Questions surround death penalty

by Toby Fallsgraff
For The Post

In what has been described as a "watermark year of change" for the United States death penalty, popular support has dropped to 66 percent, its lowest in 19 years, according to a February 2000 Gallop Poll.

This number dropped below 50 percent when life imprisonment without parole was offered to respondents as an alternative to the death penalty. The poll also showed that 64 percent of Americans favor a moratorium until current problems can be resolved.

C. Ronald Huff, dean of social ecology at the University of California-Irvine, said more Americans would oppose the death penalty if they were aware of the possibility of error in the justice system, which could lead to the execution of innocent people.

"If you think about our judicial system, there is a probability of error in every case," he said.

Huff took part in a well-known case study of Ohio's felony cases, which found that 0.5 percent of all felony cases contained error. On a national scale, that translates to 10,000 false convictions in felony cases each year.

But Ohio University senior Paul Montgomery said he believes the chances of killing innocent people in the United States are low because of the adequate appeals process.

"There's just so many appeals, the chances of that are pretty small," he said.

Even some longtime proponents of the death penalty lately have emerged to publicly oppose the punishment or to declare support for a moratorium. Gov. George Ryan of Illinois announced in Jan. 2000 a statewide moratorium after Illinois' number of exonerations surpassed the number of executions the state had performed since capital punishment's reinstatement in 1976, according to a Oct.31 New York Times article.

On Jan. 30, the Illinois Death Penalty Moratorium Project released a preliminary report, which cited the death penalty's inefficiency, ineffectiveness, racism and cost as reasons to abolish the death penalty, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center.

Besides Illinois, few states have acted. Ohio Attorney General Betty Montgomery stands behind the death penalty.

"Attorney General Montgomery believes in the death penalty when it is fairly applied and when each death row inmate is given a fair shot in court," said Joe Case, communications director for Montgomery's office. Case said that as attorney general, Montgomery feels it is her duty to represent what she feels is the general opinion of Ohioans.

A legislatures in New Hampshire and Nebraska have passed bills calling for moratoriums on executions or, in New Hampshire's case, abolition. So far these attempts have been unsuccessful.

This year, 12 executions have taken place - eight of which occurred in Oklahoma. Ohio is set to execute Jay Scott on April 17. The execution will be the state's first non-voluntary execution in 37 years. Wilford Berry forfeited his appeals and was executed in 1999.

"It's hard for me to understand why other states haven't taken a look at Illinois' experiences," said Samuel Nelson, visiting assistant professor of political science at OU. "If all the things that are happening aren't [causing national outrage], then I don't know what it will take."

Because of this apparent standstill, experts express doubt about the possibility of a national halt on executions. Nelson attributed this pessimism to popular opinion.

"[Americans] are not very sympathetic to criminal defendants. Everybody says innocent until proven guilty, but not everybody really believes it," he said.

Some Americans feel that certain criminals do not deserve sympathy.

"If you look at repeat criminals of violent crimes, you realize that after all that rehabilitation, they aren't getting any better," OU senior Jeremy Siebieda said.

The nation recently elected a strong proponent of the death penalty to the presidency. While serving as Texas governor, President George W. Bush signed more than 150 death warrants in fewer than six years.

In an August 1999 interview with Talk magazine, Bush reportedly mocked the already-executed Karla Faye Tucker's pleas for her life. And according to an Oct. 12 article in the New York Times, Bush laughed at a question regarding a case of a sleeping lawyer in a capital case.

But Bush's aides deny these claims, stating that these two instances were misinterpretations of the actual events, according to the New York Times article.

Despite his experiences as a defense lawyer, Capital Defense Attorney Vince Popp is not quick to criticize the entire system.

"As far as the guy that fell asleep, I don't think he is any reflection on the other public defenders or on the entire system," he said. "I think [public defenders] do as good of a job, or even a better job, as retained lawyers."

Popp and his partner, Mark Tuss, are working on the federal appeals of death row inmate Jerry Lawson, who was convicted under questionable circumstances.

"You would probably need an entire afternoon to hear all the things Mark and I think stunk about this case," Popp said.

In the original trial, prosecutors allegedly withheld a witness whose testimony greatly could have aided Lawson.

Some death penalty proponents maintain capital punishment is useful as a deterrent to crime. Both Bush and former presidential candidate Al Gore expressed belief during the 2000 presidential campaign that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime.

Nelson said there is no evidence of such an effect.

"I don't think the people who commit these crimes weigh out the costs and benefits," he said.

Popp said the criminal mind is not always rational.

"That's why you have crime," he said. "[Criminals] don't think that far ahead."

OU senior Cassy Brose said she agreed.

"I don't think (the death penalty) deters crime at all. I think it's too expensive, and it's just immoral," she said. "I just think its hypocritical - the whole concept basically."

But capital punishment supporters stand behind a now-famous quote from John McAdams, professor of political science at Marquette University.

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers," McAdams said. "If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former."