Lawyers Split Over a Death Penalty Ban

In an unprecedented move earlier this month, the American Bar Assn. called for a moratorium on executions in this country until the system--which they claim unfairly discriminates against minorities and does not provide adequate representation for death row inmates--can be properly studied and reformed.

The group also called for a ban on executing the mentally retarded and those who were under 18 when they committed their crimes.

Although the resolution adopted by the ABA did not take a position on the morality of the death penalty, the action met with divided reaction from lawyers. The group’s president, the U.S. deputy attorney general and California Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren were outspoken critics of the measure.

Should there be a moratorium on executions in the United States?

Bruce C. Hill, a Woodland Hills attorney:

“I think it’s probably too little too late. I don’t understand the direction of the moratorium. I don’t see the public as a whole being supportive of the notion of a moratorium. . . . I certainly agree that [the death penalty] is unfairly imposed on certain racial and ethnic groups. . . . [But] to just put things on hold would not accomplish much. I think it would make things worse. . . . The only way the death penalty is going to be eliminated from society is if . . . the voters and the courts see that it does not accomplish what we need to accomplish.”

Ellery Sorkin, past president of the San Fernando Valley Criminal Bar Assn.:

“I’m opposed [to the death penalty]. I think the ABA . . . is on the right track for three reasons. Personal revenge elevated to state policy is wrong. No. 2: The [legal] cost of properly protecting the state and the defendant are overwhelming, but the cost of not protecting everyone is even more overwhelming. . . . And No. 3: You can’t go back and correct a mistaken identity--either made as a lie or by mistaken testimony by an angry or upset person, because you can’t bring back the dead.”

Katherine Sher, legislative advocate for California Attorneys for Criminal Justice:

“We’re really happy to see them take that position and bring to public attention all of the important problems there are. . . . If you’re going to impose the death penalty, our society has an obligation to make sure it is done the right way. . . . People working in the field know how random and arbitrary it is. . . . But I would argue that the problem will never be fixed and we should not have the death penalty. . . . The public just doesn’t know . . . how much the question of race enters into it.”

Erwin Chemerinsky, professor at USC Law School:

“I think it is very important for two reasons. One is that it comes from the American Bar Assn., which is not a liberal group. It has been a very conservative organization. . . . The other thing . . . is they gave attention to the fact that there are so many people on death row now who have no attorney or any prospect of having competent counsel. . . . [As to the practicality of it] all this mean is it will be holding more people on death row for a longer time. . . . It’s not likely the Congress would impose such a moratorium. It would really be done on a state-by-state basis.”