|
Due Process
Juan Raul Garza was convicted in 1993 under new "drug kingpin" laws for ordering three murders while trying to gain more power in his marijuana territory. He is a guilty man.
Before his sentencing hearing, prosecutors sent federal Customs agents into Mexico to try to tie Garza to murders in Mexico. They found no physical evidence. Instead, they convinced three other convicts to testify that Garza was guilty and in return they received reduced sentences. Juan Raul Garza was unable to mount a defense against crimes that took place in a foreign nation. These crimes, which had no physical evidence implicating Garza and for which he had never been arrested or tried, which we only know were committed by someone in Mexico, convinced a jury to take Garza's life.
Recently in Texas history, prosecutors have presented expert testimony arguing that Blacks and Hispanics are more worthy of the death penalty. In another death penalty case, the prosecutor referred to people coming across the border and killing Americans. The defendant was a Hispanic born in a northern state in this country.
A year after Garza's death sentence Congress passed a law requiring that all juries be instructed that they had a choice between death and life without parole. That instruction was not given at Garza's sentencing.
International organizations such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of American States), and Amnesty International have requested a stay of execution.
Passing the Buck and Cover-Up
The first person scheduled to die since the death penalty was reinstated in 1973 was Juan Raul Garza. Last year, the Clinton administration had clear evidence of bias in the justice system but asked for further studies. Clinton delayed Garza's execution until June 19, 2001. This allowed him to delay taking decisive action against death penalty bias and pushed out the execution so that it would happen after a white man, Timothy McVeigh, was executed. This alone softened the image of the death penalty as being biased. To discuss the problem now will allow people to dismiss it as "ethnic politics" or favoritism (like the recent Vieques decision). The delay also permitted Clinton and the next president to escape the title of "the president who let McVeigh live" if a moratorium was called.
After Clinton passed the buck, Attorney General Aschroft covered up. During his confirmation, he made explicit promises to continue the study by the National Institute for Justice. Instead, he has stalled that study and conducted a smaller one. His survey goes so far as to say that minorities have less of a burden than a white defendant. He says, "Our analysis has confirmed that black and Hispanic defendants were less likely at each stage of the department's review process to be subjected to the death penalty than white defendants."
The study conducted last year showed looked at 682 cases between 1995 and 2000. Eighty percent of those sentenced to death are Black or Hispanic; groups which only make up 25% of the population. That's only federal prosecutions. According to a report by Amnesty International, as of 1999 over 80% of people on death row were minorities. A 1990 report from Gerogia showed that a Black man who killed a white man was 11 times more likely to sentenced to death than a white who killed a Black man. The high proportions of minorities on death row are not explained by high crime rates for those groups, but have been directly linked to the discretion of prosecutors, judges and juries. The numbers show there is a problem.
Death, a divine process
Common sense dictates that human processes are subject to human faults. Our current president excused his prosecutors who promoted testimony that Blacks and Hispanics are more worthy of the death penalty because of their ethnicity and race. Of those trials, Bush has said, "They've had full access to a fair trial." Both he and our Attorney General see a duty to protect the death penalty. Being Hispanic in Texas and having been born in Mexico contributed heavily to Garza's death sentence. Today, the new Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, vetoed a law to keep mentally retarded criminals from being executed in Texas. Last week, Spain celebrated the release of a Spaniard who was on death row. Joaquín José Martínez was only able to prove his innocence after Spanish supporters paid for a competent defense. Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit also decided to ignore the constitution of the "Free Associated State" of Puerto Rico (United States v. Acosta Martinez). The government will override the constitution of Puerto Rico that was altered and approved by the US Congress in 1952, in order to go against the will of the majority of Puerto Rico and kill one of their citizens. This will be the first execution since 1927 for Puerto Rico.
The Bush Administration seems to view the Death Penalty and its process as super-human. Somehow it is beyond the reach of human faults. Ashcroft has gone so far as to say that Garza is guilty of the murders in Mexico - murders for which Garza was never tried. Remember elementary school when we were taught "innocent until proven guilty?" Our Attorney General does not. If you're going to defend the death penalty, then do it with logic. Not at the cost of creating a false perfection. Death is something that is usually out of human hands. When we take it into our hands we should recognize that it is no longer divine and is subject to the same prejudices and faults as any man or woman.