RALEIGH – I have no idea whether the North Carolina House of Representatives will exercise a collective lapse of good judgment and vote to suspend the imposition of the death penalty. But I am gratified to see that some political leaders have finally caught onto the true motivation behind the moratorium movement.
It is not to improve the administration of justice here. It is not to ensure that executions are imposed in only appropriate cases, so that these executions can be carried out more swiftly (that would be an excellent goal, by the way).
No, the goal is to abolish the death penalty. Period. The folks and organizations leading the moratorium movement believe that capital punishment is inherently cruel, unfair, and unjust. Their proposal to “study” potential flaws in the criminal-justice system is merely a prelude to arguing that these flaws are irreparable and render the death penalty capricious. Once executions are suspended, they will seek to commute all death sentences.
I’m not blaming the anti-death penalty activists. They are expressing deep moral conviction. I believe them to be misguided, not malicious. My problem has been with those public officials who favor the death penalty, as do most North Carolinians (and Americans, and even some electorates in countries whose elites have abolished capital punishment). They have convinced themselves that voting for a moratorium is just a way of ensuring that justice is carried out without the possibility of error.
That is the wrong test. Human institutions are created and sustained by human beings, who are imperfect. Therefore, the institutions cannot be perfect. It is at least conceivable that a person might one day be put to death for a crime he or she did not commit, though I am unaware of the existence of such a case since the death penalty was reinstated. Opponents believe this fact suggests logically that the death penalty is unconscionable. I believe otherwise – that its absence would be unconscionable and possibly quite dangerous.
Some get it. “If they started studying it when they started talking about, the study would have been finished,” Rep. Edd Nye told The Fayetteville Observer. “It gives me the suspicion that it’s really about the death penalty, not a moratorium.” Gov. Mike Easley seems poised to veto the measure if the House passes it. “They’ve been asking for a moratorium for something like six years now, and if they want to show good faith and build support, they need to start studying something,” he said in a Charlotte Observer interview.
Yes, by all means – perhaps someone should amend the bill in question to remove the moratorium but keep the study of the justice system. A vote against the amended bill would be a vote not to increase the probability that capital punishment will be employed judiciously and effectively. If one’s goal is to abolish it, the proper vote would, I guess, be “no.”
Hood is president of the John Locke Foundation.