Rick Perry is catching a
lot of
flak because of his comments about the death penalty.
During last night’s debate, Perry was
asked if he “struggled to sleep at night with the idea that any
of those [executed] might have been innocent.” He
responded: “No, Sir. I’ve never struggled with that at
all.”
Given how difficult it is to apply the death penalty, and given
how infrequently this punishment is meted out, I think Perry’s
response was entirely justified.
“The state of Texas,” he
explained, “has a very thoughtful [and] very clear process in
place. When someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our
citizens, they get a fair hearing. They go through an appellate
process; they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States if
that’s required.”
(And, he might have added, DNA evidence also is now
used to ensure that innocent defendants aren’t executed.)
It’s important that the judicial process be administered in a
fair, timely, and efficient manner. Dallas-based criminal defense
attorneys Clinton Broden and F.R. “Mick” Mickelsen write
that, unfortunately, that’s often not the case:
In most death penalty cases there is little doubt about the
guilt of the accused. If there were, it is unlikely the state
would seek the death penalty in the first place. Thus
the guilt and innocence phase of the trial is usually over
in a day or two…
If a defendant finds no success along this lengthy procedural
path, it can nevertheless take five to ten years from crime to
execution date. If the defendant does meet with some success
so that a retrial, or further hearings are conducted the process
can drag out for many more years. In Texas, there are
inmates who have been on death row for decades.
This is shameful, disgraceful and a true miscarriage of justice.
After all, justice delayed is justice denied.
That may be why the GOP debate audience heartily cheered Brian
Williams’s claim that Perry had presided over so many executions.
They’ve had enough of judges and lawyers overruling their will and
making public policy for them.