The Death Penalty in New Jersey

v New Jersey reenacted the death penalty August 6, 1982. People as young as 18 are eligible for death sentences. Mentally ill or mentally retarded people are not exempt, but the law will have to be changed to exclude the mentally retarded as a result of a June 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision. The method of execution is lethal injection. Twelve people currently await execution on New Jersey’s Death Row in Trenton State Prison.

v Public opinion has moved away from support for the death penalty. A Rutgers Eagleton Poll reported in May, 2002 that, when life without parole is an option, only 36% of New Jerseyans support capital punishment and 66% of New Jerseyans, including death penalty proponents, support a moratorium and study. Professor Scott McClean, of Quinnipiac College, summarized a 2000 Quinnipiac poll this way: “…the apparent consensus in favor of capital punishment is just a mirage.”

v New Jersey needs to consider the impact of capital punishment on surviving family members of murder victims. Some oppose the death penalty and others support it. But, all surviving family members want justice and the death penalty does not provide it. For many reasons, including a high error rate (70%) in capital trials, an execution has not been carried out here since capital punishment was reinstated. Furthermore, lengthy capital trials and appeals re-victimize families as they struggle to heal.

v Studies show that convicting a killer and putting him to death costs about four times more than imprisoning him for life without parole. An Illinois State University study, published in 1992, estimated that the death penalty process costs New Jersey taxpayers $22.8 million annually over the cost of life sentences. Experts say death penalty costs are indefensible, when these millions are needed for education, crime prevention, drug rehabilitation and victim compensation programs.

v In Illinois, a blue ribbon commission on capital punishment, appointed by Republican Governor George Ryan after his state released thirteen innocent death row inmates, made the most thorough study of the death penalty to date. The commission was evenly comprised of pro- and anti- capital punishment members. The report defined 85 minimum standards to reduce the risk of executing an innocent person. New Jersey fails to meet 75% of those minimum standards.

v The risk of executing an innocent person in New Jersey is real. Nationally, more than 100 innocent persons have been released from death row since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976. Eleven were released based on DNA evidence. DNA cannot and will not prevent wrongful convictions, since DNA evidence is only available in a handful of cases. However, the use of DNA in recent years has highlighted the fallibility of the criminal justice system. DNA has shown that wrongful convictions occur due to, among other reasons, erroneous eyewitness testimony, prosecutorial misconduct, judicial error, and the use of jailhouse snitches. These problems exist whether or not there is DNA evidence to rectify the wrongs. These problems also exist in New Jersey. Over the last 25 years, at least 16 innocent New Jerseyans were convicted of crimes ranging from rape to murder - and served a combined 300 years. Three were exonerated on the basis of DNA evidence.

v When a conflict arises in a capital case, the state of New Jersey hires a private attorney to represent the individual accused – at an hourly rate of $50. That rate is significantly below the national average of $75 for capital cases – and even further below the $150 average rate for private attorneys in New Jersey.

v Despite a well-funded Capital Punishment Unit in the Public Defender’s office, New Jersey’s death penalty system is flawed. Arbitrary factors beyond any system’s control include:

o Personal Views of Individual Prosecutors. The decision to seek the death penalty rests solely with the Prosecutor in the county where the crime took place. Some prosecutors are many times more likely than others to seek the death penalty.

o Strength of the input from family members of the victim: For example, some victims’ families have more political influence than others. And, prosecutors seldom heed the wishes of those family members who oppose the death penalty.

o Strength of Evidence: The strength of the evidence can be very different in two otherwise identical cases where a person is found guilty. Jury interpretation as to the strength of evidence is also a factor. For example, many place a high degree of confidence in eyewitness testimony, despite concern within the criminal justice community over eyewitness reliability. Others may be skeptical of this kind of evidence.

o Geographics: The death penalty is applied inequitably in New Jersey from county to county. New Jersey Supreme Court proportionality studies called “county variability” in the rate capital cases progress to penalty trials a “problem.” (Baime Report, Aug 01 and Jan 03). The reports do not address how to correct this problem.

o Race of Defendant/Race of Victim: The personal views and experiences of prosecutors, jurors, and others involved in the process before and after a decision to seek the death penalty is often a silent factor. Yet, the 2001 and 2003 proportionality studies found direct evidence of differences in the application of the death penalty in regards to race. The 2001 proportionality study states “...statistical evidence strongly suggests that defendants who kill White victims are more likely to advance to a penalty phase trial than defendants who kill African-American victims…” Both reports blame this troubling statistic on the problem of county variability, but leave wide open the question of how the resulting racial disparity impacts the credibility of the capital punishment system in New Jersey. In a state where housing patterns reflect class and racial factors and where racial profiling is widely recognized as a significant problem, even the perception of racial bias is divisive.

o The abilities of the individual attorney representing the accused. Lawyers, private or public defenders, are not all equal in ability, judgment, or dedication. While the system in New Jersey may be superior to that of certain other states, any particular attorney within the system could make mistakes in judgment or could fail to fully investigate a case, and such failure could result in the conviction or even the death of an innocent individual.

Time is of the Essence: New Jersey has not executed anyone since capital punishment was reinstated here in 1982, but it is vital that New Jersey citizens and legislators recognize that four of the thirteen people on New Jersey’s death row have exhausted their state appeals. Estimates as to when the first execution will take place fall within 6 months. Contact the Governor now and tell him to support S-1212, which replaces the death penalty with life without parole: Acting Governor Richard Codey, 609-292-6000.

Revised June 2004