DAs seek repeal of Racial Justice Act. : News-Record.com : Greensboro & the Triad's most trusted source for local news and analysis

RALEIGH (AP) — The legislature should act quickly to repeal a bill that allows death row prisoners to challenge their sentences on the grounds of racial bias, North Carolina's district attorneys argue in a letter to state senators.

" ... if you do not address this issue quickly, the criminal justice system will be saddled with litigation that will crush an already under-funded and overburdened system," wrote Johnston County District Attorney Susan Doyle, president of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys.

The letter was sent Monday and addressed to Senate leader Phil Berger. It also went to all senators, said Peg Dorer, executive director of the conference. The DAs in all 100 counties will present a resolution on the issue, Dorer said.

The Racial Justice Act allows death row inmates and defendants facing the death penalty to use statistics and other evidence to show that racial bias played a significant role in either their sentence or in the prosecutors' decision to pursue the death penalty. The law says an inmate's sentence is reduced to life in prison without the possibility of parole if the claim is successful.

A study by two law professors at Michigan State University found a defendant in North Carolina is 2.6 times more likely to be sentenced to death if at least one of the victims was white. The study also showed that of the 159 people on death row in the state at the time of the study, 31 had all-white juries and 38 had only one person of color on the jury.

The legislature is scheduled to reconvene Nov. 27 to work up to three days on several possible items. The legislature's adjournment motion allows lawmakers to consider bills during that period that are awaiting a concurrence vote, which means senators could vote on the repeal of the Racial Justice Act.

The repeal, known as Senate Bill 9, went to the state House as a bill to create penalties for synthetic marijuana. House Republicans stripped that language and changed the bill's language to repeal the 2-year-old Racial Justice Act. That means state senators have never discussed the proposed repeal, either in committee or on the floor.

That angers Sen. Floyd McKissick, D-Durham, one of the architects of the Racial Justice Act.

"The House is attempting a procedural maneuver to eliminate public debate," McKissick said Wednesday. "I think it's extremely unfortunate for a very significant piece of legislation."

Berger, R-Rockingham, said he doesn't know if the Senate will consider the repeal this month. Legislators previously have said the debate would continue in January, when the General Assembly begins a new session.

"It's certainly on the radar screen," Berger said, adding that a committee or the full Senate would discuss the bill before a vote. The repeal technically needs just one more Senate vote for full legislative approval. No Senate Republicans voted for the 2009 bill.

Gov. Beverly Perdue, who signed the act into law, would have to decide whether to veto the bill if it received final legislative approval.

Martha Waggoner can be reached at http://twitter.com/mjwaggonernc

Theo

November 15, 2011 - 3:39 pm EST

"If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call."

John McAdams - Marquette University/Department of Political Science, on deterrence

thinkingman

November 15, 2011 - 4:12 pm EST

What about the findings across the country that some of those executed are not in fact murderers? Or the basis of the law in question - the potential impact of racial bias in the system (meaning that we disproportionately kill black murderers more than white murderers, or murderers of white victims more than murderers of black victims)? If you assume the system is infallible, then I might agree with your quote on deterrence. But deterrence is not the only issue, and not even the biggest issue.

Interested

November 15, 2011 - 4:48 pm EST

Amen to the fact that the system is far from infallible. This has been proven more than once. So by continuing executions, we cannot simply say that "we have killed a bunch of murderers." The government has in fact killed innocent men before.

And I would have to disagree with the second half of Theo's quote on deterrence. Do we honestly believe that those who would kill are going to stop - if even for a second - and say to themselves "You know, they put that last fellow to death for killing (a child, cop, stranger, ex, etc). Maybe I shouldn't do this."?

oh good grief

November 15, 2011 - 4:11 pm EST

"A study by two law professors at Michigan State University found a defendant in North Carolina is 2.6 times more likely to be sentenced to death if at least one of the victims was white."

Vital statistical information is, in my opinion, missing from the above quoted sentence.

Does it mean " . . . [A] [non-white]defendant in North Carolina is 2.6 times more likely to be sentenced to death if at least one of the victims was white"?

Or does it mean " . . . [Any] defendant [whether white or non-white] in North Carolina is 2.6 times more likely to be sentenced to death if at least one of the victims was white"?

Did the "study" by Michigan State University control for the age (including age differential between perpetrator and victim) and/or sex of both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s)?

November 15, 2011 - 4:16 pm EST

Your questions are interesting and potentially relevant, but do not actually contradict the point of the quoted study. If we base sentencing on the race of the victim, we are making a statement as a community that we value white citizens more than non-white citizens. Basically we're indicating that it's more than twice as bad to kill a white person than to kill a non-white person.

The race of the offender is not necessarily relevant when considering the impact of the victim's race. Racial bias comes in many forms. Your questions should be studied (and probably have been already) but considering the race of the victim is by itself significant, even without the other information you're looking for.

Panacea

November 15, 2011 - 4:45 pm EST

Even if we accept the study as valid, one study is not justification for such a sweeping new law with very real consequences for both victims and communities.

The issue really isn't about guilt or innocence, but who gets picked for the death penalty. That being the case, I see no need to rush changing the law based on one study.

November 15, 2011 - 4:53 pm EST

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe the study was to be used to repeal the Racial Justice Act. Quite the opposite. I believe its findings demonstrate why the Racial Justice Act was passed.

November 15, 2011 - 7:53 pm EST

You misunderstand me. The study should not have been used to justify the "Racial Justice Act" in the first place.

November 15, 2011 - 4:54 pm EST

http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/race-and-death-penalty

I don't have time today to look through all those links, but it looks like more than just one study. People have been looking into this issue for years. There may be an objection about the quality of the studies, but certainly not about the quantity.

November 15, 2011 - 7:55 pm EST

There have been lots of studies, but it was this particular one that was cited, IIRC.

Either way, the legislators missed the point when they drafted their legislation. What they should have done was change the rules for how prosecutors can pick death penalty cases, not open the state to lawsuits.

news-record.com

NEWS