March 21
TEXAS:
Jury to begin deliberating smuggling deaths case
Jurors on Monday were set to begin deliberating the fate of a New York man
accused of driving and abandoning a trailer at the center of the nation's
deadliest human smuggling attempt.
If convicted, Tyrone Williams could be executed for his role in the May
2003 smuggling attempt that resulted in the deaths of 19 illegal
immigrants. He faces 58 counts of conspiracy, harboring and transporting
illegal immigrants.
The jury of 5 men and 7 women got the case late Friday after prosecutors
and defense attorneys rested and both sides presented their closing
arguments.
If the jury convicts him of any of the 20 counts which are eligible for
the death penalty, it will hear further evidence against him in the
punishment phase of the trial and then decide whether he should be
executed.
If it finds Williams guilty only of non-death penalty eligible counts,
U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore will sentence him at a later date.
Prosecutors said Williams was paid $7,500 by a smuggling ring to transport
more than 70 illegal immigrants in his sweltering tractor-trailer from
Harlingen to Houston.
They told jurors Williams ignored the immigrants' screams for help during
the four-hour journey, abandoning the airtight trailer at a truck stop in
Victoria, about 100 miles southwest of Houston. 17 people died inside the
trailer from dehydration, hyperthermia and suffocation, and 2 others died
later.
Lead defense attorney Craig Washington maintained that while Williams was
guilty of transporting the immigrants, the responsibility for the 19
deaths fell on the other members of the smuggling ring, whom he said got
greedy and loaded the trailer with too many people for safe transport.
"Nobody sees how he really is. This is not something he would have done
intentionally," said Coretta Williams, the truck driver's sister.
Williams, 34, a Jamaican citizen who lives in Schenectady, N.Y., is the
only one of 14 defendants in the case who could get the death penalty.
Federal law allows capital punishment in fatal smuggling cases.
(source: Associated Press)
USA:
An Indecent Administration Rolls On----Once again, Bush scorns
international humanitarian standards. This time he's fighting to save
capital punishment.
There's a lot of huffing and puffing about "indecency" these days in
Congress. Our representatives appear determined to protect us from the
filth spewed from radio and television programs today, but theirs is a
narrow view of what constitutes decency. Words and images easily shut off
at the press of a button are less likely to do injury than some recent
indecencies that appear to have escaped the attention of our national hall
monitors.
Torture is certainly more indecent than four-letter words, as is
appointing a man renowned for perfidy to oversee the nation's intelligence
agencies or putting an imperialist zealot in the United Nations.
The latest example of governmental indecency was the casual renunciation
earlier this month of part of a decades-old international treaty intended
to protect Americans when they are traveling abroad. That may not sound as
bad as torture, but the motive behind the withdrawal was contemptible.
The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is a reciprocal agreement
ratified by the U.S. in the 1960s that guarantees our citizens the right
to seek help from a U.S. consulate if they somehow run afoul of the law
when traveling abroad. An "Optional Protocol" in the accord gives the
International Court of Justice in The Hague jurisdiction over disputes in
such matters.
Protecting our citizens when they are outside the United States is the
right thing to do, certainly. Some might even say it's the decent thing to
do. And affording the same protections to foreigners who come to the
United States is only fair.
But there's the rub. Despite enjoying this protection for Americans these
40 years, we've consistently overlooked the meaning of "reciprocal." The
other guys are supposed to get the same courtesy when they're here. Those
who run afoul of our laws are supposed to be allowed to contact the consul
of their country for help. But it doesn't happen.
Instead of abiding by the law and notifying detained noncitizens of their
right to contact their consul, we try them and lock them up. And sometimes
we kill them.
Does that sound decent?
It didn't to Mexico, which has banned capital punishment. Finding a number
of its citizens on death row in the United States - and finding itself
ignored in its request that we honor our agreement - Mexico sued the U.S.
in the International Court of Justice, saying that we had no right to put
their citizens to death while denying them their protection under the
protocol.
And - surprise! - it won. The World Court ruled that the United States
must "revisit" at least the 51 cases in which the defendants ended up on
death row.
Stalwart champion of international law that he is, an apparently chastened
and embarrassed President Bush at first told Atty. Gen. Alberto R.
Gonzales that ignoring yet another "quaint" international agreement might
be too much and that we should reexamine the 51 death row cases.
After all, as the U.S. solicitor general noted, compliance with the Vienna
Convention "serves to protect the interests of U.S. citizens abroad,
promotes the effective conduct of foreign relations and underscores the
United States' commitment in the international community to the rule of
law."
In other words, it's the decent thing to do.
Yet scarcely a week later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice sent off a
pungent memo to the United Nations announcing the U.S. withdrawal from the
optional protocol.
