Electoral politics distort the fairness and accuracy of capital punishment, and how decreasing public support for the death penalty is changing the picture, the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) argues in a new report. The U.S. stands alone internationally in electing prosecutors and no other country elects judges in similar partisan, expensive judicial elections. The realties of campaigning for elected office, combined with the outsized influence of money in elections, appear to influence decisions by elected officials who make critical decisions in death penalty cases, DPIC says.
“The U.S. electoral process inserts many elements of unpredictability and unfairness into death penalty cases. A life-or-death decision should not depend on whether an appeal or clemency petitioon is heard in an election year, nor should a defendant’s fate rest on who donated money to an official’s campaign fund,” said DPIC's Robin Maher. “But the data suggest that is exactly what is happening.” The report traces the shift in public opinion, political rhetoric, and the use of the death penalty over the last 30 years. “Tough on crime” stances, including support for the death penalty, were once seen as essential for political success, but that is no longer true in all jurisdictions, as evidenced by the declining use of capital punishment and the rise of the reform prosecutor movement. While use of the death penalty is not so important to voters as it once was, the practicalities and pressures of elections continue to affect the behavior of officials and candidates, to the detriment of defendants facing a possible death sentence, DPIC says.
Comments