The disappearing death penalty

The use of capital punishment dropped again in 2016, a positive trend.

Stephen Lam/Reuters/File
A guard stands behind bars during a 2015 media tour of death row at San Quentin State Prison in San Quentin, Calif. America's most populous state has not carried out an execution of a prisoner in more than a decade.

Sometimes a modicum of progress sneaks up on society and, when spotted, provides welcome news.

Just before Christmas, the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reported that in 2016 both the death sentences by courts and death-row executions across the United States continued to decline.

The 30 new death sentences handed down this year were a big drop from 49 the previous year, and were the lowest number since the US Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, the nonprofit group said.

In 2016, 20 people were put to death in the US as punishment for crimes. That was a significant drop from 28 people in 2015. This year about 30 people joined those waiting on death row in US prisons, the fewest number in more that four decades. That number is far below the 315 sentenced to death in 1995, for example. The total number of people on death row awaiting execution also fell modestly in 2016, from 2,984 to 2,905.

“America is in the midst of a major climate change concerning capital punishment,” says Robert Dunham, DPIC’s executive director and the author of the report. “While there may be fits and starts and occasional steps backward, the long-term trend remains clear.”

These clear trend lines shouldn’t be obscured by fog formed from initiatives in California, Nebraska, and Oklahoma last fall, in which voters expressed approval of capital punishment in their states.

While many, perhaps most, Americans still back the death penalty in principle, more and more seem to be troubled by the way it is carried out. Executions using intravenous drugs have been botched causing undue pain, and finding an adequate supply of drugs that don’t prolong suffering has proved elusive.

The possibility of wrongful executions continues to disturb Americans: Since 1973, 156 prisoners sitting on death row have been freed, some through DNA evidence unavailable at their original trial. These inmates have either been acquitted of all charges against them, had the charges dropped by prosecutors, or were granted a pardon based on evidence that showed their innocence.

States have also moved to exempt minors and those judged mentally incompetent from being eligible for execution, reducing the pool of possible subjects.

Concerns about racial disparities trouble many as well. Since 1976, 34.5 percent of all those executed for capital offenses were African-Americans. Today 41.8 percent of those who await execution on death row are African-Americans. Yet African-Americans make up only 13.2 percent of the total US population.

But whether capital punishment proves to be expensive or difficult to administer in a fair or timely fashion is not the principal reason to welcome its end. As a 2010 Monitor editorial reasoned, a moral argument must be heard too. “A government’s job is to preserve life, not compound a terrible wrong by taking another life,” it said. “A death sentence cuts off the opportunity for redemption and leans on an outdated concept of justice based on revenge.”

Most governments in the world have accepted this argument and have stopped the use of capital punishment. In the US that day may not happen for some time to come, but making the death penalty more and more rare is a step in the right direction.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.