What's behind this most recent back of the hand to the international
community?
For one, Bush and his advisors don't appreciate international laws that
complicate their lives. (Note, for example, their attitude toward the
Geneva Convention. And the Kyoto treaty, the land mine treaty and the
International Criminal Court.) Apparently they don't like to be told
they're wrong.
But more than that, they're trying to protect our death penalty, a creaky
system already teetering on the brink of collapse. Shot through with
failure, exposed as entrapping the innocent, the mentally ill and those
with drunk, drug-abusing, sleeping or simply incompetent lawyers, capital
punishment has been wounded by U.S. Supreme Court rulings recognizing
"evolving standards that mark the progress of a maturing society."
Worse, the high court recently cited "international standards" when
eliminating our right to kill the mentally retarded and, last month,
juveniles. Making it harder to kill foreigners, then, could be a crippling
blow.
So, when the rulings go against us we take our ball and go home. Smart?
No. Fair? Hardly. Decent? Doesn't seem so, but how can we know when the
decency police are so busy with Janet Jackson's breast and Howard Stern's
mouth?
(source: Los Angeles Times (Mike Farrell is president of Death Penalty
Focus, which seeks to abolish capital punishment)
**********************
The Supreme Court Considers the Rights of Foreign Citizens Arrested in the
United States:----Examining a Case That Could Dramatically Affect the Way
Americans Are Treated When Arrested Abroad
On March 28, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case that
could have a tremendous impact on the treatment of Americans arrested
abroad.
The case involves Mexican citizen Jose Ernesto Medellin. Medellin argues
that he might not have been convicted and sentenced to death had he been
properly informed of his right to consular representation and assistance -
a right guaranteed in Article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular
Relations (VCCR).
The case is especially notable for three reasons: First, it arises from an
apparent conflict between American law and international law. Second, the
manner in which federal and state authorities treat foreign citizens
arrested in the U.S. will inevitably affect the way American citizens
arrested abroad are treated. Third, its outcome could affect, at a
minimum, the convictions and sentences of the 118 foreigners currently on
death row in the U.S.
The Facts: With His Home Country in the Dark, Medellin Is Assigned a
Questionable Lawyer
At the time of his arrest, Medellin informed Texas authorities that he was
a Mexican citizen. However, contrary to the VCCR, Texas failed to inform
Medellin of his right to consular assistance and representation. It also
failed to inform the government of Mexico of Medellin's arrest.
Medellin was charged with participating in the gang rape and murder of 2
Houston teenage girls in 1993. He was assigned a court-appointed attorney
- but one who had been suspended for unethical activity. At trial, that
lawyer called no witnesses at all. Unsurprisingly, Medellin was convicted.
During the penalty phase, which lasted only two hours, Medellin's attorney
called only one expert witness, a psychologist who had never met Medellin.
5 years after his arrest, Medellin wrote to Mexican officials, seeking
assistance with his death row appeal. Until then, Mexico had not even been
told of Medellin's arrest.
Shocked to learn of Medellin's fate, Mexico has since been actively
involved in helping Medellin appeal his death sentence, on the ground that
he was prejudiced by Texas's violation of the VCCR. Medellin maintains
that, had Mexico known of his arrest, the consulate would have, at the
very least, been able to provide more competent legal representation.
In Spring 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit rejected
Medellin's appeal. It held that he had procedurally defaulted his VCCR
claim because his attorney had failed to raise the claim in state court.
Interestingly, the court reached this holding despite the fact that
Medellin's argument on appeal was precisely that violation of the VCCR had
led to his being represented by an incompetent attorney who had failed to
raise relevant legal and factual issues.
The court also held that there is a question as to whether the VCCR, a
treaty between 166 countries, grants rights that can be asserted by
individual citizens such as Medellin.
Key Precedents: Three Other Cases Involving VCCR Claims
Medellin is not the first death row inmate to seek Supreme Court
intervention on the grounds of a VCCR claim. In 1998, the Commonwealth of
Virginia executed Angel Francisco Breard, a Paraguayan national who had
not been advised of his VCCR rights.
In that case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) had issued an order
of provisional measures (the equivalent of an injunction) directing the
U.S. to "take all measures at its disposal to ensure that Angel Francisco
Breard is not executed pending the final decision in these proceedings."
While the ICJ had authority to review Bread's case under the Optional
Protocol to the VCCR conveying jurisdiction on the ICJ for disputes
arising from the treaty, the Supreme Court would not stay Breard's
execution.
