Media ‘hue and cry’ helps expose US death row errors

The media has helped expose "egregious" mistakes in the US death penalty system which have caused innocent people to be put to death, a US criminal defence attorney has told a conference of lawyers here.

Pennsylvania-based lawyer Cristi Charpentier, representing mainly death row inmates, said the process was "riddled with error, corruption and deference to those in power".

Some inmates suffered “inadequate lawyering” and deals between prosecution and informers were kept hidden from defence lawyers.

The media could play a vital role in exposing defects and publicising appeals for clemency and reprieve, she said, though some were only interested in making sensationalist programmes. Some death row inmates did not want clemency and told her: “Free me or fry me but don’t beg for my life or tell my story.”

Thousands on death row

Ms Charpentier was addressing a conference of the

Bar Council

in Kilkenny on the theme: “

Miscarriages of Justice

: The Role of Lawyers and the Media”.

Noting a 2001 law here prevents enactment of legislation allowing the death penalty, she hoped the US would also move in that direction. The numbers being executed were falling though thousands remained on death row.

Senior counsel Michael McDowell said he was Attorney General when the 2001 law was passed and received a note asking: “Why should we kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?”

Ms Charpentier said profiles of the last 100 people executed in the US showed many were young, mentally ill, intellectually disabled or suffered chronic drug addiction. The childhoods of many of her clients had stripped them of empathy at an early age, and many cases arose from a child “very traumatised and rarely treated”.

Sean Guerin SC, prosecuting barrister in the Graham Dwyer murder trial, said the role of the media in relation to miscarriages of justice was as a necessary part of the “hue and cry” .

Shane Murphy SC, who represented the Birmingham Six and Guildford Four in libel actions, said the danger of interaction between media and law was that a climate of “outrage” could be created which “can fuel injustice and error”.