U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens lashed out against the death penalty Saturday, on the heels of a vote by the Conference of Chief Justices of state courts to oppose a wrongheaded bill by Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., and Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif., that would put capital punishment into overdrive.
Stevens, addressing an American Bar Association meeting in Chicago, did not call for abolition of the death penalty. But he lamented the impending departure of Sandra Day O’Connor, whose vote helped restrict the death penalty for mentally retarded defendants and those whose crimes were committed before their 18th birthday.
Stevens told ABA delegates that the jury selection process, by screening out potential jurors opposed to capital punishment, could bias the system toward convictions. He also warned jurors might be improperly swayed by victim-impact statements.
Stevens’ speech was particularly timely in view of the efforts by Kyl and Lungren to stop what they call “endless delays” between convictions in capital cases and executions. Congress passed a measure in 1996 to streamline death penalty procedures, but Kyl and Lungren want an even faster rush to judgment. Yet, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, more than three dozen death-row inmates have been exonerated since 2000. Surely, even advocates of capital punishment should be concerned that they not execute the innocent.
While not a capital case, the recent freeing of Luis Diaz, who spent 25 years in prison for a series of rapes that DNA evidence now proves he didn’t commit, underscores the need to make the most exacting scientific evidence available in all cases involving possible death penalties.
The Post also shares the concern voiced by Justices O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg about the poor quality of legal representation in many death penalty cases. Some states, including Colorado, field well-qualified public defender teams in capital cases. But too many states, particularly in the Southern “death belt,” appoint underpaid, often inexperienced lawyers.
President Bush’s nominee to replace O’Connor, John G. Roberts Jr., has a limited record on the death penalty. While serving in the Reagan White House, Roberts suggested that the high court could cut its caseload by “abdicating the role of fourth or fifth guesser in death penalty cases.” Yet, Roberts later did volunteer legal work for a death row inmate. If he does reach the high tribunal, we hope Roberts takes a responsible view of the death penalty, not the “execute first and ask questions later” tack advocated by Kyl and Lungren.
