[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1717-E1718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                           THE DEATH PENALTY

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 10, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I am inserting my Washington Report for 
Wednesday, September 3, 1997, into the Congressional Record:

                           The Death Penalty

       Several recent criminal trials have raised the profile of 
     the death penalty in the United States. Use of the death 
     penalty is accelerating, aided by changes in court procedures 
     and in state and federal laws. Since a 1976 Supreme Court 
     decision that revived the use of capital punishment, 398 
     persons have been executed in the United States. About 3,000 
     persons are currently on ``death row'': sentenced to death 
     but awaiting court appeals. Roughly 40 are women. Because of 
     the seriousness and irreversibility of the punishment, most 
     states require immediate review of all death sentences. In 
     1996, 45 persons were executed. Forty persons were executed 
     in the first half of 1997, the fastest rate since the 1950s.
       The death penalty is quite popular in public opinion polls. 
     Politicians often point to their support of the death penalty 
     as evidence they are ``tough on crime''. By supporting the 
     death penalty they believe (and I think quite sincerely) that 
     they are doing something about crime. Yet I have serious 
     doubts that executions are either an effective or appropriate 
     response to the worst crimes.
       First, I am concerned with the irreversibility of the 
     execution and the possibility of error that exists in the use 
     of the death penalty. Since 1973, 69 persons have been 
     released from death row with evidence of their innocence. 
     With new rules limiting appeals, however, even persons who 
     can reasonably demonstrate their innocence with new evidence 
     could conceivably be executed. Most Americans have reasonable 
     confidence in our judicial system, but mistakes are made. If 
     we have the death penalty, we will execute innocent people. 
     For the innocent victim of an error in a capital case, there 
     is no remedial action. Also, execution of an innocent person 
     lets the real murderer off the hook. If the government never 
     made a mistake, I would be much more inclined to support the 
     death penalty.
       Second, the administration of the death penalty is 
     seriously flawed. It is both expensive and unfair. 
     Nationally, we spend about $10 billion per year to implement 
     the death penalty. The cost of the death penalty per executed 
     prisoner in Texas is $2.3 million--three times the cost to 
     put someone in maximum security for 40 years. Even if the 
     death penalty could be proven to deter crime, there are more 
     prudent ways to allocate our judicial resources. For example, 
     the funds spent on death penalty cases could be used to 
     deploy more police officers, to hire more prosecutors, and to 
     keep other criminals in prison longer. These steps are more 
     likely to reduce the overall crime rate.
       The use of the death penalty often results in a distortion 
     of our justice system. Each death penalty case is so widely 
     publicized and magnified that it becomes extremely difficult 
     for the evidence to be considered carefully and 
     dispassionately. The purpose of a trial is to seek truth; 
     that purpose is thwarted by the sensationalism of a capital 
     case. Because it is very hard to convict a person of a 
     capital crime, the entire criminal process becomes so lengthy 
     and complex that it is often not possible to achieve a fair 
     and effective administration of justice. Too many persons 
     sentenced to die have ineffective legal representation. The 
     poor, uneducated, mentally handicapped, and eccentric are 
     executed disproportionately more than middle class whites--
     even comparing similarly heinous murder cases. The race of 
     the victim is often an important factor. In all of the 
     executions since 1976, almost 90% of the murder victims were 
     white, although half of all victims in the United States are 
     black. No matter what you think of capital punishment, a 
     legal system that will end a life must first provide justice. 
     I have come to the view that the death sentence cannot be 
     fairly and decently administered.
       Third, for all its expense, the death penalty has not been 
     proven to deter crime. Murder rates in states with the death 
     penalty are just as high as in neighboring states without it. 
     No connection has ever been shown between murder rates and 
     capital punishment. At the very least, the burden ought to be 
     on death penalty supporters to prove that it does, in fact, 
     deter crimes. I do not think such credible evidence exists 
     today. There may be cases in which a criminal would not kill 
     because he does not want to risk the death penalty, but there 
     may also be situations where the death penalty could 
     encourage a criminal to kill, such as when a criminal thinks 
     he is going to be executed anyway, so it might be safer for 
     him to kill a witness or an informer.
       Fourth, the interests of society can be fully protected 
     with life in prison without parole. A guaranteed life 
     sentence, with no hope for parole, will be just as effective 
     at preventing that person from committing future crimes. When 
     government makes a mistake and convicts an innocent person, 
     we would still have the opportunity to correct the mistake. 
     Public opinion polls show that support for the death penalty 
     drops sharply when people are given the alternative of life 
     sentences without parole.
       Fifth, my basic view is that the taking of life, even by 
     the state, is simply wrong--even when the person executed is 
     morally reprehensible. The state has the right and the 
     obligation to punish a murderer severely, but it should not 
     endorse more killing. The death penalty demeans our society 
     and violates a basic tenet of most Americans' religious 
     heritage: Thou shalt not kill. Religious

[[Page E1718]]

     leaders such as the Pope decry the use of the death penalty. 
     Proponents argue that taking a life--even an occasional 
     innocent life--is a necessary cost of social order. I 
     disagree. We should not lower ourselves to the level of the 
     criminals. The death sentence endorses violence, and violence 
     begets violence. We must show every compassion for crime 
     victims, and deal severely with those convicted of egregious 
     crimes, but the state should follow a higher moral standard 
     than criminals.
       I prefer to impose life without parole for serious crimes.

       

                          ____________________