[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 162 (2016), Part 9]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 13338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                    EDITORIAL BY MR. WADE HENDERSON

                                 ______
                                 

                            HON. JOHN LEWIS

                               of georgia

                    in the house of representatives

                     Wednesday, September 21, 2016

  Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record an opinion editorial 
that appeared in the Washington Post on August 26, 2016.
  This piece is authored by Mr. Wade Henderson, who serves as the 
president and chief executive of the Leadership Conference on Civil and 
Human Rights, the national coalition of more than 200 organizations 
committed to a fair, open, and inclusive America:


  The pursuit of capital punishment for Dylann Roof is a step backward

                     (By Wade Henderson, August 26)

       On Nov. 7 in Charleston, S.C., a federal court will begin 
     selecting a jury in the death penalty prosecution of Dylann 
     Roof, the accused killer of nine African American worshipers 
     at the Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church. At first 
     glance, the notion of a white man facing the death penalty 
     for murdering black people in the South--in a killing 
     inspired by the murderer's racist views--may seem like a 
     marker of racial progress.
       It isn't--and those who champion civil rights should not 
     celebrate this moment. Roof's crime was surely heinous, and 
     his racism was repugnant. But supporters of racial equality 
     and equal treatment under the law should support Roof's offer 
     to plead guilty and serve a sentence of life without the 
     possibility of parole.
       How can it be that a lifelong civil rights lawyer such as 
     myself would take this position? Because the death penalty 
     cannot be separated from the issue of racial discrimination, 
     especially in the South. The history of slavery and lynching 
     left deep scars in the black community, and the current death 
     penalty does not fare much better. More than 8 in 10 of the 
     executions carried out since the death penalty was reinstated 
     in 1976 have occurred in the South. Blacks make up more than 
     one-third of the 1,170 defendants executed in the region, 
     with most convicted of murdering a white victim.
       Given the racial disproportion inherent in the modem 
     application of the death penalty, it is no surprise that most 
     African Americans (including me) oppose the death penalty, a 
     position that would also disqualify most of them (and me) 
     from serving on the jury in Roof's case.
       As a result, if the Roof trial continues on its present 
     course, a jury will be chosen that represents only part of 
     the community. Those who oppose the death penalty on 
     principle will be struck from the pool of jurors by the 
     presiding judge. Those who express doubts about the death 
     penalty will likely be struck by the prosecution. The 
     resulting jury will have fewer blacks, fewer women and fewer 
     people of faiths that oppose the death penalty than a jury 
     selected at random from the residents of Charleston. That 
     cannot be a desirable outcome in such an emotional and 
     racially charged case.
       Neither would the adversarial proceeding necessitated by a 
     refusal to accept Roof's offer to plead guilty and accept a 
     sentence of life without the possibility of parole. Once the 
     trial begins, there will be a detailed recounting of the 
     worst day this community has ever experienced. It will be the 
     prosecution's duty to portray this multiple murder as 
     gruesomely as possible in order to secure a death sentence. 
     Family members may be called to the stand to describe 
     precisely what they went through that day and how it affected 
     them.
       Likewise, the defense will be obligated to do everything in 
     its power to lessen Roof's culpability. This is how our 
     adversarial process works, but it is not necessary here. 
     Without the agony of trying to decide between life and death, 
     a sentencing proceeding that followed a guilty plea could pay 
     tribute to the victims, focusing on the value of their lives 
     and the consequences of their loss. All family members could 
     voice their pain, regardless of their view on the death 
     penalty. It would not be an easy day, but far better than 
     months of focusing only on Roof, followed by years of appeals 
     and uncertainty.
       Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch has allowed this case to 
     proceed as a capital prosecution until now, but a new 
     decision point is coming soon. Most criminal cases settle 
     before trial because it is in the best interests of the 
     entire community. That could happen here; the offer is 
     already on the table. The attorney general need only agree.
       After the racially inspired attack on the parishioners of 
     Mother Emanuel, as the church is known, South Carolina took 
     the bold and important step of permanently lowering the 
     Confederate battle flag from the state capitol grounds. This 
     powerful symbol--perceived by many as the embodiment of 
     racism and discrimination--had to go.
       With the death penalty, the Justice Department now has the 
     power to lower another flag that has torn communities apart 
     along racial lines. Capital punishment in this case may 
     appear to be just retribution for Roof's unfathomable crime. 
     Yet the real-life operation of the death penalty suggests 
     that its application to Roof would only pave the way for 
     future cases in which the death penalty is invoked to harm 
     the very community on which he inflicted so much pain.

                          ____________________