Capital Punishment. Is it a deterrent? Is it a process flawed by racial prejudices? Is it a right of the state at all? So many questions, just as many answers. All of which were addressed at a recent hearing held on the death penalty before the state Senate Judiciary Committee.

Since its reinstatement in 1976 as a result of the Supreme Court decision in Gregg v. Georgia that determined “the punishment of death does not invariably violate the Constitution,” the death penalty has been a cause of furor in both the public and the government alike. Currently, 230 inmates sit on the death row in Pennsylvania — 226 males, 4 females — all of whom are no doubt paying attention to the current legislation sponsored by Republican Senator Edward Helfrick (27th District).

Helfrick’s proposal, Senate Bill 952, suggests a moratorium be placed upon the state’s executions.

Attorney General of Pennsylvania Mike Fisher (r).

 As part of the legislation, Helfrick recommends that the state suspend executions — all of which are done by lethal injection — for a period of two years while a study is conducted on the ‘fairness’ of the process (see sidebar). Helfrick’s proposal falls in line with a variety of similar proposals drafted — with and without legislative success — throughout the nation in such states as Illinois, Nebraska, and New Hampshire, and in the city of Charlottesville, Virginia. On February 11, the Philadelphia City Council voted 12-4 for a resolution backing Helfrick’s bill, becoming the biggest U.S. city to demand such a suspension.

According to Helfrick, at the heart of his proposal is the fear that the practice of capital punishment will someday wrongly send an innocent person to death. And while the very system is designed to help ensure the execution of the wrongly convicted never happens — including a mandatory Supreme Court review of every case, a practice begun in 1860, and at least seven appellate options available for those convicted — Helfrick and his supporters feel there is no reason to take that chance. Therein lies the birth of the proposed bill.

But opponents of Helfrick’s bill see otherwise.

Unlike the groundbreaking moratorium passed on January 31 by Governor George Ryan of Illinois — a state that has executed 12 death row inmates since 1977 and yet has released 13 — the execution of an innocent inmate has never been proven to have occurred in the Commonwealth, says Attorney General Mike Fisher who reiterated that there has never been a “subsequent acquittal of any defendant on death row.”

Echoing Fisher’s claims was testimony given by Ron Eisenberg, Deputy of the Law Division of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, who says that instead of overwhelming evidence that there are problems of innocent executions in the state, there is “overwhelming evidence to the contrary,” citing a “legal system [that] examines capital convictions with extraordinary lengthy scrutiny” — including the various appellate options and review checks mentioned earlier.

So, where does that leave the fate of the bill?

In the hands of the judiciary committee who heard and responded to the various testimonies given by the some 32 witnesses that were scheduled to speak at the hearing — opinions ranging from the religious, including Cardinal Bevilacqua, Archbishop of Philadelphia and Chairman of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference to the legal, including the former Attorney General of Pennsylvania Ernie Preate. And while the proponents of Helfrick’s bill support the proposition “in the interest of saving even one innocent life,” according to Louis N. Teti, President of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, there are just as many who see the bill as a means to a hopeful end on the part of its supporters — that is, an end to the death penalty as a whole.

“There is nothing that a commission will uncover that has not already been addressed and resolved in the proper forum, the courts,” said Eisenberg, “ … this is a thinly veiled attempt to abolish the death penalty and nothing more.”

Whether its intent is to stop the practice of capital punishment in the state or to merely ensure the fairness of the process, Senate Bill 952 has caused some new waves in a debate that shows no sign of an end in sight.

Senate Bill
No. 952

(a) Suspension. No execution of a defendant shall take place to two years from the effective date of this section. A commission on the death penalty shall be created to study the law that provides for the death penalty and the administration of the death penalty in this Commonwealth. The commission shall make recommendations for amendments to the death penalty law to provide assurances that:

(1) defendants who are sentenced to death are in fact guilty of first degree murder;

(2) defendants in death penalty cases are provided adequate and experienced counsel and adequate resources for the defense of their cases at the trial, appellate and post-conviction stages;

(3) race does not play an impermissible role in determining which defendants are sentenced to death; and

(4) death penalty cases are handled similarly by all district attorneys throughout this Commonwealth.”

(as per the bill introduced by Helfrick, Hughes, Kitchen, Kukovich and Fumo, May 10, 1999)

States
Without The Death Penalty

Alaska, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, District of Columbia

(according to the Death Penalty Information Center)

States With The Highest
Execution Rates Since 1976

States With The Lowest Execution Rates Since 1976
(As of February 25, 2000)

  (according to the Death Penalty Information Center)

©1990-2003 Copyright ScotGiambalvo.com. “MODE Weekly™”, and “MODEweekly.com™”  are trademarks of Scot Giambalvo.
All rights reserved. Copying content from this site without permission is illegal. Linking to this site as if it was your own is just plain rude.
Click here for usage/link permission.