A one-line summary of where Maryland's two leading gubernatorial candidates stand on the death penalty would imply they are of equal minds: Both believe people should die for committing certain crimes.
But a closer examination of their positions, especially on the state's temporary halt to executions, shows significant philosophical differences. And it offers insight into how they make decisions.
The death penalty and the fairness of its application has yet to become a major issue in the governor's race. Of the 1,200 likely voters questioned last month in a statewide poll conducted for The Sun, only two people said the death penalty was the most important problem facing Maryland.
So it's no wonder neither Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend nor Republican Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. makes any mention of it in their position papers or on their Web sites, and that neither is eager to talk to voters about such a polarizing issue.
But this fall, the topic is certain to take a central and potentially divisive role in the campaign. A state-sponsored study of whether capital punishment is meted out fairly with regard to skin color and jurisdiction is to be released next month.
On May 9, as four death warrants were making their way to his desk for review, Gov. Parris N. Glendening reversed his position on a moratorium and effectively imposed one by pledging not to approve any executions before the study was published and the next legislature had a chance to consider it when it meets in January.
Death penalty opponents believe there is a fundamental difference between the candidates to succeed Glendening.
"Ehrlich has said there's no need for a moratorium, and he would just go ahead and execute people," said Jane Henderson of the Quixote Center, a faith-based organization that advocates social justice. "Kathleen's at least at a point to say, 'Let's make sure it's fair.'"
Henderson's lobbying strategy -- and that of many lawmakers who pushed for the moratorium -- has been to frame the debate around race.
14 men on death row
Fourteen men are on Maryland's death row, nine of whom are black. Of their 19 victims, 17 were white. "There's a real tie to civil rights issues here," Henderson said. "That's where it plays into the campaign."
Last month's poll showed that although Marylanders in general are split on the moratorium, 62 percent of African-American voters support it.
Townsend began inching toward public support of the moratorium in late March as she prepared her campaign for governor. In a recent interview, she would not say whether she had been in favor of it all along.
"What I try to do is not go into where I agreed or disagreed with the governor," Townsend said. But, she added, she now feels the moratorium is necessary to give citizens confidence in the state's criminal justice system.
"It just seemed to me that when we are studying our own application of the death penalty, we would hate to have a study come out and say, 'This is not just or something wasn't fair,' and somebody had been executed," she said "Because that is such a final, final punishment."
Townsend said she was not comfortable discussing possible problems with the state's use of the death penalty before seeing the study.
She is mindful that the moratorium might cause pain to victims' families. "As you know, I've been a victim. I understand," she said, referring to the killing of her father, Robert F. Kennedy.
Although her intention would be eventually to resume state executions, Townsend would wait for the General Assembly to analyze the study and act on it before signing any death warrants, she said.
By contrast, Ehrlich rejects the need for any delay in state executions. And he, like other Republicans, questions the timing of Glendening's moratorium, which he suspects was put in place to take political pressure off Townsend.
"That would be my predisposition -- just to get rid of it," he said of the moratorium.
Ehrlich agrees with the moratorium imposed in 2000 by Illinois Gov. George Ryan because that state encountered "serious issues with regard to guilt or innocence," he said. But in Maryland, he is confident the death penalty statute is constitutional, and that prosecutors are using it properly.
He does not buy the argument that something is amiss when murderers in Baltimore County are overwhelmingly more likely than those in the city to receive a death sentence. (Nine death row inmates were prosecuted in the county.)
'All about discretion'
"The criminal justice system is all about discretion, as a function of politics, by the way," he said. "It's built on a diversity of political views. [Baltimore County State's Attorney] Sandra O'Connor has been elected seven times ... so it's fair to say people in Baltimore County like her position."
As for the race question, Ehrlich says that he takes it seriously and would consider it when reviewing capital cases. But he does not believe racism has undermined Maryland's justice system. "Race can play itself out in a capital case," he said. "Does it play a part in every case? No."
Although he thinks the study presupposes unfairness in the state's use of the statute, Ehrlich doesn't rule out that the results might be instructive, depending on the researchers' methodology. "If it's a systemic problem, then we deal with it," he said.
