Joe Biden, as part of his 2020 presidential campaign, vowed to work towards the abolishment of the federal death penalty. Despite assuring his followers of this objective, his promise was left unfulfilled due to an absence of support in Congress. As he prepared to take his leave from the Oval Office, a commendable legislative shift was announced; sentences of 37 convicts on federal death row were commuted as an act symbolizing Biden’s commitment to his unrealized promise.
Although his actions toward abolishing the federal death penalty are noteworthy, Biden drew a discretionary line, reflecting a certain inconsistency. He differentiated between individuals charged with ‘terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder,’ leaving them untouched on death row. These exceptions included the surviving Boston Marathon bomber, the individual who targeted a synagogue in Pittsburgh, killing 11, as well as the white supremacist who took the lives of nine African American churchgoers in Charleston.
Biden’s controversial selections suggest an application of the law based on his own interpretation, rather than consistent application for all. In fact, these exemptions did not pacify those who ardently condemn executions on religious, ethical, or practical grounds. The entire decision has only stirred further debate over the use and purpose of the death penalty in the United States.
The current state of the American judicial system has been a point of contention. Among developed nations, America stands out as one of the few that still upholds the principle of capital punishment. Last year, the only countries to deliver more state executions were authoritarian states including China, Iran, Somalia, and Saudi Arabia. These are nation-states often criticized for their inhumane practices.
The implementation of the death penalty in the US challenges fundamental principles of logic, morality, and reason. Advocates for the death penalty have trouble defending it as a deterrent because it has proven to be otherwise. Subject to inconsistencies and inequities, it has been criticized as erratic, prejudiced, irrationally selective, and disproportionately expensive compared to non-capital incarcerations.
Adding to the inherent flaws of this system is the irrevocable harm caused by potential wrongful executions. Since 1973, data from the Death Penalty Information Center indicates that 200 individuals on death row were cleared of all charges, suggesting that there is room for irreversible miscarriages of justice. Out of all the states, Florida stands out with the highest number of such exonerations.
There has been a strong suggestion that more innocent lives might have been lost to this judicial practice. A former chief justice of the state Supreme Court in Florida confessed his belief that at least three wrongful executions were conducted, though declined to provide further details. This indicates a problematic reality within the capital punishment schema – the loss of innocent lives.
An objective look at the American legal system makes it clear that capital punishment has no rightful place in it. Only around 2% of murderers are awarded the death sentence, which suggests an extremely selective and inconsistent administration. The concept of capital punishment as it stands is distorted by multiple subjective layers of discretion – from police to prosecutors, judges, and juries.
The power bestowed upon the President to commute sentences is however absolute. This decision ensures that the previous practice of Donald Trump, who ordered the execution of 13 individuals prior to the 2020 election, is rendered void. The decision reflects an act of resistance against returning to such punitive measures.
In a deflective attempt to refute the notion that he was lenient on criminals, Biden assures that the 37 individuals whose sentences he commuted are not free men but will serve life sentences without the prospect of parole. This illustrates another misrepresentation, as the act of commuting a sentence does not equate to setting a criminal free but merely altering the form of punishment.
Regardless of staunch opposition and clear evidence against its effectiveness and morality, the death penalty continues to find supporters among politicians who find it a valuable ‘tough-on-crime’ weapon. Furthermore, prosecutors employ it as leverage to coerce criminals into confession or providing valuable information against co-defendants. These factors, however, should not justify or prolong the use of such a flawed system.
Nationally, the usage of the death penalty has been in sharp decline. There has been a sizable shift in public sentiment, with twenty-three states so far having banned it. Last year, the country witnessed 24 executions, compared to a higher number, 98, in 1999. Nonetheless, the persistence of the death penalty remains a reminder of outdated practices.
Flouting this trend, Florida has introduced a new law that could potentially set it on the path to record the highest number of state executions. The law allows for execution recommendations from as few as eight out of 12 jurors instead of a unanimous verdict. This kind of law, although popular with hardliners, is a return to a harsher stance on crime, a regression in the eyes of many.
The move followed a case where a jury voted 9-3 against the death sentence of a mass murderer. It seems that the state prefers to defy public sentiment and set harsher standards instead of adapting to the prevailing shift nationally. The state’s Supreme Court has also abolished the ‘proportionality review,’ a concept established to ensure the death penalty is reserved for the absolute ‘worst of the worst.’
The shift in legislation has further reduced the hurdles for executing individuals with intellectual disabilities. This puts humans with mental handicaps at an elevated risk, contradicting international norms. The death penalty, as it stands today, has exposed irreparable defects that leave Florida operating on the fringes of legal and ethical norms.
The continual practice of the death penalty remains a contentious subject in America. While some states have phased it out, some, like Florida, forge onward with its implementation. It is essential for the Supreme Court to seize the first opportunity to review and rectify its use, aligning the American judicial system with global best practices. This urgency is intensified by the ghastly thought of the potential loss of innocent lives under this severely flawed system.