Death penalty isn’t effective deterrent

The latest chapter in the case of death row inmate James Robertson is unlikely to mollify opponents of the death penalty and is likely to rile its supporters.

Robertson, a former resident of Rock Hill, was convicted of beating his parents, Terry and Earl Robertson, to death in 1997 in a plot to get access to their multimillion dollar estate. Two years later, he was sentenced to death.

That means Robertson, now 43, has been languishing on death row at the Lieber Correctional Facility in Columbia for nearly two decades. Execution dates have twice been set and twice delayed.

In a new twist, the S.C. Supreme Court ruled recently in a split decision that Robertson is entitled to a new hearing because of competency questions about the lawyers who represented him in the sentencing phase of the trial. The attorneys may have lacked required experience in death-penalty trials and post-conviction relief experience, as well as lacking necessary continuing education on death penalty law.

Specifically, questions were raised about the defense attorneys’ failure to pursue a guilty but mentally ill plea deal that might have spared Robertson’s life.

The hearing could result in a new trial or sentencing hearing. But legal experts say either is a long shot, and that a new hearing is unlikely.

But legal scholars note that in death penalty cases, inmates often are given more leeway to pursue legal avenues that might change their status. After all, once the verdict is carried out, there is no recourse.

But the delay can be frustrating to those who knew the victims and those who think executions should be carried out more swiftly. How can the courts justify delaying Robertson’s execution for 20 years after his conviction?

But those who oppose the death penalty note that enough innocent people have received death sentences to warrant the pursuit of any avenue that might reveal a death-row inmate is not guilty or other significant information that might affect the case.

From a purely practical point of view, this case raises serious questions about the efficacy of the death penalty. How could a death sentence be considered a deterrent when Robertson has not been executed after two decades and may yet have the penalty delayed?

Some mistakenly view a death sentence as a way to save the state the cost of housing and feeding an inmate for life. But the cost of Robertson’s many legal hearings has been enormous.

Death penalty cases ordinarily are far more expensive than non-capital cases, and housing an inmate on death row is significantly more costly than housing a prisoner in the general population.

We think the value of the death penalty is tenuous for both practical and moral reasons. As noted, too many innocent people end up on death row. The numbers also clearly indicate that black defendants are far more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants, indicating a prominent racial bias in the way the sentence is meted out.

But the issue can be persuasively argued on a purely practical level: Why waste money pursuing the execution of James Robertson? Wouldn’t it be just as effective to require him spend the rest of his life confined to a cell?

This story was originally published January 18, 2017 at 4:23 PM with the headline "Death penalty isn’t effective deterrent."