Impact of the tapes
Ehrlich said he has never wavered in his support of the death penalty. But Townsend said she opposed capital punishment until about 1980, when her husband, David, was a law student working for the U.S. attorney's office in Manhattan. Part of his job was to listen to conversations of secretly taped contract killers.
"And listening to it, David heard just no sorrow, no reflection," she said. "It sounded pure evil. ... And I thought, for people like that, they've done terrible things, they were committing multiple murders. And, what would it do to prison guards to just spend all their years watching them? We really discussed it at great length, because I really hadn't given it as much thought before that."
Townsend said she supports the death penalty because she considers it a just punishment for certain criminals, regardless of whether it deters crime.
Her opponent, however, backs capital punishment in large part because he believes it does make criminals think twice.
"I understand the preeminent argument against capital punishment is that it doesn't deter crime," Ehrlich said. "And after some thought, many, many years ago, I came to the conclusion, which I still reach today, which is: Well, how can you quantify that statement? How can you quantify something that does not occur? And you talk to police officers and they'll tell you that in many cases, criminals really know what subdivision they happen to be in. ... They do a 'cost-benefit analysis.'"
Ehrlich said his ideas about the death penalty were solidified during his two terms as a state delegate, from 1987 to 1994. He was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, where the issue was repeatedly debated. Conversations with police officers have educated him about the criminal mind, he added.
In Congress, Ehrlich co-sponsored a bill in 1995 that would have toughened the procedures for death row prisoners to get their cases examined in federal court. Last year, however, he signed on to legislation that would have made it easier for such prisoners to get DNA testing -- a bill he said demonstrates his commitment to ensuring that those convicted of capital crimes are truly guilty. Both bills died in committee.
Ehrlich also voted for a 1996 bill, which President Bill Clinton signed into law, making terrorism a capital offense.
If elected, Ehrlich said, he would create "a special group" in his office to promptly start reviewing the cases of all death row inmates.
The group would include lawyers and nonlawyers, as well as his running mate, Michael S. Steele, who has said he opposes capital punishment because of his Catholic beliefs.
Role of families
Ehrlich also would take into account the views of victims' families. Glendening does not talk to family members when making his decision, choosing instead to evaluate only documents included in the legal record.
Townsend did not participate in Glendening's decisions regarding death warrants, and was unaware of his specific procedure. However, she said she would model her process on his.
"What I've always been impressed by is the seriousness with which the governor took this -- reading all of the materials, listening to those on his staff who he trusted for their judgment," she said. "I think that's appropriate."
Ehrlich also stressed the weight of such decisions.
"That's a heavy thought for anyone, if you're human," he said.
But a closer examination of their positions, especially on the state's temporary halt to executions, shows significant philosophical differences. And it offers insight into how they make decisions.
The death penalty and the fairness of its application has yet to become a major issue in the governor's race. Of the 1,200 likely voters questioned last month in a statewide poll conducted for The Sun, only two people said the death penalty was the most important problem facing Maryland.
So it's no wonder neither Democratic Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend nor Republican Rep. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. makes any mention of it in their position papers or on their Web sites, and that neither is eager to talk to voters about such a polarizing issue.
But this fall, the topic is certain to take a central and potentially divisive role in the campaign. A state-sponsored study of whether capital punishment is meted out fairly with regard to skin color and jurisdiction is to be released next month.
On May 9, as four death warrants were making their way to his desk for review, Gov. Parris N. Glendening reversed his position on a moratorium and effectively imposed one by pledging not to approve any executions before the study was published and the next legislature had a chance to consider it when it meets in January.
Death penalty opponents believe there is a fundamental difference between the candidates to succeed Glendening.
"Ehrlich has said there's no need for a moratorium, and he would just go ahead and execute people," said Jane Henderson of the Quixote Center, a faith-based organization that advocates social justice. "Kathleen's at least at a point to say, 'Let's make sure it's fair.'"
Henderson's lobbying strategy -- and that of many lawmakers who pushed for the moratorium -- has been to frame the debate around race.
Last month's poll showed that although Marylanders in general are split on the moratorium, 62 percent of African-American voters support it.
Townsend began inching toward public support of the moratorium in late March as she prepared her campaign for governor. In a recent interview, she would not say whether she had been in favor of it all along.
