LeftOut

by Daryl Moore

THE DEATH PENALTY

Why it's time for a nationwide moratorium

While running for president in 1992, Bill Clinton returned to Arkansas for the execution of a retarded man convicted of murder. The convict was Ricky Ray Rector, who asked that the dessert from his last meal be set aside and told the prison guards: "I'm going to eat it after my execution."

Clinton returned to Arkansas to watch a retarded man get executed because Clinton had something to prove. He returned to watch Rector die to prove that "as a Democrat" he would be a president who would be tough on crime.

In 1998, George Ryan was elected Governor of Illinois. Ryan was always a staunch death-penalty advocate and served as George W. Bush's campaign chairman in Illinois. As a pro-death penalty Republican, Ryan had nothing to prove when he declared a moratorium on executions in Illinois in 2000.

Ryan imposed the moratorium after several close calls in which men on death row were found to be innocent before their scheduled executions. One convict, Anthony Porter, was exonerated just two days before his scheduled execution.

In all, 17 death-row inmates were freed in Illinois. Sometimes they were freed because of DNA evidence-sometimes because of newly discovered evidence and sometimes because the actual murderers confessed.

While the circumstances surrounding their exonerations differed, one thing was constant. In each of their cases, the system of justice had been unjust. Innocent people had been tried, convicted, and sentenced to die for crimes they had not committed.

The reasons for their erroneous convictions vary from inadequate defense counsel, to coerced confessions, to prosecutorial misconduct. The reasons, however, are irrelevant. What is relevant is that in Illinois, 12 people on death row were executed, while 17 were exonerated. That's a 60-percent error rate.

In the face of that staggeringly unjust number, Governor Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 death-row inmates just a few days before he left office. Opponents of the death penalty applauded his decision. Death-penalty supporters howled. And the debate about the death penalty rages on.

Americans might debate whether the death penalty is morally acceptable. But no one should dispute that an unjust system in which innocent people are sent to death row is intolerable.

Nationwide, there have been approximately 700 executions since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty as constitutional in 1976. Since that time, more than 70 people have been released from death row because they somehow proved their innocence after being convicted and sentenced to die.

That means nationwide, for every seven inmates sent to death row, one will be exonerated. In other words, 15 percent of those individuals sent to death row will later be set free.

Still, calls for death-penalty reform have gone unheeded. Legislators have refused to act because they are afraid to introduce legislation that might make them appear soft on crime. They are afraid because in today's tough-on-crime climate, showing up for the execution of a retarded man is politically more expedient than lobbying for safeguards to prevent the execution of the innocent.

Americans can continue the debate about the morality of the death penalty. We might even debate about what an acceptable margin of error is in a just death penalty. But there should be no debate that a death penalty with a 15-percent rate of error is unjust. One in seven is simply too high.

It's time for a nationwide moratorium on the death penalty.

Writing from the liberal end of the spectrum, Houston attorney Daryl Moore has a general practice and is board certified in civil and appellate law. He can be reached at DarylMoore@outsmartmagazine.com.