As Coast Jury Dooms Peterson, N.Y. Debates Capital Question

This article is from the archive of The New York Sun before the launch of its new website in 2022. The Sun has neither altered nor updated such articles but will seek to correct any errors, mis-categorizations or other problems introduced during transfer.

The New York Sun

ALBANY – As Scott Peterson spends his second day on California’s death row, the New York State Assembly will be debating whether capital punishment itself should be put to rest.


Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat of Manhattan, called the hearings after the state Court of Appeals, in a ruling in June, found a constitutional flaw in the state’s death penalty law and declared it unenforceable.


The sessions will not just focus on the legal snag but also study the broader pros and cons of execution as a law enforcement tool and as a moral issue. A second hearing is scheduled for January 25 at Albany.


The session tomorrow comes two days after a California jury, ruling in a highly publicized case, sentenced Peterson to death for murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, in 2002.


Supporters of the death penalty in New York have pressured the Assembly to act quickly on repairing what they describe as a technical problem in the law. They argue that the continuing delay will permit those who murder police officers or commit other capital crimes to avoid execution, and will jeopardize the downward trend in violent crime across the state. But the Assembly’s majority Democrats, who are divided on the issue, have insisted on taking their time.


“For all of the right reasons, many members of our conference thought it would be a good idea … to examine the death penalty and whether it continues to be a useful tool in our arsenal to fight crime,” the chairman of the Assembly Codes Committee, Joseph Lentol of Brooklyn, told The New York Sun.


Mr. Lentol, who voted for the death penalty law when it was adopted in 1995, said he continues to support putting certain criminals to death. But he said he would keep an open mind at the hearings.


“My own opinion has not changed, but it has evolved,” Mr. Lentol said. “It’s certainly an issue where one could very easily change his mind, because it’s an issue of life and death. You’re never sure if you’re doing the right thing when you put somebody to death in a fallible system.”


The executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, David Kaczynski, said a lot of people have rethought the issue over the past nine years, especially after the exoneration of dozens of convicts on death row through DNA evidence. Public opinion has shifted, and many legislators who cast votes in 1995 have since left office, he said.


“We’ve learned so much about what can go wrong,” said Mr. Kaczynski, who lobbied against the death penalty for his brother, Theodore, in the Unabomber case. “I think it’s irresponsible to reauthorize a bill that doesn’t address some of that knowledge.”


The president of the union for New York City police detectives, Michael Palladino, said his members are eager to see the death penalty brought back, especially for those who murder law enforcement officials.


“Four of the last police officers slaughtered in the line of duty here have been detectives,” Mr. Palladino said. “I’m in favor of the death penalty because I believe our people, who put their life on the line every single day, are entitled to some type of legislative protection.”


Mr. Palladino noted that the Court of Appeals had not ruled that the death penalty itself violates the state constitution.


Instead, it objected to a warning given to jurors as they choose between death and another possible punishment, life in prison without parole.


The law calls for judges to instruct the juries that if they deadlock the murderer could be paroled after 25 years.


The Supreme Court said this warning could pressure jurors holding out for a life term to go ahead and vote for execution.


It was the latest in a series of rulings that have thrown out every death sentence levied under the new law. New York has not executed a convict since 1963.


“These hearings are being put on not for those who are pro-death penalty,” Mr. Palladino said. “This is a forum for the opponents of the death penalty, in order to try and put the death penalty to death.”


Mr. Lentol said hearing organizers had invited proponents of the death penalty to testify, but that few people had stepped forward to actually accept the offer.


One person who plans to testify tomorrow is the former co-chairman of an Illinois commission on the death penalty, Thomas Sullivan.


The problems described in the 2002 Illinois commission’s report prompted Governor Ryan to declare a statewide moratorium on capital punishment and commute the death sentences of every prisoner who was facing execution at the time.


Mr. Sullivan, a former U.S. attorney at Chicago who has defended death penalty cases, said he opposes capital punishment because he believes it is a waste of resources.


Mr. Sullivan added that he has seen no evidence that the threat of execution deters crime, yet capital prosecutions cost far more than ordinary murder cases.


In Kansas, for example, a study last year found that capital cases cost an average of $1.26 million, compared to $740,000 for other types of cases involving murder.


“I’ve never been against it on moral grounds,” Mr. Sullivan said. “I don’t burn candles outside of prisons. I just think it’s a stupid idea. And one of the reasons is – among many others – is that it costs so much more to accomplish so little.”


Governor Pataki proposed legislation in August that he said would fix the constitutional defect in the capital punishment law, and the Republicanled Senate quickly put its stamp of approval on the bill.


The Assembly, however, appears to be evenly divided on how to proceed, Mr. Kaczynski said.


Counting both Democrats and Republicans, he estimates that there are similar numbers of hard-core opponents and supporters, and another 25 or 30 members who are sitting on the fence.


“They’re people who may never have had to deal with the issue before because they weren’t there in 1995,” Mr. Kaczynski said. “We assume they’ll be looking very closely on the substance of the testimony.”


Mr. Kaczynski said that when it comes to the death penalty, the most important issue to him is the likelihood that eventually an innocent person will be put to death.


“To me it’s an irrefutable argument,” he said. “Unless you believe the system is perfect, you know you’re eventually going to sentence innocent people to death, and eventually some of those will be executed. It’s probably impossible to create a system that does completely prevent that.”


The New York Sun

© 2025 The New York Sun Company, LLC. All rights reserved.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. The material on this site is protected by copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, cached or otherwise used.

The New York Sun

Sign in or  Create a free account

or
By continuing you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use