When We Have Too Much Power

Men, yes even the Pope, are inherently flawed. Imperfect. We have overseen grand displays of character such as the tsunami relief in Indonesia, or the existence and function of the Peace Corps and Red Cross. We have also been responsible for the holocaust, the inquisition, and the "Trail of Tears". This imperfection must be recognized. With that in mind, it is time to abolish the death penalty.

Time ran an article stating the Supreme Court is about to take up a case involving Hank Skinner. Mr. Skinner is on death row in Texas. He has been convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two "mentally challenged" sons. The crime was heinous. The victims were stabbed, strangled, and beaten to death. Mr. Skinner has claimed innocence throughout the process, but that isn't what is bothersome.

The problematic notion here is that Mr. Skinner's trial did not include DNA evidence. Mr. Skinner has long wanted DNA testing, which is apparently available in this case, because he believes it will show him as innocent. The prosecutor in the case has refused, so Mr. Skinner sued.

Now, before you get your panties all in a bunch about convicts claiming innocence, note the fact that 138 people have been released from death row since 1973 when their convictions were overturned. Also note that even though the south has executed 4 times as many people as the rest of the country combined since 1973, they still have by far the highest murder rate at 6.7 murders/100,000 people. No other region in the country has a rate above 5.5. While crime is a very complex issue, this certainly shoot a significant number of holes in the "death penalty prevents violent crime" argument. Or maybe it hangs, or injects, or electrocutes it...I digress.

Anyway, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled against Mr. Skinner's lawsuit. Let's enforce that point a bit. A man is set to be killed by the state when not all legal avenues have been explored to find out the truth about the case. The man is asking for a DNA test. Doesn't this man deserve to have evidence admitted on his behalf that may prove his innocence?Isn't it also true that if indeed the man committed the crime, the evidence will simply confirm this suspicion?

The check of the court system lies in the appeal process. But this check may not function well at all. Take for example the case of Troy Davis. Mr. Davis was convicted of shooting and killing a police officer in Georgia. Needless to say, the case was shaky at best. Congress, always appealing to populist bullshit, had passed a law called the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). This law attempted to allow only one set of appeals in federal court to people on death row. Mr. Davis had appealed, and lost in federal court. Fortunately for him, the Supreme Court bucked that law in his case, and heard an appeal. The obvious rationale here was that a substantial amount of evidence existed putting serious doubt in Mr. Davis' conviction. Justice Scalia disagreed with the decision of the Court to hear the case. In his dissent he wrote, "This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is 'actually' innocent."

Stunning. Justice Scalia appears to be arguing that Constitution actually doesn't forbid killing a wrongly convicted person just because they can prove they are innocent. I say "just because" to highlight the absurdity of the claim. Really?????!!!!! The preamble talks about forming a Union that would "establish justice". I don't think killing an innocent man is very just. And even if the Constitution doesn't explicity say that men shouldn't be killed for a crime they didn't commit, I'm sure the founding fathers, albeit perhaps mistakingly, simply assumed that future Supreme Court justices wouldn't be complete morons devoid of common sense and a general feel for what "justice", "law", and, most importantly, "truth" really means.

In reality, this highlights what we all already know. Men are flawed. Giving them the power of finality that comes with a death sentence is a power too great for men to handle. In these cases, men are faced with great conflicts of interest. Many times, the defendant may be innocent of that crime, but guilty of many others. He is a menace. The prosecutorial staff is under tremendous pressure to convict and to be right. The concept of allowing evidence in the case that could show they are in fact wrong, while obviously just, can be at odds with career pursuits and politics.

Whether the death penalty is effective at its presumably intended goal of discouraging violent crime is a topic for another writer. But the argument over whether human beings can handle the responsibility of legally killing other human beings for wrong-doings seems to me to be settled. We can't.