‘Agenda-Change and The Decline of the Death Penalty in America.
What lessons for Europe?’
Jean Monnet Teaching Module ‘Agenda-Setting in the European Union’
(May 21st 2013)
Report
'The Decline of the Death Penalty in America', a closing round table of the Institute for
European Studies' Jean Monnet Teaching Module on Agenda-Setting in the European
Union, was held on Tuesday 21st May at the Auditorium of the University of Malta,
Valletta Campus. The speakers at the event were Prof. Frank Baumgartner from
University of North Carolina; Prof. Roderick Pace, Director of the Institute for
European Studies and Jean Monnet Chair; Prof. Francesca Longo from University of
Catania; Prof. Sebastiaan Princen from Utrecht University; and Dr Marcello Carammia,
Lecturer at the Institute for European Studies and Jean Monnet Teaching Module coordinator. The event was attended by students registered for the Teaching Module, as
well as by members of the public.
The discussion was opened by Dr Marcello Carammia, who provided an introductory
background on the speakers at the event.
Following Dr Carammia’s opening remarks, Prof. Frank Baumgartner proceeded to
deliver a talk entitled ‘The Surprising and Continuing Disappearance of the Death
Penalty’. Prof. Baumgartner explained the death penalty’s application was extremely
localised, with the United States being the only Western country in which capital
punishment existed. Moreover, in the US, the death sentence was predominantly used
in the state of Texas. Outside of the US, the death penalty is mostly restricted to the
Middle East, Asia (notably China, which has the highest rate of death sentencing
worldwide) and a few countries in Africa.
Prof. Baumgartner said that occurrences of ‘mistakes’, where an innocent person is
wrongfully found guilty of murder, sentenced to death, and executed, is seen in a very
negative light by US citizens.
Prof. Baumgartner said that one the most contentious issues related to the death penalty
was related to cases where persons, who were sentenced to death, were at a later stage
found to be innocent of the crime. The occurrence of such ‘mistakes’ is very badly
regarded by the majority of US citizens, and such occurrences have caused citizens to
view the death penalty under a different light. US citizens may agree with capital
punishment in the abstract, but as they learn more about it, they may start finding
increased objection towards it.
Prof. Baumgartner proceeded to provide statistics on the very high rate of homicides
per year in the US when compared to the United Kingdom and France. He discussed
the number of people sentenced to death row, but subsequently exonerated, and the
news coverage such persons received. The more ‘innocence projects’, that is,
investigations of criminal procedures in cases of death sentences, were initiated, the
more errors were found, and, subsequently, the more exonerations. Exonerations were
progressively receiving more and more news coverage. Prof. Baumgartner describes
this as ‘innocence’ being ‘discovered’.
Prof. Baumgartner explained that the death penalty in the US is a function of the state,
not a function of the federal government. Therefore the amount of death sentences
given does not depend on who is in power as president of the US. When George W.
Bush was Governor of Texas, death sentences in that state were at an all time high for
that time, however, when he became president, the amount of death sentences given
declined, and it has continued to decline under the Obama presidency.
Many elected officials have been, in recent years, showing public opposition to capital
punishment, said Prof. Baumgartner. Two main reasons were behind this: the chance of
executing an innocent person, and the very high cost of the legal procedure for death
sentences. This has also led to a very significant decrease in the amount of death
sentences given.
Prof. Baumgartner proceeded to provided statistics on news coverage of the death
penalty, and remarked that since the 1990s nothing positive has been appearing in the
newspapers on this issue. He highlight that his research showed that amount of news
coverage given by the New York Times (what he referred to as the ‘net tone’) has an
effect on the amount of death sentences. In addition, public opinion also has an effect
on how often capital punishment is used.
Prof. Baumgartner commented that statistics showed that the victims of those executed
were most likely to be white. Therefore, although murdered victims were statistically
most often black, most executions in the US were undertaken for murders involving
white victims. Prof. Baumgartner concluded his talk by bring forth the argument that
the death penalty in the US is a racial symbol. It is symbolic because it rarely is
applied, but when applied, it is mostly done so in cases of white murder victims.
Following the conclusion of Prof. Baumgartner’s talk, the other invited speakers gave
their comments.
Prof. Francesca Longo started by discussing the EU policy system when compared to
that in the US. She said that the agenda-setting process of the EU involved many actors,
and there was no single executive. Prof. Longo explained that the policy system in the
Union was complex and fragmented and generated a large number of veto players, and,
because of this, some form of consensus would be required to reach an agreement. She
described the EU as a federal-like system with shared competences between it and its
member states.
Prof. Long went on to refer to Prof. Baumgartner’s New York Times ‘net tone’ in
relation to coverage of the death penalty, and said that, unlike the US, the EU did not
have a unified public opinion, or a unified media, and it would be of greater difficulty
to frame a unified EU perspective or opinion.
Subsequent to Prof. Longo’s comments, Prof. Pace gave his remarks. He initiated his
discussion by entering into the curious history of Malta and capital punishment. He
explained that capital punishment in respect to civil cases was abolished in 1974, while
the death penalty for military crimes was removed in 2000, as EU accession
negotiations progressed. Malta became independent in 1964 and joined the Council of
Europe in 1965, which lead to a new focus on human rights. This, together with Malta’s
Catholic beliefs, led to a decline in public favour for the death penalty, and thus to its
removal. Historical indicators, Prof. Pace said, showed that capital punishment never
enjoyed much public approval in Malta.
In conclusion, Prof. Pace remarked that the EU has long been against capital
punishment. He posed the question, however, if it would be hypothetically possible for
a collusion of member states to attempt to re-introduce the death penalty in the EU.
Following Prof. Pace’s discussion, Prof. Pricen gave his comments. He asked the
audience to consider whether any issue in Malta was being debated in such a way as to
also take into account what the policy on such an issue was in other EU countries.
Issues such as divorce and same-sex-marriage, were Malta factored in what other EU
member states’ position was on the matter, where mentioned. Although such issues
were not ones on which the EU had a common policy on, the position of member states
on the issues was still taken into consideration by any individual member state
discussing it. Prof. Princen referred to this as ‘policy dispersion’. He went on to argue
that, in the EU, there does not seem to be a single European mindset, and that the
reference point on various issues was still national. Unlike in the case of the death
penalty in the US, in the EU it is not the case that public opinion causes policy makers
to carry out certain actions. Rather, in the EU there is a top-down process, where policy
makers or elites take decision and then attempt to disperse them downwards to the
public.
Prof. Princen ended his discussion by making the argument that in the EU there does
not exist a public sphere of the type which exists in the US. However, around certain
issues, such as the aforementioned same-sex-marriage, an EU discourse was
developing. The case still remains however, that in the EU there existed multiple
federal levels in this respect, whereby member states consult not only the EU regarding
issues of salience, but also other international organisations, such as the World Trade
Organisation (WHO) or the Council of Europe, depending on the issue type.
Following Prof. Princen’s discussion, questions were received from the audience.