STAFF EDIT: Carefully consider death penalty

Attempts to bring back the death penalty could create even more controversy for Gov. Mitt Romney than his spate of budget cuts previously proposed or enacted. Because capital punishment is so controversial and involves so many complicated moral, legal and financial issues, legislators must first carefully examine whether to bring back the death penalty and then consider exactly how to implement it if they do decide to legalize the death penalty again.

The last of Massachusetts’ 65 executions occurred in 1947, and capital punishment has been illegal since 1975, except for brief stints from 1979 to 1980 and 1982 to 1984. Since the voter referendum that had legalized the death penalty in 1982 was declared unconstitutional two years later, the last four Republican governors have unsuccessfully tried to get capital punishment back. The closest recent effort was when Paul Cellucci pushed for it following the murder of a 10-year-old boy. The bill to reinstate capital punishment failed by only one vote in 1997.

While Romney said he plans to introduce his own legislation to bring capital punishment back, there are already four bills in the legislature. In the Senate, one bill proposes reinstating the penalty, and one proposes it for some first degree murderers. In the House, one bill proposes reinstating the penalty and another proposes it for some drug law violators.

The last bill proposing it for certain drug offenders should definitely not be passed. Drug crimes are nowhere near as heinous as murder crimes, and recent efforts to charge some drug dealers with murder miss the point that the so-called victims chose to buy drugs. Murder victims do not choose their deaths. Furthermore, extending capital punishment to drug offenders would dangerously increase the number of cases subject to the death penalty and would not reduce drug trafficking since a large market would still invite sellers.

The topic of drug offenders brings up the issue of prison overcrowding, which some say could be limited thorough more lax drug penalties while others call for using the death penalty to reduce the number of prisoners. Controversy also swirls over somewhat related economic issues. For proponents, the death penalty would reduce the expense of feeding, clothing and housing prisoners during lengthy life imprisonment sentences. On the other side, opponents argue that the extra expense of capital punishment trials and appeals costs society even more.

The death penalty debate also hinges on how one views criminal punishment as a whole. Supporters claim that death is the ultimate punishment, allowing closure for victims’ families and deterring capital crimes. However, the death penalty also prevents any chance of rehabilitating the prisoner to feel remorse, and many feel spending years in prison waiting to die is greater punishment.

Just as some want the death penalty to ensure murderers can never escape or receive parole, others fear killing innocent people. Although DNA and other technologies have made evidence more accurate in many cases and generally reduced the chances of finding an innocent man guilty, opponents of capital punishment still argue that even DNA testing is not infallible. Further illustrating the level of controversy is whether DNA testing reduces the number of appeals (and therefore court costs) or does precisely the opposite.

The morality aspect is what makes the death penalty such a hot issue, and deciding whether or not executions are cruel and unusual punishment is usually the legal justification for or against it. Yet again, people argue over whether the state should participate in a practice it prohibits or whether murderers deserve to die like their victims.

While the state legislature should absolutely not pass the bill applying the death penalty to drug offenses, it must carefully consider all the ramifications of reinstating the death penalty before passing any of the other three bills or a future proposal from Romney. If brought back, capital punishment laws must be very strict and ensure only those who are certainly guilty of heinous crimes receive the penalty. The death penalty as applied in New York would be a far better model for setting up a system than the Texas method, which kills far more people and applies the penalty more often.

Finally, the ongoing debate about the death penalty illuminates many flaws in the judicial system, and the legislature should definitely consider how to reform those while it contemplates capital punishment. For example, one argument of anti-death penalty advocates is that the penalty is discriminatory because more minorities get the death penalty. However, this likely points to larger inequities in law enforcement and the legal system. Another issue demanding attention is streamlining the appeals process to waste less time and money while still providing the convicted with every reasonable chance to prove their innocence. Reforming apparent flaws like this in the criminal justice system are nearly guaranteed to find far more consensus than the contentious issue of capital punishment.