On October 9, 2024, the United States Supreme Court will begin oral arguments in a case that could decide whether Richard Glossip, convicted of a 1998 murder-for-hire plot, will be executed by the state of Oklahoma. This case follows the recent execution of Marcellus Williams on September 24, which reignited the debate around one of America’s most flagrant injustices and sharpest departures from the rest of the Western world: the death penalty. Williams had been sentenced to death over two decades prior for the 1998 first-degree murder of local reporter Felicia Gayle. In the years leading up to his execution date, Prosecuting Attorney Wesley Bell of St. Louis County, members of Gayle’s family, and anti-death penalty groups like the Innocence Project openly objected to Williams’ death sentence, with some even questioning his guilt entirely.
Bell and others highlighted several issues with Williams’ case that should have spared him execution. They pointed to DNA samples, bloody footprints, hair, and fingerprints found at the crime scene that did not conclusively match Williams, as well as the questionable credibility of the key witnesses against him, former girlfriend Laura Asaro and convicted felon Henry Cole. Asaro was reportedly involved in selling a stolen laptop from Felicia Gayle’s home along with Williams. Additionally, both Asaro and Cole had unrelated criminal charges pending and sought $10,000 for their testimony, which could benefit them in their cases. Forensic interview expert David Thompson has said that both witnesses’ stories offered well-known details and frequently conflicted with each other or with physical evidence.
Williams’ case was also marred by his lawyer’s failure to present mitigating evidence, the mishandling of evidence, and racial bias. In testimony regarding jury selection, the case prosecutor said he excluded one black juror for looking like a brother of Williams and another black juror for being a postal worker, an occupation which the prosecutor said tended to be “very liberal.” Notably, this same prosecutor did not strike a white postal worker from the jury pool.
Despite these causes for doubt and the calls from prosecutors and the victim’s family for Williams to serve a life sentence instead of facing the death penalty, neither Republican Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey nor Governor Mike Parson intervened. As many have pointed out, the numerous evidentiary and technical problems in this case combined with objections from the victim’s family and prosecutors raises serious concerns. It’s difficult to deny that there is at least some level of doubt paramount enough to abstain from the ultimate, irrevocable punishment.
Williams’ case is not an isolated example. The upcoming U.S. Supreme Court case concerning Richard Glossip continues to highlight how systemic failures put potentially innocent lives at risk. Glossip is facing execution despite significant questions about the fairness of his trial and the reliability of key witnesses. In an unusual move, Republican Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond has urged the Court to reconsider Glossip’s conviction, saying, “if he is executed, I believe that it will be a travesty of justice.” This case underscores the same issues seen in Williams’ case – unreliable witnesses, mishandled trials, and a legal system willing to risk irreversible error. These cases have sparked momentary renewed interest in the death penalty, an issue that recently seems to have escaped the national American consciousness.
Among Western nations, the death penalty presents a uniquely American evil. With no conclusive evidence of the death penalty’s ability to deter criminal activity, and equivalent societal safety achieved through life sentences without parole, we are left with a punishment that is arbitrarily applied, morally questionable, and irrevocable. It reflects a societal value of pure vengeance that disproportionately and discriminatorily targets marginalized communities while also giving the government the dangerous power to legally yet needlessly kill its own citizens.
The aforementioned arbitrariness of the death penalty only serves to exacerbate its flaws. It is a fact that the death penalty is disproportionately applied to people of color compared to white counterparts and more often in cases involving white victims compared to victims of color. While a certain level of arbitrariness is inherent in a human-operated and flexible legal system, the fact that the system is so imperfect should preclude such an irrevocable punishment – execution. Life imprisonment without parole, on the other hand, delivers a severe and enduring punishment while leaving open the chance for exoneration if new evidence emerges, as has been the case with several wrongful convictions. By sparing the lives of the convicted, we ensure that the justice system remains accountable, not only to the guilty but, more importantly, to the innocent.
Further, having a system that risks executing innocent people, and robbing them of any chance for exoneration, is in direct conflict with the fundamental values of our justice system. This conflict is captured in William Blackstone’s famous quote, often heard in the halls of American law schools: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” This is a sentiment echoed by several of America’s Founding Fathers, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. So why does this value and supposed pillar of our legal system seem to fade away in perhaps its most critical application? Any feeling of vengeful satisfaction that comes from killing the guilty does not outweigh the tragic, and otherwise avoidable, possibility of executing an innocent person.
