The Political Inquirer

Forty-two people were executed by the government for their crimes against the state last year.  Almost two-thirds of them had a previous felony on their record.  1 in 12 had previously committed homicide.    The average age of those executed was 29, but almost 10% of them were 19 or younger.  

 Phillip Workman was one of those forty-two.  On May 9, 2007,  Workman, a  53-year-old white man, was killed by lethal injection.  Twenty-six years ago, he was convicted of killing a police officer named Ronald Oliver during a botched armed robbery in Memphis.   The state’s case rested on Harold Davis, the only witness to the crime, who said he saw Workman shoot Oliver.  The state also presented a .45 caliber bullet which, despite having no blood or tissue on it, was said to have been the bullet that killed the unfortunate officer.  The defense lawyers conducted no ballistics evidence, did not question the police department’s version of events, and practically refused to cross-examine Davis.  Within weeks, Workman was convicted and sentenced to death.

Since that time, some doubts about the state’s evidence have surfaced.  For instance, years after testifying, Davis claimed he didn’t know whether or not he saw Workman shoot Oliver, and that he had been threatened to say that he had.  Scary stuff.

The ballistics don’t add up either.  Workman was carrying a .45 caliber pistol with hollow point rounds.  Hollow points normally stay in their victims, but Oliver had an exit wound.  Further, according to the state’s own expert, the wounds closely resembled those of .38 specials, which were  standard issue for the Memphis police.   Officers at the scene claimed they never fired a shot, but a “friendly fire” theory seems plausible, if uncertain.

Now, Workman had a long criminal history and an addiction to cocaine.  He was fully capable of murder in that situation, and could have taken Oliver’s gun and shot him with it.  But that is just a possibility, and was not the story the DA proposed in court.  The circumstances of the case demand more investigation, not less.  And while Oliver’s death was horrible, the execution of a cocaine addict was, at best, rash. 

 Today, 38 states employ the ultimate punishment.  Most states have their own laws about what infractions require the death penalty.  What Workman was convicted of—aggravated first degree murder—is the most common, but each state is different.  In Montana you can be electrocuted for aggravated rape, and in Kentucky for kidnapping.  

There are three standard arguments death penalty advocates use to support their position: it deters serious crime, it symbolically affirms life by punishing murders, and it gives DA’s leverage in extracting testimony from convicts.  Of the three, only the latter is resistant to criticism.  Few studies have shown any strong correlations between the introduction of the death penalty and lowered crime rates, even at the margin.  The idea makes sense, but is not backed up with data.  And the symbolic element is an internal argument, in that it only convinces those who already agree.  It could be countered with the equally relative claim that capital punishment is “morally wrong”. 

Still, death penalty advocates can rightly claim that the ultimate punishment has saved lives by getting criminals to snitch out their own.  Stephen Flemmi, pleaded guilty to racketeering charges and gave the state evidence against his comrades in exchange for his life.  Life in prison was simply not ominous enough to get him to talk.  He had to be threatened with death. 

Death penalty abolitionists claim such marginal benefits do not outweigh the costs of state sponsored executions, and have their own reasons: it’s too costly, it’s hypocritical or morally wrong, and it’s biased against poor and minority defendants.  Again, only the latter holds much water.  Oftentimes, sentencing someone to death and carrying out the sentence ends up costing the state more than putting that person away for life would have.  However, monetary cost itself should not define policy.  Morally speaking, if capital punishment were cheaper, would it be more right?  If it were more expensive, would it be more wrong? 

Furthermore, whether the death penalty is hypocritical or not is a matter of opinion.  Like the symbolic argument above, it depends on a sympathetic listener.  You won’t convince John McCain, an avid death penalty advocate, to ban the death penalty simply by claiming it’s “ugly”, “wrong”, or any other degrading adjective.  You have to explain why.

The socio-economic disparities within the system are not as easy to dismiss.  Rich defendants can afford good lawyers who can save their clients’ lives.  The mandatory sentence for first degree murder is most often life imprisonment.  In many states, the mandatory sentence for third degree murder is a mere 5 years.  Whomever represents you in court can make a world of difference.

“Our synthesis of the 28 studies shows a pattern of evidence indicating racial disparities in the charging, sentencing and imposition of the death penalty…In 82 percent of the studies, race of victim was found to influence the likelihood of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty… those who murdered whites were found to be more likely to be sentenced to death than those who murdered blacks.” 

If capital punishment is the ultimate symbol of society’s disapproval of murder, it’s a particularly bigoted one. 

What makes the problem worse is that race and money are issues a government can’t legislate out of its own system.  It can streamline processes, but it can’t make everyone use the same lawyer.  It can’t make juries colorblind.  All the government can do is curb its own power to make mistakes.  In this case, that means abolishing capital punishment.  A 2003 study showed that one third of those currently on Illinois’ death row were either innocent or undeserving of death.  Even if that figure is exaggerated, it’s too big.  I know that capital punishment provides some social benefits, but there are too many stories like Workman’s to let the system continue. 

Yup.  If you hadn’t noticed, this is where I start to slide left.

It is possible and common to see worth in both sides of the argument.  John Hinderaker, for one, thinks there are solid arguments both for and against capital punishment, and that your opinion comes down to your aesthetic tastes. Should the state purge itself of its worst citizens, at the risk of making some irreversible mistakes, or should it ban the ultimate punishment and risk creating criminals with nothing to lose?  He says it’s up to you and that no amount of reasoning can convince someone to switch sides. 

I disagree.  There is enough information available to analyze the situation rationally without relying on aesthetic tastes.  Plus, by making the death penalty relative, he freezes the debate, and embraces the status quo.  Anything but that. Whether or not capital punishment is good for society, it is clear that our justice system needs major reform. 

What’s wrong with capital punishment is not the idea.  Punishing a horrible criminal with death makes sense to me in a gruesome way.  The problem is that the government isn’t particularly good about choosing who lives and who dies.  They’re bad enough at handling finances, why should they be allowed to play God?