March 27 VIRGINIA: Moussaoui says he was to hijack 5th plane Al-Qaeda conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui testified Monday that he and would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid were supposed to hijack a 5th airplane on Sept. 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House. Moussaoui's testimony on his own behalf stunned the courtroom. His account was in stark contrast to Moussaoui's previous statements in which he said the White House attack was to come later if the United States refused to release a radical Egyptian sheik imprisoned on earlier terrorist convictions. On Dec. 22, 2001, Reid was subdued by passengers when he attempted to detonate a bomb in his shoe aboard American Airlines Flight 63 from Paris to Miami. There were 197 people on board. The plane was diverted to Boston, where it landed safely. Moussaoui told the court he knew the World Trade Center attack was coming and that he lied to investigators when arrested in August 2001 because he wanted it to happen. "That's correct," Moussaoui said when the prosecution asked if that was why he misled them. The statement was key to the government's case that the attacks might have been averted if Moussaoui had been more cooperative following his arrest. He told the court he knew the attacks were coming some time after August 2001 and bought a radio so he could hear them unfold. Specifically, he said he knew the World Trade Center was going to be attacked, but asserted he was not part of that specific plot and didn't know the details. Nineteen men pulled off the Sept. 11 attacks on New York in Washington in the worst act of terrorism ever on U.S. soil. "I had knowledge that the Twin Towers would be hit," Moussaoui said. "I didn't know the details of this." Asked by his lawyer why he signed his guilty plea in April as "the 20th hijacker," Moussaoui replied: "Because everybody used to refer to me as the 20th hijacker and it was a bit of fun." Before Moussaoui took the stand, his lawyers made a last attempt to stop him from testifying, but failed. Defense attorney Gerald Zerkin argued that his client would not be a competent witness because he has contempt for the court, only recognizes Islamic law and therefore "the affirmation he undertakes would be meaningless." Moussaoui at first denied he was to have been a fifth hijack pilot Sept. 11 but under cross examination spoke of the plan that would have him attack the White House. He said Reid was the only person he knew for sure would have been on that mission, but others were discussed. The 19 terrorists on Sept. 11 hijacked and crashed four airliners, killing nearly 3,000 people in the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and on the planes. About his guilty plea, he said: "I took a pen. I signed it." He said he talked with an al-Qaeda official in 1999 about why a 1993 bombing at the World Trade Center failed to bring the towers down. He said "was asked in the same period for the first time if I want to be a suicide pilot and I declined." He told the court it was "difficult to say" whether he was involved in the planning for 9/11. At some point, he said, he received training on what to do if at the controls of a hijacked plane if a fighter aircraft approached. Just before Moussaoui took the stand, the court heard testimony that two months before the attacks that a CIA deputy chief waited in vain for permission to tell the FBI about a "very high interest" al-Qaeda operative who became one of the hijackers. The official, a senior figure in the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit, said he sought authorization on July 13, 2001, to send information to the FBI but got no response for 10 days, then asked again. As it turned out, the information on Khalid al-Mihdhar did not reach the FBI until late August. At the time, CIA officers needed permission from a special unit before passing certain intelligence on to the FBI. The official was identified only as John. His written testimony was read into the record. "John's" testimony was part of the defense's case that federal authorities missed multiple opportunities to catch hijackers and perhaps thwart the 9/11 plot. His testimony included an e-mail sent by FBI supervisor Michael Maltbie discussing Moussaoui but playing down his terrorist connections. Maltbie's e-mail said "there's no indication that (Moussaoui) had plans for any nefarious activity." He sent that e-mail to the CIA even after receiving a lengthy memo from the FBI agent who arrested Moussaoui and suspected him of being a terrorist with plans to hijack aircraft. Former FBI agent Erik Rigler, the 1st defense witness, was questioned about a Justice Department report that he said criticized the CIA for keeping intelligence about 2 known al-Qaeda terrorist operatives in the United States from the FBI for more than a year. Under cross-examination from the prosecution, he acknowledged the report did not link the pair specifically to a civil aviation plot. But he said the report's thrust was about their preparations for what turned out to be the 9/11 attacks, and their ability to elude federal agents. "That's why they came here," he said. "They didn't come for Disney." The 2 were among the 19 suicide hijackers on 9/11. The report said they had been placed on a watch list in Thailand in January 2000, but not on a U.S. list until August 2001. Prosecutors argue that Moussaoui, a French citizen, thwarted a prime opportunity to track down the 9/11 hijackers and possibly unravel the plot when he was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations and lied to the FBI about his al-Qaeda membership and plans to hijack a plane. Had Moussaoui confessed, the FBI could have pursued leads that would have led them to most of the hijackers, government witnesses have testified. To win the death penalty, prosecutors must first prove that Moussaoui's actions - specifically, his lies - were directly responsible for at least one death on