he contentious debate over the ethics of the death penalty hit close to home when the New Hampshire House of Representatives voted’3-174 to abolish capital punishment on March 25. The bill’s fate is now in the hands of the State Senate. However, Governor John Lynch has already stated his opposition to the measure, threatening a veto. “I believe there are some crimes that are so heinous, the death penalty is warranted. If legislation repealing the death penalty were to reach my desk I would veto it,” he explained.
This statement appears to echo the sentiments of many Americans. According to a recent Gallup poll, 69% of Americans support the death penalty for people convicted of murder. However, there are many problems with the current legal system, including reports of bias and narrowly averted executions of innocent people in light of new evidence. Quite possibly the biggest issue is racial bias. A very high proportion of death row inmates are minorities, leading many to accuse the current system of discrimination against minorities.
According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), racial minorities account for 43% of executions since’76. Currently, 55% of people on death row are minorities. These statistics are appalling, considering that 26% of the American populace consists of racial minorities. Are we really to believe that minorities commit more than twice as many murders deserving of the death penalty than white people do? “Furthermore,” the ACLU explains, “as of October 2002, 12 people have been executed where the defendant was white and the murder victim black, compared with 178 black defendants executed for murders with white victims.” Whether or not people like to admit it, racial prejudice is obviously prevalent in our legal system.
Some argue these statistics can be explained away by the overall higher crime rates among minority populations. But even if this were true, it obviously speaks to an ominous gap between the socioeconomic conditions of whites and minorities. Even if we make the unwarranted assumption that the system is flawless and always correctly determines guilt or innocence, what does the disproportionately high percentage of black people on death row say about the gap between the average living conditions of whites and minorities? A disproportionate number of black people live in poverty, suffering from reduced access to quality education, healthcare, and other important services. Living in such impoverished and undeveloped urban areas forces people to endure more difficult life experiences, eventually leading to more controversial decisions. So yes, minorities might be more likely to commit crimes, but that could be due to the domestic oppression they face on a daily basis. In addition, no geneticist has ever found a “Racial Minority Crime Gene,” so biologically, this assertion can’t be possible either. The outrageous disparity in how capital punishment is meted out should force us to look at the living conditions that lead to future criminal actions, rather than endlessly debating the abstract ethics of of the death penalty.
Of course, race is not the only problem with capital punishment. Many times, people have been incorrectly sentenced to death. Since just 2003, twenty-one people on death row have had their convictions overturned. In addition to racial profiling, this can also be due to inadequate legal representation, an unfair trial, and evidence tampering. The death penalty also costs much more than a lifetime prison sentence without parole, due to the costly, endless appeals preceding an execution.
Governor Lynch should consider all of these factors when evaluating the death penalty. He must realize the death penalty is an unjust way of punishing criminals. He cannot make the same mistake former Governor Jeanne Shaheen made in 2000 when she vetoed legislation that would have abolished the death penalty. If Governor Lynch decides to veto this legislation, he would be perpetuating an unjust, biased, ineffective system; the same mistake should not be made twice.
The death penalty’s inherent prejudice is further exemplified by the case of Michael Addison. On October 16, 2006, Addison, a black man from Boston, killed Michael Briggs, a Manchester police officer. On December 22, 2008, the judge sentenced Addison to death. Yet it’s important to realize that if Addison weren’t sentenced to death Briggs and his work as a police officer would not be any less appreciated or respected.
Addison was raised in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston, which is one of the most violent and turbulent areas of the city. His father abandoned him, and his mother was an alcoholic. This does not excuse him from his crime, but the correlation between inequitable living situations and crime cannot be ignored. Had he been raised in a more affluent neighborhood with more caring parents, this event might have been avoided. Or, had there been some social program that helped troubled individuals, he might have been adequately educated about making correct decisions. Aren’t these better options than blindly sticking needles in the arms of those who commit these crimes? The extraordinarily high murder rate in the United States, compared to that of the vast majority of developed countries, shows the death penalty is not an effective deterrent. The world is not so black and white, right and wrong, and addressing the conditions that lead to violent crimes is a much more effective and humane strategy than execution.
We cannot go back in time and change crimes that have already been committed, but we can initiate change for the future instead of continuing in our current path. Politicians need to increase funding for social programs to address the omnipresent gap between the rich and the poor, between minorities and white Americans. If action is not taken, more generations will be lost, failed by their schools, their healthcare system, and ultimately, their government. The situation isn’t hopeless, though: we need to pressure Governor Lynch to abolish the death penalty and to promote some equity in our legal system.
What Governor Lynch needs to realize is that the real “heinous” crime is refusing to abolish the death penalty. An outdated practice such as the death penalty must be reexamined; the old adage “an eye for an eye” fails to reflect the realities of today’s social climate and ultimately hinders any sort of progress. So if the State Senate passes the bill, Governor Lynch should do the right thing: obey the will of the people, and sign the bill into law.
