November 7, 1967
Page 31588
ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. HART. Mr. President, for several years now, a number of us have proposed that Congress abolish capital punishment for Federal crimes. "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" was pretty harrowing reading when first written. It is not the mark of a society that has advanced to the point of ours today.
Crime in the streets is something that is so much a preoccupation – and understandably so – that people caution us about getting up and talking about eliminating capital punishment. They say it is politically dangerous and that it will not sell. I do not agree with either point, actually. I think that we should be reminded, in terms of political implications, that a very recent Gallup poll shows that a very substantial majority of Americans, insofar as a poll can establish it, do accept the notion that we serve not the cause of community stability at all when we keep on our law books the right to put somebody to death, be it by rope or pill or Chair.
I was struck by two very recent newspaper comments, and I ask unanimous consent that they may be made a part of the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. HART. One was an article from the Detroit News of Sunday, November 5, and the second was an editorial from the Washington Post of yesterday, November 6.
The first article reports the happy news from our friendly neighbor to the north, Canada, that Canada is moving slowly, but steadily, toward the abolition of capital punishment for murder.
The second, an editorial, discusses the dilemma which a defendant charged with violation of the Lindbergh Kidnaping Act faces. After analyzing its complications and possible constitutional problems, the Post concludes editorially:
The best way to correct all the statutes carrying this defect would be to eliminate the death penalty.
That is exactly what the Federal Government should do. That is what we in Congress should do.
We cannot reach the practices of the several States, but the Federal criminal laws provide for capital punishment in a number of instances. We should eliminate them. We are going to sooner or later, and the sooner, the better. Whenever it is, it will be very late by the clock of history.
We know the arguments: How can we justify taking a man's life? We are told that is the way to deter crime. It is a deterrent. Therefore, society is justified in doing it.
Mr. President, you can make statistics play any song you want, but I have seen no statistic that establishes the proposition that capital punishment – the execution of a murderer – stops the next murder. Indeed, Mr. President, you compare the statistics of States which provide for capital punishment against the statistics of States which do not permit capital punishment, and the murder rates in the noncapital States are a shade lower than those in the capital States.
We abolished capital punishment in Michigan 100 years ago. Our neighbor Illinois and our neighbor Ohio have such punishment. Our murder rate is lower than theirs. The figures just do not justify our using the excuse that capital punishment deters murder.
The other reason for sanctions in the law is to rehabilitate the criminal. I have not heard anybody argue that capital punishment rehabilitates the criminal.
There is another sobering factor about this. Some mistakes we make in life we can correct, but we cannot correct the situation that applies if a man has been executed by mistake. And that has happened, too, in our history. That explains why some States got around to abolishing capital punishment. They discovered – and imagine the shock – that they had executed an innocent man.
There are good citizens in this country who are beginning to give voice to these concerns. The very able former Governor of Ohio, who, as the Governor of Ohio, had to face the problem of whether to commute death sentences or not, is the chairman of the National Committee To Abolish the Federal Death Penalty, which is determined to persuade the Congress that we shall eliminate capital punishment for a Federal crime. Michael V. DiSalle, who has played many other useful roles in the past two decades, is now giving voice and leadership to this concern, joined by many other good and distinguished citizens.
As a matter of fact, 73 nations have abolished capital punishment.
Mr. President, you can mark the advance of a society in many ways – how concerned it is for its children; how sensitive and effective it is in responding to the concerns of its elderly. We can get great grades on those tests, if we want to. But if we do all of these things, but fail to correct this business of capital punishment, history's verdict will note it. Quite aside from what history will say about us, it is to our contemporary comfort that we would be infinitely better off to say we understand whatever may have been said for that practice on the frontier, or 2,000 years ago, today we understand each other well enough, our motives, and our emotions, that we would be better off to be rid of this law.
I again appeal to my colleagues that we give thought to this. We are going to do it some day. Let it be as soon as possible.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. HART. I am delighted to yield.
