« "Pick a stat, any stat. They all tell you the same thing: America is really good at putting people behind bars." | Main | ACSBlog conducting "symposium on racial inequalities in the criminal justice system" »

February 13, 2015

Pennsylvania Gov declares moratorium on state death penalty

As reported in this local piece, headlined "Gov. Tom Wolf declares moratorium on death penalty in Pa.," there is some headline-making news about capital punishment administration emerging from the Keystone State: 

Gov. Tom Wolf declared a moratorium Friday on the death penalty in Pennsylvania, potentially halting the process for 186 prisoners who've received a death sentence. Since 1693, the commonwealth has executed 1,043 prisoners, the last of which was Philadelphia torture killer Gary Heidnik in 1999. That execution took place, in large part, because Heidnik gave up his right to appeal.

In a statement released Friday, Wolf said the state's current death penalty is "a flawed system that has been proven to be an endless cycle of court proceedings as well as ineffective, unjust and expensive."...

Wolf's first action was a temporary reprieve to Terrance Williams, who was scheduled to be executed on March 4. Williams was convicted of two murders he committed as a teenager in 1984. "Today's action comes after significant consideration and reflection," Wolf said. "This moratorium is in no way an expression of sympathy for the guilty on death row, all of whom have been convicted of committing heinous crimes."

Shortly after Wolf's announcement, Sen. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, said he reintroduced his bill Friday to abolish the death penalty altogether. "I am extremely grateful that our governor will stop spending our tax dollars to, in the words of former US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, tinker with the machinery of death," he said, in a written statement.

Gov. Wolf's detailed four-page statement justifying his decision today is a fascinating read (which I am going to make my sentencing students read and re-read). The full statement is available at this link, and here are excerpts:

Pursuant to authority granted in Article IV, § 9 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania, I am today exercising my power as Governor to grant a temporary reprieve to inmate Terrence Williams. A death warrant for this case was signed on January 13, 2015 by my predecessor, acting pursuant to Section 4302 of the Pennsylvania Prisons and Parole Code. The execution was scheduled for March 4, 2015.

The reprieve announced today shall remain in effect until I have received and reviewed the forthcoming report of the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment (established under Senate Resolution 6 of 2011), and any recommendations contained therein are satisfactorily addressed. In addition, it is my intention to grant a reprieve in each future instance in which an execution is scheduled, until this condition is met....

There are currently 186 individuals on Pennsylvania’s death row. Despite having the fifth largest death row in the nation, the death penalty has rarely been imposed in modern times. In the nearly forty years since the Pennsylvania General Assembly reinstated the death penalty, the Commonwealth has executed three people, all of whom voluntarily abandoned their right to further due process.

In that same period, Governors have signed 434 death warrants. All but the three noted above have subsequently been stayed by a court. One inmate has been scheduled for execution six times, each of which has been cancelled due to a state or federal appeal. Two inmates have remained on death row for more than three decades. This unending cycle of death warrants and appeals diverts resources from the judicial system and forces the families and loved ones of victims to relive their tragedies each time a new round of warrants and appeals commences. The only certainty in the current system is that the process will be drawn out, expensive, and painful for all involved.

While the pace of the process frustrates some, the fail-safes of appellate review are essential in avoiding a catastrophic miscarriage of justice. Since reinstatement of the death penalty, 150 people have been exonerated from death row nationwide, including six men in Pennsylvania....

If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to take the irrevocable step of executing a human being, its capital sentencing system must be infallible. Pennsylvania’s sy stem is riddled with flaws, making it error prone, expensive, and anything but infallible....

[A]administering the death penalty, with all the necessary legal appeals and safeguards as well as extra security and individual cells on death row, is extremely expensive. A recent analysis conducted by the Reading Eagle estimates that the capital justice apparatus has cost taxpayers at least $315 million, but noted that this figure was very likely low. Other estimates have suggested the cost to be $600 million or more. The Commonwealth has received very little, if any, benefit from this massive expenditure.

February 13, 2015 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451574769e201b7c74c85c7970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pennsylvania Gov declares moratorium on state death penalty:

Comments

"If the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is going to take the irrevocable step of executing a human being, its capital sentencing system must be infallible."

