Missouri is on the brink of a significant change in its status as one of the most active death penalty states due to a simple reason: the state is facing a shortage of inmates eligible for execution. The recent lethal injection of Christopher Collings on Dec. 3 has reduced the number of men on death row to just eight — a symbolic term as condemned Missouri inmates are housed alongside other prisoners. This is a stark contrast to nearly 100 individuals who were under a death sentence three decades ago.
Among the eight Missouri inmates, three are expected to spend the rest of their lives in prison after being deemed mentally incompetent for execution. Court appeals are ongoing for the remaining five, and there are no upcoming execution dates scheduled. Missouri is not the only state experiencing this trend; nationwide, the number of individuals awaiting the death penalty has significantly decreased since the early 2000s.
“We are in a very different place compared to 25 years ago, and that’s for very good reasons,” said Robin Maher, the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit organization that does not take a stance on the death penalty but highlights issues with its implementation. The Legal Defense Fund’s Death Row USA report revealed a decline in the number of individuals with pending death sentences this year, down from 3,682 in 2000 to 2,180 this year.
The use of the death penalty has diminished partly due to the shifting views and practices of many states. Twenty-three states and the District of Columbia have abolished the death penalty, and five others have implemented moratoriums. Even in states that still actively use the death penalty, prosecutors are increasingly opting for life imprisonment without parole in murder cases. The decrease in new death sentences, from over 300 annually in the 1990s to 21 in 2023, reflects a changing landscape.
One major contributing factor to this decline is the substantial cost associated with death penalty cases. The expenses incurred during trials, including additional experts, lengthy proceedings, and penalty phase hearings, have led to exorbitant costs for public entities. Court appeals can extend over decades, accumulating significant legal expenses. Additionally, changing court rulings, such as prohibiting execution of the mentally disabled and those who committed crimes as minors, have impacted the number of death sentences.
Public opinion on capital punishment has also shifted, with a growing percentage of Americans questioning the fairness of its application. While there are pockets of renewed support for the death penalty in certain states, overall trends indicate a significant decline in its use across the nation.
An attempt to carry out the execution of Thomas Eugene Creech in February was made by the state, marking its first execution since 2012. However, the corrections department workers faced a challenge as they were unable to locate a suitable vein to administer the lethal drug. The state of Indiana is set to conduct its first execution in 15 years later this week.
As these developments unfold, the incoming President Donald Trump, who had previously reinstated federal executions resulting in 13 executions during his first term, has hinted at the possibility of further employing the death penalty. Observers like Maher suggest that elected officials, including President Trump, might reconsider their stance on the death penalty in light of public sentiment.
Despite the prevailing trends, California stands out with some of the most zealous prosecutors actively pursuing the death penalty. Interestingly, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom has imposed a moratorium on the death penalty in the state. Notably, the San Bernardino County District Attorney Jason Anderson’s office has effectively handled four death penalty cases under his tenure of six years. One recent case involved Jerome Rogers being convicted and sentenced to death for the brutal robbery and murder of two elderly women.
Anderson is resolute in his belief that certain crimes warrant the ultimate punishment of death. He emphasizes the emotional toll on the victims’ families and argues for the necessity of seeking justice through the death penalty. For him, the heinous nature of the crimes justifies pursuing the death penalty, despite the associated costs. He points to the significant loss of life in the cases he prosecuted, posing a poignant question: How can one assign a monetary value to the lives of 12 individuals?
In the context of the ongoing debate surrounding the death penalty, the challenges faced by corrections departments in carrying out executions underscore the complexities involved in administering capital punishment. The legal, ethical, and practical considerations surrounding the death penalty continue to provoke intense discussions and differing viewpoints among policymakers, legal experts, and the public at large.
The intersection of politics, public opinion, and the judicial system shapes the landscape within which decisions regarding the death penalty are made. The role of elected officials, including the President, in determining the trajectory of capital punishment reflects the broader societal attitudes towards crime and punishment.
As the debate rages on, the nuanced perspectives of those directly involved in the criminal justice system, such as prosecutors like Anderson, reveal the intricate moral calculus that underpins decisions related to the death penalty. The balancing act between seeking justice for victims and their families, ensuring due process for the accused, and upholding the principles of fairness and equity in the legal system remains a constant challenge.
The ongoing evolution of attitudes towards the death penalty reflects a deeper societal introspection on issues of morality, justice, and human rights. The ethical implications of state-sanctioned executions, the potential for wrongful convictions, and the racial disparities in the application of the death penalty all contribute to the complexity of the debate.
