Richard A. Viguerie, who has been called “one of the creators of the modern conservative movement" by The Nation magazine, recently wrote an op-ed in which he discusses how his conservative ideology led him to oppose the death penalty and calls for a national moratorium on the death penalty. "The fact is, I don't understand why more conservatives don't oppose the death penalty," writes Viguerie.  He argues the standard conservative position of support for capital punishment clashes with traditional conservatism, writing that the death penalty "is, after all, a system set up under laws established by politicians (too many of whom lack principles); enforced by prosecutors (many of whom want to become politicians—perhaps a character flaw?—and who prefer wins over justice); and adjudicated by judges (too many of whom administer personal preference rather than the law).” Viguerie continues to argue that capital punishment goes against conservative values, adding, "Conservatives have every reason to believe the death penalty system is no different from any politicized, costly, inefficient, bureaucratic, government-run operation, which we conservatives know are rife with injustice."  The full piece may be read below:

A man originally sentenced to death for four murders in Texas has been released on his own recognizance after new DNA evidence was discovered.  Robert Springsteen and co-defendant Michael Scott were released by State District Judge Mike Lynch after prosecutors said they were not prepared to go to trial as scheduled, leaving Judge Lynch to follow through on his promise to the defendants that another delay would mean freedom for the defendants.  Lynch said he not only had to consider the charges but the rights of the men to a trial.  Springsteen and Scott were both convicted of capital murder, with Springsteen receiving a death sentence and Scott receiving life, but the convictions were thrown out on appeal.  Now new DNA tests have shown conclusively that the evidence retrieved on scene did not belong to Springsteen, Scott or other previous co-defendants.  The defense lawyers say the new DNA evidence exonerates Scott and Springsteen.  After already testing more than 130 people, including friends of Springsteen and Scott, police and firefighters, and others, the prosecution is asking for more time to try and find the person matching the DNA from the crime.  Springsteen and Scott had confessed to the crimes under what their attorney's call coercion and psychological pressure, in addition to other people that confessed who the police later determined to be innocent.  The case will return to court August 12.

If you would like to listen to a brief but informative discussion of key death penalty issues, try DPIC’s newest resource--Podcasts.  The most recent episode of this educational series explores the issue of the Costs of the death penalty.  You can also choose to listen to previous episodes to learn more about the issues of Arbitrariness and Clemency.  Podcasts may be downloaded for listening later on a digital music player.  More issues will be covered in the near future.  To subscribe to the Podcast through iTunes and automatically receive future episodes, click here.  To see other multimedia resources from DPIC, go to our Multimedia page. See also DPIC's pages on Arbritrariness, Clemency, and Costs.

A new book, Lethal Rejection: Stories on Crime and Punishment, edited and written in part by American University criminologist Robert Johnson and student Sonia Tabriz, features an array of fiction and poetry on crime and punishment written by prisoners, academics, and students of criminology.  The book includes a number of stories about capital punishment.  Jocelyn Pollock, Professor of Criminal Justice at Texas State University, writes in the preface, "[H]umans have always used fiction to instruct, enlighten and communicate.  Stories take us to places we haven’t been; they help us to understand people who are not like us. In this book, the authors use fiction to convey the reality of prison.”  She describes the book’s poetry, prose and plays as methods to “take the reader into the ‘reality’ of prison and the justice system--not through facts and figures, but through the tears and screams, blood and pain of the people chewed up by it.”  Todd Clear, a Professor of Criminal Justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, writes, "The book makes us encounter the lives of the confined in a way I have not experienced in any other book about prison life.” The book may be purchased here.

In a 5-4 ruling on June 18, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a lower federal court ruling holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees a convicted inmate the right to a DNA test on evidence that might prove his innocence.  The defendant, William Osborne, had been convicted in 1994 of sexual assault in Alaska and sentenced to 26 years in prison.  Alaska is one of only 4 states in the country that does not have a law providing for access to DNA evidence (the other 3 are Alabama, Massachusetts, and Oklahoma, though Alabama recently passed a law allowing limited access to DNA for death row inmates).  Osborne was willing to pay for the test, which the state admitted might have conclusively proven his guilt or innocence.

While acknowledging the revolutionary importance of DNA testing in the criminal justice system, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, said that it would be better to allow states to develop their own procedures for utilizing this forensic tool.  He wrote: "Federal courts should not presume that state criminal procedures will be inadequate to deal with technological change. The criminal justice system has historically accommodated new types of evidence, and is a time-tested means of carrying out society’s interest in convicting the guilty while respecting individual rights. That system, like any human endeavor, cannot be perfect. DNA evidence shows that it has not been. But there is no basis for Osborne’s approach of assuming that because DNA has shown that these procedures are not flawless, DNA evidence must be treated as categorically outside the process, rather than within it."