The New York Times
Wednesday, June 7, 2000
The New Death Penalty Politics
Editorials
The advent of modern DNA technology that can often prove with certainty the guilt or innocence of people convicted of serious crimes has heightened public concern about the fallibility of the criminal justice system, causing a dramatic shift in the nation's debate over capital punishment. Eight years ago Bill Clinton, then the governor of Arkansas, flew home in the midst of his presidential campaign to approve the execution of a man so brain-damaged that he saved the dessert from his final meal to eat later. It was considered good politics at that time to impose the maximum penalty on criminals. Last week, reflecting the new dynamic, Gov. George W. Bush postponed the execution of a convicted killer in Texas named Ricky Nolen McGinn to allow DNA testing the death-row inmate contends will establish his innocence. The emergence of the death penalty as a potential issue in this year's presidential race owes much to the action of another Republican governor and death penalty supporter, George Ryan of Illinois. In
March, Mr. Ryan declared a moratorium on executions in his state after 13 men on death row were exonerated by new evidence. In another dramatic development last month, the generally conservative New Hampshire Legislature voted to abolish the death penalty -- the first state to do so since the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume 24 years ago. The subsequent veto of the measure by the state's Democratic governor, Jeanne Shaheen, could not lessen the force of the Legislature's concern about the fairness and accuracy with which the death penalty is meted out. At least three other states -- Maryland, Nebraska and Indiana -- are also reviewing their administration of the death penalty for signs of malfunctioning. In the McGinn case, the Bush campaign said the governor's rare decision to slow down, if only temporarily, the fast-paced grinding of Texas' conveyor-belt death penalty system was made in the interest of justice, not politics. But in granting the reprieve -- his first in five years -- Mr. Bush was
plainly hoping to appeal to moderate voters for whom Texas' troubling pattern of questionable convictions and executions could pose an issue in the fall. He was also hoping to shift attention away from his casual assertion last month that every person put to death in Texas under his watch was guilty and had full access to the courts, a confidence that even many Bush supporters do not share. As governor, Mr. Bush has presided over 131 executions -- far more than any other state -- creating the need for a speedy makeover that better fits the presidential image of a "compassionate conservative" that he wants to convey. But if Mr. Bush is sincere about wanting to ensure justice, he should follow Mr. Ryan's lead in declaring a moratorium on executions. Meanwhile, the Republicans who control Congress need to act on the bipartisan Innocence Protection Act now pending in both the House and Senate. This measure would require states to preserve biological evidence that can be used in post-conviction appeals, make DNA
testing available to all inmates and provide competent lawyers for indigent defendants accused of capital crimes -- mandating improvements where the vast majority of death penalty states are shamefully deficient.
