Why I Oppose the Death Penalty," by Martin O'Malley

[bigtree]

Last edited Fri Oct 30, 2015, 10:22 AM - Edit history (1)

February 21, 2007

In evaluating whether Maryland's criminal death penalty should be replaced with life without parole, one must be guided by the answers to two basic questions:

· Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?

· Is the death penalty an effective deterrent to murder?

Most of us would point to the execution of John Thanos, here in our state, as an example of a "just" application of the death penalty. Thanos murdered three teenagers, at random, by shooting them point-blank. He expressed no remorse, even declaring in court that he wished he could bring his innocent victims back to life to kill them again. In the end, he demanded to be executed and was. Most Marylanders felt, basically, that "hanging was too good" for John Thanos.

Did this one relatively humane execution balance out a violent murder -- much less three violent murders? Can any execution really be said to "even the ledger" for the taking of another's unique life?

Contrast that with the case of Kirk Bloodsworth, also in Maryland, who was convicted and sentenced to death for rape and murder in 1985. Eight years later, DNA evidence proved his innocence and he was released. In Illinois, 12 people have been executed since 1977. But over that same time, 18 death-row inmates have been released after evidence proved they were innocent.

These examples prompt a deeper question. Notwithstanding the executions of the rightly convicted, can the death penalty ever be justified as public policy when it inherently necessitates the occasional taking of wrongly convicted, innocent life? In Maryland, since 1978, we have executed five people and set one convicted man free when his innocence was discovered. Are any of us willing to sacrifice a member of our own family -- wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed -- in order to secure the execution of five rightly convicted murders? And even if we were, could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can.

But what about the deterrent value of the death penalty? Does the use of the death penalty -- while rarely, if ever, "just" -- save more innocent lives than it takes? The evidence indicates that it does not.

In 2005, the murder rate was 46 percent higher in states that had the death penalty than in states without it -- although they had been about the same in 1990. And while the murder rate has gone down across the board since 1990, it declined by 56 percent in states without the death penalty but only 38 percent in states that have it. It would appear that the death penalty is not a deterrent, but possibly an accelerant, to murder.

And what of the tremendous cost of pursuing capital punishment? In 2002, Judge Dale Cathell of the Maryland Court of Appeals wrote that, according to his research, processing and imprisoning a death penalty defendant "costs $400,000 over and above . . . a prisoner serving a life sentence." Given that 56 people have been sentenced to death in Maryland since 1978, our state has spent about $22.4 million more than the cost of life imprisonment. That's nearly $4.5 million "extra" for each of the five executions carried out. And so long as every American is presumed innocent until proven guilty, the cost of due process will not go down.

If, however, we were to replace the death penalty with life without parole, that $22.4 million could pay for 500 additional police officers or provide drug treatment for 10,000 of our addicted neighbors. Unlike the death penalty, these are investments that save lives and prevent violent crime. If we knew we could spare a member of our family from becoming a victim of violent crime by making this policy change, would we do it?

And if the death penalty as applied is inherently unjust and lacks a deterrent value, we are left to ask whether the value to society of partial retribution outweighs the cost of maintaining capital punishment. While I am mindful of and sensitive to the closure (and in some cases the comfort) that the death penalty brings to the unfathomable pain of families that have lost loved ones to violent crime, I believe that it does not.

Human dignity is the concept that leads brave individuals to sacrifice their lives for the lives of strangers. Human dignity is the universal truth that is the basis of ethics. Human dignity is the fundamental belief on which the laws of this state and this republic are founded. And absent a deterrent value, the damage done to the concept of human dignity by our conscious communal use of the death penalty is greater than the benefit of even a justly drawn retribution.

read: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022001292.html



FLASHBACK: "Repealing Death Penalty Was A “Major Achievement For @MartinOMalley Who Pushed Hard For It.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-much-needed-demise-of-marylands-death-penalty/2013/03/25/71b12b70-919e-11e2-bdea-e32ad90da239_story.html


March 2013

Repealing Maryland's death penalty
by Martin O'Malley

Capital punishment is not a deterrent and it is not fool-proof, the author writes. |

Between 2000 and 2011, an average of 5 death row inmates were exonerated every year. In Maryland, between 1995 and 2007, our state’s reversal rate for the death penalty was 80 percent.

By 1999 the city of Baltimore had become the most violent and drug addicted city in America. Through all the preceding decades of rising violence, the death penalty was on the books and did absolutely nothing to prevent this from happening. Effective policing, expanded drug treatment, smarter strategies, new technologies to solve crime and target repeat violent offenders — these are the things that work to drive down violent crime.

Just as the death penalty did not prevent Baltimore from becoming the most violent city in America in the 1990s, it also contributed nothing at all to Baltimore’s historic reductions in crime over the last decade.

