ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY UNDER ALL LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES WEDNESDAY, MARCH 20, 1968 U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE OF CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 1318, New Senate Office Building, Senator Philip A. Hart presiding. Present: Senators Hart (presiding), and McClellan. Also present: William A. Paisley, chief counsel. Senator MCCLELLAN. Today we open a 2-day session of hearings on S. 1760, a bill to abolish the death penalty under all laws of the United States. Out of deference to Senator Hart, who is the sponsor of the bill, I have asked him to conduct the hearings for the subcommittee today and tomorrow, as I have other hearings in progress and I must give my attention to them. We hope to hear the pros and cons of this issue of abolishment of the death penalty under Federal laws. It is a question that can produce very emotional testimony at times, but the subcommittee members will study the record carefully and weigh all of the issues involved. Personally, I am much concerned as to whether this is the proper time to repeal the death penalty when the crime rate continues to rise to new heights each year. During 1967, for instance, the crime increase was 16 percent over 1966; violent crimes rose 15 percent; and murder was up 15 percent. These are some of the factors that we must take into account in our consideration of this bill. It is argued by some that capital punishment is no deterrent to crime, and it is strongly argued by others that it is. Proving it either way will be rather difficult, if not impossible. I do want this subcommittee to develop the testimony and all supporting data that may be helpful in making our determinations and recommendations with respect to this proposed legislation. I wish also to announce that the record will not be closed at the conclusion of tomorrow's session. Further hearings will be scheduled at a later date. I now turn this series of hearings over to Senator Hart, who will preside and conduct them for the subcommittee. Senator HART. Mr. Chairman, before you go, let me thank you very much for your willingness to do this. The chairman and I were not in disagreement over this but he was just suggesting that he had riots to (1) settle in that other committee, and was suggesting that Detroit made a substantial contribution to his problem. I have thanked our chairman for his willingness to schedule these hearings, and I think he has suggested one of the things that we ought to attempt to resolve. He cited those rising crime figures, murder up 15 percent. I would hope that we would be able to localize the murders and other acts of violence, what States contributed the most to the increases, and if those States have capital punishment or not. I don't know what the answer will be, but with that kind of information, it will enable us to make a judgment removed from the emotion which, as he indicated, clearly attaches to the subject matter. It was a surprise to me that the Senate of the United States has never held a hearing on the question of whether we should abolish capital punishment or not. We have been around here a long time, and capital punishment has been around a long time, and the Senate has spent its time on many subject matters, and in my list of priorities, we should have found the time long since to have considered the question that is posed by the introduction of the bill that the subcommittee now takes up. I feel that the hearings are in response to a rising tide of public opinion which believes that capital punishment is, indeed, cruel and unjust. We will introduce for the record several Gallup polls which shows that the majority of Americans now believe that it should be abolished. It is not just the mass market that is reflected in the Gallup poll. Among the leading voices for abolition are scholars in the field, professionals in the field of criminology and penology, the researchers in criminology, legal scholars and sociologists show there is no evidence to support the notion that the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. DIAGRAM I Homicide Death Rates, per 100,000 Population, in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont: 1920-1958 Homicide Death Rates, per 100,000 Population, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, MATC DIAGRAM III Homicide Death Rates, per 100,000 Population, in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin: 1920-1955 Homicide Death Rates, per 100,000 Population, in Michigan, Indiana, and Chie: 1920-1968 1998 1996 The day-to-day experiences of penologists give individual witness that it is inhumane, unfairly employed, and if this is true, they will argue, and I must acknowledge that I am a prejudiced judge already. Having introduced the bill I have indicated my attitude, they will argue that it undermines the two main goals of modern penology: society's protection and the offender's rehabilitation. If there is just one page in our country's legal history where an innocent man was executed by the community, that is one page too many, and there are quite a few such pages, innocent men executed at the hands of society and society later finds that it was mistaken, but that is one of those mistakes you can't do anything about. The record in Federal cases shows our increasing reluctance to use the death penalty. Since 1957 one Federal prisoner has been executed. When these hearings were first scheduled, I received scores of requests from individuals and organizations pleading to testify on the subject. In the case of those writing to me or communicating with me, they were eager to testify in behalf of abolition, but because the time allowed is brief, we have had to limit both the number of witnesses and the time allowed them. The invitations, therefore, went only to those who have had experience, long experience with the administration of the death penalty. Witnesses we will hear during these 2 days, which as the able chairman indicated will not be the end of our hearings, represent the disciplines of Government, law, sociology, law enforcement and penology, and each is an outstanding expert in his own field. Last night as I looked over that list, I felt I could honestly suggest that they comprise one of the most distinguished panels ever to appear before a Senate committee. We have much to learn from them, and I hope we will respond accordingly. Having thanked the chairman of the subcommittee, let me thank also the staff who have cooperated so fully in the effort that culminates in these hearings today. |
