On July 2, 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided Gregg v. Georgia, ruling that capital punishment does not violate the Constitution’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. For 36 of the 50 summers since, a group of death penalty abolitionists has gathered to protest that decision.
“Starving for Justice” is an annual fast, vigil, and protest calling for an end to capital punishment. Organized by the Abolitionist Action Committee with support from Death Penalty Action, the event brings together activists and advocacy groups each July for a series of speeches and demonstrations.
This year, participants set up a row of long tables in front of the Supreme Court, with more people seated in folding plastic chairs nearby. Anti-death penalty signs were propped against the tables or held by demonstrators. A few women, for it was mostly women, stood to the side, talking to interested passersby.
The temperature was high – later in the day it would pass 100 degrees. The protesters were armed with hats, sunglasses, and an umbrella to protect themselves from the heat. One woman wore black tape across her mouth, symbolizing the event’s point – “Starving for Justice.” The goal of the event: to prompt reform and reflection.
Personal inspiration
Some of the women at the protest have pen pals on death row.
“My mom was really invested in abolition work,” said Elspeth Holzedl, a 38-year-old systems analyst for the University of Minnesota. “She’s a huge inspiration for me but I correspond with three men on death row, one in Louisiana, and two in California.”
She added that the Louisiana inmate, whom she identified by his first name (Robert), is intellectually disabled. “The state has done their best to try to execute him,” she said, “so I feel a lot of desire to come here and talk to people about that, because he’s one of the kindest men I’ve ever met.”
Jan Powell, a 72-year-old retired educator, came from Idaho. “What inspires me to stay involved,” she explained, “is that I believe in the dignity and value of every human life, that of the victim as well as the perpetrator, and protecting all of us – that we [will] not be subject to the death penalty.”
Celeste Fox, 29, recently graduated from law school and is now pursuing a master’s degree in psychology.
Her experience with the justice system has led her to oppose the death penalty. “The death penalty is not therapeutic to anyone,” she said. “A lot of the victims say how it’s just continuing the agony of what they had to go through, drawing the process on and on and on. For the defendants, the way they wind up here – nobody wants to go out and kill a person. That idea is ridiculous.”
No easy solution
There are approximately 2,100 people on death row in the United States.
While the protesters were united against capital punishment, they were less united on what comes next. There was an abundance of ideas about next steps and disagreement about what form of justice could fairly replace the death penalty.
For some, a life sentence without parole seemed an easy solution. Others believe that doesn’t go far enough.
“Of course, people talk about LWAP or life without the opportunity of parole, but from our standpoint, that is also a death sentence. It is far less costly than executing someone, but again, we don’t really think that’s a good excuse, you know?” Holzedl said.
“I believe that we need a complete overhaul on our – I don’t even like to call it a justice system because it’s unjust in very many ways,” she added. “We need social programs, we need interventions for children, mental health interventions, and really just creating a society where people can thrive in spite of the adversity they’ve faced.”
Fox sees that adversity as systemic. She sees the death penalty as emblematic of broader societal issues. Her evidence: the disproportionate number of racial minorities on death row.
At least 144 people have had their death sentences vacated because of intellectual disabilities, which make their sentences unconstitutional – 83% of whom were people of color.
In California, alone, 90% of the 18- to 20-year-olds who received the death penalty since 2005 have been people of color.
“The focus of the legal system should be meeting … [unmet] needs and prevention, instead of punishing people for having mental illness, for being poor, [and] for being African American in a racist society,” Fox said.
The call for education
Many of those attending the event believed a lack of information about the issue, rather than cruelty, explains why a majority – albeit a declining majority – of Americans still support capital punishment.
“I genuinely don’t think that people would be into the death penalty if they knew … what happened behind the scenes – how horrific it is, the abuse, the mental torture, the conditions of prison, solitary confinement,” said Holzedl. “I don’t think any normal person would say, ‘Yeah, I like that.’ So we’re hoping to change the hearts and minds.”
Along similar lines, Ashley Reber, 39, an attendee since 2006 from North Carolina, said she doesn’t think most people know that since 1973 more than 200 people originally sentenced to death have been exonerated.
Political and legal remedies
Reber runs a business promoting Democratic Party candidates on social media. She thinks voting is the answer. “We need the right people in office,” she said. “Let’s put it that way.”
Fox, too, thinks progress will keep coming at the ballot box.
For now, the federal government, military, and 27 states maintain the legality of capital punishment. Twenty-three states and Washington, D.C., have abolished it.
While Reber and Fox are eyeing the polls, Powell said she looks to the courts. She said she worries about defendants having adequate legal support. Poverty can also create barriers to justice as defendants often have to rely on public defenders who are often overworked.
Fox spoke of being guided by a broader vision of justice, which supports victims of violent crime while also helping offenders return to society.
“We should focus on helping the people involved when it comes to the victims,” Fox said. “We should focus on giving them what they need to move on. And then when it comes to the guilty parties, we should focus on giving them the help that they need, so that when they return to society they can be good neighbors.”
“I think we should facilitate healing,” she said.