Sept. 11. If they fail, Moussaoui would get life in prison. ******************* Defense Gets Its Say in Moussaoui Trial If jurors in the death-penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui are looking for someone to blame for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, defense lawyers are pointing the finger at the FBI and other federal agencies they say botched intelligence. The sentencing trial for Moussaoui, the only person in this country charged in connection with the airborne attacks that claimed more than 3,000 lives, resumes Monday with the defense's 1st witness scheduled for cross-examination. The witness, former FBI agent Erik Rigler, on Thursday summarized for the jury a Justice Department report that criticized the CIA for keeping intelligence about two known al-Qaida terror operatives in the United States from the FBI for more than a year. The 2 were among the 19 suicide hijackers on 9/11. The report said they had been placed on a watchlist in Thailand in January 2000, but not on a U.S. list until August 2001. After the prosecution phase, which lasted about two weeks, the defense is expected to wrap up its case in 2 days or so. The final defense witness may be Moussaoui himself, who wants to testify against the wishes of his court-appointed lawyers. Prosecutors argue that Moussaoui, a French citizen, thwarted a prime opportunity to track down the 9/11 hijackers and possibly unravel the plot when he was arrested in August 2001 on immigration violations and lied to the FBI about his al-Qaida membership and plans to hijack a plane. Had Moussaoui confessed, the FBI could have pursued leads that would have led them to most of the hijackers, government witnesses have testified. To win the death penalty, prosecutors must first prove that Moussaoui's actions -- specifically, his lies -- were directly responsible for at least one death on Sept. 11. Moussaoui pleaded guilty last April to conspiring with al-Qaida to hijack planes and other crimes, but he denies any role in 9/11. He says he was training for a possible future attack on the White House. (source for both: Associated Press) ILLINOIS: Survey: College students favor death penalty----Majority unaware of Illinois' moratorium on executions According to a recent survey of approximately 40 students, 59 % of students currently in college are in favor of the death penalty in Illinois. Out of that 59 percent, only 14 % knew Illinois had a moratorium instituted on the death penalty. Out of all the students surveyed, 68 % did not know Illinois had a moratorium in effect. State Representative Careen Gordon (D-Morris), said this is because it is not something that directly affects student's lives. "If it doesn't affect someone directly, they are not going to know, care, pay attention, or seek out that knowledge unless they are forced to," Gordon said. When asked, "Did you know there was a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois?" many of the students responses were, "What's a moratorium?" According to Appellate Court Judge Mary Kay O'Brien, "A moratorium, while in effect, places a 'stay' on the imposition of the sentence of death for those individuals who have received the death sentence as a result of a conviction for an eligible crime." In January of 2000, then-Governor George Ryan (R-Kankakee) placed a moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois, even though he was always a proponent of the death penalty. All lethal injections were put on hold indefinitely. According to O'Brien, Ryan instituted the moratorium partly because 13 people were exonerated and released from Death Row in Illinois prior to the moratorium. "Ryan believed the fact that 13 death penalty cases resulted in exonerations was a stark indication that the death penalty system in Illinois was failing," O'Brien said. Gordon echoed O'Brien's thoughts. "The system in Illinois is broken, I absolutely agree with that," Gordon said. "Concerns came from questionable tactics used in Cook County, by individuals, not by entire law enforcement agencies all together. "When you start to take cases personally as a law enforcement officer or as a prosecutor, then it is time to stop doing that job." Gordon said Cook County could be having some of the problems because of the enormous amounts of people the court system handles every day She thinks, however, the moratorium was a personal choice made by Ryan. "I think the moratorium was a decision made individually by George Ryan based on the cases and what was going on in the state at the time, based upon the different exonerations and the decisions he had to make as governor," Gordon said. Sister Sharon Frederick, director of University Ministry and coordinator of Peace and Justice at USF, thinks the moratorium was definitely needed at the time it was imposed. Sr. Frederick said that, speaking for Illinois, the moratorium was a good idea when it was instituted because it was better to determine the problem this way. Gordon does not totally agree. "Individual reviews as to where the problems were could have been done before a statewide moratorium went into place and crime victims lost their voices, victim's families lost their voices in our criminal justice system," said Gordon. Sister Frederick is very much against the death penalty. "It is the ultimate betrayal. No one has the right to kill another under any circumstances. It is a cruel and inhumane punishment against another human life," Sister Frederick said. O'Brien, a state representative from 1997 to 2003, was the chair of the Judiciary II Committee on Criminal Law. This committee reviewed and debated the death penalty reform legislation. "We began our deliberations of many of these various pieces of legislation two years before Governor Ryan released his proposal on death penalty reform," O'Brien said. "The bills that we worked through the House and prepared for passage resulted in what is now known as Senate Bill 472." Many issues were confronted with