Repealing the state's ban on capital punishment requires a two-thirds majority of both houses of the state legislature followed by referendum approval by Michigan voters. Although passage in the Democrat-controlled state House of Representatives remains far from a sure bet, a 1995 poll of likely voters showed more than 70 percent in favor of the death penalty - if the bill reached the state's electorate, repeal of the constitutional prohibition would probably follow.
Proponents' rationale for capital punishment range from the economic savings in executing prisoners to the reduction in crime. Their arguments are flawed on many levels.
In monetary terms, the costs of executing prisoners could exceed those of lifetime incarceration. Taking into account increased security costs for death row inmates and the extensive appeals process allowed - and paid for by states - dispatching a prisoner may cost up to $2 million more than lifetime incarceration.
Many proponents also claim that the death penalty offers closure for victims' families. Long and often successful appeals processes prevent immediate closure - and drag families through painful emotional trials.
Greater arguments against capital punishment lie in the realm of its imperfect, inequitable execution. There can be no doubt that mistakes happen in the legal system - nearly 40 percent of death sentences are overturned upon appeal. Furthermore, in the past 27 years, new evidence freed 59 innocent death row inmates. One can only guess how many innocent prisoners perished in electric chairs and gas chambers.
Even more disturbing are the obvious inequalities in the types of crimes and inmates prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Over a 20-year period ending last July, 23 times the number of African-American prisoners were executed for killing white citizens than vice versa. Similarly, poor and minority inmates are more likely to end up on death row than their white or affluent counterparts charged with similar crimes.
Proponents also argue that the presence of capital punishment would serve as an effective deterrent to crime - would-be criminals, faced with the specter of death, might think twice about committing deviant acts. This point fuels most calls for capital punishment. Citizens are told that the death penalty is a necessary and effective solution to violent crime in Michigan. However, no evidence exists linking the presence of a death penalty with reduced numbers of capital crimes. Michigan's per capita homicide rate is half that of Louisiana's, where lethal injections have taken the lives of 23 prisoners since 1976.
The death penalty is an emotional issue championed by those who follow the precepts of "an eye for an eye." Michigan has a longstanding tradition of rejecting the death penalty. State lawmakers must not alter this tradition in favor of a vengeful, inequitable and ultimately ineffective practice.