Instead of new death penalty options, SC should address issues like income inequality
It has been nearly a decade since the last execution in South Carolina. But now, a group of state legislators are pushing to restart state-sponsored execution by way of the electric chair or a firing squad.
In response to a stay put in place by the South Carolina Supreme Court due to a lack of drugs necessary for lethal injection, state senators have re-introduced a 2018 bill proposing to change the default method of executions from lethal injection to electrocutions. A group of bipartisan senators have also signaled support for adding firing squads as an execution method. These moves have reignited debate on capital punishment across the Palmetto State, while other southern states are abolishing their death penalties.
Some arguments revolve around political ideologies, while others are religiously- and consciously-based. Interestingly, but not surprisingly, states with high levels of support for the death penalty usually have highly conservative electorates, with high rates of violent crime, homicide, and non-negligent manslaughter. Furthermore, states with a larger conservative voting base have instituted higher rates of death sentences and executions in comparison to more liberal states. South Carolina exemplifies this trend. Indeed, the state has voted conservatively in every Presidential election since 1980, has a higher than average white population (nearly 65% compared to approximately 60% nationally according to the US Census), and has the 7th highest violent crime rate in the country.
However, there is one argument that leaves little room for interpretation: the intended purpose of the death penalty. Deterrence is often cited as the basis for supporters of capital punishment. Proponents claim that the death penalty discourages future criminal behavior on behalf of an individual or a population. But what does the research say?
General deterrent effects, which apply to the general population, have been evaluated by criminologists for many years. The work of Donahue and Wolfers, for example, shows that the general body of literature evaluating the death penalty lacks significant findings regarding its general deterrent effect properties. Their analysis, indicating a lack of effectiveness of the death penalty, is reinforced by a plethora of academic research on the subject.
Furthermore, recent research conducted by John Blume of the Cornell Law School and Lindsay Vann of Justice 360 indicates that the same arbitrary and discriminatory practices that ousted the death penalty in the Furman decision are still present in the Palmetto State today. This means that the racial tendencies in the criminal justice system, as they apply to the application of the death penalty, are the same now as they were in 1972.
In a nation calling for much needed reform, equal treatment, and a legitimate voice, South Carolina is, and has been, directing its efforts in the wrong direction. Instead of pushing an ineffective and discriminatory practice, lawmakers should focus on addressing prevalent issues such as income inequality, which has been shown to have a direct implication on intentional homicide and violent crime. Such reforms will not only move us toward a more just legal system, but better serve all citizens of South Carolina.
This story was originally published March 11, 2021 at 1:43 PM.