In denying Breard's request the Court held that he had "procedurally
defaulted his claim, if any, under the Vienna Convention by failing to
raise that claim in the state courts." Moreover, the Court disregarded the
ICJ order, holding, "If the Governor [of Virginia] wishes to wait for the
decision of the ICJ, that is his prerogative. But nothing in our existing
case law allows us to make that choice for him."
Many commentators saw Breard's dismissal of the ICJ order as a low point
in American respect for international law. But that is not the only
baleful aspect of Breard. It has also served as a precedent for federal
courts to dismiss VCCR claims on the ground that they have been
procedurally defaulted because they were not raised in state court.
For instance, less than a year later, the U.S. Supreme Court and the ICJ
did the same dance. This time, the controversy surrounded the LaGrand
brothers: 2 German nationals sentenced to death in Arizona for murder.
When Germany learned of their fate, it supported their VCCR claims in U.S.
courts and at the ICJ. But again, the procedural default rule frustrated
the brothers' requests for habeas corpus relief, and they were ultimately
executed.
The ICJ, however, ultimately ruled in Germany's favor in the LaGrand case.
And, encouraged by the ruling, Mexico subsequently brought suit against
the U.S. in the ICJ on behalf of not only Medellin, but also Carlos Avena,
and 50 other Mexicans on death row. It claimed that all 52 nationals had
not been properly informed of their VCCR rights.
The ICJ granted a provisional order directing the U.S. not to execute the
Mexican nationals until their VCCR claims could be resolved. Later, the
ICJ's ultimate judgment on the merits concluded that the U.S. must not
continue avoiding its VCCR obligations by invoking the procedural default
rule.
The ICJ's ultimate ruling in Avena specifically instructed the American
judiciary, in particular, to grant meaningful "review and reconsideration
of convictions and sentences" to ascertain if the VCCR violations caused
"actual prejudice" to a convicted foreign national--and, if so, to craft
an appropriate remedy.
It was shortly after the ICJ's ruling in Avena, however, that the Fifth
Circuit rejected Medellin's VCCR appeal - embracing the very procedural
default rule the ICJ had severely criticized. In rejecting Medellin's
plea, the Fifth Circuit declared, "Though Avena and LaGrand were decided
[by the ICJ] after Breard, and contradict Breard, we maynot disregard the
Supreme Court's clear holding that ordinary procedural default rules can
bar Vienna Convention claims."
With U.S. courts on a collision course with the ICJ, it is no surprise
that the U.S. Supreme Court has now agreed to review the Fifth Circuit's
ruling in Medellin's case. To complicate the legal landscape, the Bush
administration indicated in late February that all 51 Avena inmates should
receive state court hearings to determine if they were actually prejudiced
by the VCCR violation. Almost immediately after embracing the ICJ's ruling
in Avena in this way, the State Department announced that the U.S. was
withdrawing from the Optional Protocol of the VCCR, effectively
eliminating additional VCCR cases against the U.S. in the ICJ.
Breard, LaGrand, Avena, and Medellin raise important questions of both
domestic and international law. Hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will be
able to provide desperately needed guidance to lower courts, as well as
federal and state officials, as to how to give effect to U.S. obligations
under the VCCR.
It is important to remember that treaties are expressly made part of
United States law under our Constitution. And a conflict between a treaty
like the VCCR and court decisions is not merely a policy issue - it is a
legal conflict that must be resolved.
The Issue In Medellin: Do VCCR Obligations Outweigh Procedural Default
Rules?
In crafting an opinion in the case, the Supreme Court will have to decide
whether the procedural default rule can be reconciled with the U.S.'s
obligation to provide meaningful "review and reconsideration" of
convictions and sentences.
To this end, the Supreme Court should carefully examine some of its own
key decisions, such as the 1804 case of Murray v. The Charming Betsy.
There, the Court held that later statutes should be construed consistently
with existing treaty obligations to the greatest extent possible.
In addition to confronting this issue, the Supreme Court ought to define
the scope of "review and reconsideration," and suggest remedies for VCCR
violations in future cases.
The Legal Ramifications: Why the Supreme Court Should Provide Guidance for
Future Cases
Why should the Supreme Court go beyond the case itself, to offer guidance
for the future? In part, because it is likely that, in the future, U.S.
states will again discount VCCR obligations.
Indeed, it is possible that without express direction from the high court,
state officials may even fail to comply properly with President Bush's
current request for "review and reconsideration" of the Avena cases. 's
instructions, a spokesman for the Attorney General of Texas said, "We
respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the
constitutional bounds for federal authority."
This raises another important question: Can the federal government seek to
compel state officials to comply with ICJ orders and VCCR obligations? On
one hand, state actions that implicate foreign relations are naturally
matters of concern to the federal government. On the other hand, the
administration of state criminal justice is traditionally reserved to the
states.