"What I try to do is not go into where I agreed or disagreed with the governor," Townsend said. But, she added, she now feels the moratorium is necessary to give citizens confidence in the state's criminal justice system.
"It just seemed to me that when we are studying our own application of the death penalty, we would hate to have a study come out and say, 'This is not just or something wasn't fair,' and somebody had been executed," she said "Because that is such a final, final punishment."
Townsend said she was not comfortable discussing possible problems with the state's use of the death penalty before seeing the study.
She is mindful that the moratorium might cause pain to victims' families. "As you know, I've been a victim. I understand," she said, referring to the killing of her father, Robert F. Kennedy.
Although her intention would be eventually to resume state executions, Townsend would wait for the General Assembly to analyze the study and act on it before signing any death warrants, she said.
By contrast, Ehrlich rejects the need for any delay in state executions. And he, like other Republicans, questions the timing of Glendening's moratorium, which he suspects was put in place to take political pressure off Townsend.
"That would be my predisposition -- just to get rid of it," he said of the moratorium.
Ehrlich agrees with the moratorium imposed in 2000 by Illinois Gov. George Ryan because that state encountered "serious issues with regard to guilt or innocence," he said. But in Maryland, he is confident the death penalty statute is constitutional, and that prosecutors are using it properly.
He does not buy the argument that something is amiss when murderers in Baltimore County are overwhelmingly more likely than those in the city to receive a death sentence. (Nine death row inmates were prosecuted in the county.)
As for the race question, Ehrlich says that he takes it seriously and would consider it when reviewing capital cases. But he does not believe racism has undermined Maryland's justice system. "Race can play itself out in a capital case," he said. "Does it play a part in every case? No."
Although he thinks the study presupposes unfairness in the state's use of the statute, Ehrlich doesn't rule out that the results might be instructive, depending on the researchers' methodology. "If it's a systemic problem, then we deal with it," he said.
"And listening to it, David heard just no sorrow, no reflection," she said. "It sounded pure evil. ... And I thought, for people like that, they've done terrible things, they were committing multiple murders. And, what would it do to prison guards to just spend all their years watching them? We really discussed it at great length, because I really hadn't given it as much thought before that."
Townsend said she supports the death penalty because she considers it a just punishment for certain criminals, regardless of whether it deters crime.
Her opponent, however, backs capital punishment in large part because he believes it does make criminals think twice.
"I understand the preeminent argument against capital punishment is that it doesn't deter crime," Ehrlich said. "And after some thought, many, many years ago, I came to the conclusion, which I still reach today, which is: Well, how can you quantify that statement? How can you quantify something that does not occur? And you talk to police officers and they'll tell you that in many cases, criminals really know what subdivision they happen to be in. ... They do a 'cost-benefit analysis.'"
Ehrlich said his ideas about the death penalty were solidified during his two terms as a state delegate, from 1987 to 1994. He was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee, where the issue was repeatedly debated. Conversations with police officers have educated him about the criminal mind, he added.
In Congress, Ehrlich co-sponsored a bill in 1995 that would have toughened the procedures for death row prisoners to get their cases examined in federal court. Last year, however, he signed on to legislation that would have made it easier for such prisoners to get DNA testing -- a bill he said demonstrates his commitment to ensuring that those convicted of capital crimes are truly guilty. Both bills died in committee.
Ehrlich also voted for a 1996 bill, which President Bill Clinton signed into law, making terrorism a capital offense.
If elected, Ehrlich said, he would create "a special group" in his office to promptly start reviewing the cases of all death row inmates.
The group would include lawyers and nonlawyers, as well as his running mate, Michael S. Steele, who has said he opposes capital punishment because of his Catholic beliefs.
Townsend did not participate in Glendening's decisions regarding death warrants, and was unaware of his specific procedure. However, she said she would model her process on his.
"What I've always been impressed by is the seriousness with which the governor took this -- reading all of the materials, listening to those on his staff who he trusted for their judgment," she said. "I think that's appropriate."
Ehrlich also stressed the weight of such decisions.
"That's a heavy thought for anyone, if you're human," he said.