Wednesday, Jul 9, 2008
Reflecting growing national unease with the ultimate punishment, New York strikes down its death penalty law.
Apr 16, 2005 | Last June, New York's highest court struck down a provision of the state's death penalty statute as unconstitutional. The provision required trial courts to instruct jurors in capital cases that if they failed to unanimously agree on a penalty of either life imprisonment or death, the court would set a sentence of life with the possibility of parole. In People vs. Stephen LaValle, the Court of Appeals concluded that jurors might sentence a defendant to die not because they thought he deserved it, but because they feared he might someday go free. It was up to the state Legislature to fix the law in order to reinstate the death penalty. On Tuesday, the Codes Committee of the General Assembly chose not to.
What happened in Albany was historic. At least for this year, New York has unburdened itself of the decision on capital punishment, and opponents of the death penalty hope it signals a nationwide trend. Thirty-eight states still have death penalty statutes on the books in one form or another. New York's is now in limbo. Kansas' statute was deemed unconstitutional and awaits a federal review; Connecticut, Nebraska and New Mexico have come close to abolition, and Illinois' moratorium on executions has lasted through two governors, one Republican and one Democrat.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center, called what happened in Albany a "shift of powers." New York's Republican governor, George Pataki, came to office a decade ago on a heavy-handed crime and justice platform, centered on the promise of death penalty restoration. New York reinstated capital punishment in 1995. Now, well over 50 percent of New Yorkers say they are opposed to the death penalty, according to a recent New York Times poll. "A consensus has been made," Dieter concludes.
Salon talked to Dieter about the New York Legislature's move and its wider implications.
How will New York's failure to revive its death penalty law impact the nationwide debate on the death penalty?
It comes at a time in which death sentences and executions and public opinion are all down around the country, and yet no state has gotten rid of the death penalty in many, many years, so this might be the start of a new trend. It's been difficult for states to take the action of abolition because it's certainly a political risk. Kansas is in a similar situation: Their state Supreme Court recently overturned the death penalty; in New Jersey executions are on hold as they're reviewing their statute. In New York they were acting without any federal instruction, and it seems like the death penalty will continue to be handled on a state-by-state basis. There is momentum to at least reconsider the death penalty in all parts of the country.
Where do you see this momentum taking us?
A lot of places, really. Public opinion is down 50 percent -- that means jurors are half as likely to ask for death. Executions are consequently down 40 percent. And then you turn to legislatures; New York declined to even fix it. Other states are taking more of a reform approach; some are coming close to voting to abolish the death penalty. New Mexico and Connecticut came close, and Illinois continues its moratorium. Kansas is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review what its state court did, and so its death penalty is pending; it could be that if the Supreme Court doesn't do anything, Kansas will fix it through legislation. There's a wide range of legislative changes across the country -- 14 states have had commissions to study the death penalty, states are allowing DNA testing on appeal, particularly for death row, and some states are approving defense council review.
What will happen to Robert Shulman and John Taylor, the two convicted murderers sitting on New York's death row?
I am almost certain that they will have their death sentences lifted. The problem was a problem in the law. The prosecution might try them again before the Supreme Court for sentencing, but the Assembly's not going to put them to death. And no one from this point can even receive the sentence of death, so that if they were tried again, the maximum punishment is life without parole.
Where does the U.S. Supreme Court stand on the death penalty? Can you talk about some of the more recent cases brought before the court?
The most recent case is Roper vs. Simmons, which removed juvenile offenders from the possibility of a death penalty. That was March of this year. In Texas, the Supreme Court has sent back cases for prosecutorial misconduct, allegations of racial biases, and turned over cases where lawyers didn't do a good enough investigation of the defendants' cases. In 2002, the mentally retarded were excluded, and juries were required to take more responsibility than judges.
This had to do with international pressure.
Precisely. In 1989, there was a global treaty signed and ratified (with the exception of the U.S. and Somalia) to end the execution of juveniles, and in 2002, the European Union submitted a brief calling for an end to the execution of the mentally retarded. But these changes can also be attributed to domestic pressures. The chief way the death penalty is evaluated is the Eighth Amendment, which the court has said is an evolving standard of decency. Fifteen years ago, it was OK to execute juveniles and the mentally retarded. When the public's views are expressed through legislation and juries' by votes, the Supreme Court announces a consensus has been made, and the law quickly acclimates.
It was state legislation that the Supreme Court looked to in both of those cases [Roper vs. Simmons and Atkins vs. Virginia]; it's the direction states were going. They found 31 states that forbid the practice [of executing juveniles] and that number had grown from 15 years ago, back in 1989 [when executing juveniles was deemed constitutional]. That was enough to prove our standards had evolved.
Get Salon in your mailbox!