During the past 25 years, 87 men and women have been freed from death rows based not on technicalities but on the evidence. In almost all cases, it took some miraculous event for the truth to emerge. In one case, a man was freed only because a minuscule sample of DNA was found on the side of a test tube 10 years after his conviction. Who knows how many innocent men and women have been executed without any such fluke exposing their innocence? A system that relies on miracles is doomed to commit grievous error.
I cannot imagine the horror that the family of a murder victim experiences, and I would not dare criticize some victims’ support for capital punishment. One who takes innocent human life must pay dearly, for otherwise we devalue life itself. But we devalue life even more when we carry out executions despite clear evidence that the system is broken.
The only true solution is to abolish the death penalty and to sentence our worst offenders to life in prison without parole. Short of that, certain reforms could reduce the risk of wrongful convictions. We could forbid executions in cases decided on the testimony of one witness, an uncorroborated confession or a jailhouse snitch. We could insist that judges find an absolute certainty of guilt–not just guilt beyond reasonable doubt–before levying death penalties. And we could ensure that every defendant has a qualified lawyer who has adequate resources to investigate the case.
But we still would face the question of whether the value of executing criminals outweighs the inequities that will remain. Reasonable minds will differ on this. I do not believe, however, that anyone who looks carefully can conclude that our current system should be trusted to decide who shall live and who shall die.
