THE FEDERAL DEATH PENALTY ABOLITION ACT OF 1999

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 1999, a bill I introduced last Wednesday. This bill will put an immediate halt to executions and forbid the imposition of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of Federal law.

Since the beginning of this year, this Chamber has echoed with debate on violence in America. We have heard about violence in our schools and neighborhoods. But I am not so sure that we in Government don't contribute to this casual attitude we sometimes see toward killing and death. With each new death penalty statute enacted and each execution carried out, our executive, judicial and legislative branches, at both the State and Federal level, add to a culture of violence and killing. With each person executed, we are teaching our children that the way to settle scores is through violence, even to the point of taking
a human life.

Those who favor the death penalty should be pressed to explain why fallible human beings should presume to use the power of the state to extinguish the life of a fellow human being on our collective behalf. Those who oppose the death penalty should demand that explanation adamantly, and at every turn. But only a zealous few try. We should do better. And we should use this moment to do better as we step not only into a new century but also a new millennium, the first such landmark since the depths of the Middle Ages.

Across the globe, with every American who is executed, the entire world watches and asks, How can the Americans, the champions of human rights, compromise their own professed beliefs in this way? A majority of nations have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice. Even Russia and South Africa--nations that for years were symbols of egregious violations of basic human rights and liberties--have seen the error of the use of the death penalty. Next month, Italy and other European nations--nations with which the United States enjoys its closest relationships--are expected to introduce a resolution in the U.N. General Assembly calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty.

So why does the United States remain one of the nations in the distinct minority to use the death penalty? Some argue that the death penalty is a proper punishment because it is a deterrent. But they are sadly, sadly mistaken. The Federal Government and most States in the United States have a death penalty, while our European counterparts do not. Following the logic of death penalty supporters who believe it is a deterrent, you would think that our European allies, who don't use the death penalty, would have a much higher murder rate than we do in the United States. Yet, they don't; and it is not even close. In fact, the
murder rate in the United States is six times higher than the murder rate in Britain, seven times higher than in France, five times higher than in Australia, and five times higher than in Sweden.

But we don't even need to look across the Atlantic to see that capital punishment has no deterrent effect on crime. Let's compare Wisconsin and Texas. I am proud of the fact that my great State, Wisconsin, was the first State in this Nation to abolish the death penalty completely, when it did so in 1853. So Wisconsin has been death penalty-free for nearly 150 years.  In contrast, Texas is the most prodigious user of the death penalty, having executed 192 people since 1976. So let's look at the murder rate in Wisconsin and in Texas. During the period from 1995 to 1998, Texas has had a murder rate that is nearly
double the murder rate in Wisconsin. This data alone calls into question the argument that the death penalty is a deterrent to murder.

I want to be clear. I believe murderers and other violent offenders should be severely punished. I am not seeking to open the prison doors and let murderers come rushing out into our communities. I don't want to free them. But the question is, Should the death penalty be a means of punishment in our society?

The fact that our society relies on killing as punishment is disturbing enough. Even more disturbing, however, is the fact that the States' and the Federal Government's use of the death penalty is often not consistent with the principles of due process, fairness and justice.

It just cannot be disputed that we are sending innocent people to death. Since the modern death penalty was reinstated in the 1970s, we have released 82 men and women from death row. Why? Because they were innocent. That's one death row inmate found innocent for every seven executed. One in seven! That's a pretty poor performance for American justice.

Another reason we need to abolish the death penalty is the specter of racism in our criminal justice system. Even though our nation has abandoned slavery and segregation, we unfortunately are still living with vestiges of institutional racism. In some cases, racism can be found at every stage of a capital trial--in the selection of jurors, during the presentation of evidence, and sometimes during jury deliberations.

After the 1976 Supreme Court Gregg decision upholding the use of the death penalty, the death penalty was first enacted as a sentence at the federal level with passage of the Drug Kingpin Statute in 1988. Since that time, numerous additional federal crimes have become death penalty-eligible, bringing the total to about 60 statutes today. At the federal level, 21 people have been sentenced to death. Of those 21 on the federal government's death row, 14 are black and only 5 are white. One defendant is Hispanic and another Asian. That means 16 of the 21 people on federal death row are minorities. That's just over 75%. And the numbers are worse on the military's death row. Seven of the eight men, or 87.5%, on military death row are minorities.

One thing is clear: no matter how hard we try, we cannot overcome the inevitable fallibility of being human. That fallibility means that we will not be able to apply the death penalty in a fair and just manner.

At the end of 1999, at the end of a remarkable century and millennium of progress, I cannot help but believe that our progress has been tarnished with our nation's not only continuing, but increasing use of the death penalty. As of today, the United States
has executed 585 people since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. In those 23 years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of executions. This year the United States has already set a record for the most executions in our country in one year, 85--the latest execution being that of Ricky Drayton, who was executed by lethal injection just last Friday by the state of South Carolina. And the year isn't even over yet. We are on track to hit close to 100 executions this year. This is astounding and it is embarrassing. We are a nation that prides itself on the fundamental principles of justice, liberty, equality and due
process. We are a nation that scrutinizes the human rights records of other nations. We are one of the first nations to speak out against torture and killings by foreign governments. It is time for us to look in the mirror.

Two former Supreme Court justices did just that. In 1994, Justice Harry Blackmun penned the following eloquent dissent:  

From this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death. For more than 20 years I have endeavored--indeed, I have struggled--along with a majority of this Court, to develop procedural and substantive rules that would lend more than the mere appearance of fairness to the death penalty endeavor. Rather than continue to coddle the
Court's delusion that the desired level of fairness has been achieved and the need for regulation eviscerated, I feel morally and intellectually obligated simply to concede that the death penalty experiment has failed. It is virtually self-evident to me now that no  combination of procedural rules or substantive regulations ever can save the death penalty from its inherent constitutional deficiencies.

Similarly, after supporting Supreme Court decisions upholding the death penalty, Justice Lewis Powell in 1991 told his biographer that he now thought capital punishment should be abolished. After sitting on our nation's highest court for over 20 years, Justices Blackmun and Powell came to understand the randomness and unfairness of the death penalty. It is time for our nation to follow the lead of these distinguished jurists.

The death penalty is at odds with our best traditions. It is wrong and it is immoral. The adage `two wrongs do not make a right,' could not be more appropriate here. Our nation has long ago done away with other barbaric punishments like whipping and cutting off the ears of suspected criminals. Just as our nation did away with these punishments as contrary to our humanity and ideals, it is time to abolish the death penalty as we enter the next century. The continued viability of our justice system as a truly just system requires that we do so.

I ask my colleagues to join me in taking the first step in abolishing the death penalty in our great nation. Last week, I introduced a bill that abolishes the death penalty at the federal level. I call on all states that have the death penalty to also cease this practice. Let us step away from the culture of violence and restore fairness and integrity to our criminal justice system. As we head into the next millennium, let us leave this archaic practice behind.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.