Editorials

A recent editorial in Pennsylvania’s Patriot-News recommended doing away with the death penalty as a way to address the state budget crisis. "Problems are entrenched in the system and given its high cost, Pennsylvania should definitely put the idea of doing away with the death penalty on the table," the paper wrote.  Among the reasons cited was the fact that the death penalty in Pennsylvania is essentially a very expensive form of life without parole: "In Pennsylvania, with the exception of the three prisoners who were executed, death row already means life without parole. . . . the majority of death penalty cases in our state that move through the appeals process end up as life sentences or less."  The editorial also noted the risk of executing the innocent: "Of course, there is a competing reason, or really a sounding alarm, that also is causing more states to take a hard look at their death penalty. At least 139 death row inmates have been released after their innocence was established, including 6 in Pennsylvania.  This should shake our confidence."

A recent editorial in the Charlotte Observer in North Carolina cited the American Law Institute's decision in 2009 to separate itself from the death penalty system as another reason for the state to abolish the practice. The ALI, whose model death penatly standards were instrumental in the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to allow the reinstatement of capital punishment in 1976, has recently disavowed its own recommendations because the many problems of the system had rendered it unworkable.  The editorial also cited a recently published study by Duke University Professor Philip Cook that concluded North Carolina could save $11 million annually over the costs of life imprisonment if it abolished the death penalty. In concluding that the time had come to end the death penalty, the paper stated, "We now know more about human fallibility and the justice system's ability to charge, try and convict the wrong person while allowing the real criminal to go free. The number of inmates convicted of murder but later exonerated increases every year, revealing capital punishment as a system incapable of being administered in accord with the U.S. Constitution." Read full editorial below.

A recent New York Times editorial commented on the new one-drug lethal injection protocol used in Ohio for the first time on December 8, but concluded that "the execution only reinforced that any form of capital punishment is legally suspect and morally wrong."  The Times agreed with the late Justice Harry Blackmun who called such manipulations “tinker[ing] with the machinery of death.”  The editorial also noted the risks of exeucting the innocent: "It has also become clear — particularly since DNA evidence has become more common — how unreliable the system is. Since 1973, 139 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were innocent, according to the Death Penalty Information Center."  The editors ended by saying that repealing the death penalty "is the way to eliminate the inevitable problems with executions."  Read the full editorial below.

A recent opinion piece by the Editorial Director of the Clarion-Ledger in Mississippi points to the high costs of the death penalty as a way in which arbitrariness enters into the application of capital punishment: “When is a crime a crime deserving of death?," David Hampton asks.  "When the county can afford it, of course.” The paper supports the death penalty but the Editorial Director offered the example of Hinds County District Attorney Robert Shuler Smith, who said his county cannot afford to prosecute death penalty cases. The author noted, “It's a matter of how much ‘justice‘ the county can afford. But if one county can ‘afford‘ to send someone to death row and another can't, isn't that another example of how inequitable the death penalty can be?“ Hampton also cited geographical location as contributing to the death penalty’s arbitrary nature. “Ironically, it is very difficult to get a death penalty jury sentence in Hinds County anyway. Prosecutors have avoided seeking death for that reason. Yet, another jury in a different county with a different racial or gender makeup might not hesitate." The author concludes: "The death penalty costs too much, literally and in many, many other ways."  Read full text below.

A recent editorial from the Aurora Sentinel in Colorado commented on the botched execution of Romell Broom.  The paper entitled its position as “Time for America to move past capital punishment.” In addition to citing the problems with lethal injection, the paper noted the risk of executing the innocent and the U.S.'s increasing isolation on the death penalty in the world.  The editorial continuted, "Even for those who believe that such heinous criminals deserve to die, our society becomes dangerously base if we promote these kinds of deaths.“  Read the entire editorial below.