Complicating the matter is the reality that there are no clearly defined
legal mechanisms for the federal government to invoke against state
officials acting in ways that might negatively impact foreign policy.
However, a review of salient cases indicates that if there is a will,
there is a way. That is, federal courts have curbed state policies that
threaten to disrupt foreign relations.
For instance, in Zschernig v. Miller, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down
an Oregon probate statute because it provided judges with an opportunity
to make disparaging comments about East bloc countries during the height
of the Cold War. This ruling shows that even simple probate matters can
run afoul of American foreign relations.
If that is the case, then certainly a state's decision to eschew VCCR
obligations should be a violation of the so-called "foreign affairs
doctrine" - most recently applied by the Supreme Court in American
Insurance Association v. Garamendi (a 2003 decision which struck down a
California statute requiring insurance companies operating in the state to
make disclosers about Holocaust era policies because such a statute
interfered with the conduct of foreign policy by the federal government).
Indeed, the force of this doctrine ought to be at its strongest in those
cases where an important international tribunal issues an order to delay
an execution.
The Supreme Court may be less willing to tackle the full measure of the
questions before it considering the recent acknowledgement by the
executive that Avena inmates are due "review and reconsideration." Even
so, additional guidance on the role of international law - including the
value of international tribunal decisions in U.S. law - would still be
useful.
The Political Consequences: Why American Interests Are at Stake
As the Supreme Court wrestles with the issues at stake in Medellin, it
should also keep in mind that brushing aside the ICJ's Avena ruling could
have negative political consequences for the U.S. At the very least,
American consular officials will have a more difficult time demanding full
VCCR compliance for the approximately 6,000 Americans detained abroad each
year.
In international relations, reciprocity is the golden rule: What goes
around comes around. As Ambassador Bruce Laingen, a former American
Embassy hostage in Iran, and Billy Hayes, the prisoner of Midnight Express
fame, argue in an amicus brief in support of Medellin, "if officials in
this country fail to provide foreign nationals with the full benefit of
consular assistance, it is inevitable that U.S. citizens abroad will soon
suffer a similar, reciprocal fate."
Sometimes it takes only the arrest of an American overseas to upset
diplomatic relations. Consider the case of Michael Fay, the teenager
arrested in Singapore for vandalism, or that of Gao Zhan, the professor
arrested in China for espionage.
Failing to rein in cavalier state and local authorities, who are willing
to express disdain and disrespect for the ICJ and the VCCR, also runs the
risk of disrupting American foreign relations. If nothing else, ignoring
international law squanders America's "soft" power - the power to persuade
and influence through attraction rather than coercion.
In the post-September 11 era, American leaders must grasp that, on a
day-to-day basis, soft power is the resource that gets you more bang for
your buck. That is, in today's world, you can accomplish far more in
international affairs by attracting others to your positions than you can
by forcing them into tolerating your policies.
Inappropriate or unpopular actions in foreign affairs, however, are more
likely to detract than attract supporters to America's international
agenda. With soft power becoming hard power's essential companion in the
Twenty-first Century, discounting international law only runs the risk of
undermining American foreign policy objectives.
Hopeful signs are on the horizon though. For instance, in Oklahoma, the
Court of Criminal Appeals and the Governor have, in 2 separate cases,
recently demonstrated respect for the ICJ's judgments in LaGrand and
Avena. . In those instances - Valdez v. State and Clemency for Osbaldo
Torres - they have reconsidered the death sentences of 2 foreign nationals
who had not been properly informed of their rights to consular
representation.
In addition, several states - including California, Florida and Oregon -
have enshrined VCCR obligations in their state law. These measures are
attempts to reduce the chance of a conflict between state actions and VCCR
obligations by bringing state law in line with the treaty.
At a time when Americans overseas are more vulnerable and the US is in
need of international partners and friends, it is important that state and
federal authorities proceed respectfully with VCCR matters, so as to
protect and promote America's long-term national interests. Let us hope
that, when it issues its opinion in the Medellin case, the Supreme Court
takes the same view.
(source: FindLaw (Louis Klarevas is Assistant Professor of Political
Science at City University of New York-College of Staten Island. He also
teaches in the graduate Global Studies program at New York University.
Howard S. Schiffman is Director of the M.S. program in Global Studies and
Clinical Assistant Professor of Global Studies at New York University. He
is also Co-Founder of InternationalLawHelp.com, a website devoted to
promoting public education about international law. )
*******************************
Diagnosis: State-Sanctioned Murder
The latest in a long history of capital punishment: a California judge
recently sentenced convicted murderer Scott Peterson to die at the hand of
the state.
