Rep. Jesse L. Jackson Jr., D-Ill.
Written for The CQ Researcher, November 2001

Justice Harry Blackmun said, “The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder.”

Undoubtedly, taking a life is the supreme expression of a state's power over its citizens. It should not be used without offering the accused every possible opportunity to present evidence that may keep the state out of the unimaginable position of executing the innocent.

Today, science provides the criminal justice system with a means of definitively answering many questions of guilt or innocence without eyewitness testimony or circumstantial evidence. There have been great, new, scientific and technological advances in DNA and forensic evidence testing that can explore evidence previously unusable.

However, we should not overemphasize technology. Minorities and the poor often cannot pay for adequate or competent representation. They cannot afford “dream teams” who negotiate with prosecutors to eliminate the possibility of a death sentence before a trial begins — as with O.J. Simpson. Innocent people are often unable to adequately address their legal problems with definitive evidence of their innocence.

In the past, many complained that death row inmates were given too many chances to appeal a conviction, dragging out the process for years and tying up the courts. So, Congress passed the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA), limiting an inmate's right to appeal a capital conviction. However, in doing so, Congress also limited the ability of Americans wrongfully convicted to prove their innocence.

The Death Penalty Information Center reported that the average time between a capital conviction and execution is eight years. The average time that innocent people have spent on death row before proving their innocence is seven years. The provisions in AEDPA effectively cut the time between sentencing and execution in half, thus, virtually guaranteeing that innocent people will be executed.

My Accuracy in Judicial Administration Act of 2001 (AJA) calls for a minimum seven-year national moratorium on all executions until all inmates currently sitting on death row have an opportunity to explore potentially exculpatory DNA and similar evidence.

I'm opposed to the death penalty for moral, social, political and practical reasons. But even its proponents should support AJA (HR 321). It is a narrowly tailored piece of legislation that protects one of America's most fundamental constitutional rights — the right to substantive due process.

Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas
Chairman, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and Claims
Written for The CQ Researcher, November 2001

In this world of laws, our justice system will inevitably have some flaws. However, capital punishment is not one of them. If there is a defect, it is in the way we administer it.

From before the 1972 Supreme Court decision that outlawed it, to after the 1976 decision that reinstated it, the death penalty has been a topic of debate. It is described as racist, unreliable and ineffective. But no matter how detractors twist the issue, the vast majority of Americans continue to support this type of punishment.

It must be remembered that there is another party besides the murderer involved in every murder, and that is the victim. By the unjustified taking of another's life, the murderer has forfeited his own.

We are not obligated to support murderers for the rest of their natural life. If one murderer is granted life in prison while another is executed, it is only because of the extraordinary degree of leniency that we have in our American system of jurisprudence, and not because of any intrinsic unfairness.

Critics of capital punishment have sought to hobble it in every way possible. And the statistics they use to try and justify its abolition are misleading. As Mark Twain once said, “First get your facts; then you can distort them at your leisure.” The fact is, however, the facts are just not there.

Some charge that capital punishment is racist. But the rates of execution reveal that white murderers are twice as likely to be executed as their black counterparts.

Others say that no deterrent effect is produced by capital punishment. The rub here is that it is impossible to prove the effect of something that didn't happen. Common sense tells us that some people refrain from murder because they fear death themselves, many others refrain from it because they consider it socially reprehensible; one of the reasons they consider it reprehensible is because people are put to death for it.

We don't need a moratorium on the death penalty. What we need is a death penalty applied in a more consistent and timely manner that will serve as a more effective deterrent to would-be murderers.