On March 15, legislators on the Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee heard testimony related to SB 60, Brownsville Democratic Sen. Eddie Lucio‘s bid to offer jurors in capital cases a third, true life-without-parole sentencing option. The measure, which has become a perennial bill at the Lege, attracted the usual contingent of passionate testimony from witnesses both in favor and opposed to the measure.
Under current law, juries in capital cases have two sentencing options: death, or life with the possibility of parole after 40 years. In reality, it is extremely unlikely that an inmate convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life would ever be released on parole. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling earlier this month banning the execution of juvenile offenders has added fodder to the fractious debate. As it stands, the 29 so-called youthful offenders on Texas’ death row whose convictions will be commuted by the recent ruling each now face the possibility of eventual release from prison. Lucio used this fact to his advantage in laying out his bill for the committee, suggesting that a true life-without-parole sentencing option would provide the measure of finality for murder victims’ families. “This is all about certainty for the families of victims,” he said. Lucio also noted that the most recent Texas Poll revealed that 78% of Texans favor the life-without option, and that the addition of that sentencing option actually boosted the respondents’ support for capital punishment in general. Currently, 47 states have a life-without-parole option, and 17 of those include all three capital sentencing options. Only Texas, New Mexico, and Alaska do not include life-without-parole as a possible punishment. (And Lucio told the committee that it appears New Mexico lawmakers are also reconsidering a similar measure.)
Nonetheless, the proposed measure is always a teeth gnasher for its opponents – and last week was no exception. Predictably, representatives of the Harris Co. District Attorney’s Office and the Houston-based victims advocacy group Justice for All were chief among the bill’s foes. Houston Assistant DA Roe Wilson trotted out all the same old arguments against the measure – among them the tired notion that three whole sentencing options would pose a conundrum for the apparently mentally addled jurors who will have to navigate those choices. Further, she argued, the idea that life-without-parole precludes the possibility of release is a misnomer, since there is always a chance that an inmate will receive a sentence commutation. (Of course, the chance that a death row inmate would receive executive clemency is virtually nil.) That concern was echoed by the always-militant JFA representative Rusty Hobarth, who said his group would only support the measure if lawmakers could revoke any chance of release for any reason, including commutation. (Even if lawmakers were inclined to agree with Hobarth, that stipulation would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional).
According to Wilson, there are other pitfalls associated with the measure, chief among them a concern that life-without-parole would be a burden on taxpayers who would eventually have to pay for prisoners’ geriatric care. And, she argued, taking “away all hope” of parole could place prison guards and other inmates in danger. But forensic psychologist Mark Cunningham, an expert in questions of “future dangerousness” and prison risk assessments, dented that argument – the last hope of prosecutors hoping to derail the measure – during his Tuesday afternoon testimony. Cunningham cited three recent studies, including two on which he collaborated, that show that inmates who’ve been sentenced to life-without-parole are actually less likely to become violent in prison or to pose a threat to guards or other inmates. (This isn’t particularly surprising given the highly regulated nature of prison life in which privileges – i.e., outside recreation time – are tied to good behavior.) Still, Wilson was undeterred from her position that the option is a bad one for Texas. If the system isn’t broken, she opined, why fix it?
But this time out Lucio wasn’t satisfied to sit by and listen to Wilson’s regurgitated arguments: “Quite frankly, no matter what we do you’re going to be against it if it jeopardizes your ability to seek the death penalty,” he said. However, he pointed out that if prosecutors had gotten on board with the measure four years ago – when the option missed passing out of committee by a single vote – “we wouldn’t have 29 [youthful offenders] now with the possibility of parole in Texas.”
This article appears in March 25 • 2005.