Commission hearing

The concluding day of testimony, on Monday, for the Death Penalty Commission in Annapolis was a good day, although not as eventful as some of the other four days. An air of winding down settled over the room. Obnoxiously contentious Scott Shellenberger was a little less so, although he did attack a few people as if he were in a courtroom. As usual, he seemed most interested in defending against any hint of anything that might impugn the reputation of his office (“have you ever known the Baltimore County State’s Attorney’s office to make any decisions based on race?”). Sounding exactly like a geek economist, Dr. Ken Stanton explained in the mildest possible tones why the Urban Institute cost study is an excellently done piece of work and why what it shows is an underestimation of what we spend to continue this useless bit of public policy. “You’re spending thousands of dollars to implement something that’s not working, that’s what we economists call a complete waste,” raised a soft chuckle in the room.

Joseph D. Tydings, former Maryland Senator and federal prosecutor, and James Abbott, police chief from West Orange, NJ, both talked about how they could philosophically favor the death penalty and yet vigorously support its repeal as a public policy that is simply unworkable. Patrick Kent, chief of the forensic division of Maryland’s Public Defender’s Office, gave one of the most poorly put together power point demonstrations I’ve ever seen that said, essentially, all the work done by any forensic division anywhere is suspect. It seemed an odd, yet oddly compelling, thing for him to insist on. Calvin Lightfoot, former correctional officer, and Robert Johnson, researcher at American University, delivered a fantastic one-two punch about what really makes correctional officers safe and how lifers behave in prison: correctional officers need proper staffing and lifers are usually the best behaved prisoners.

After the experts, the citizen witnesses took turns explaining their reasons for wanting the death penalty repealed. People who support the death penalty are welcome, but except for the daughter of one murder victim in the second hearing – who was an expert witness, not a citizen witness – none show up. The mainstay of retention: Harford County State’s Attorney, who always shows up to make his case (we need to have some serious sentences for serious crimes) – he lies as a matter of course, I’ve personally witnessed it.

The biggest surprise was Rick Prothero – Commissioner and the brother of a murdered police officer. He considers himself to be strongly in favor of retaining the death penalty. But on Monday we learned some interesting things about him. He revealed he'd voted against the death penalty for his brother's killer in the initial family meeting. He's not the sharpest tool in the box; when he asks questions they are usually impossible to follow and the witness usually winds up trying to answer some odd version of what she thinks Rick is asking. But his questions today made it obvious now that he experienced at least some minor family turmoil over this issue. At the murder of his brother, became the head of the family and they were split down the middle. After four sessions of listening to him ask unintelligible questions I’ve been able to determine that his main concern is for the law. He’s primarily concerned about people who have jobs that require they execute (no pun intended) the penalty but who are personally opposed to it. “Didn’t you know this was the law when you took the job?” His family finally decided to accept the seeking of the death penalty because it was the most severe sanction permitted by law. Could it be so simple that he doesn’t really recognize that the law can be changed, thus relieving all those people, and families like his, of being in this terrible position? The most surprising thing I heard him say yesterday was that he thought his family "shouldn't have been put in this position" (of making that decision). If the death penalty is repealed, families will never be put in that position again.

Now the Commission turns to their discussions about what to recommend. Those hearings are public too and I’m looking forward to hearing where they all land on the issue after five days of testimony.