Michael S. Greco
President, American Bar Association
International Leadership Conference on
Human Rights and the Death Penalty
Tokyo, Japan
Tuesday, December 6, 2005
Welcome to the International Leadership Conference on Human Rights and the
Death Penalty.
On behalf of the American Bar Association, I want to thank the European
Commission, represented by Michael Reiterer, for co-sponsoring and supporting this
conference.
We are also very pleased that the Japan Federation of Bar Associations is cosponsoring and hosting this program. Thank you, President Kajitani, for your
partnership and your gracious hospitality in hosting this important conference.
I also thank Minister of Justice Sugiura, who will speak in a moment, for taking
time out of his busy schedule to address this conference.
********************************************
We gather with a full agenda and ambitious goals. Over the next two days,
internationally-acclaimed scholars and practitioners with expertise in criminal justice,
capital punishment, and human rights will share their insights on global issues relating
to the death penalty. We will also hear from victim advocates, lawmakers and
government officials, bar association leaders, a former death row inmate, and others
who have a stake in death penalty issues.
The death penalty is clearly one of the most divisive issues of our time within
individual nations and in the international arena. Everyone in this room has at least one
thing in common: we are all committed to pursuing justice, and seeing that justice is
done, for the victims and perpetrators of crimes that may lead to the death penalty, and
for society at large. We may have different views of what path to take to achieve a just
result, and even more fundamentally, what constitutes a just result. People of good will
can differ on important questions surrounding crime and punishment, but we can all
come together in an honest and open dialogue to evaluate our own positions and learn
from one another s views and experiences.
The ABA hopes that this conference will lead to an international network of
lawyers to address death penalty issues. The death penalty is, of course, a legal issue
with human rights dimensions. Human rights activists and organizations around the
world have reached out to one another around the world to address death penalty
issues. It is time for the lawyers of the world to do the same.
After all, lawyers, judges and court systems have the solemn responsibility of
ensuring that justice is served in serious criminal cases especially in those where
death sentences could be imposed. We are charged with guaranteeing that the due
process rights of defendants are not trampled, while assuring that the voices of victims
and the concerns of society at large are heard. The lawyers of the world have a unique
role to play in the ongoing debate over whether, and how, to administer the death
penalty. One potential development from this conference could be to identify concepts
that all participants can agree to present in their homelands.
The use of the death penalty is receiving heightened attention in the United
States, as we have recently witnessed the 1,000th execution since capital punishment
was reinstituted in 1976. Last Wednesday, an inmate in Virginia would have been the
1,000th person executed since 1976, but he was granted clemency by the governor of
Virginia. Late last week, however, two more executions in North Carolina and South
Carolina pushed the United States past this historic but lamentable milestone.
Except for opposing the imposition of the death penalty on the mentally retarded,
and on individuals who committed their crimes while juveniles, the American Bar
Association has not taken a policy position on whether there should or should not be a
death penalty. And in August 2006, some members of the ABA House of Delegates
expect to propose a new policy resolution that would declare our unequivocal opposition
to the execution of those with serious mental illness.
For the ABA, the question is not whether, as a matter of morality or philosophy,
there should be a death penalty. Rather as a legal association, we have particular
expertise in procedures to assure fairness in the application of law and to guarantee
that due process is assured to all parties. We have chosen to focus our efforts on that
aspect of the death penalty debate.
Toward that end, the ABA has concluded that each jurisdiction that imposes the
death penalty has a duty to determine whether the system under which the penalty is
imposed and carried out is flawed and, if so, to eliminate the flaws. The ABA s policy
calling for a moratorium on the death penalty, adopted in 1997, is one of the ways the
ABA has chosen to encourage such examination and correction of problems.
The ABA recognizes that other countries and other bar associations have come
to different conclusions, but we are also faced with the reality of the current legal
framework in the United States where the death penalty exists in the federal system
and in 38 states. As long as the death penalty is on the books, and is imposed,
2
anywhere in the United States, the lawyers of America have an obligation to ensure that
it is administered fairly and comports with fundamental due process guarantees.
We have seen some hopeful signs in recent years that indicate a willingness to
re-evaluate the administration and imposition of the death penalty. In 2001, Illinois
imposed a moratorium after executing 12 men and exonerating 13. As then-Gov.
George Ryan explained, the Illinois death penalty system was haunted by the demon of
error. The death penalty statute in New York was recently invalidated by court decision
because it was seen as coercive, and the law in Kansas is currently under review by the
Supreme Court of the United States. In addition, the Supreme Court has prohibited the
imposition of the death penalty on mentally retarded people and those who committed
their crimes as juveniles, validating the ABA s positions in these areas.
Despite these few promising developments, it is clear that administration of the
death penalty in the United States is neither fair nor consistent, and can fairly be
described only as a haphazard maze of unfair practices that tolerates injustice in case
after case. The legal system in America, taken as a whole, continues to impose the
death penalty without first assuring due process. It is a system that does not guarantee
the effective assistance of a competent legal advocate. It does not adequately guard
against the impact of bias related to the race of the victim or the defendant, to
geography or to economic status. It does not ensure that a defendant s mental health
and character are properly investigated and the evidence presented to the decision
maker. In short, individuals currently on death row, like so many before them, face
execution without the assurance that justice has been done.
The ABA has long argued for better lawyers, meaningful standards, and more
caution in a system that has been broken for decades. These and other reforms are
long overdue, and until they are fully and effectively implemented, the ABA will continue
to work for a moratorium on the death penalty. The ABA argues that a temporary
moratorium would remove the pressure of impending executions to allow for detailed
analysis of death penalty administration in each jurisdiction and implementation of the
reforms necessary to ensure fairness.
The ABA has developed protocols to help states assess their systems against
accepted standards for due process and fairness. The imperative of equal justice for all
requires that, if the death penalty remains a legal punishment, we must implement these
standards in every jurisdiction that seeks to take life. The conviction and execution of
innocent persons cannot, and must not, be tolerated in the United States or anywhere
else in the world.
Unfortunately, the legal system in the United States does not have adequate
safeguards against wrongful convictions, death sentences, and executions. The Death
Penalty Information Center reports that 122 persons in the United States have been
released from death row since 1973 because of evidence of their innocence. Recent
media reports suggest that Texas death row prisoner Ruben Cantu was very likely
innocent of the crime for which he was executed in 1993. In Missouri, the St. Louis city
3
prosecutor currently is conducting a posthumous investigation as to whether Larry
Griffin was innocent of the crime for which he was executed in 1995. These are the
tragic consequences of a malfunctioning system.
We all have a moral duty, and a professional responsibility, to demand that any
legal system that takes life first demonstrates that justice has been done.
I thank you for your kind attention, and I look forward to working with you in our
common pursuit of justice.
4