Rehnquist on Death Penalty

So now U.S. justice means--since it takes too long to find out if a defendant’s actions warrant the death penalty--let’s just “hang ‘em” right away whether he’s guilty or innocent (“Finding the Fair Interval Between Sentencing, Death,” by Gerald F. Uelman, Opinion, May 27). The real issue to the dilemma seems to be how to shorten the eight years it usually takes between imposition of a death sentence and execution without sacrificing the innocent?

Under the special committee’s recommendations (appointed by Chief Justice William Rehnquist), the Supreme Court would not be able to review cases where defendants can show innocence . This aspect of the recommendation in no way examines the true issue. Instead, it offers the innocent who happened to be represented by incompetent counsel as “sacrificial lambs” to the expediency impulse that frustrates all of us. It is truly sad to know that the chief justice of our highest court chooses to capitalize on this frustration, and in so doing, nurtures the mob-like, quick-fix mind-set that exists.

The judicial conference’s recommendations, on the other hand, would shorten the time of imposition of the death penalty by cutting the number of death penalty cases set aside. Since cases that are set aside frequently result from trial lawyer incompetence, the mandate recommended that all states meet specific minimum standards would obviate against the need to review many cases which are currently being reviewed. This approach would lighten the Supreme Court’s case load, shorten the imposition of death for many and would still not sacrifice the innocent. One wonders, in a nation with a judicial system famed for its protection of the innocent, why this would be controversial at all?

MALKA L. TASOFF, Tarzana