If there is one thing that I've discovered so far about the debate over the death penalty, it's that a large part of the populace seems perfectly comfortable with the idea of executing the occasional innocent as the price for a "safer" society. I find that profoundly disturbing. Whether or not you think former Illinois Governor George Ryan was right or wrong in his decision to empty Illinois' death row, I cannot understand how someone can argue with Ryan's moral courage. Here's a man who was able to find evidence to prove that at least four death sentences were due to torture and corruption, and he followed his conscience. Generally speaking, Ryan was a lousy governor, but he should be remembered for having the moral courage to recognize that the system is broken and taking the steps to address it.
In Maryland, a similar controversy is brewing. University of Maryland criminologist Ray Paternoster has found (surprise!!) that there are disparities in the way Maryland's death penalty law is used. Now Conservatives are trying to discredit him.
COLLEGE PARK, Md. -- When he started working on his state-commissioned study of potential bias in Maryland's death penalty law in 2000, criminologist Ray Paternoster thought he could nimbly avoid the rancorous debate over capital punishment.
He found that was impossible.
Paternoster came into the study a death penalty opponent, but after two years of poring over thousands of murder cases, many grisly and some involving children, the best he can now say is that he is confused about where he stands.
Still, the results of his study, showing a systemic disparity in the way the law is used, convinced him if the state keeps the right to execute, the system behind it must be fair.
"I'm not convinced those on Maryland's death row are the 13 worst," Paternoster said. "If we do this so infrequently, those who get the death penalty should be the worst of the worst. I don't think that is true here."
Paternoster's report, released two weeks ago, found race and geography played key roles in the application of the state's death penalty. Defendants who killed whites were most likely to face possible execution, and the imposition of death sentences varied dramatically by county.
Gee, there's a shock, eh? Race is a factor?? Imposition of the death sentence varies by county? These are findings that should surprise no one and should disturb everyone, and yet a surprising number of Conservative seem more than willing to ignore the obvious in the name of political expediency.
It is still unclear whether Paternoster's report will have any impact. Until last week, Maryland had one of only two state death penalty moratoriums, along with Illinois. But the state's ban on executions effectively ended when Republican Gov. Robert Ehrlich, a moratorium opponent, took office Jan. 15.
Baltimore County prosecutors are seeking a death warrant for Steven Oken, one of seven death row inmates who could be executed in the coming year.
Meanwhile, Paternoster has faced criticism for his work from some prosecutors and probing questions from lawmakers when he recently presented his report to General Assembly committees.
Paternoster, 52, came to Maryland from the University of South Carolina, where as a young professor, capital defense lawyer David Bruck asked him to study race and jury selection in capital cases. It soon grew into a review of how death penalty sentences were given.
The study found prosecutors were more likely to seek death sentences for black defendants with white victims than any other racial combination.
It wasn't well received. Bruck said judges chastised him when he tried to introduce the work in court, telling him it wasn't enough to challenge the state law. Paternoster faced taunts outside courtrooms when he testified about his study death penalty cases, racial epithets from those who thought his true goal was to protect black murderers.
"Ray was a brave pioneer, simply in bringing the light of day to a system that urgently needed and still needs examination," Bruck said.
In 1983, Paternoster moved to the University of Maryland, where he focused mostly on juvenile crime. But in 1999, black state lawmakers were raising questions about the fairness of the state's death penalty law. Then-Gov. Parris Glendening budgeted $225,000 for a study and picked Paternoster.
Paternoster and a team of graduate students studied 6,000 first- and second-degree murder convictions dating to 1978, the year Maryland's death penalty was re-instated. From those, Paternoster focused on 1,311 cases that were eligible for the death penalty.
He presented his product at a Jan. 7 news conference and two days later to lawmakers in Annapolis. Glendening intended for the General Assembly to review the study, but it has sparked little legislation. Several death row inmates, however, have based appeals on the report.
Paternoster said he will be frustrated if nothing comes from his study. He hopes at the very least, people on all sides of the debate will read his report and discuss how the state uses its ultimate sanction.
It will be a sad commentary on the objectivity of Maryland politicians if nothing comes out of Paternoster's report. This is not about the moral correctness of the death penalty. This should be about whether the death penalty is applied fairly and equitably. Clearly, in the state of Maryland it is not. It is no stretch to imagine that these results could be found in any other state in the Union that employs the death penalty. Why is it that the racially-biased and inequitable application of the death penalty is acceptable in our society?
If you support the death penalty (self-disclosure: my feelings on this are decidedly mixed), why would you NOT want the penalty to be applied fairly and equitably? Why should we not expend the effort to ensure that, if someone is sentenced to death, that race or location is not a factor? Or is it simply easier to kill them and forget about them?