Nor has the death penalty had any positive impact on our more recent statewide success in Maryland, in driving down violent crime and homicides to three-decade lows.

Every dollar we throw at maintaining an ineffective death penalty is a dollar we are not investing in the strategies and tactics that actually work to save lives.

If we want better results, we must make better choices. We have a responsibility to do more of the things that work to save lives. So too, do we have a responsibility to stop doing things that are wasteful, expensive, and do not work.

Across our ever-more-closely connected world, the majority of public executions now take place in just seven countries: Iran. Iraq. The People’s Republic of China. North Korea. Saudi Arabia. Yemen. And the United States of America.

Our free and diverse Republic was not founded on fear, or on revenge, or on retribution. Freedom, justice, the dignity of every individual, equal rights before the law – these are the principles that define our character. The death penalty is inconsistent with these principles.

Improving public safety is the most fundamental responsibility of our government. The death penalty does not make us stronger or more secure as a people. It is expensive, ineffective, and wasteful as a matter of public policy; it is unjust as historically applied; and its imperfections can and do result in the occasional killing of innocent people.

That is why, in Maryland, we have replaced the death penalty with the punishment of life without parole.


read: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/martin-omalley-repealing-marylands-death-penalty-88972_Page2.html



Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, sitting third from right, signs a bill abolishing capital punishment in the US state. Picture: Patrick Semansky

related:

Maryland: Governor Signs Repeal of the Death Penalty
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/03/us/maryland-governor-signs-repeal-of-the-death-penalty.html?_r=0

Gov. O’Malley to commute sentences of Maryland’s remaining death-row inmates
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/gov-omalley-commutes-sentences-of-marylands-remaining-death-row-inmates/2014/12/31/044b553a-90ff-11e4-a412-4b735edc7175_story.html

[FSogol]

1. K & R. n/t

[azmom]

2. K&R

[aikoaiko]

3. He doesn't answer his first question, " Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?"

He reframes it as:

Notwithstanding the executions of the rightly convicted, can the death penalty ever be justified as public policy when it inherently necessitates the occasional taking of wrongly convicted, innocent life? In Maryland, since 1978, we have executed five people and set one convicted man free when his innocence was discovered. Are any of us willing to sacrifice a member of our own family -- wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed -- in order to secure the execution of five rightly convicted murders? And even if we were, could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can.

I'd have more respect for him if he answered his own question directly because for me it is an easy answer.

[bigtree]

4. I'm not sure what you're thinking

..."I do not believe it can" means.

[aikoaiko]

5. That was an answer to a different question

As I showed, he changed it from

" Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?"

to, essentially,

" Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder when some innocent people will also be executed."

With regard to the first question he comes close by saying:

"Most of us would point to the execution of John Thanos, here in our state, as an example of a "just" application of the death penalty."

He is vague and evasive about whether he thinks that, too.

[bigtree]

6. you're playing with his words

O'Malley outlines examples of atrocities used to call the policy 'just', and concludes:

"...could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can. "

"I do not believe it can" is not "vague or evasive."

Neither was his fighting to abolish the policy in our state and commute the sentences of those remaining on death row.

[aikoaiko]

12. Maybe you can answer this question for him, "Was the execution of John Thanos just?"

[bigtree]

15. I don't need to, he answered it himself

...after citing the atrocities committed by Thanos and the other inmate, O'Malley concluded:

"...could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can."

and, six years after the op-ed, after fighting for the repeal of the policy, he wrote:

"Our free and diverse Republic was not founded on fear, or on revenge, or on retribution. Freedom, justice, the dignity of every individual, equal rights before the law – these are the principles that define our character. The death penalty is inconsistent with these principles."

[elleng]

7. "...could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can. "

Got it?

[aikoaiko]

11. Its true he says the policy is not just, but that wasn't the question he posed initially.

Initially he posed, "Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder?"

[Nye Bevan]

8. This, more than anything else, impresses me about O'Malley.

Anytime a politician takes a stand that is morally right but is contrary to current public opinion, it is a cause for celebration.

[elleng]

10. Thanks.

I agree.

[elleng]

9. 'Are any of us willing to sacrifice a member of our own family -- wrongly convicted,

sentenced and executed -- in order to secure the execution of five rightly convicted murders? And even if we were, could that public policy be called "just"? I do not believe it can.'

[NuclearDem]

13. The more I hear about Governor O'Malley, the more I consider switching my support.

[elleng]

14. This is great to hear, NuclearDem.

[askew]

16. Thank you for this piece.

It shows that O'Malley doesn't change positions every election cycle but is consistent. He also backs his words up with action.

I wish you were posting these diaries at Daily Kos where they would get a much larger viewing audience though.

[bigtree]

18. you're welcome, askew

...a clear record of action.

[hedgehog]

17. My candidate!

[elleng]

19. :-)