Ask Amnesty

Questions on the Death Penalty

From Marc Cittone, Boulder, CO:

I guess I'd mostly like to see the death penalty abolished -- after all, only the U.S. and Japan, among developed nations, still use it. However, I can see that there is a moral justification for the penalty in the msot ehinous of crimes. The main problem for me is the potential for executing innocent people; and the use of this violent punishment in our already violent society.

Recently, I read the Massachusetts' Governor is putting together a panel to allow the death penalty in very limitted circumstances: when there is physical evidence; and for three brutal crimes (murdering a police officer and 2 others I can't recall.) The author of the article said this bucked a trend to use the death penalty less and less, but that a similar restrictive law in New York State resulted in almost no death penalties.

While I do not expect amnesty to change its view, would this sort of law be worth pursuing elsewhere (ie in msot states that have the penalty)? The reality that there is strong support for the death penalty among the public; that politicians (other than maverick repuclicans or safe liberals) would avoid calling for abolition. Also, there is for most people, even liberals, a moral jsutification for the death penalty for heinous crimes. What is the view of death penalty experts and opponents on the Massachusetts law?

"Charlie Wilton, Amnesty's State Death Penalty Abolition Coordinator for Massachusetts and member of the Program to Abolish the Death Penalty National Steering Committee, responds".

Dear Marc,

Thank you for your timely question. The reinstatement effort in Massachusetts does raise several important issues around the death penalty.

In response to your first question, we don't know what "this sort of law" is, since the Governor's Commission has not even determined whether it is possible to have an error-proof capital statute. Massachusetts already has a flawless mechanism in place for preventing executions of the innocent and if the 38 states which have the death penalty wish to eliminate the possibility of wrongful execution, then they should follow Massachusetts' lead and do away with the death penalty altogether.

Second, a law with extremely high evidentiary standards and super-due process is also going to be extremely expensive - more expensive even than the very high costs already associated with capital prosecutions. And if it is public safety that people are truly interested in, they could use those tens of millions of dollars for more and better trained police officers, corrections officers, prosecutors and public defenders, and increased supervision of convicts in our over-burdened probation and parole systems. We could fund drug treatment centers, rape crisis centers, victim compensation funds, and all manner of programs that we know make us a better and safer society. The death penalty, on the other hand, contributes even more violence and death to our society.

Finally, no capital law, no matter how well written or how narrowly applied, is going to change the fact that there is no decent way to execute a person. Governments try to dress up human rights violations with elegant language, but that doesn't change the fact that capital punishment is the pre-meditated cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state.

For additional perspectives on this topic, check out this link to a recent column from the Mass. Bar Lawyers Journal:
https://www.massbar.org/publications/lawyersjournal/article.php?c_id=5550&vt=2

You might also want to read George Will's October 30 column in the Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38366-2003Oct29.html

Thank you again for your question and interest in this important issue.

Sincerely,
Charlie Wilton

More Information:

• About the Death Penalty