Mr. MUSKIE. I would like to take this opportunity to compliment the distinguished Senator from Michigan upon the case which he has made for the abolishment of capital punishment, based upon the experience of my State, as well as to support the argument which he has so effectively made.
Maine abolished capital punishment back in the 19th century, the early 1870's. Nothing in our experience as a State since that time has caused us to regret that action. Of course, we cannot prove anything negatively, so we cannot prove what would have been our experience had that action not been taken. But I think the case made by the distinguished Senator is irrefutable from my point of view, and I would like to take this opportunity to compliment him upon making that case this afternoon.
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator from Maine, not just for his kind words, but for his cosponsorship of the legislation which is before us that would achieve this objective. With his support and that of others who have supported us, I hope the day is not long down the road when we will act affirmatively.
EXHIBIT 1
[From the Detroit News, Nov. 5,1967]
END OF THE DEATH PENALTY WEIGHED IN OTTAWA
(By Greg Connolley)
OTTAWA. – Canada is moving slowly but steadily towards abolishing capital punishment for murder.
The latest trend is a proposal by the federal government to limit capital punishment on a five-year experimental basis, to the murder of police officers, sheriffs and prison guards.
In Canada the criminal code is within the jurisdiction of the federal government at Ottawa; the administration of the code rests with the provinces.
The Canadian Parliament determines the punishment for murder and this decision is effective all across Canada.
Presently there are two murder categories in the criminal code – capital and non-capital murder.
The first is described as a deliberate act; noncapital covers murders committed in the heat of passion without premeditation. However, the death sentence has not been applied in Canada since the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson took office in April, 1963. Thus far the federal cabinet has commuted to life imprisonment the hanging sentences of 27 convicted murderers.
A private member's bill was introduced in the House of Commons last year calling for the abolition of capital punishment.
Pearson voted for it and so did Solicitor-General Larry Pennell. the cabinet minister who makes the recommendation for commutation of death sentences.
But the legislation was defeated 143 to 112 – this was a free vote when members of Parliament voted according to conscience and without party discipline.
The reasons for the defeat included concern that abolition of the hanging sentence could mean an open season by hardened criminals on policemen
A new bill introduced in the House of Commons by Pennell is intended to meet this objection.
The long walk to the scaffold will still be in order for anyone killing a policeman or other peace officer.
At the time of the capital punishment debate last year many legislators also voted against abolition because they were perturbed by the prospect of murders with life terms getting out on parole after 10-years or so in a penitentiary.
KIDNAPING LAW
Both Congress and the country ought to watch the outcome of the kidnap case that will come before the Supreme Court for argument this week. The case involving the kidnaping of John J. Brant III – allegedly by Charles Jackson and John A. Walsh Jr. – is before the Supreme Court because a Federal district court held the Federal Kidnaping Act, under which the charges were brought, to be unconstitutional. Congress may find it necessary to rescue this important act by removing its infirmities.
Congress passed this law after the famous Lindbergh kidnaping to provide stiff penalties for abductors who take their victim across state lines. Anyone convicted under the law may be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. The penalty becomes death if the victim is injured or killed and if a jury recommends execution. The lower court ruled that this provision for a more severe penalty if the defendants are tried by a jury has the effect of impairing their right to jury trial. If they should plead guilty, they could not be executed, but if they should insist on a jury trial the result could be capital punishment.
The Department of Justice contends that the predicament of the defendants is not worsened by asking for a jury, that even if they pleaded guilty the judge could then empanel a jury and ask for recommendations for sentencing. It is also argued that the trial judge need not accept a jury's recommendation of capital punishment. Whatever the Supreme Court may decide on grounds of constitutionality, the Government should not ask a man to choose between pleading guilty with a lesser penalty and asking for a jury trial that might lead to his execution. Several other laws on the books pose the same unfortunate alternatives. There should be no point anywhere in the law that a demand for a jury trial may entail heavier punishment.
The best way to correct all the statutes carrying this defect would be to eliminate the death penalty.