By Lily Rusk
WASHINGTON, DC – There appears to be a strong correlation between capital punishment and politics, according to a new report published recently by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) about how electoral politics distort the fairness and accuracy of capital punishment.
The report, entitled “Lethal Election: How the U.S. Electoral Process Increases the Arbitrariness of the Death Penalty,” was made with new data and analysis of appellate rulings and grants of clemency, along with stories from individual case studies from across the country, according to DPIC.
“The U.S. electoral process inserts many elements of unpredictability and unfairness into death penalty cases. A life-or-death decision should not depend on whether an appeal or clemency petition is heard in an election year, nor should a defendant’s fate rest on who donated money to an official’s campaign fund. But the data suggest that is exactly what is happening,” said Robin M. Maher, DPIC executive director.
According to the DPIC, the U.S. is the only country in the world that elects local prosecutors, and the only country to elect judges in expensive, partisan judicial elections. Over the years procedures have been introduced with the intention of minimizing the arbitrariness in the death penalty, said the DPIC study.
During an election year DPIC found elected Supreme Court Justices in Georgia, North Carolina and Ohio impose twice as many death sentences.
The DPIC analyzed clemency data and found significant trends based on the reelection status of executives. According to this data, when executives had full authority to make clemency decisions, 84.6 percent of individual clemencies were granted when they were not facing reelection.
In contrast, when these executives did face reelection, they granted clemency only four times in 50 years, according to the data. Overall, 56 percent of clemency grants occurred under executives who were not seeking reelection, the DPIC notes.
Three Tennessee Supreme Court Justices boasted in television ads of “upholding nearly 90 percent of death sentences” when running for reelection, DPIC found.
During Kelly Ayotte’s campaign for U.S. Senate, her advertisements featured her decision as New Hampshire Attorney General to pursue the death penalty for a man accused of murdering a police officer, the DPIC report notes.
Ten members of the Commission to Study the Death Penalty in New Hampshire referenced Ayotte’s actions in their recommendation to abolish capital punishment, asserting, “Whether real or perceived, the mere semblance of political influence over such a critical decision within New Hampshire’s criminal justice system erodes confidence in its integrity.”
According to DPIC, Ayotte continues to use this same death penalty case in her 2024 gubernatorial campaign in New Hampshire.
According to the DPIC report, there has been a shift in public sentiment regarding the death penalty. This has resulted in changes to prosecutorial strategies in counties historically associated with high numbers of death sentences.
For example, the study asserts that in the 1990s in Philadelphia District Attorney Lynne Abraham was referred to as “Queen of Death” for pursuing capital punishment. Larry Krasner was later elected and pledged never to pursue the death penalty.
According to the DPIC, Harris County, TX, has witnessed a decline in death sentences since the election of District Attorney Kim Ogg in 2016, despite having produced more executions than any other county in the U.S.
Ogg stated in 2017, “I don’t see being the death penalty capital of America as a point of pride for Harris County.”
