I had said this before: if two people are convicted of the same
crime with the same circumstances and the only verifiable differences
between the sentencing is their race, or income, then there is something
wrong with the system but setting up a national standard won't fix that
problem. How can it?
You make certain requirements about rights to lawyers, amount of money that
is set aside for defense, insuring that all rules of evidence are followed,
that all avenues of appeal are available etc.
I have yet to see one report that separates these facts: one
specific crime, percentages of people considered for the crime, arrested for
the crime, and the sentences broken down by severity vs. all the ways to
break down the population. All I ever heard is the general, 'the population
breaks down this way, while the inmate population breaks down that way'.
But this is exactly the sort of statistical arguement that has the most
validity. If all things are equal about two populations except for one
variable than that variable is critical. If all things about capitol
punishment other than race are eliminated, if statistical regression analysis
still reveals race to be statistically significant, than race is important.
Individual cases are just anecdotes. When an example of racial prejudice
leading to capitol punishment are demonstrated beyond doubt the standard
response of those who do not wish to believe is "that is just one case". But
when statistics show that there is racial bias then the arguement is that
there are no specific examples.
Yes there is a big difference between the two complaints. But if New
York or Illinois decides that there should be no death penalty then it
should be their choice, while if Texas or Pennsylvania decides the other way
it should be their choice. If at the state level enough people decide that
capital punishment is wrong or right then they will elect people who will
write laws that way, which is much better then the federal level deciding
for us, without the democratic process.
I am not arguing for the moment about the rights of a state to have capitol
punishment. I am arguing that if they do have capitol punishment they must
meet stringent standards of proof and provide the accused with all necessary
resources to mount a defense.
