|
|
Editorials
|
|
|
|
Published: November 14, 1999 WHY
KILL MUMIA? U.S. Governor Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was as good as his word. He repeatedly said that the moment that journalist Mumia Abu-Jamal exhausted his latest legal appeal, he would set an execution date. When the United States Supreme Court turned down Mumia's appeal, Ridge set December 2 as the date for Mumia's execution. Ridge's decision will almost certainly touch off a national furor. It should also touch off a national debate over the death penalty. But it probably won't for the two reasons, and these reasons are towering obstacles for Mumia and death penalty opponents. One is publicly stated: the fear of crime. The media and politicians are to blame for this one. From the late 1980s on, the media has gorged the public on mega-doses of gory crime and violence stories. Politicians have exploited crime as a perennial crowd pleaser and vote getter. Even though murder rates in America are at near-record lows, and Americans were more likely to be murdered during the Great Depression of the 1930s than today, a scared-stiff public still demands the speedy dispatch of violent criminals. Some argue that crime rates have dropped because of the death penalty and tougher crime measures. Yet the downward trend in murder and major crime happened before the big escalation in the number of persons executed in the late 1980s. The other reason for the death penalty mania is privately whispered: race and class. More than 45 percent of those currently sitting on the nation's death rows are black or Latino. They are almost always the poorest of the poor, and the least likely to have the resources to get top-flight legal representation. Mumia is a near textbook example of this. He is black, and before his case drew national and international attention, he did not have the financial means to bankroll a costly legal defense to win an acquittal or to overturn his conviction. Also, in the public's legal rush to condemn, many of those executed have been mentally incompetent, juvenile delinquents, and the innocent. According to a US Congress report, 48 innocent persons have been executed during the past two decades. This may be a gross underestimate. In Illinois, alone, 10 death row inmates have been freed because of doubts about their guilt since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977. This monumental flaw in the administration of the death penalty prompted the American Bar Association to call for a complete moratorium on executions. Unfortunately, the moral and legal arguments against the death penalty have fallen on the deaf ears of the public. Death penalty advocates then should try to shatter the two most cherished beliefs of the public: (a) The death penalty is a deterrent and (b) It's cost effective. These are myths. The death penalty doesn't deter crime. Eighteen of the 20 states with the highest murder rates are death penalty states. That includes California and Texas, which have the highest number of prisoners on death row. Seventeen of 20 major cities with the highest murder rates are in death penalty states. The murder rates in Michigan and Indiana are nearly identical even though Indiana has the death penalty and Michigan doesn't. Despite falling murder rates, there are 20,000 or more homicides in America yearly. Yet only one of 600 murderers receives the death penalty. If they are poor, minority, and live in the South and their victim is white, and middle-class, they almost certainly will be a prime candidate for execution. The death penalty is not cost effective. Taxpayers pay dearly for special DA units to prosecute death penalty cases, extra jury selection, special motions, a second penalty phase, lengthy investigations, and a battery of witnesses. The time and costs pile up even higher in capital cases because prosecutors and judges try to be legally correct and avoid reversal (many are anyway) and the states allocate paltry sums for legal representation for the indigent. It costs three times more to execute a prisoner than to lock him/her up for life. Florida spends $3 million per execution, North Carolina, and Texas over $2 million. The estimate is that California would save nearly $100 million annually by re-sentencing its nearly 600 death row inmates to life imprisonment, and making them pay the families of the victims their earnings from their prison labor. Worse, the death penalty wastes time, fans public hysteria and squanders resources that should be spent on alcohol and drug treatment, counseling, education, job and skills training programs. These are far more cost and humane effective deterrents to protecting lives than taking a relatively few lives in execution chambers each month. If Governor Ridge has his way, one of those will be Mumia. Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a nationally syndicated columnist and the director of the National Alliance for Positive Action. email: ehutchi344@aol.com |
|
