Law school panel discusses death penalty issues

A panel of IU School of Law professors and graduate students raised reform questions as they discussed their views on the U.S. capital punishment system Wednesday evening.\nThe panel discussion at the IU School of Law, "Is the Death Penalty 'Broken?'" was part of the week-long series "The Death Penalty: Two Views," which included Tuesday's forum at the IU Auditorium featuring Sister Helen Prejean, controversial author of the best-selling book "Dead Man Walking." \nThe event featured Professor Joseph Hoffmann, the key speaker and moderator for the panel, Professor Craig Bradley, Professor Steve Heyman, graduate student Deborah Shepler and graduate student Ken Washington. Each speaker was given time to discuss their views on an aspect of the system; they then answered audience questions.\nHoffmann, an capitol punishment expert, who recently testified in the Illinois death penalty reform effort, suggested the system is in a transient state with almost all of the 38 states still executing prisoners suggesting reform. \n"In the U.S., we are reaching an unprecedented crisis of confidence with the death penalty," Hoffmann said.\nHe cited recent statistics indicating a drop from 90 to 60 percent in approval rates for capital punishment. The rate drops below 50 percent if the question is modified to include reparations to victim's families or an alternative sentence of life without parole, Hoffmann said.\nThe panel emphasized the importance of correct convictions in death penalty cases.\n"Execution of the innocent is the one issue that unites death penalty advocates and opponents," said Bradley, a former Washington D.C. prosecutor. He said since death penalty reform in the 1970s, no evidence has surfaced proving an innocent person has been executed by a state.\nHoffmann agreed, but admitted that errors occur often in other parts of the process, citing the Leibman Study, which found that sentences are lowered or charges are dropped in 68 percent of death penalty cases.\n"Any system designed by humans has a risk of error," Hoffmann said. "Even if we have no proof that an innocent person has been executed, we shouldn't wait for that to happen. What we need to ask is how to diminish the risk, and how much risk are we willing to tolerate?"\nLowering the risk of mistakes was Bradley's main point. He suggested new jury criteria for the execution of a death sentence. Currently, a jury must ask if a defendant is guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt." Bradley's suggested adding a requirement of finding a defendant guilty "beyond all doubt" after conviction before recommendation of the death sentence.\nStill, the panel agreed that no amount of reform is enough to wholly solve the death penalty issue.\n"We could have the best criminal justice system in the world, but we're still going to have horrible crimes," Hoffman said. "We'll still have to face the question of capital punishment"