Pennsylvania high court passes on death penalty review | TribLIVE.com
Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania high court passes on death penalty review

Associated Press
1734078_web1_web-courts11

PHILADELPHIA — The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has declined a special petition to review the constitutionality of the death penalty but says it will still consider the fairness of individual cases.

The decision Friday comes after the court heard arguments this month from critics who call the punishment cruel and arbitrary in the way it’s applied to poor and black defendants. Public defender Shawn Nolan represents the two men whose petitions were at the heart of the petition.

Nolan said he is disappointed, given “overwhelming evidence that Pennsylvania’s death penalty system is broken.” But his office will continue to litigate the issue in state courts, he said.

Statewide, just under half of the current death row inmates in Pennsylvania are black, compared with 11% of state residents.

The death penalty remains legal in 29 U.S. states, although four of those states, including Pennsylvania, have a moratorium on executions.

More than half of the 441 death sentences handed down since the death penalty was reinstated in the late 1970s have been deemed flawed and overturned, Assistant Federal Defender Timothy Kane said at the Sept. 11 hearing. Among the 155 from Philadelphia, the reversal rate is 72 percent.

“The reliability of the system as a whole is cruel, and the systemic problems affect every case,” Kane argued before the overflow crowd at Philadelphia City Hall.

Most of the time, the sentence or verdict was reversed on appeal because of the work of court-appointed lawyers working with limited public funds, he said.

Justice Debra Todd asked why the issue was urgent, given the moratorium on executions that Democratic Gov. Tom Wolf imposed after taking office in 2015. A lawyer for Attorney General Josh Shapiro, who opposed the petition, said it was not.

Shapiro’s office said that any amendments to the death penalty should be decided by the Legislature, which issued a troubling report on the issue last year.

“The questions the report raises are important, and should be thoroughly considered and resolved, by the General Assembly,” Shapiro’s office said in its brief.

However, Kane hoped the Supreme Court would step in given the lack of action by lawmakers.

The average appeal in Pennsylvania takes 17 years, straining the resources of the court system, critics said.

Five Democrats and two Republicans sit on the state Supreme Court.

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.