There are multiple editorials and columns on the North Carolina House vote to strip the Racial Justice Act.
"A Test of Racial Justice," is the editorial in today's New York Times.
North Carolina’s Legislature is moving shamefully to gut the state’s 2009 Racial Justice Act. The statute is the first in the nation to allow death row inmates to have their sentence reduced to life without parole if they show that the sentence was tainted by racial bias.
Last year, the Legislature passed a bill to repeal the law, but Gov. Bev Perdue wisely vetoed it and the lawmakers failed to override the veto. She needs to show the same steadfastness and veto the new measure, which has already passed the State House and is expected to be approved by the Senate this week.
The bill would not repeal the Racial Justice Act, but would so severely limit the proof an inmate could use to show race bias as to render the law ineffective. It would disallow proof of discrimination based on the race of the victim, which is a major basis for finding racial bias in capital punishment in North Carolina and elsewhere. And an inmate would have to show race discrimination in the county or district where he was convicted, not in the entire state. The bill, which amends the death penalty process, would also give prosecutors more flexibility in seeking death, and would limit the governor’s authority to oversee executions. The House Republicans were so eager to turn back the racial justice law that they maneuvered around legislative rules to turn a 2011 bill about retreading tires on school buses into this bill.
"N.C. House Republicans ignore fairness in gutting Racial Justice Act," is the Wilmington Star editorial.
North Carolina isn’t Texas. Capital cases are not that common, so individual districts don’t have enough cases to establish a trend. However, looking across the state, the role of race in determining death sentences is clear.
Much has been made of the fact that nearly all death row inmates have appealed under the act, including whites. And that does present, as Hunter calls it, a “public relations problem.” But in the American legal system, people are free to go to court under the laws of the land. Judges weed out the cases that don’t hold water.
However, excluding black jurors more than whites are excluded does not pose a problem only for defendants of color. A jury is supposed to represent a cross-section of the community. Using peremptory challenges to ensure a whiter, more middle-class jury unfairly excludes people from other backgrounds and experiences – who may view the facts through a different lens.
In other words, that exclusion may affect the fates of white as well as black defendants.
That is a valid concern, and one of the best reasons for North Carolina to have taken the courageous step of passing the law in 2009. It is also the reason that the General Assembly should not kill it, in either spirit or in deed. And if they do, Perdue should again exercise her power of the veto.
News & Observer Editorial Page Editor Steve Ford writes, "Murder trials minus race."
Death penalty supporters often take it as an article of faith that the prospect of a death sentence deters murder and thus saves lives.
That faith was evident in remarks from Rep. Paul Stam, the Republican lawyer from Apex who is majority leader in the state House.
Stam last week helped push through changes to water down – or gut, as critics charge – the 2009 Racial Justice Act, which allows death sentences to be challenged on the basis of statistical evidence of racial bias.
“This action is necessary to end the moratorium on the death penalty,” said a release from Stam’s office, referring to the informal suspension of executions that has been in effect since 2006 because of various legal tangles.
“The death penalty acts as a deterrent only if it is used. The death penalty will obviously not deter if the state only pretends to have a death penalty and never carries out the sentence.”
That racial bias has sometimes influenced how murder would be punished in North Carolina is hard to dispute. A Superior Court judge in Fayetteville, granting the first instance of relief under the Racial Justice Act, said the evidence showed bias was pervasive.
But Stam and his allies oppose the act as gumming up the works by inviting condemned inmates to challenge their sentences. And in fact, nearly all of the inmates on death row have done so.
A successful claim means that a death sentence is converted to life in prison without parole. Yes, such a person has all the luck.
Perhaps the most definitive look at the deterrence issue was taken by the National Research Council – which said in an April report that the evidence as to whether capital punishment affects murder rates one way or the other was so mixed and flawed that no conclusions could be drawn.
The Fayetteville Observer carries the OpEd, "A question of fairness and justice," by Yolanda Littlejohn.
On Wednesday, I was disappointed and disheartened to learn that the North Carolina House of Representatives voted to repeal the N.C. Racial Justice Act. Despite what supporters of Senate Bill 416 claim, this is a repeal of the act, because under this law statistics alone are not sufficient to prove racial bias. Under this new law a prosecutor would essentially have to admit to making a racially biased decision in jury selection or in pursuing the death penalty in the first place. I find it highly unlikely that any DA is ever going to admit to making a decision based on race.
My sister, Jaquetta Thomas, was brutally murdered in 1991. I understand firsthand the pain of having a loved one taken by violence. More important, I understand that victims' families deserve justice that is equal and fair. Justice that is tainted by racial bias is not justice and creates a broken system that continually retraumatizes victims' families.
As a family member of a victim of murder I am also distressed that the Racial Justice Act's provision allowing an inmate to make a claim based on the race of the victim has been removed in the repeal bill. All victims' lives are equally precious, yet the statistics show that death sentences are much more common when the victim is white.
Since a death sentence is supposedly reserved for the most egregious of crimes, our system is demonstrating a belief that murdering a white person is more egregious than murdering a black person. By removing this provision in the new law our government is agreeing that white life is of more value than black life. I cannot stand quietly by and pretend that this is OK.
The Durham Herald Sun reports, "Council supports repeal of death penalty." It's by Gregory Childress.
The Town Council wasted little time last week in giving its support to a group wanting to repeal the death penalty.
In fact, instead of waiting until June 25 to vote on a resolution from People of Faith Against the Death Penalty [PFADP] as was planned, the council cut to chase and approved the resolution in a 7-0 vote during its Monday business meeting.
Councilman Matt Czajkowski led the charge, asking whether the council could reasonably expect to receive any additional information by June 25 to change the council’s overwhelming anti-death penalty position.
“It’s a petition which to most of us on the council seems self-evident … so I would like to see us vote on this petition this evening,” Czajkowski said.
The resolution approved by the council calls for replacing the death penalty with life in prison without parole and using the money saved for programs for murder victims’ families and crime prevention.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen is expected to take up the resolution June 19.
Earlier coverage of the North Carolina Racial Justice Act begins at the link.
Comments