Wednesday 25 March 2009
New Hampshire and the death penalty
New Hampshire House voted today to abolish the death penalty. After New Mexico last week this might be the beginning of a trend as a number of states consider similar legislation - the majority on the basis of cost rather than any deep seated sense of morality. Still, it is progress.
The Death Penalty in 2008
Check out my latest paper on the death paper at: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/news/past/25/2009
Friday 20 March 2009
New Mexico abolishes the death penalty
Just as abolitionists were worrying that 2009 would be a bad year with the number of executions already passing 20, New Mexico yesterday abolished the death penalty. With Maryland likely to follow, perhaps a corner is beginning to be turned. I have advocated for a couple of years now that the moral argument, however much justified, will never win, and that economics is the key - it costs far more to execute someone than to keep them in prison for life. As America slips deeper into recession, the abolitionists must seize the moment. In the end Americans vote, like most, with their pocket books. Their approach to the death penalty may be no different.
Thursday 19 March 2009
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.
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.
Sunday 15 March 2009
Obama ends 'enemy combatants'
Yet another dreadful legacy of the Bush Administration has been ended - President Obama has abandoned the term 'enemy combatant'. Welcome back to the Geneva Convention. This can only be a good thing.
Friday 13 March 2009
The lessons of history - and not just Bush
Learning the lessons of history... After 50 days in office, much has been written on Obama's domestic policy. His foreign policy less so, though here there is an on-going debate about whether he is a realist or not. Or what Tim Lynch has described as Bush II.
A useful piece was written by Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday's Guardian.
When considering Obama's foreign policy, it is obvious that he is seeking to portray himself as a radical break from Bush. But it is also worth considering whether he is learning the lessons of two earlier presidents – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Johnson was aware that his Great Society programs could be branded as being left wing, possibly socialist, rather like Obama’s domestic policy. Fearing that this would lead to his great vision stalling in Congress, Johnson reasoned that a suitable counter balance would be to demonstrate that he was tough against communism. This became part of his Administration’s internal rationale for escalating US involvement in Vietnam. Similarly, it may be that Obama feels he must be a realist, as many American commentators are noting (see, for example, the current discussion at the Foreign Policy journal website). Being tough abroad will challenge the right wing assertion that he is too liberal at home
A similar case can be made regarding the National Missile Defense. I suspect Obama has always seen this as a non-starter – the technology remains mostly unproven, it is controversial, potentially destabilising, and incredibly expensive. Obama cannot simply abandon NMD – to do so would appear weak to the American public in the face of Russian protests. So a Cuban Missile style compromise is required – Russian pressure on Iran equalling the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962.
Like Nixon, there is a sense with Obama that he is aware of the limitations of American power. The Pentagon has always had the view that it should be ready to fight two wars simultaneously – it is already doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan and is overstretched. Where Nixon saw a possible solution to overstretch to be détente and opening up relations with China to play them off against the Soviet Union, so Obama has sought to promote a new diplomacy, reaching out to Syria, Iran, and others, whilst scaling down commitments to potential stumbling blocks, such as the promotion of human rights. Thus, whilst he appears to be willing to use America’s military power when necessary, not least on the Pakistan/Afghan border, he is also prepared to consider the diplomatic option of seeking out Taliban moderates.
His policies may be refreshing after Bush, but I feel there is also an acceptance of limitations combined with the positive opportunities this might provide. This, in itself, is encouraging.
A useful piece was written by Jonathan Freedland in Wednesday's Guardian.
When considering Obama's foreign policy, it is obvious that he is seeking to portray himself as a radical break from Bush. But it is also worth considering whether he is learning the lessons of two earlier presidents – Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Johnson was aware that his Great Society programs could be branded as being left wing, possibly socialist, rather like Obama’s domestic policy. Fearing that this would lead to his great vision stalling in Congress, Johnson reasoned that a suitable counter balance would be to demonstrate that he was tough against communism. This became part of his Administration’s internal rationale for escalating US involvement in Vietnam. Similarly, it may be that Obama feels he must be a realist, as many American commentators are noting (see, for example, the current discussion at the Foreign Policy journal website). Being tough abroad will challenge the right wing assertion that he is too liberal at home
A similar case can be made regarding the National Missile Defense. I suspect Obama has always seen this as a non-starter – the technology remains mostly unproven, it is controversial, potentially destabilising, and incredibly expensive. Obama cannot simply abandon NMD – to do so would appear weak to the American public in the face of Russian protests. So a Cuban Missile style compromise is required – Russian pressure on Iran equalling the removal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey in 1962.
Like Nixon, there is a sense with Obama that he is aware of the limitations of American power. The Pentagon has always had the view that it should be ready to fight two wars simultaneously – it is already doing this in Iraq and Afghanistan and is overstretched. Where Nixon saw a possible solution to overstretch to be détente and opening up relations with China to play them off against the Soviet Union, so Obama has sought to promote a new diplomacy, reaching out to Syria, Iran, and others, whilst scaling down commitments to potential stumbling blocks, such as the promotion of human rights. Thus, whilst he appears to be willing to use America’s military power when necessary, not least on the Pakistan/Afghan border, he is also prepared to consider the diplomatic option of seeking out Taliban moderates.
His policies may be refreshing after Bush, but I feel there is also an acceptance of limitations combined with the positive opportunities this might provide. This, in itself, is encouraging.
Tuesday 3 March 2009
An end or a return to the Dover Principle?
I was very impressed to read that President Obama is to lift the ban on photographs taken at the Dover airbase of the bodies of American servicemen returning from overseas. Banned by George W. Bush because he feared the negative publicity that such images might generate, it has quite rightly been seen as an insult to those who have died in the service of their country. Obama's change is to be applauded. However, it remains to be seen if the increasing number of casualties in Afghanistan, which will inevitably result from the increase of American troops in the country, will see the return of the so-called "Dover Principle" - the more bodies that are seen returning, the less support for stationing troops abroad.
The Special Relationship?
Is it me, or did Barack Obama look a little bored by Gordon Brown earlier today? His body language certainly did not bode well for the special relationship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)