follow.
Q: Even while representing death-row defendants, you wrote that you were
agnostic on the death penalty? What did you mean?
ST: I could never make up my mind. I was against it. I was for it.
Finally, I decided I didn't know what to think.
Q: How did your work on the Illinois governor's commission change your
view on capital punishment?
ST: It allowed me to look at the system as a whole instead of focusing on
individual cases. Instead of asking whether the death penalty is just in
this case or that case, I had to ask whether the system could administer
the death penalty in a way that was fair, just, and accurate. Looking at
the entire system was a revelation.
I learned I was looking at the wrong question. The real question is, 'Can
you construct a death penalty that only reaches the right cases without
bringing in the wrong cases - the cases where people are innocent or
undeserving?
The more I came to understand the dynamics of that system, the more I
began to realize the answer is no, we'll never do it.
Q: Why not?
ST: We'll never do it because we want something from capital punishment
that we don't want from any other crime.
We want the death penalty solely for symbolic purposes to vindicate our
own view of what is just. For that reason, there is no margin for error.
It's probably no revelation to say we have innocent people convicted of
lesser offenses. Naturally, we find it deplor- able, but we're not going
to junk the criminal justice system.
The sad fact that it takes place with the death penalty is more alarming
because there is no tangible benefit except for the symbolic importance to
the public and victims' families. We can get the same benefits from
putting them in prisons for the rest of their lives.
Q: What's the result if a state enacts all the fixes your commission
proposed in Illinois?
ST: It will unquestionably give us a better death-penalty system that
gives us fewer mistakes and is somewhat less arbitrary.
There's no question the death penalty can be made better - we can assure
[that] every defendant has highly competent lawyers, impose standards on
the decision to seek the death penalty and layers of review, demand
videotaping of full interrogation of homicide suspects, get rid of felony
murder.
You can do a host of things we recommended in Illinois. It would
definitely improve the application of the death penalty, but we will still
convict a certain number of innocent persons, and we have a higher
propensity to do that in capital cases. The nature of offense is so awful
it tends to make us less rationale.
Q: You suggest the courts will eventually reject the death penalty. Why?
ST: It's a race between the courts and technology. Medical advances may
call the rationale for the death penalty into question. If we could
reliably make people less violent, then the arguments for executing them
is going to begin to fade away. It would make it easier to imprison even
the most violent offenders.
Q: How has your attitude toward the death penalty changed since you were a
police officer?
MF: I used to believe the death penalty cases were investigated better
than anything else. What I found was exactly the opposite. They're not
investigated as well as I'd investigate a simple robbery.
Once we've gotten someone on the hook and we believe they've committed the
crime, then [prosecutors and police believe] it should be good enough for
everybody else.
Q: How likely is it that Oklahoma executed an innocent person?
MF: Very likely. In fact, I think it's so likely that [it explains why]
Oklahoma refuses to give relatives of executed inmates the DNA tests so
they can find out for sure. What are they afraid of?
Q: What kind of pressure do prosecutors and police face?
MF: It's the ultimate case any attorney will go into court to prosecute or
defend. When you seek the death penalty, it means this is the most
heinous, atrocious murder committed in your jurisdiction and you must win.
It's not 'I hope we win,' it's 'we must win.'
There is no conservative state where your sheriff or prosecutor will get
away with saying, 'I'm opposed to the death penalty, and it's simply not
right.'
Q: What do detectives do wrong? Will you talk about operating on hunches?
MF: When detectives go to a crime scene, you're certainly going to make
conclusions that end up with some beginning theories about the case, but
as you collect evidence and interview people and do your work, you can
develop new ideas about what happened and you need to be open to that.
If you go to a crime scene and omit all evidence that might disprove that
initial theory, you're no longer a detective. You're simply someone who
believes someone is guilty.
Q: You focus on a forensic scientist as a source for several false
convictions. What's the problem there?
MF: Forensic scientists should be absolutely blind to anything about the
investigation. They should not discuss the case. Detectives shouldn't tell
them what statements we have, don't tell them anything.
If they work in that vacuum, an incompetent forensic scientist won't be
knowingly engaging in a case to get attention, gratify prosecutors or
detectives, or gain their own power.
(source: Christian Science Monitor)
**************************************************************
THE ABOLISH LIST
This list serves solely as a forum for the exchange of ideas
and information by people who support alternatives to the death
penalty and the immediate abolition of Capital Punishment.
Abolist List FAQ: http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/abolishfaq.htm
Archives: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/abolish.html
**************************************************************
In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted