|
The Moratorium Movement
Background of the Effort
In recent years, the abolition movement has been shaped - or some might argue
threatened - by the increasingly powerful moratorium movement in the United States.
A moratorium is defined as a temporary halt in executions, a step that typically
allows for serious study of the capital punishment system as well as a thoughtful
discussion of its faults and/or merits. Although not a new concept, the moratorium
movement has flourished in recent years, bringing numerous new players into the
death penalty movement.
In 1995, the film "Dead Man Walking," (based on the book by Sister
Helen Prejean) poignantly brought the issue of the death penalty to the forefront
of popular debate. In 1997, a call for a moratorium on all prisoner executions
was adopted by the American Bar Association. Perhaps the most remarkable recent
event, which propelled the moratorium issue onto the front pages of the nation's
major newspapers, was the decision by Illinois Governor George Ryan to issue a
moratorium on all state executions. Ryan ordered the moratorium in light of the
13th exoneration of a death row inmate in Illinois since 1977, making the number
of exonerations in the state higher than the number of executions carried out
in that state.
Although Congress could vote for a national moratorium, with public support
for the death penalty still hovering around two-thirds to three-fourths of Americans
who favor its application, such a development seems unlikely, at least for now.
However, because the laws of each state address the issue of capital punishment,
a moratorium can be implemented at the state and even local level. This usually
involves the imposition of a moratorium by the state's governor, or the passage
of a bill by the state's legislature. Although many moratorium bills have been
issued in several states with the death penalty, most have been defeated or vetoed
by the governor. Illinois is currently the only state that has a governor-issued
execution moratorium in place.
While the idea of studying the death penalty or examining its administration
within a particular state is not inherent in the term "moratorium,"
such studies have become coterminous components of moratoria. In fact, a moratorium
is usually offered as the logical first step to be taken while flaws and abuses
within the capital punishment system are examined. While such studies are clearly
needed, there is another underlying element at play. This is because the purpose
of most of these studies is not only to find potential flaws in the system but
to also subsequently fix them. A statement made by Mark James, a Republican state
legislator from Las Vegas, illustrates this well. When speaking about a proposed
amendment that called for a two-year moratorium, he said, "I urge senators
to support this amendment, this moratorium … And then we can all be certain,
that if we do keep the death penalty in Nevada, that we are carrying out these
sentences under the proper auspices of fairness and unbiased procedure."
To abolitionists, such an attitude is repugnant because they feel that the
death penalty is "too flawed to fix," i.e., that it is a fundamentally
flawed system that is inherently racist, classist, and barbaric. For many, this
belief makes them view the moratorium as a first step towards the inevitable:
complete abolition. Others are more skeptical, and view moratoria efforts as an
attempt to quell public outrage and create the illusion of a more accurate and
fair capital punishment system that is worthy of reinstatement. The issue continues
to be a hotly contested topic of debate among the general population and, perhaps
to a greater extent, among various groups in the abolitionist community.
Moratorium as a Stepping Stone
One of the most touted benefits of a moratorium is that it will lead to the
exposure of the horrific abuses and egregious flaws that lie within the death
penalty system. It is thought that by allowing for thorough, deliberate reviews
of various aspects of the death penalty, a moratorium would ideally demonstrate
to both politicians and the public that the death penalty system is highly biased
against minorities and the poor, that is fails significantly as a deterrent, that
it costs substantially more than life without parole, and that there is an unacceptably
high risk of executing innocents. In addition, the temporary cessation of executions
provides abolitionists a respite and an opportunity to continue their efforts
in opposing the death penalty and increasing public awareness regarding its ineffectiveness.
As already noted, abolitionists hope that during the time that the moratorium
is in effect, they can show society that the death penalty is a "broken system
that can never be fixed." Thus, even though the purpose of a moratorium may
be to make the system "more fair," many abolitionists reject the fear
that the death penalty will eventually be reinstated because they believe that
it is simply not possible to have a fair, impartial system in place. For this
reason, a moratorium is a strategic mechanism that can be used as a "stepping
stone" in the ongoing struggle for abolition. This view is also advocated
by Sister Prejean, who explains, "In a protracted war, the first step towards
peace is a cease-fire. Peace always comes in steps and the first step is to cease
and desist from killing which, of course, is a moratorium."
Another potential benefit of employing moratoria as a tactic is that because
it does not necessarily call for the elimination of the death penalty, it has
been able to attract a broader range of support. In fact, even several pro-death
penalty politicians have been supporters of moratorium legislation, including
Illinois Governor Ryan. Ryan clarified his motivations for imposing a moratorium,
stating, "I still believe the death penalty is a proper response to heinous
crimes … But I want to make sure … that the person who is put to death
is absolutely guilty." Although this view is rejected by death penalty opponents,
by structuring the moratorium debate around demands for fairness and impartiality,
abolitionists have been able to gain support from their traditional enemies in
the struggle to abolish the death penalty. One of the outcomes of this strategy
includes a shift in the focus of death penalty debates, from whether or not one
supports capital punishment to whether one supports its suspension until the system
can be fixed.
Moratorium and its Limitations
The fact that death penalty proponents are jumping on the moratorium bandwagon
is disconcerting for some abolitionists. They fear that the issue will become
co-opted by savvy politicians who are only interested in temporarily subduing
public anger and frustration over death penalty abuses. Some abolitionists are
also concerned that a moratorium might actually hurt their efforts because if
the death penalty system is "fixed," it will be even more difficult
to criticize and ultimately dismantle. . During the moratorium, controversial
death penalty cases can be weeded out to prevent bad publicity. Ultimately, if
the public can be convinced that the risk of executing innocents has been lowered
or that racial biases have been eliminated, it is possible that executions can
be resumed indefinitely. As Max Obuszewski of the American Friends Service Committee
commented, "One could fall into a trap and make it an equal opportunity death
penalty, which is absurd." Many of these same critics charge that the proposed
examinations of the death penalty are not serious but rather part of the greater
scheme of placating an angry public. Furthermore, some abolitionists feel they
do not need another study to confirm what the already know: that the death penalty
is biased, barbaric, and
beyond fixing.
Another problem several abolitionists have with the moratorium movement is
that it simply does not go far enough. To be aware of the gross abuses and scandals
that have come to light in recent years and still call for only a temporary suspension
of executions seems terribly misguided to many. Moreover, moratorium legislation
itself rarely makes any moral statements regarding the death penalty, but focuses
on particular aspects of its application, such as racial bias or the execution
of innocents. By having such a limited scope, these state moratoria efforts are
seen as diluting the overall abolitionist message. While an issue such as minority
bias is certainly important, calls for moratoria based on such limited grounds
often fail to recognize that the system is fundamentally and inherently flawed.
Rather than supporting a weak, compromised effort, purist abolitionists seek ways
in which to capitalize on the increasing momentum within the anti-death penalty
movement by working toward the outright abolition of the death penalty.
 |
Two road signs near
the federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, an execution site.
(© Scott Langley) |
|
