A rush to executions

CHINA HAS A BRUTALLY EFFICIENT system of capital punishment. Sentences can be carried out within months of conviction, sometimes in mobile lethal-injection vans. The cost is low -- $87 per execution. Appeals are limited and stacked in favor of the prosecution. And although the government does not issue statistics, estimates of the number of executions in China range upward from 3,000 a year.

Most Americans would be appalled at China's system, which was described by The Times' Mark Magnier in an article published in September. Yet efficiency is one of the main arguments for proposed federal legislation, sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), to limit death penalty appeals in the United States. No one argues that the proposed curbs on access to federal courts would make the U.S. system as unjust as China's. And both executions and capital convictions are dropping sharply in the U.S. as doubts about the death penalty rise.

So why are some members of Congress pushing so hard to make executions easier? It's certainly a distraction from more pressing issues, such as the war in Iraq and the budget deficit. Maybe that's the point.

The Senate version of the bill (blandly called the Streamlined Procedures Act) is heading for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. Its most offensive provision would curtail the use of writs of habeas corpus, which allow plaintiffs to move death penalty cases into federal courts on constitutional grounds after state appeals are exhausted. Faced with the opposition of 49 of 50 state chief justices, along with the American Bar Assn. and numerous law enforcement and human rights organizations, supporters have already softened the Senate proposal, and compromise could further alleviate its effects.

Softer or not, however, the measure would still result in people whose guilt (or degree of guilt) is in doubt being put to death or left to rot in prison. States' protections vary widely, and many are far weaker than California's. In federal court, it is not uncommon to see cases in which prosecutors or police are suspected of hiding evidence, witness testimony is questionable, racial bias in jury selection is at issue or DNA evidence may yet be obtained.