The vast economic expense of the American criminal justice system is a common talking point from activists and politicians on both sides of the aisle, and likely a concern for the monetarily-minded. In terms of capital punishment, the evidence is overwhelming – it is more expensive than life without parole. For reference, one study found that “each death penalty inmate [costs] approximately $1.12 million more than a general population inmate.” This financial burden, coupled with the ethical dilemmas surrounding capital punishment, only further underscores the urgent need for its removal from our justice system.
Despite this, America remains largely divided on the issue of the death penalty. This division, and the ever-quieting discussion around the death penalty, is reflected not only in our federal and state laws, but also in the platforms of the 2024 presidential candidates and their political parties.
Since 1976, only 16 people have been executed at the federal level, all under Republican presidents – 13 occurring under President Trump. Under President Biden, Attorney General Merrick Garland has instituted a moratorium on the federal death penalty, but has still pursued it in three cases, two of which were carried over from the previous administration. The third case involves hate-fueled Buffalo mass shooter Payton Gendron, which the Department of Justice deemed to meet a “worst-of-the-worst” threshold, providing an exception to Garland’s moratorium. Largely though, the death penalty has become a state issue, with most executions and anti-death penalty efforts at the state level.
In New York, the death penalty system was declared unconstitutional in 2004 by the New York Court of Appeals, the highest court in the state. However, in 2019, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed repealing the death penalty from the state statute through the budget process, which would have complicated the state’s ability to reinstate it in the future. According to New York legislative staff with knowledge of the issue, anti-death penalty activists quietly, but successfully, lobbied legislators against passing the governor’s proposal. Ultimately, there was too much concern that bringing the issue back into the public spotlight could spark a political backlash against anti-death penalty lawmakers or provoke legal challenges to the existing court ruling.
Still, the unique politics surrounding the death penalty also exist at the national level. President Biden campaigned on abolishing the federal death penalty, but that promise appears unlikely to be fulfilled. The one “worst-of-the-worst” exception to Attorney General Merrick Garland’s moratorium only adds another layer of complexity to the administration’s stance on the issue.
President Trump is a fervent and longtime supporter of the death penalty. He paid $85,000 for a full-page ad in 1989 seemingly calling for the execution of five black and Latino boys accused of the rape and attempted murder of a white woman running in Central Park. These boys, known as the Central Park Five, were all initially found guilty but were later exonerated in 2002. Trump has never apologized for his ad and has continually repeated his belief in the Central Park Five’s guilt. More recently, during his 2024 presidential campaign announcement, Trump reiterated his support for capital punishment. This time, Trump called for expanding the death penalty to include those convicted of human trafficking or dealing drugs. The 2024 Republican Party platform does not mention capital punishment.
Democratic presidential nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, however, has a much more complex relationship with the issue. In her 2004 inauguration speech as San Francisco district attorney, she spoke of her moral opposition to capital punishment and vowed to “never charge the death penalty” during her tenure. This came to a head later that year when she upheld her promise by refusing to pursue the death penalty against a twenty-one-year-old convicted in the killing of a police officer – a decision that even fellow Democrats like Dianne Feinstein publicly chastised. However, in the race for California attorney general, Harris softened her approach on the issue. Harris emphasized her continued personal moral objection to capital punishment but said that she would “enforce the death penalty as the law dictates,” a promise which she later successfully defended in court. Still, once elected to the United States Senate in 2016, Harris again reversed course, publicly calling for a moratorium on capital punishment. This sentiment was echoed in her 2019 presidential campaign, during which she praised California Governor Gavin Newsom’s state-wide death penalty moratorium.
However, the tides may have shifted yet again. This summer, the Democratic Party quietly removed language in opposition to the death penalty from its party platform, the first time this position has been absent since 2012. Additionally, in light of recent interest surrounding the Williams case, the Harris campaign has been asked for its formal position on the issue. Axios has reported silence from the campaign, suggesting that Harris’ personal moral objection to the death penalty may again be subdued by electoral and political pragmatism.
Marcellus Williams’ execution and Glossip’s fate are not anomalies, but stark reminders that this irrational and archaic form of punishment still infects our justice system, raising questions about our commitment to fairness and humanity. The death penalty is not a tool of justice but a relic of vengeance, out of place in a system that should prioritize redemption, accountability, and the preservation of life – even for the condemned. I implore readers to stay informed about the upcoming Glossip case and question whether the death penalty system in the U.S. really reflects our collective values of justice and morality.
Clearly, the debate is far from over, but as long as the death penalty exists, so too does the increased possibility of irreversible injustice. It is time for America and its leaders to confront this “forgotten evil” and consign it to history, where it belongs.