Petersons sentencing brings up a debate that has all but evaporated from
public discourse in the recent past. Is the death penalty a moral
impropriety, or is it justified for violent criminals?
There are 5 methods of execution currently used in the United States:
hanging, firing squad, electrocution, gas chamber, and lethal injection.
Lethal injection is by far the most common; it is used in 37 of the 38
states which administer the death penalty (Nebraska uses electrocution as
its sole method of execution). Most people also consider lethal injection
the most humane method of execution.
A prisoner killed by lethal injection is strapped to a gurney by
executioners and fitted with two needles in usable veins (one of the
needles serves as a backup). The prisoner is also fitted with heart
monitors to allow doctors to assess his condition. However, since ethical
concerns prevent doctors from participating directly in the prisoners
killing, other members of the execution team insert the needles. A
prisoners history of intravenous drug use may also cause difficulty in
finding a usable vein. Failure to find usable veins can result in delays
while executioners try inserting the needles in different locations.
Sometimes, inexperienced members of an execution team may position the
needles in such a way that they become clogged or empty into muscles,
causing the prisoner pain.
The needles connect to an intravenous drip behind a wall, from which
initially flows a benign saline solution. Eventually, the warden signals a
curtain to be raised, exposing the prisoner to witnesses in a separate
room. Then the inmate is anesthetized with sodium thiopental to induce
loss of consciousness. Shortly thereafter, pancuronium bromide begins to
drip and stops the prisoners breathing through muscle paralysis. To
complete the execution, potassium chloride is added to stop the prisoners
heart. A doctor must then pronounce the prisoner dead.
In an electrocution, executioners strap the prisoner into a chair and fit
him with a metal electrode across his head. The executioners also
blindfold the prisoner, and attach another electrode to a shaved portion
of his leg. On the wardens signal, one of the executioners throws a switch
to deliver an electric shock which can reach up to 2000 volts and lasts
approximately half a minute.
At this point, witnesses may observe the prisoner experiencing violent
convulsions, which sometimes result in broken and dislocated limbs. Smoke
is emitted; witnesses may smell burnt flesh as the electrical current
brings the prisoners skin and internal organs to high temperatures. The
prisoner may catch fire. Witnesses may also observe the prisoner
defecating, vomiting, drooling, and urinating during the shock. In his
dissenting opinion in the case of Glass vs. Louisiana (1985), U.S. Supreme
Court Justice William Brennan observes that during an execution, "the
prisoners eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on [his] cheeks" witnesses
hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying."
After the initial electric shock, doctors must then wait for the body to
cool and determine if the prisoners heart is still beating. If they can
detect a heartbeat, the execution team delivers additional shocks until
doctors can pronounce the prisoner dead.
Executions by hanging, firing squad, and gas chamber are now far less
common, but still employed in some states - as recently as 1996, a hanging
took place in Delaware and an execution by firing squad occurred in Utah.
A German national was executed by gas chamber in Arizona in 1999.
Some anti-death penalty advocates complain that the US is the only country
in the developed world that employs capital punishment. Interestingly, the
attitude of many Americans toward the death penalty seems to reflect a
curious contradiction in terms.
Consider the following hypothetical scenarios:
A. - Felix randomly, unremorsefully murders Joes family, and there is
ample, undeniable evidence to show that Felix did so. Joe murders Felix in
revenge. Joe gets arrested, tried, convicted of murder, and sent to
prison.
B. - Felix randomly, unremorsefully murders Joes family, and there is
ample, undeniable evidence to show that Felix did so. Joe takes no
retaliatory action against Felix, except to alert the police to what has
happened. Felix gets arrested, tried, and convicted of murder. A judge
sentences Felix to death, and he is later executed.
In both of these situations, Felix murders Joes family. In the 1st
scenario, however, Joe retaliates against Felix by killing him. Joe faces
legal consequences. In the second situation, Joe does not retaliate
against Felix, and Felix dies at the hand of the State. The State faces no
consequences.
We condemn murders committed by individuals, but when the State takes a
life, we view it as an appropriate vindication.
Can we absolve ourselves of the moral responsibility for annihilating
another human life by transferring that responsibility onto the hands of
an entity or an institution? Perhaps some may argue that the act of
execution is mollified by virtue of the fact that it is carried out by the
State and not by an individual.
Still, somebody must do the killing. Concrete actions must be carried out
by individuals. The State, while it may sometimes seem omnipotent, cannot
physically undertake the action of ending a life. That action requires an
agent, or several agents, in order to be performed.
A prosecutor argues that a criminal defendant has committed a horrible
crime. A jury convicts the defendant. A judge applies the death sentence.
Police take the convicted person to a facility where he awaits death.
Finally, an execution team ends the prisoners life. All of these people
are the agents of killing enabled and encouraged by the State.
Most specifically, executioners physically carry out the act of slaying
the prisoner. The other agents implicated in the process of State
execution can begin the process, but the execution team fills an essential
role. Execution cannot take place unless someone physically carries it
out. This leads us to ask: what kind of person seeks employment as an
executioner? Is it appropriate for the State to endow these people - or to
endow any person - with the power to kill?
Some liken the death penalty to killing in self-defense, since, they
argue, violent criminals have both the capacity to repeat their crimes and
the potential to escape from or be released from prison. Therefore, they
pose a threat to society, and must be eliminated. It may be morally
legitimate for Bob to kill Ed in the event that Ed directly and
immediately threatens Bobs life. However, violent criminals who are
executed are not directly threatening anyone when they are put to death.
Execution and self-defense are different situations. Moreover, the very
fact that the execution is carried out on behalf of the State makes it
illegitimate - because the State is not a person, no one can threaten its
life, and therefore it does not have a reason to kill in self-defense.
Many states which employ the death penalty also have laws which prohibit
physician-assisted suicide. The morality of suicide, physician assisted or
self-inflicted, raises an entirely new debate. Regardless, the existence
of these contradictory laws essentially declares it permissible for the
State to slay an individual while maintaining that an individual may not
choose to end his own life. This transfers an individuals very life into
the States exclusive jurisdiction, eroding self-ownership and free will.
The death penalty deifies the State. Many religions explicitly denounce
killing as one of the worst possible human behaviors, a pronouncement
which is said to originate directly from God. However, the State may
engage in murder without consequence; furthermore, many people tolerate
State sanctioned killing as moral, necessary, and even humane - thus, the
State is implicated as the supreme moral authority and power. Killing a
criminal implies that his life has less value than the lives of
non-criminals, or of criminals who are "not as bad." But many religions
also place an equal value on every human life, and caution that the only
true judge is God.
Death penalty proponents cite several benefits of capital punishment. They
argue that it acts as a deterrent to violent criminals. They consider it
the only just punishment for murderers; they also maintain that it
delivers retribution and closure to the families of victims. They deny
that sentencing is discriminatory or that the execution may be painful to
offenders.
While they may concede that innocents have received death sentences in the
past, death penalty proponents increasingly cite DNA evidence as an
absolute method of linking violent criminals with their crimes - ensuring
that innocent people no longer receive death sentences. Many believe that
violent criminals cannot be rehabilitated, and that they have a chance to
escape and hurt others as long as they are left alive. Some death penalty
proponents also argue that the high monetary cost of the long appeals
process necessary before a prisoner can be executed is well justified
because of this potential for criminals to escape and cause harm.
Opponents counter that the death penalty doesnt really deter violent
criminals. Furthermore, one cannot assume that every family of a violent
crime victim would feel closure or relief if a perpetrator were executed.
Some consider the death penalty unacceptable retribution. For instance,
Coretta Scott King said in a 1981 address to the National Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty, "An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed
of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life.
Morality is never upheld by a legalized murder." Some families of victims
may even wish to forgive criminals as part of the healing process.
It is a matter of debate whether violent criminals can ever be
rehabilitated or reintegrated with society. The argument about the
potential for criminals to escape, however, only addresses prisons degree
of success at keeping criminals under lockdown. It contributes little to a
moral justification for State endorsed killing.
Additionally, death penalty opponents say that the possibility of
sentencing innocent people to death precludes it from ever being morally
acceptable. Unfortunately, the application of the death penalty is
irreversible and cannot be rectified if applied in error. Additionally,
opponents make the egalitarian argument that certain groups of people -
especially those with inferior (i.e., state-assigned) legal council -
disproportionately receive death sentences.
None of these arguments, however, truly address the contradiction which
lies at the heart of capital punishment: why do we consider it
unacceptable for an individual to kill, while simultaneously viewing State
killing as both appropriate and necessary?
Central to the issue of State-sanctioned killing is power and autonomy.
Granting the State a literal license to kill places every individuals life
within the grip of the State executioners icy hand. Though it may be
improbable, it is certainly possible for anyone who lives in a place which
practices capital punishment to be wrongly accused, sentenced to death,
and executed. That possibility grants the State enormous power - the power
to end any individuals life, potentially including innocents. When one
stops to consider it fully, this is an egregious concept.
The term "death penalty" is simply a euphemism for the act of State
sanctioned murder, ironically carried out under the pretense of justice.
This is not to imply that violent criminals should go unpunished; however,
their punishment need not involve the cession of a very dangerous power -
the power to inconsequentially end a human life - to the bungling,
bloodthirsty, Leviathan State.
(source: LewRockwell.com (Stephanie R. Murphy studies Biochemistry at the
University of Massachusetts at Amherst. She is a member of LifeSharers
Organ Donation Network) ***********************
For public and private good, it's time to abolish the death penalty
On March 10, the Judiciary Committee of Connecticut's General Assembly
approved HR 6012, a bill to abolish the death penalty. This comes at a
time when capital punishment has stepped into the spotlight of political
discourse. As Connecticut abolitionist activists work to pass a ban in
time to commute the sentence of Michael Ross, who is scheduled to die in
May, many Americans applaud the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to
rule the juvenile death penalty unconstitutional.
To me, the death penalty is fundamentally flawed in principle. When the
government, a fallible human institution, deliberately takes the life of
one of its citizens, the cycle of violence simply continues. Far from
bringing the peace it promises, the death penalty legitimizes violence as
a solution.
Even if you believe that the death penalty can be warranted and justified
in principle, the reality of its actual application makes it problematic
to defend in practice. First, the death penalty as an institution tends to
amplify societal prejudices and disparities. According to Amnesty
International, African Americans make up about 50 percent of murder
victims, yet over 80 % of death row defendants have been executed for
killing white victims. Furthermore, 95 percent of all death row inmates
cannot afford an attorney. Recently, researchers at Loyola University
devised a computer program that, using only non-judicial variables such as
race and sex, can predict the outcome of death sentencing more than 90 %
of the time. When a computer can predict a case's outcome based only on a
defendant's demographic identification, something is wrong.
>From a practical standpoint, abolishing the death penalty would save the
public money during times of increasingly tight budgets. Recent studies
suggest that execution may cost as much as 3 times as much as life
imprisonment. Conventional wisdom tends to attribute these higher costs to
expensive appeals. Even if this were the case, we could not in good
conscience cut this appeals process because, as an execution is
irreversible, the execution of an innocent is always a possibility. Since
1973, more than 100 people have been released from death row after proving
their innocence. This is too close for comfort, so cutting the appeals
process is not a viable solution.
In fact, most of the death penalty's costs come before the post-conviction
proceedings. Even if we cut the opportunities for appeal, capital
punishment would still cost us more than alternatives.
The higher expense makes execution an unsustainable policy given that the
death penalty has no statistical value as a deterrent. In fact, states and
counties where executions take place tend to maintain higher crime rates
than other areas. This makes sense if we follow the flow of funding in
light of recent fiscal problems: With a considerably higher drain on
public monies than life imprisonment, the application of the death penalty
deprives law enforcement budgets of needed funding.
Evaluating the death penalty solely in terms of dollars seems flippant
given the emotional and ethical stakes involved on both sides of the
issue. We should not take the loss of a human life lightly, and we should
always extend this principle foremost to the victims of violent crime and
to their families.
I can only begin to imagine the pain and anguish involved with losing a
loved one, someone special, someone with dreams, someone who means very
much, to murder. Nonetheless, execution will never solve the problem.
Proponents of the death penalty often claim that the families of victims
need an execution for closure, that the death of the murderer will bring
healing. Too often, this is not the case.
The death penalty often prevents true closure. Speaking as a member of the
New Hampshire House of Representatives, Robert Renny Cushing, whose father
was murdered in 1998, said, "As one victim, as a colleague, I stand before
you to ask that you vote to abolish the death penalty, not so much because
I want murderers to live but because if the state kills them, that forever
forecloses the possibility that those of us who are victims might be able
to figure out how to forgive. We've lost enough already. Don't take that
option for healing away, please."
(source : Yale Daily News (Edward Dunar is a freshman in Branford College
and a member of the Coalition to End the Death Penalty)
*********************
Catholic bishops turn sights on death penalty
In the week before Easter, as Christians reflect on the execution of
Jesus, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops is launching a campaign to
end the death penalty in the U.S.
While the campaign reflects the consistent teaching of Pope John Paul II,
it marks a shift in priorities for the nation's Roman Catholic bishops,
who last issued a major statement against capital punishment 25 years ago.
During the 2004 presidential race, the bishops spoke forcefully against
same-sex marriage and abortion. They gave far less prominence to the
church's position that the death penalty is rarely, if ever, justified in
modern societies.
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington, D.C., who played a leading role
in developing the new campaign, said the bishops sense that public opinion
is shifting against capital punishment, partly because genetic testing has
proved that scores of death-row inmates were wrongfully convicted.
"I think the DNA evidence has really shaken up people," McCarrick said. "I
think this is a moment, a very special moment, where we can talk about
this and people are ready to listen."
After being formally announced today in Washington, D.C., the campaign
will move to the state and local level, using all the tools of persuasion
at the church's disposal, said John Carr, a staff member of the bishops
conference who will play a coordinating role.
"We'll be filing briefs in court cases, talking with the people who
publish textbooks in Catholic schools, using church bulletins, encouraging
homilies and addressing legislation through state Catholic conferences,"
he said.
Experts on the role of religion in politics said the campaign will please
many Catholics who see a consistent ethic of life in the church's
positions against contraception, abortion, euthanasia, stem-cell research
and the death penalty. But they said it might be viewed as a distraction
by some anti-abortion groups and could lead to tensions with evangelical
Protestants, who have made common cause with Catholics against abortion
but who overwhelmingly support capital punishment, according to polls.
"Evangelicals are the religious group in the United States that are the
most pro-death penalty," said James Guth, a political scientist at Furman
University in Greenville, S.C., who studies conservative Protestantism.
"But as long as both groups place a higher priority on other social
issues, such as abortion and gay marriage, I think their cooperation will
continue unimpeded."
The campaign also could run into opposition from socially conservative
Catholics who stress that the church does not flatly ban capital
punishment, as it does abortion, contraception and euthanasia.
Historically, the Catholic Church executed heretics, and it has always
recognized that capital punishment is justified in certain cases, said
Scott Hahn, a professor at the Franciscan University of Steubenville,
Ohio.
"I think a campaign to stop capital punishment is comparable to a campaign
to stop war," Hahn said. "I think we have to clarify that one set of
issues, such as abortion and the ban on contraception, does not admit of
exceptions. And the other set of issues, such as just war and capital
punishment, not only admits of exceptions, but that's where Catholic lay
people ought to be granted a certain degree of liberty to formulate their
own prudential judgments."
McCarrick, like Hahn, noted that Article 2267 of the Catholic catechism,
an authoritative compendium of church teaching, says the church "does not
exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of
effectively defending human lives" against a criminal. But the catechism
also quotes John Paul II as saying that today, cases in which the
execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not
practically nonexistent."
(source: The Washington Post)
VIRGINIA:
State lab audit long overdue
On March 31, it will be 6 months since Gov. Mark Warner asked for an
independent review of state lab results in the 1982 Culpeper rape-murder
that led to the conviction of Earl Washington Jr.
Astonishingly, that review remains a work in progress. What possible
excuse is there for so lengthy a hold-up? Barring a compelling answer,
Warner needs to demand the studys prompt conclusion, now.
In fact, the foot-dragging extends much longer than 6 months. On April 6,
the one-year anniversary passes of a Washington Post report detailing a
California scientists conclusion that the state lab erred in the
Washington case.
On the basis of the state lab work, former Gov. Jim Gilmore in 2000 issued
an absolute pardon to Washington, who had spent 9? years on death row.
But because the case remained unsolved, Gilmore declined to pronounce
Washington innocent or to grant him an apology.
A special prosecutor assigned to the case later said Washington remained a
suspect, even though he is borderline retarded and nothing linked him to
the crime scene other than his confession.
According to California scientist Edward Blake, however, the lab report
contained an egregious error: After linking DNA found on the murder bed to
a convicted rapist, the lab wrongly excluded the rapist from a second
sample found on Williams body, he said.
In fact, Blake found, both samples belong to the same person, inmate
Kenneth Tinsley, who is serving two life sentences for a Charlottesville
rape that occurred a year after Williams death.
If Blake is correct, that would solve the mystery of who killed Rebecca
Williams. It would also deliver a black eye to the lab, raising serious
questions about whether similar mistakes have occurred.
Almost six months elapsed between The Post article and Warners ordering an
independent audit of the states work. State lab Director Paul Ferrara
stood by his labs results. After three independent experts contacted by
The Virginian-Pilot editorial page said the states analysis seemed
seriously flawed, Warner asked Ferrara to get an outside review.
>From the start, a serious handicap in evaluating the labs performance was
the lack of scientific experts among higher-ranking state officials. A lab
reorganization, passed by the 2005 General Assembly, will improve that
situation, but not enough.
The bill, now on Warners desk, creates a scientific advisory panel stocked
mostly with forensic scientists. That limits the talent pool and invites
suspicion of cronyism. Warner should amend the bill to provide a mix of
clinical and forensic scientists and to allow the panel to launch
investigations into questionable lab actions.
On June 4, it will be 23 years since Rebecca Williams death. Her family
deserves a resolution, if one exists. Meanwhile, Virginians deserve a
1st-rate oversight mechanism at the state lab, one worthy of the
reputation that body has long enjoyed.
(source: Editorial, The Virginian-Pilot)