If I was to be given a life sentence or even 20 years I'd sure hope the process was infallible too.

Posted by: Steve | Feb 13, 2015 2:25:50 PM

"its capital sentencing system must be infallible"

Not likely. The best you can do is have it good enough that the small margin for error is worth it. As to the first comment, sure, but their fallibility will be better able to be addressed down the road than if you were executed.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 13, 2015 2:55:28 PM

I support the end of the death penalty in Pennsylvania to severely punish the horrible people in the death penalty appellate business. They are heartless.

Let the death penalty proceed apace in the general population of the state prisons, by the other inmates. These are morally far superior and have more integrity than the appellate business participants, especially the appellate judges at every level. Most of all, the prisoners know what and who they are. They do not put on pious airs, as those insufferable judges do. These judges are even in denial o themselves, never considering their profession o be the world's largest, wealthiest, and most powerful criminal syndicate. It has infiltrated and now totally controls the three branches of our government.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Feb 13, 2015 11:22:05 PM

Wolf has been in office for less than a month. Did he tell the voters during the campaign that he planned to abolish the death penalty for the duration of his tenure? The statement reads like the obfuscation of a cowardly politician.

Posted by: stan | Feb 15, 2015 9:36:42 PM

"did he tell the voters:

yes -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/13/386023003/governor-puts-moratorium-on-pennsylvanias-death-penalty

"for the duration of his tenure"

This is assumed why?

"cowardly politician"

First, it is reported he did state he supported a moratorium. Second, the last person executed in the state was 1999; the state Senate supported a task force to examine the death penalty & one was formulated that advised a moratorium as its findings were developed. Finally, to the degree his position resulted in opposition (unclear how much) it arguably wasn't given the concerns the penalty was being applied wrongly & he supported something that might led to political backlash.

Overall, opposition to the death penalty is usually something on the record, even if just what you would do on this or some other issue might rest on things that arise in office. The "cowardly" nature is only shown if the person denies their positions or refuses to say anything of note. Doesn't seem to be the case here.


Posted by: Joe | Feb 15, 2015 9:58:19 PM

"did he tell the voters:

yes -- http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/02/13/386023003/governor-puts-moratorium-on-pennsylvanias-death-penalty

"for the duration of his tenure"

This is assumed why?

"cowardly politician"

First, it is reported he did state he supported a moratorium. Second, the last person executed in the state was 1999; the state Senate supported a task force to examine the death penalty & one was formulated that advised a moratorium as its findings were developed. Finally, if his position leads to backlash, it is not quite "cowardice" to bear with it in the interests of justice.

Overall, opposition to the death penalty is usually something on the record, even if just what you would do on this or some other issue might rest on things that arise in office. The "cowardly" nature is only shown if the person denies their positions or refuses to say anything of note. Doesn't seem to be the case here.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 15, 2015 10:05:34 PM

Did he tell the voters during the election that, once elected, he would abolish the death penalty? If so, good on him and the voters are getting what they voted for. If not, then the cowardly politician label fits. The NPR link doesn't suggest that he said anything about this until after he was elected.

Posted by: stan | Feb 16, 2015 10:15:26 AM

Stan, when did he "abolish" the death penalty?

The last execution in the state was in 1999. The state Senate passed a special resolution to set up a task force to investigate the death penalty, which advised a moratorium while the matter was being examined. This is what the governor said as well.

The NPR linked said this: "Gov. Tom Wolf has declared a moratorium on the death penalty in Pennsylvania, taking a stance that he had embraced during his successful campaign to unseat incumbent Tom Corbett. Wolf, a Democrat, was sworn in last month."

So, the voters were on notice. He did not "abolish" the death penalty, nor does the "cowardly" language fit. It is as if Gov. Brownback was called a "coward" for abolishing an executive order to support gays after running on some sort right wing morals platform. Here, I provided evidence the guy directly "embraced" the position he took. Those more familiar with local politics might provide more.

But, if you are going to toss around words like "cowardly," the burden of proof seems to be on you.

Posted by: Joe | Feb 16, 2015 12:09:07 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB