| About this series: The Tribune-Star is presenting a four-part series on the execution of Timothy McVeigh. Opinions expressed in this series reflect a consensus of the editorial board. The series is written by Dave Bennett, associate professor of journalism at Indiana State University. |
Fixing the system: the demands of justice
Last in a series
Timothy J. McVeigh will be in good company when he joins 340 other Americans the federal government has executed since 1790. Most were also murderers; a few were spies, kidnappers, rapists and pirates.
McVeigh is a poster boy for the death penalty because there is no shred of doubt that the right man was arrested, tried, convicted and sentenced.
We may disagree that his death is the just consequence of his actions. We may argue whether the State has the right to impose the death penalty. But on one thing Americans are united in their certainty: he is an unrepentant mass murderer whose cold, calculated crime stole the gift of life from 168 innocent men, women and children in Oklahoma City.
If only we could be so certain about others sentenced to death.
Such certainty is shaken by events in neighboring Illinois where new evidence has freed from death row 13 men wrongfully convicted of murder. That's one more than the dozen people executed there since 1977. In January 2000, Illinois placed a moratorium on executions while it studies problems in the courts.
Since a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1976 allowed states to reinstitute capital punishment, 95 people have been released from death rows after their convictions were overturned. Meanwhile, in 32 states with death penalties, nearly 700 people have been executed. Even though none subsequently have been proved innocent, concern grows that systemic problems in federal and state courts could result in conviction -- and execution -- of the innocent along with the guilty.
At issue are such things as adequacy of counsel, rules governing disclosure of favorable evidence and access to DNA testing. Under fire too is over-reliance on jailhouse informants and eyewitness testimony, which in capital cases has frequently been flawed.
Then there are nagging questions about racial, income and geographic disparities that may influence when, where and to whom the death penalty is applied. Many Americans believe Justice is far from blind when it comes to race and that her balance scales tilt toward the wealthy.
In February, a Gallup Poll that showed Americans support the death penalty for murderers by a 2-1 margin also asked about capital punishment, race and income. Sixty-five percent agreed that a poor person is more likely than one of average or above-average income to get the death penalty for the same crime. Fifty percent said a black person is more likely than a white person to get the death penalty.
Of course, those are only opinions.
But a U.S. justice Department study last September revealed that 80 percent of federal cases submitted for death penalty review in the past five years involved racial minorities -- mostly blacks -- as defendants. Today racial minorities make up more than three-quarters of inmates on federal death row.
Faced with such concerns, Indiana and four other states have followed the lead of Illinois in launching studies to examine issues surrounding the fairness of the death penalty and whether it is applied uniformly.
A blue-ribbon commission is expected to release its report on Indiana's death penalty this summer. Prosecutors, judges, defense lawyers, trial jurors and activists on both sides of the controversy testified at length about their experiences in death penalty cases. Scientific evidence in Indiana's study will include a Criminal Justice Institute review of nearly 1,600 cases where convicted murderers received fixed prison terms, life without parole or a death sentence. Focus of the analysis: the extent to which race, sex and age of victims and defendants may have influenced their sentencing.
Another factor, experts say, is the zeal to convict someone -- anyone? -- in cases of heinous crime. A Columbia University study documents that two of every three capital convictions are thrown out on appeal, often because of errors by incompetent defense lawyers or overeager police officers and prosecutors.
Nationally, a bipartisan bill before Congress would raise standards in death penalty cases before state and federal courts. Among other things, the legislation would assure that those on trial for their lives have qualified, experienced lawyers and increased access to DNA testing.
We wonder, though, why such common-sense improvements are being limited to capital cases. If the goal is fair treatment in our courts, why not apply such safeguards to anyone charged with a serious crime?
We support efforts to lower the risk of convicting those who are not guilty. No one -- prosecutors, judges, families of victims, or the public in general -- wants people convicted, let alone executed, for crimes they did not commit.
Men and women accused of crimes must have effective counsel, access to all favorable evidence and a fair opportunity to defend themselves. This justice demands.
Justice also demands that the guilty account for their actions.
Back to Archived Stories Index