Paul Hill called his 1994 murders of two abortion clinic workers "justifiable homicide", a "pro-life" act to protect the unborn. So there was no little irony in the State of Florida taking his life by lethal injection on Wednesday, the first time the death penalty has been applied against extreme anti-abortionists responsible for seven deaths to date among workers at the US's 450 abortion clinics.
Hill fired his lawyers, rejected all appeals, and in death row parlance was a "volunteer" for execution. But his death is unlikely to deter others or serve any real public good. With the certainty of one who believed utterly that his mission was God-ordained, Hill remained unrepentant to the end, and his death will be seen by his more extreme supporters as martyrdom. Clinics have tightened security in fear of retribution and the reigniting of a murderous campaign that appeared to have ended five years ago. Hill's death is as pointless and misguided as those of Dr John Britton (69) and his security escort, Mr James Barrett (74), whom Hill killed in a shotgun attack.
But the news from death row in the US is not all bleak. On Tuesday a federal appeals court in San Francisco overturned the death sentences on more than 100 inmates in three western states. The court gave retroactive force to a ruling last year that their constitutional rights had been violated by state provisions which allowed a judge rather than a jury make the crucial factual determination of whether murder had been committed. The decision directly affects Montana, Arizona, and Idaho, but if upheld by the US Supreme Court - two of the states will seek a review - would drive the largest purge of the 3,500-strong death row community since January when the Governor of Illinois commuted 167 death sentences warning of the "demon of error" in the state's death penalty system. Although the decision may result in some of the prisoners being retried and then returned to death row, it still marks another important, incremental challenge to a capital punishment system in retreat.
Legal experts say jurors, facing the enormity of a life or death decision only once in their lives, are less likely than judges to apply the death penalty, and only one dissenter out of the 12 is required to force a life option. Judges, facing re-election, are more likely to be swayed by electoral considerations. According to the Federal Death Penalty Information Centre, jurors have declined to impose capital punishment in 21 of the last 22 federal jury trials where the death penalty has been sought, opting instead for acquittals or for lesser punishments such as life in prison. That fact alone should make advocates of the death penalty pause for thought.