Justice Marshall and Death Penalty

I am appalled at the Supreme Court decision, ruling out new evidence as grounds for a federal judge to stop an execution. This verdict could, and probably will, result in innocent human beings being executed. It should not comfort us that an exception is made where the evidence is “conclusive,” since the new evidence in the present case casts serious doubt on the original verdict.

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor justified the ruling by arguing that, if judges are allowed to consider new evidence from those on death row, the courts will be “deluged with frivolous claims of actual innocence.” But how could there be better grounds for the delays and expense that such a deluge of claims would allegedly create than the chance to save innocent lives from the gallows?

Chief Justice William Rehnquist argues that it is not the business of federal judges “to correct errors of fact.” So, he would either have innocents executed because of a point of procedure, which is obviously morally unacceptable, or leave it up the governor. But governors rarely grant clemency, since considerations of reelection can be more important to them than considerations of justice.

TORIN ALTER

Los Angeles