Currently, 38 states and the federal government ratify the death penalty – most by means of lethal injection.  Proponents of the death penalty often believe that the punishment is both “fair” and “humane.”  In other words, the punishment fits the crime and is not “cruel and unusual.”  Is there reason to think otherwise?

“Is it fair?”

There are a disproportionate number of racial minorities on death row.  Compounding this startling disproportion is the fact that (in North Carolina) the odds of getting a death sentence increased three and a half times if the victim was white.  There is a definite race bias in our death penalty system.

These figures suggest that the death penalty is not being administered “consistently fair.”  Instead, it is being administered “fairly consistent.”  In other words, the death penalty is arbitrarily administered (negatively affecting poor minorities).  Less than two percent of homicides in North Carolina result in sentences of death.  This means that even when heinous homicides are committed and defendants are fairly tried, the death penalty is handed down arbitrarily.  There is no effective mechanism to ensure that only the worst of the worst murderers receive the death penalty. As a result, multiple murderers have received life sentences and first-time robbers – lacking any intent to kill – have received the death penalty.

To make matters worse, while fewer than 1% of all lawyers in the state are ever disciplined for improper representation or handling of cases, one out of every six death row inmates had an attorney disciplines by the NC State Bar.  (While North Carolina recently enacted standards for trial attorneys to address this issue, the laws they passed do not apply to the lawyers who represented the people currently on death row.)

There is also great variance in sentencing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction – North Carolina lacks a central decision maker to adjudicate this grave sentence consistently.

Finally, since 1973, over 120 inmates have been freed from death row – the vast majority of whom have been exonerated based on exculpatory DNA evidence.  This fact unsettles the assurance that all of those convicted are deserving of death – many more than we may like to think are innocent.

“Is it humane?”

Most states that administer the death penalty do so by lethal injection – and North Carolina is no exception.  The lethal cocktail is usually a mixture of the following: sodium thiopental (the barbiturate), pancuronium bromide (the paralytic agent), and potassium chloride (the heart-stopping agent).  Like any drug protocol, some people react differently to the cocktail than others.  There are supposed to be trained personnel attending to the person being euthanized to ensure that the injection does not constitute “cruel and unusual” punishment, but recently this protocol has come into question as it was discovered that medical personnel that were supposed to be overseeing the process were not as attentive as some would have liked.  What’s more, the very supervision of physicians at a lethal injection has become the source of significant controversy in the state of North Carolina.

In 1973, when debates about capital punishment were resurfacing to the forefront of American public debate, Ronald Regan likened lethal injection to “putting down a horse.”  Recently, however, significant questions have been raised about whether lethal injection is in fact a “humane” was to kill convicted inmates.  Among the many issues is concern that the anesthetic used to put the inmates to sleep might not always have the desired effect – leaving some to suffer in agony, fully aware and sentient while the cocktail ends their life.  To this effect, in a recent affidavit, Dr. Philip Boysen – chairman of anesthesiology at UNC-Chapel Hill's medical school – said that North Carolina's lethal-injection procedure “invites disaster.”

These are just two reasons why the death penalty has – and should continue – to be called into serious question.  A punishment that was once thought (by many) to be both “fair” and “humane” can no longer be considered so uncritically.  These developments should give us pause; they should prompt us to reflect.  Is this the right thing to be doing?

To assist in that reflection, please consider availing yourself to the following resources.