House Votes Death Penalty for Drug-Related Killings

The House, responding to an election-year outcry for tougher government action against illegal drugs, voted overwhelmingly Thursday to impose a federal death penalty on drug traffickers who commit murder.

By a vote of 299 to 111, the death penalty was incorporated into a bipartisan $2.1-billion bill that would dramatically expand the government’s already extensive anti-drug program. The Republican amendment was strongly supported by the Reagan Administration and Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh.

Although the Senate has not yet acted on the drug bill, there is little doubt that the final legislation enacted by Congress before its adjournment next month will provide for a federal death penalty. In a key test earlier this year, the Senate voted, 65 to 29, in favor of a similar provision.

The House vote was a disappointment to civil libertarians such as Rep. Charles B. Rangel (D-N. Y.), who had argued that the death penalty is no deterrent to crime. As Rangel put it: “The bums who are out there every day dealing drugs--they have no fear of death.”

Rep. William L. Clay (D-Mo.) argued that the death penalty is counterproductive. “How can you kill people who kill people to teach people who kill people that killing people is wrong?” he asked.

But supporters of the death penalty insisted that drug dealers deserve no mercy. “Drug dealers don’t have to read anyone their rights,” said Rep. James A. Traficant Jr. (D-Ohio). “The drug dealers who kill have no conscience.”

“If we’re going to be serious about deterrence, let’s once and for all pass the death penalty and put the laws on the books to truly deter the drug kingpin,” Rep. Bill McCollum (R-Fla.) said.

McCollum argued that “education and rehabilitation are not enough” to stop demand and added, “If we don’t have a deterrent, we won’t win the war on the demand side. And if we don’t win on the demand side, we won’t win the war, period.”

Under current law, the only federal crimes subject to the death penalty are death caused by air piracy and espionage by a member of the armed forces. All other federal death penalty statutes were invalidated by a 1972 Supreme Court decision that found them to be lacking in due process.

If the House-approved amendment becomes law, a judge would be permitted--but not required--to impose the death sentence on anyone convicted of intentionally killing another person during a drug felony. If capital punishment is not imposed, a minimum prison sentence of 20 years would be required.

Action Inspired by Polls

Like the drug bill itself, the death penalty amendment was inspired by polls showing that American voters think their government is doing too little to combat illegal drug trafficking. Drugs have become an issue in many congressional campaigns as well as in the presidential race between Vice President George Bush and Massachusetts Gov. Michael S. Dukakis.

Supporters of the amendment cited statistics from a 1986 Los Angeles Times poll indicating that 74% of the people support the death penalty for certain heinous murders.

“The American people are fed up,” Traficant said. “They are tired of Congress talking. Just ‘saying no’ is not enough.”

But Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) charged that the Republicans were pressing for the death penalty only to draw attention away from the Reagan Administration’s failure to curb drug trafficking during the last eight years.

Seen as Reelection Ploy

And Rangel asserted that many House members were simply trying to ensure their own reelection by supporting capital punishment for drug-related murders. “Sometimes it’s those who say: ‘Let’s kill the rascals’ who prevail,” he said.

Rangel noted also that Congress had resisted the temptation to impose a federal death penalty in other instances in which it might have been popular. Furthermore, he noted that 36 states have the death penalty, and “if the other 14 states want it, they can get it.”

As an alternative to the death penalty, Rangel proposed a mandatory life sentence for drug-related murders. Although his amendment was approved by a vote of 410 to 1, it was superseded by the subsequent vote on the death penalty. Only Rep. George W. Crockett Jr. (D-Mich.) opposed Rangel’s mandatory life sentence proposal.

Cost of Executions Cited

California Rep. Don Edwards (D-San Jose) and other opponents of the death penalty argued that it costs more to execute a prisoner than to keep him in jail. They cited statistics indicating that the state of Florida spends $3.2 million each time a convicted murderer is put to death.

Likewise, Rangel read a letter from a federal prosecutor contending that the imposition of the death penalty for drug-related murders would discourage other countries from extraditing top-level drug kingpins to the United States for trial. For that reason, he said, federal law enforcement authorities do not want the death penalty imposed in these cases.

But Rep. George W. Gekas (R-Pa.), who wrote the death penalty provision, insisted that it is intended to demonstrate congressional support for law enforcement officials who are fighting to curb the drug trade. “This is designed to say in the best way we can: ‘We will protect you,’ ” he said.

“The war on drugs cannot be won without the ultimate weapon, the death penalty,” Gekas said. “The public demands action in the war on drugs. Public support for the death penalty is overwhelming.”

Thursday’s vote was no surprise to House members. In fact, the House had voted, 296 to 112, in favor of the death penalty as part of a similar anti-drug bill passed two years ago, but it was eliminated from the 1986 drug bill because the Senate refused to support it.

Measure Amended

Although the Gekas amendment was viewed as an unusually broad provision in comparison to other instances in which Congress has imposed a federal death penalty, the House later modified it slightly by adopting several other amendments by voice vote. Those included:

--An amendment by Levin exempting mentally retarded murderers.

--An amendment by Edwards exempting persons with no previous criminal record, persons who committed the crime under severe mental or emotional duress and those whose co-defendants were not sentenced to death.

--An amendment by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) assuring that defendants in capital cases have adequate legal representation, even if they are unable to pay for it.

Denial of Benefits

By a vote of 335 to 67, the House approved an amendment offered by McCollum that would deny some federal benefits for five years to persons convicted of two or more drug-related offenses within a five-year period and deny benefits for 10 years to persons convicted of drug distribution.

It would apply to all grants, contracts, loans, licenses and access to public housing but would not cover retirement, health or welfare benefits.

In addition, the House voted, 259 to 134, to alter the so-called “exclusionary rule,” which prohibits the introduction of evidence obtained in searches that violate the defendant’s constitutional protections.

The amendment, written by Rep. Daniel E. Lungren (R-Long Beach), would permit the tainted evidence to be introduced if the prosecution can demonstrate that the search in question was undertaken “in an objective, reasonable, good-faith belief that it was in conformity with” the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution.

The House was unable to finish the bill Thursday night and was not expected to resume debate until next Wednesday.