The Death Penalty in the USA

Often in the wake of a brutal murder in the UK, usually of a child, demands are made for the return of the death penalty. Though the horror of such heinous crimes can never be underestimated, and the demand for the ultimate retribution is fully understandable, the release of Sean Hodgson after 27 years highlights the dangers of capital punishment.

If the death penalty were returned to the UK, the risk of wrongful execution would be a real. This is graphically demonstrated in the USA, where, since the restoration of the death penalty in 1976, 130 wrongfully charged prisoners on death row have been released. An exoneration rate that now averages five a year.

Such is the unease surrounding wrongful conviction that a number of states have introduced moratoriums or, in the case of New Mexico today or New Jersey in 2007, abolished the death penalty altogether. There are now 35 states that have the death penalty on their statute books, but in reality only a handful (nine in 2008) actually use this ultimate punishment. These states are almost all in the South where the belief in justice that centres on an eye for an eye remains strong.

However, advances in DNA evidence, the arbitrary use of the death penalty, the common lack of good representation of death penalty defendants and the racial bias of its use (African Americans are … time s more likely than a white to be sentenced to death if hey commit murder than a white), have lead to jurors and prosecutors being more apprehensive about sentencing prisoners to death.

In the last ten years, the number of death sentences being given has dropped by 60% and there has also been a steady fall in the number of executions from 96 in 1998 to 37 in 2008.

This trend may continue in the future due to two factors. One is public opinion. In the 1980s and 1990s, 75% of Americans consistently favoured the use of the death penalty in opinion polls carried out by Gallup. By October 2008, however, growing public uncertainty saw support for the use of the death penalty fall to 64%, with 30% opposing. More dramatically, when Americans were asked if they favoured life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, 48% preferred this to the death penalty, suggesting that if the public are given a workable alternative, they will consider it.

The second factor is cost. Evidence suggests that as a result of these spiralling costs, some states are executing fewer inmates, particularly where they have tight state budgets. The Los Angeles Times estimates that the death penalty costs California $114 million per year more than the cost of keeping similar inmates in prison for life. In 2007, Georgia delayed the trial of Brian Nichols, who, during his trail for rape, shot the judge and two others in court in front of a large number of witnesses. The state could not afford to pay his defence lawyers. The Democratic Governor of Maryland, Martin O’Malley, believes that if his state replaced the death penalty with life without parole, the money saved could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 addicts. Argues O’Malley, “Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crimes.’ Maryland, along with Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, and New Hampshire are now considering abolition on the grounds of cost. When combined with life without the possibility of parole, the case is becoming more persuasive, particularly as the financial pressures of the economic downturn increase.

Ultimately, America remains unusual in the western world in its use of the death penalty. In December 2007, the United Nations General Assembly voted 104-54 in favour of a non-binding resolution for a global moratorium on executions. The resolution, co-sponsored by the EU and 60 other countries, called on countries to: progressively restrict the use of the death penalty, reduce the number of offences for which it can be imposed, and establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty. The United States opposed the resolution, voting against its European allies, and siding with Iran, China and Syria. Would Britain really want to be a member of that club? The evidence from America, and the release of Mr Hodgson would strongly suggest not.