March 1st is International Death Penalty Abolition Day, in recognition of the date in 1847, when Michigan became the first English-speaking territory to get rid of the death penalty.
At ASU, Abolition Day was marked by a presentation at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. Speakers included Jennifer Garcia, from the Federal Public Defender’s Capital Habeas Unit, and Dan Peitzmeyer from the Coalition of Arizonans to Abolish the Death Penalty.
About 40 people attended, mostly law students. Considering Arizona’s current role in shaping the national death-penalty debate, it seemed like a low turnout.
The state made national headlines in October, when it executed Jeffrey Landrigan with drugs manufactured outside the United States. Arizona was the first state to use drugs from abroad, after a national shortage of sodium thiopental delayed executions across the country.
Landrigan’s attorneys appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, claiming that using foreign drugs, which weren’t FDA approved, violated his Eighth Amendment right against cruel and unusual punishment.
The Supreme Court disagreed, allowing Landrigan to become the second person executed in Arizona since 2001, when another Supreme Court ruling overturned the state’s sentencing scheme.
And Arizona is back on the radar this spring, with the prosecution of mass-murderer Jared Loughner. Though not yet official, many expect prosecutors to seek the federal death penalty.
The federal government has only executed 3 people since 1963 – all in the last ten years.
So Arizonans have good reason to be thinking about the death penalty. And it’s not a practice to take lightly.
Good or bad, our use of capital punishment says a lot about American society. And it becomes more meaningful as it becomes more rare.
According to data compiled by Amnesty International, less than one-third of the world’s countries retain capital punishment, with 93 percent of 2008 executions occurring in 5 countries: China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the United States.
It’s not the most impressive group of countries, from a human rights perspective.
But the United States is not a nation to be pressured by foreign practices, even those of other Western democracies.
Which is fine. America can be unusual – leaders often are. But if we’re going to hold the line on this one, we should do it for good reasons.
And there are good reasons. Arizona, for example, is a national leader in victims’ rights legislation. Healing victims, bringing closure – these are powerful arguments for the ultimate punishment.
Or at least more persuasive arguments than those based on economics. In her comments Tuesday, Garcia stressed the huge costs associated with capital litigation.
Death costs more than life in prison at every phase – during trial, during appeals, and during incarceration.
And concerns about racial justice, about wrongful conviction, and about the social utility of capital punishment continue to plague the system.
These aren’t mere legal technicalities to be hashed out by lawyers. They are value judgments, which cut to the core of our national morality.
Arizona has become a key player in the global debate over capital punishment. The least we can do is proceed thoughtfully.
Reach John at john.a.gaylord@asu.edu
