Imperfect criminal courts failing at justice

DNA testing revealed last week that the evidence from a crime scene resulted in the death of a man who was wrongfully convicted of murder. Ten years after his death, the hair that was used to convict Claude Jones was tested and showed that it was, in fact, not his.

Jones was executed in 2000 under Gov. Bush for the murder of a shop owner in 1989. The execution came shortly after George W. Bush voiced his opinion during a presidential debate.

“I don’t think you should support the death penalty to seek revenge. I don’t think that’s right. I think the reason to support the death penalty is because it saves other people’s lives,” Bush said during a presidential debate.

The conviction hinged on a single small shred of evidence — a hair found at the scene of the crime believed to be his. Before his death, Jones petitioned for a stay of execution to allow more time for testing of the physical evidence; however, his request was denied. Documents show that attorneys in the governor’s office failed to inform Bush of the request.

With the growing number of exonerations in this state, the question looms: should we reevaluate our stance on the death penalty? Can we justify killing an innocent man from time to time in hope of “saving more lives?” Furthermore, can we save lives without executing people?

This is not a political issue; rather, it is an issue of morality and justice. Since 1976 when the death penalty was re-instated, Texas has executed 464 people, according to deathpenaltyinfo.org. Twelve people who were on death row waiting to die have been completely exonerated and set free through developments in DNA evidence.

Imagine for a minute serving 18 years on death row for a crime you did not commit, proclaiming your innocence, but being surrounded by thousands of others who are falsely claiming to be innocent.

Putting aside the urge to avenge those who have wronged us, would it not be more sensible to instead distribute sentences of ‘life without the possibility of parole’?

There are a few popular arguments that oppose this idea: cost, deterrence and prevention. Contrary to popular belief, it costs about three times more to execute someone than it does to imprison someone at the highest level of security. “In Texas, a death penalty case costs an average of $2.3 million, about three times the cost of imprisoning someone in a single cell at the highest security level for 40 years,” according to deathpenaltyinfo.org.

As far as deterrence is concerned, we have executed over four times as many people in Texas than any other state since 1976 (Texas has had 464 executions, Virginia has executed the second-most at 107), yet we have an above average murder rate. In 2009, the average murder rate per 100,000 people for states that do use the death penalty was 4.9 (Texas had a rate of 5.4) while states who do not use the death penalty average 2.8.

Some might argue that Texas exemplifies a “do as I say, not as I do” sort of stance when it comes to killing someone. Such people believe that because we are so willing to execute someone in this state, we are showing a lack of consideration for life and metaphorically closing our eyes to what is moral.

Whether you buy that argument or not, the fact remains that capital punishment has not been shown to deter crime.

Finally, perhaps one of the most legitimate arguments: if you execute a criminal, he will not be able to kill or harm someone again. This may be true, but couldn’t we spend the money that we use to execute people on improving our prisons and the criminal justice system?

If we could accomplish that, a sentence of life without the possibility of parole would also mean that person would not be able to harm anyone ever again.

It seems like a no-brainer in the light of the recent exonerations. Claude Jones would still be alive today and, though he has not been proven innocent, we would have a clear conscience that we did not unjustly execute a man.

With the availability of new technology, the number of exonerations is growing all across the country at a substantial rate and some are rethinking their stance on capital punishment.

Perhaps Texans should do the same. Benjamin Franklin once wrote, “It is better that 100 innocent persons should escape than one innocent person should suffer.”

John Gervais is a psychology senior and may be reached at [email protected].