THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF PENNSYLVANIA

SENATE RESOLUTION

INTRODUCED BY GREENLEAF, FERLO, O'PAKE, ALLOWAY, WILLIAMS, PIPPY, ERICKSON, STOUT, WASHINGTON, LEACH, WOZNIAK AND D. WHITE, MAY 7, 2010

REFERRED TO JUDICIARY, MAY 7, 2010  

A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Directing the Joint State Government Commission to establish a

bipartisan task force and an advisory committee to conduct a

study of capital punishment in this Commonwealth and to

report their findings and recommendations to the General

Assembly.

WHEREAS, In 1972, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declared

Pennsylvania's capital sentencing procedure unconstitutional

based on the United States Supreme Court's Furman v. Georgia 

decision; and

WHEREAS, In 1978, the Pennsylvania General Assembly responded

by reinstating capital punishment in compliance with United

States and Pennsylvania Supreme Court rulings; and

WHEREAS, Since 1978, 352 people have been sentenced to death

in Pennsylvania but only three people have been executed; and

WHEREAS, Each of the three people executed waived the right

to appeal; and

WHEREAS, There are more than 220 existing capital sentences;

and

WHEREAS, Questions are frequently raised regarding the costs,

deterrent effect and appropriateness of capital punishment; and

WHEREAS, The American Bar Association has identified several

areas in which Pennsylvania's death penalty system falters in

guaranteeing each capital defendant fairness and accuracy in all

proceedings; and

WHEREAS, The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Committee on Racial

and Gender Bias in the Justice System has determined that

racial, ethnic and gender biases exist and that those biases

significantly affect the way parties, witnesses, litigants,

lawyers, court employees and potential jurors are treated; and

WHEREAS, Postconviction DNA testing has shown that there are

wrongful convictions, even in capital cases; therefore be it

RESOLVED (the House of Representatives concurring), That the

General Assembly direct the Joint State Government Commission to

establish a bipartisan task force of four members of the Senate

and four members of the House of Representatives to conduct a

study of capital punishment in this Commonwealth; and be it

further

RESOLVED, That the President pro tempore of the Senate and

the Speaker of the House of Representatives each appoint two

members of the task force and the Minority Leader of the Senate

and the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives each

appoint two members of the task force; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the Joint State Government Commission oversee

the creation of an advisory committee to assist the task force

in conducting the study and making recommendations; the advisory

committee to have approximately 30 members and be comprised of

representatives from those groups most likely to make useful and

insightful contributions, such as representatives of the

judiciary, prosecution, defense, law enforcement, corrections,

victim assistance organizations and also representatives of

academia, the faith community, private and public organizations

involved in criminal justice issues and other criminal justice

experts; and be it further

RESOLVED, That the task force, with the assistance of the

advisory committee, conduct a study of the following subjects

including:

(1)  Cost: Whether there is a significant difference

between the cost of the death penalty from indictment to

execution and the cost of life in prison without parole; in

considering the overall cost of the death penalty in

Pennsylvania, the cost of all the capital trials that result

in life sentences as well as death sentences that are

reversed on appeal must be factored into the equation;

(2)  Bias and unfairness: Whether the selection of

defendants for capital trials in Pennsylvania is arbitrary,

unfair or discriminatory in any way and whether there is

unfair, arbitrary or discriminatory variability at any stage

in the process including in the sentencing phase;

(3)  Proportionality: Whether there is a significant

difference in the crimes of those selected for the punishment

of death as opposed to those who receive life in prison and

whether there is an adequate process for determining when

death sentences are excessive or out of line with sentences

imposed in other cases where a sentence other than death was

imposed;

(4)  Impact on and services for family members: The

impact of the death penalty on family members and loved ones

of murder victims and the availability and cost of services

currently being provided in Pennsylvania for family members

and loved ones of murder victims and whether these services

are sufficient to meet the needs of surviving families;

(5)  Mental retardation: Whether, in light of the Supreme

Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, there are adequate

procedural protections in place to assure that people with

mental retardation are not in fact being sentenced to death

and executed;

(6)  Mental illness: Whether persons suffering from

mental illness constitute a disproportionate number of those

on death row, what criteria should be used in judging the

level of mental illness involved and whether people with

mental illness who are convicted of murder should be

executed;

(7)  Juries: The impact on the reliability and fairness

of capital trials of death qualifying jurors and the impact

of this practice on the ability of women, people of color and

people of faith to serve on capital juries; whether there are

adequate procedural protections and remedies in place to make

sure that women and African Americans are not excluded from

serving as jurors in capital cases; and whether there are

adequate procedural protections in place to assure that

jurors are able to understand and apply instructions in

determining guilt or innocence and the appropriate punishment

in a capital case;

(8)  State appeals and postconviction: Whether there are

adequate procedures in place to assure that serious error in

capital cases is identified and corrected and to what extent

procedural doctrines, such as waiver or forfeiture, operate

to prevent judicial review of serious constitutional claims

on the merits;

(9)  Clemency: Whether the current clemency process has

procedures in place to assure that it functions as a safety

net to assure that factual and procedural errors that

directly undermine the reliability and fairness of a capital

sentence are remedied;

(10)  Penological intent: Whether the death penalty

rationally serves a legitimate penological intent such as

public safety or deterrence;

(11)  Innocence: Whether there is a risk of execution of

an innocent person and whether there are adequate procedural

protections in place to prevent an innocent person from being

sentenced to death and executed;

(12)  Alternatives: Whether alternatives to the death

penalty exist that would sufficiently ensure public safety

and address other legitimate social and penological

interests;

(13)  Counsel: The quality of counsel provided to

indigent capital defendants and whether such counsel and the

process for providing counsel assures the reliability and

fairness of capital trials;

(14)  Secondary trauma: The impact of the death penalty

process on law enforcement, prosecutors, defense counsel,

judges, jurors, correctional officers, family members and

loved ones of victims and family members of the accused;

(15)  Length and conditions of confinement on death row:

Whether the conditions comply with the requirements of the

United States Constitution, the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and standards of international

law and the impact of those conditions on correctional

officers;

(16)  Lethal injection: Whether there are adequate

procedures and protocols in place to assure that the death

sentence is administered in accordance with requirements of

the United States Constitution and the Constitution of the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; and

(17)  Public opinion: The opinions of Pennsylvania

residents regarding capital punishment, including whether it

is a just and appropriate punishment and, if so, under what

circumstances should it be imposed;

and be it further

RESOLVED, That the task force and advisory committee hold

public hearings as necessary to receive testimony about any of

the subjects of study enumerated in this resolution; and be it

further

RESOLVED, That the task force and advisory committee report

their findings and recommendations to the General Assembly no

later than two years after the date this resolution is adopted

in both houses.