Click here to subscribe today or Login.
The death penalty appears on Pennsylvania’s books, but you won’t find it in practice.
Pin the situation partly on a slow-moving Legislature. By all appearances, certain lawmakers would prefer to cling to the status quo – in which the Keystone State still claims to have a death penalty yet hasn’t executed anyone in the 21st century – rather than provide clarity on the issue, much less reverse its longstanding law.
It’s been about four years since the Pennsylvania Task Force and Advisory Commission on Capital Punishment was charged with delving into death penalty-related issues and publishing its findings. First, the legislative group blew past its December 2013 deadline. Several other extensions have pushed the highly anticipated report’s completion date to, last we heard, later this year, maybe next.
Meanwhile, Gov. Tom Wolf in a much publicized move earlier this year declared a moratorium on the death penalty. “Pennsylvania’s system is riddled with flaws, making it error prone, expensive, and anything but infallible,” the governor’s memorandum released in February stated. Wolf intends for the moratorium to continue until he receives the task force’s report and its recommendations, if any, are “satisfactorily addressed.”
Until then, the governor vowed to grant a reprieve to each death row inmate whose execution date is set. That doesn’t mean the prisoner will avoid the ultimate punishment; the death sentence remains intact and could be carried out once the moratorium is lifted.
Philadelphia’s district attorney promptly sued, claiming Gov. Wolf overstepped his authority. That case is expected to be heard later this week by the state Supreme Court.
Other detractors of Wolf’s decision, including Attorney General Kathleen Kane, also blasted the governor’s move as unconstitutional.
When the state’s task force finally produces its report, the findings are likely to fall in line with other in-depth examinations of the topic: certain people who spent years on death row subsequently have been exonerated by DNA or other evidence, minorities make up a disproportionate share of the death row population and paying for an inmate’s string of death-penalty appeals often comes at an exorbitant price.
Of course, there are compelling reasons – chiefly, to fulfill society’s desire for fitting retribution – to keep the death penalty.
In fairness to people on all sides of this sensitive issue, Pennsylvania’s elected officials need to end the long, long wait and produce a report on capital punishment, then publicly dissect and debate it. Only then can we hope to end the limbo over the death penalty and adopt the most sensible policies.