The death penalty is now under review in the Maryland legislature and it appears that a conservative Republican Senator will cast the deciding vote. The latest news is that he is undecided which way he will vote.  If the bill gets out of committee, it will eventually become law and the death penalty will be abolished.
   Even our Governor, Martin O'Malley, has testified before the committee, while also making his argument in a  Washington Post opinion piece.  However, before any further discussion, the public is entitled to know just what the Maryland statute says.  Article 27 of the Maryland Code lists only seven crimes of murder eligible for the Death Penalty. They are:
1. One or more persons committing murder of law enforcement officers.
2. Murder while confined in a correction institution.
3. Murder in an escape or in an attempted escape.
4. Murder of a victim taken hostage or in an attempted kidnapping or abduction.
5. Murder pursuant to a contract for remuneration.
6. More than one offense of first degree Murder out of the same instance.
7. Murder or attempted murder during an armed carjacking, armed robbery, first-degree
rape or first-degree sexual offense.
   After considering the above offenses, it is clear that the death penalty is reserved for the most serious crimes.  No individual is eligible for prosecution for the death penalty unless he or she has committed one of the above offenses.  These are all very grave acts that definitely require serious punishment.  In such cases, it is left up to the jury to decide whether the person convicted receives the death penalty or life imprisonment without parole.  It is not decided by the judge or the prosecutor, but by twelve ordinary citizens who have listened to all of the evidence of the facts of the case.  A defendant still has the right to waive a jury trial and can be tried before a Judge alone. That is our system.  It is the only one we have, but it is still possible that someone with very
deep pockets has a better chance in the courtroom than a person without available funds.
   Governor O'Malley asks two questions in his Washington Post opinion article:  "Is the death penalty a just punishment for murder and is the death penalty an effective deterrent to murder?" Both are legitimate questions.  The Governor has the right to speak on the issue and stated that he hopes any debate will be civil as he recognizes that good people are on both sides of the issue.
   The answer to the first question must be considered in light Article 27.  Which of the above offences should be eliminated first?  Murder of a Police Officer?  Or perhaps murder during a first-degree rape?  To simply question the death penalty as not being a just punishment for murder is not the same as saying that the seven instances listed in Article 27 warrant only life imprisonment without parole.  The question that must also be asked is this:  "Is life imprisonment without parole a just punishment for the above offenses?"  Life without parole certainly appears to be a weak punishment for such heinous crimes.  If the death penalty costs a great deal of money because of the numerous appeals etc, then so does maintaining a prisoner for life. 
   Either way, it is a wash. 
These offenses cost, but what price is put on the victim?  Where is justice of the victim?  How many times have we seen death row inmates cease all appeals on their own? There have been a few, but only a few.
Governor O'Malley has stated publicly that despite his misgivings about the death penalty, he would sign a death warrant.  But what happens when a Governor decides for himself that he will not sign a death warrant?  Does the public know that a Circuit Court Judge can reduce a Life without Parole sentence at a later time for a "good cause"?
   Does the public know that the Governor can also pardon for any reason.
That brings us to the Governor's second question: Is the death penalty a deterrent to murder.  I don't know.  There are some mean and extremely bad people out there and nothing is a deterrent for some.  But again, the question should be, Is life without parole a deterrent?  I don't think so.
   So where does that bring the discussion.  Before any tinkering with the present statue, a number of questions need to be explored.  What does life without parole actually mean?  Is the convicted murderer kept in a room 23 hours a day like John Gotti?  Will there be conjugal visits?  Can we mandate that the Governor must sign a death warrant?  Can we prohibit the Governor from pardoning for any other reason than proved innocence?  Can we
stop a Judge from reducing the sentence for a "good reason"?  There are simply too many questions and very few answers at present to change this law at this time.