On Tuesday night, just minutes after networks called North Carolina for Barack Obama, the state of Georgia quietly resumed killing those on death row. The executed was one William Lynd, a 53-year-old convicted of murder. It was the first execution since Baze v. Rees, and one of 50-60 planned before the end of the year. (After a 7-month pause, death rows have a lot of catching-up to do.)
But when it comes to the death penalty, Baze v. Rees' focus--whether a particular cocktail of drugs produces pain severe enough to violate the Eighth Amendment--was patently absurd. The fact remains that so often, as John Holdridge recently told the New York Times, the problem with the death penalty isn't method of execution, but rather "poor people getting lousy lawyers."
Case in point: North Carolina, which in the past six months alone has freed three people from death row, most recently Leaven Jones, who spent 14 years on death row before a federal judge found that his court-appointed attorneys spent "virtually no time or effort" investigating his crime. Or Alabama, where 194 condemned inmates--mostly indigent--are denied state representation for capital post-conviction appeals.
Like any other statistic in the U.S., death penalty sentencing is strongly patterned on race. But the more basic injustice death row inmates face is lack of resources. Last month in Kentucky, for example, where public defenders already represent over 435 cases per year, the state eliminated another $2.5 million in indigent-representation funding.
Last year, the Duke lacrosse players who faced Mike Nifong were lucky enough to have top-caliber representation. After being found innocent, Reade Seligmann put it best when he said, "I can’t imagine what they do to people who do not have the resources to defend themselves.” With 129 death row inmates exonerated since 1973, too often, the death penalty isn't a punishment reserved for the "worst" offenders--just the ones with the worst representation.
--Te-Ping Chen
