New Mexico Abolishes the Death Penalty

I was interested in this news from the other day:

New Mexico governor repeals death penalty in state

March 18, 2009

(CNN) -- New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed a bill Wednesday repealing the death penalty in his state, his office confirmed.

"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said in a statement Wednesday.

He noted that more than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years, including four in New Mexico.

"Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe," he said.
...
New Mexico currently has two men on death row and has executed one person -- convicted child killer Terry Clark, in 2001 -- since the United States reinstated the death penalty in 1976. As the legislation is written, it will not affect current death row inmates.

"Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment -- in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that," Richardson, a Democrat, said.
...
Local and state law enforcement associations opposed the bill. Richardson agreed the death penalty is a tool to deter crime, but said it was not the only tool.

"For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent," he said. "But it's not, and never will be, for many, many others."

The logic of death penalty opponents always fascinates me. Richardson is far more honest than most in that he acknowledges that capital punishment may serve as a deterrent to murder (as both common sense and all recent evidence suggests is the case). But since it only deters only some would-be murderers (not all), Richardson is not terribly impressed. The overriding issue for him is that the state may inadvertently execute an innocent person. I assume that he'd favor the death penalty if it deterred 100% of would-be murderers, but since it only deters some, it's not worth it given the risk of occasionally executing an innocent person.

I learned a little more about his reasoning in this story:

Richardson said he has long believed — and still does — that the death penalty was a "just punishment" in rare cases for the worst crimes. But he said he decided to sign the repeal legislation because of flaws in how the death penalty was applied.

"More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans — a fact I cannot ignore," he said.

"Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100 percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes."

I agree that the fact that 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years cannot be ignored. However, refusing to ignore that fact and abolishing the death penalty are not one and the same. In any case, if I understand his position, the justice system must be 100% accurate, and the death penalty must deter all (or virtually all) would-be murderers for capital punishment to be warranted.

Fine. That's one view. A problem with that view is that the justice system simply cannot be 100% accurate. This is so obvious one wonders why he ever supported the death penalty in the first place. Another problem is that even if the death penalty deters only some would-be murderers, it would save many, many innocent lives. That is the key point that is overlooked by many who feel a sense of moral superiority in their opposition to the death penalty.

About 16,000 people are murdered every year in the United States. If a mere 2% of murderers were deterred by the death penalty, that would translate into 320 innocent lives saved every year. Only about 60 convicted murderers are executed each year in the United States. Of those, probably fewer than 1 per year, on average, is innocent. Thus, one way to summarize Richardson's position is like this: it is better to sacrifice perhaps 320 innocent lives (every year) than it is to tolerate perhaps 1 innocent person being executed by the state every few years. Viewed in that light, it is not so obvious that a death penalty opponent is a paragon of moral virtue. That being the case, what do you suppose explains this?

Europe’s human rights watchdog today hailed the decision as "a victory for civilization."

How does that celebration go, exactly? "Hallelujah! Instead of the state mistakenly executing 0 or 1 innocent people per year, 320 innocent people -- including children -- will suffer violent and painful deaths at the hands of murderers!" It's hard for me to get similarly excited about that. Both outcomes are clearly tragic, and taking a firm position on this matter is a hard call.

Let's make this a little more concrete. In one of the stories cited above, it was noted that the last person executed in New Mexico was convicted child killer Terry Clark, in 2001. I looked him up in Wikipedia, and this is what I found:

Terry Doug Clark (May 17, 1956 – November 6, 2001) was convicted of the murder of nine-year-old Dena Lynn Gore. He was executed by the State of New Mexico by means of lethal injection. He became the first and (as of 2009) only person to be executed in New Mexico since 1976 when the death penalty was reinstated. In fact, it would remain until March 18, 2009, when Governor Bill Richardson signed the death penalty abolition bill into law.

Terry Clark was convicted of kidnapping and raping a six-year-old girl from Roswell in 1984. Pending appeals in that case, he was released on bond. While out on bond, Clark drove to Artesia on July 17, 1986 and kidnapped Dena Lynn Gore. He then raped her and finally killed her by shooting her in the back of her head three times. A few days later, Clark was taken into custody and, while in jail, he confessed to a minister.

This is what you are saying should be allowed to happen more often if you oppose the death penalty and if you accept that it deters "some murderers" (as Bill Richardson does). It's something to keep in mind if you, like human rights "watchdogs" in Europe, find yourself celebrating Bill Richardson's decision as a victory for "civilization."