Race and the Death Penalty Conference
ø
Even in the hubbub of finishing up papers and packing dorm rooms, students came to hear some of the best and brightest figures in criminal justice speak recently at the conference sponsored by the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice. The “all-star” line up of guests came not only to discuss the current problems with the death penalty, but also to provide hope, solutions, and inspiration to those in attendance. Powerful speakers such as Barry Scheck, Steve Bright, Austin Sarat, Randy Hertz, and Dr. Rubin “Hurricane” Carter provided insight based on their profound experience in the field.
Rising 3L Jalina Hudson e-mailed me with a description of the experience:
“Steve Bright reminded us of the painful reality that the Fifth Circuit does not always consider lawyers who sleep during trial ‘ineffective,’ or that a lawyer could receive more money working at McDonald’s rather than working as a capital defender in the South for the same amount of hours. With law and policy like this, it is no surprise that the system is so flawed, so biased, and that it results in an intolerable number of wrongful convictions. Considering the racial history of the U.S., it is also unsurprising that, according to Barry Scheck, the eleven states that lynched the most many years ago are the eleven states that execute the most today.
“In its most recent decisions on the death penalty, the Supreme Court looked to international trends and opinions. While the U.S. is the only developed nation to still impose capital punishment, it is interesting that 65% of Europeans still favor the death penalty. One theory is that while Europeans favor the death penalty, they believe that they cannot trust the government to impose it correctly. Will the ‘Innocence Movement’ in the U.S. (demonstrating how often the U.S. wrongfully convicts) induce a similar response here?
“Regardless of the prospects of abolition, several practical and realistic suggestions for improvement were provided. One obvious improvement is increasing the salary of public capital defenders, at least to make it equal to that of prosecutors. Another possibility is to make voir dire inclusive rather than exclusive. By making attorneys list the jurors they want, not only is the process more efficient in selecting jurors amenable to both sides, but it could also reduce the possibility of inconspicuous and unconstitutional discrimination. Lastly, those of us who want reform should turn to the legislatures rather than the courts. The power of lobbying should not be underestimated, and pro-death penalty advocates have successfully used this avenue to effect their goals. An adjudicative response without a legislative component is inefficient. This weekend, students, activists, and concerned students were motivated and informed enough to make a difference on one of the many facets of this issue that begs for change.”
