Death by quota
The "North Carolina Racial Justice Act" was introduced Tuesday in the state House of Representatives with 32 sponsors, including Greensboro Democrats Alma Adams, Pricey Harrison and Earl Jones.
Its purpose is to ensure that "no person shall be subject to or given a sentence of death, or shall be executed pursuant to any judgment that was sought or obtained on the basis of race."
Absolutely. That should be covered by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution which guarantees equal protection under the law, as well as Article I Section 19 of the N.C. Constitution, which says, "No person shall be denied the equal protection of the laws; nor shall any person be subjected to discrimination by the State because of race, color, religion, or national origin."
But the proposed bill goes beyond statements of principle. It says that a finding that race was used as "the basis" for seeking a death penalty can be made with "statistical evidence" showing that death sentences were sought more frequently "upon persons of one race than upon persons of another race, or as punishment for capital offenses against persons of one race than as punishment of capital offenses against persons of another race."
In other words, the bill would allow defense attorneys for a black man accused of killing a white man to introduce statistical evidence showing that the death penalty is sought disproportionately against black men accused of killing white men, as opposed to white men accused of killing black men. And this could lead a judge to order that the death penalty may not be sought in that case.
I don't know what a statistical analysis like that would show in North Carolina. A quick glance at the individuals who have been executed in this state since 1984 shows most have been white men.
The timing of this bill may be unfortunate for the sponsors, coming just a couple of days after the arrest of a black man in Charlotte for the murders of two white police officers. It is possible prosecutors will seek the death penalty. If this law were enacted in time to apply to the Charlotte case, would defense attorneys argue their client is the victim of "racial injustice"? Could they use a "statistical analysis" to prove it? How many lawmakers will want to answer those questions when voting on this bill?
It looks to me that at least some of the sponsors of this bill actually oppose capital punishment in all cases, so maybe they're just trying to gum up our already sticky death-penalty machinery. We really ought to quit playing games and do away with it.
And, yes, if I were a legislator I'd support life in prison without parole, rather than execution, even for cop killers. That's a better policy than trying to enforce racial quotas for the death penalty.
Comments (7)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
It's political posturing, pure and simple. There is no provision for the inclusion of race in death penalties, so they're trying to outlaw something that doesn't exist under law.
The language about "statistical evidence" is an attempt to put a quantatative definition on something purely subjective and opinion-based.
In other words, these legislators think they can "punish" jurors for what the legislators *believe* the jurors may have possibly only thought.
Hello, Big Brother...meet the Thought Police.
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:00 AM
Doug:
The onus should be on the sponsors of this legislation to show both why it's needed and what it's likely impacts are. Absent such evidence, the bill does look like a thinly disguised device to gum up the works and to score points with racial and liberal constituencies.
Perhaps it could be renamed the "Racial Justice and Forensic Statistical Consultants Employment Act."
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:15 AM
It looks to me that at least some of the sponsors of this bill actually oppose capital punishment in all cases, so maybe they're just trying to gum up our already sticky death-penalty machinery. We really ought to quit playing games and do away with it.
And, yes, if I were a legislator I'd support life in prison without parole, rather than execution, even for cop killers. That's a better policy than trying to enforce racial quotas for the death penalty.* Doug
Good for you Doug! Now convince the Republican leadership in this State that life is a two way street before law.
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:28 AM
OK, Connie, right after we convince the Democratic governor, Mike "No Clemency" Easley.
Good point, Dave. Defense lawyers will have to hire statisticians as expert witnesses.
Posted on April 5, 2007 10:31 AM
The bill won't pass and if it does, it will be a landmine for equal protection lawsuits brought by people on death row who can't prove they were "discriminated" against using the statistical evidence.
Getting into this statistical evidence as proof will never pass Constitutional muster. This is another attempt to abdicate responsibility through race baiting. It is unfortunate. Time would be better spent arguing about the merits of the death penalty itself instead of this.
Posted on April 5, 2007 12:37 PM
Thanks, Sam. That's my point: Let's just address the death penalty issue head-on.
Posted on April 5, 2007 12:55 PM
OK, Connie, right after we convince the Democratic governor, Mike "No Clemency" Easley.*Doug
Wow Doug! We are making progress here. In fact, I will go one step futher. I am dropping my impeach Bush now agenda and moving it to impeach Mike with my needle agenda if he let's Nifong go one more day than neccessary and sticks another needle into a prisoner without a doctor standing by to preserve life.
Getting into this statistical evidence as proof will never pass Constitutional muster. This is another attempt to abdicate responsibility through race baiting.*Sam
I don't know where you got that idea, but it does pass consitutional muster. Are you aware that Grand Juries in most states can be legaly supress due to racial statistical data in most counties on a % basic now. The Supreme Court rule in the early and late 70's on statistical data as a defense to a fair and balance trial with the proper diversity in that judical authority under the 14 th amendment. Happens all the time Sam in either high white male republican counties or high Black female Democrat counties.
Good defense lawyers are well aware of that legal move in order to get a fair jury pool or jury for their client depending on the race or religion of the client.
Posted on April 5, 2007 6:25 PM