[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 20]
[Senate]
[Pages 29684-29685]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Federal 
Death Penalty Abolition Act of 1999, a bill I introduced last 
Wednesday. This bill will put an immediate halt to executions and 
forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations 
of Federal law.
  Since the beginning of this year, this Chamber has echoed with debate 
on violence in America. We have heard about violence in our schools and 
neighborhoods. But I am not so sure that we in Government don't 
contribute to this casual attitude we sometimes see toward killing and 
death. With each new death penalty statute enacted and each execution 
carried out, our executive, judicial and legislative branches, at both 
the State and Federal level, add to a culture of violence and killing. 
With each person executed, we are teaching our children that the way to 
settle scores is through violence, even to the point of taking a human 
life.
  Those who favor the death penalty should be pressed to explain why 
fallible human beings should presume to use the power of the state to 
extinguish the life of a fellow human being on our collective behalf. 
Those who oppose the death penalty should demand that explanation 
adamantly, and at every turn. But only a zealous few try. We should do 
better. And we should use this moment to do better as we step not only 
into a new century but also a new millennium, the first such landmark 
since the depths of the Middle Ages.
  Across the globe, with every American who is executed, the entire 
world watches and asks, How can the Americans, the champions of human 
rights, compromise their own professed beliefs in this way? A majority 
of nations have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Even 
Russia and South Africa--nations that for years were symbols of 
egregious violations of basic human rights and liberties--have seen the 
error of the use of the death penalty. Next month, Italy and other 
European nations--nations with which the United States enjoys its 
closest relationships--are expected to introduce a resolution in the 
U.N. General Assembly calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death 
penalty.
  So why does the United States remain one of the nations in the 
distinct minority to use the death penalty? Some argue that the death 
penalty is a proper punishment because it is a deterrent. But they are 
sadly, sadly mistaken. The Federal Government and most States in the 
United States have a death penalty, while our European counterparts do 
not. Following the logic of death penalty supporters who believe it is 
a deterrent, you would think that our European allies, who don't use 
the death penalty, would have a much higher murder rate than we do in 
the United States. Yet, they don't; and it is not even close. In fact, 
the murder rate in the United States is six times higher than the 
murder rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times 
higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden.
  But we don't even need to look across the Atlantic to see that 
capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Let's compare 
Wisconsin and Texas. I am proud of the fact that my great

[[Page 29685]]

State, Wisconsin, was the first State in this Nation to abolish the 
death penalty completely, when it did so in 1853. So Wisconsin has been 
death penalty-free for nearly 150 years. In contrast, Texas is the most 
prodigious user of the death penalty, having executed 192 people since 
1976. So let's look at the murder rate in Wisconsin and in Texas. 
During the period from 1995 to 1998, Texas has had a murder rate that 
is nearly double the murder rate in Wisconsin. This data alone calls 
into question the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to 
murder.
  I want to be clear. I believe murderers and other violent offenders 
should be severely punished. I am not seeking to open the prison doors 
and let murderers come rushing out into our communities. I don't want 
to free them. But the question is, Should the death penalty be a means 
of punishment in our society?
  The fact that our society relies on killing as punishment is 
disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is the fact that the 
States' and the Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often 
not consistent with the principles of due process, fairness and 
justice.
  It just cannot be disputed that we are sending innocent people to 
death. Since the modern death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s, we 
have released 82 men and women from death row. Why? Because they were 
innocent. That's one death row inmate found innocent for every seven 
executed. One in seven! That's a pretty poor performance for American 
justice.
  Another reason we need to abolish the death penalty is the specter of 
racism in our criminal justice system. Even though our nation has 
abandoned slavery and segregation, we unfortunately are still living 
with vestiges of institutional racism. In some cases, racism can be 
found at every stage of a capital trial--in the selection of jurors, 
during the presentation of evidence, and sometimes during jury 
deliberations.
  After the 1976 Supreme Court Gregg decision upholding the use of the 
death penalty, the death penalty was first enacted as a sentence at the 
federal level with passage of the Drug Kingpin Statute in 1988. Since 
that time, numerous additional federal crimes have become death 
penalty-eligible, bringing the total to about 60 statutes today. At the 
federal level, 21 people have been sentenced to death. Of those 21 on 
the federal government's death row, 14 are black and only 5 are white. 
One defendant is Hispanic and another Asian. That means 16 of the 21 
people on federal death row are minorities. That's just over 75%. And 
the numbers are worse on the military's death row. Seven of the eight 
men, or 87.5%, on military death row are minorities.
  One thing is clear: no matter how hard we try, we cannot overcome the 
inevitable fallibility of being human. That fallibility means that we 
will not be able to apply the death penalty in a fair and just manner.
  At the end of 1999, at the end of a remarkable century and millennium 
of progress, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been 
tarnished with our nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of 
the death penalty. As of today, the United States has executed 585 
people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. In those 
23 years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of executions. This 
year the United States has already set a record for the most executions 
in our country in one year, 85--the latest execution being that of 
Ricky Drayton, who was executed by lethal injection just last Friday by 
the state of South Carolina. And the year isn't even over yet. We are 
on track to hit close to 100 executions this year. This is astounding 
and it is embarrassing. We are a nation that prides itself on the 
fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due process. 
We are a nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other 
nations. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture 
and killings by foreign governments. It is time for us to look in the 
mirror.
  Two former Supreme Court justices did just that. In 1994, Justice 
Harry Blackmun penned the following eloquent dissent:

       From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the 
     machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have 
     endeavored--indeed, I have struggled--along with a majority 
     of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules 
     that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to 
     the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle 
     the Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has 
     been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel 
     morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that 
     the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually 
     self-evident to me now that no combination of procedural 
     rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death 
     penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies.

  Similarly, after supporting Supreme Court decisions upholding the 
death penalty, Justice Lewis Powell in 1991 told his biographer that he 
now thought capital punishment should be abolished. After sitting on 
our nation's highest court for over 20 years, Justices Blackmun and 
Powell came to understand the randomness and unfairness of the death 
penalty. It is time for our nation to follow the lead of these 
distinguished jurists.
  The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong 
and it is immoral. The adage ``two wrongs do not make a right,'' could 
not be more appropriate here. Our nation has long ago done away with 
other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of 
suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these punishments 
as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death 
penalty as we enter the next century. The continued viability of our 
justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so.
  I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing 
the death penalty in our great nation. Last week, I introduced a bill 
that abolishes the death penalty at the federal level. I call on all 
states that have the death penalty to also cease this practice. Let us 
step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and 
integrity to our criminal justice system. As we head into the next 
millennium, let us leave this archaic practice behind.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed 
to proceed for 10 minutes in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

                          ____________________