the reforms of SB 472. These changes are supposed to help make sure people sentenced to death and placed on death row are indeed guilty. According to O'Brien, some components of SB 472 include videotaping of police interrogations and confessions, changes to the eyewitness identification system, prohibiting the imposition of the death penalty based solely on testimony against the defendant by a jailhouse informant, more training for death penalty lawyers, allowing independent analysis of evidence by the defendant, changes in the eligibility factors that allow for imposition of the death penalty, and a review commission to review the reforms and to see if they are working. Many of the reforms were made to the police procedures because many of the problems in the death penalty system were a result from "the very lopsided playing field," according to O'Brien. Police were sometimes seen as using their power to influence the defendants into pleading guilty. "Most defendants have no resources and cannot adequately defend themselves. These reform measures will hopefully make our system fair for all," said O'Brien. Governor Rod Blagojevich (D-Chicago) has not lifted the moratorium. According to O'Brien, Blagojevich stated that, until he is sure the reforms are working, he would not lift the moratorium. When asked if they lean towards the liberal or conservative side of the spectrum, 55 % of students responding to the survey lean more to the liberal side. Of the liberals, 67 % are in favor of the death penalty. Of the self-described conservatives, 50 % are in favor of the death penalty. Michelle Lardi, a senior elementary education major at Eureka University, is in favor of the death penalty. "I think that if someone has murdered another, not being self defense, then they do not deserve to live," Lardi said. Brittany Steichen is also in favor of the death penalty. A freshman marketing major at Illinois State University, she said, "I believe that if someone is accused for something like murder and the hard facts prove it, then they do not deserve to live." Danielle Pettavino, a junior management major at Eastern Illinois University, is one of the few who knows what the moratorium is, and she is in favor of it. "I think it was a good thing to do since they were finding people on Death Row to be actually innocent," Pettavino said. Pettavino does not agree, however, with the fact that all 13 death row inmates were exonerated. "The people that actually admitted to crimes or had DNA evidence against them should not have been exonerated. They pretty much got off their sentence for no reason," she said. Heidi Dinelli, a junior biology major at the University of St. Francis, is against the death penalty because "it is written in the 10 Commandments that we shall not kill. That means any person." "Why don't they just say they are banning the death penalty? That is basically what they are doing, but instead they are playing with these criminal's minds; it is kind of cruel if you ask me," Dinelli said about the moratorium. The fact so many college students are in favor of the death penalty, but know nothing of the moratorium could be because the moratorium has been out of the news. O'Brien said that, for the time being, the moratorium is on the backburner. Even though she backed former Gov. Ryan when the moratorium was put into effect, Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka has said she will lift the moratorium if she wins the election, according to ABC News. "I represent the people that gave me this job," Gordon said. "It is not my personal opinion that goes to Springfield; it is what is best for the 75th legislative district." Gordon thinks that the moratorium can be lifted right now without concern. "I think our state is unique. I have practiced all around the state, at least 18 counties at last count. I think Cook County is an anomaly in a lot of things, but especially in its criminal justice system because of the enormous amount of people it prosecutes. "If you take Cook County out of the mix, I think the rest of the state has done a good job and have not caused any of the problems and concerns in the first place." Sister Frederick thinks the moratorium should stay in place unless the death penalty is abolished. "I think about 86 other countries have abolished the death penalty," said Sister Frederick, citing a fact confirmed by Amnesty International. According to the Amnesty International Web site, 86 countries have abolished the death penalty, while 11 have abolished the death penalty except in certain occasions, like wartime crimes. Twenty-five countries allow the death penalty in law, but have not carried out any executions in the past 10 years. This makes a total of 122 countries that have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. 74 other countries retain the use of the death penalty. However, the number of these countries that use the death penalty more than one time a year is much smaller. When asked if the United States needed the death penalty, or if it could run smoothly without it, Gordon said we don't need it. "No, we don't need the death penalty to have a well-run criminal justice system, it is not a necessity, but it is a law in this state and available as a sentence." Sister Frederick said the death penalty moratorium is not a dead issue. "It is still in the front of many people's minds. A lot of people are still working through the issues. I signed the moratorium, I wonder how many more have," she said. According to Gordon, she has heard nothing from the review commission that was supposed to have been put in place to see if the reforms from SB 472 were working. The next election may bring a change to the status of the death penalty. (source: Morris Daily Herald) CALIFORNIA: Gang Members Can Get Death Sentence For Slaying Unintended Victims The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a gang member who kills an unintended victim instead of the person he aimed at can be given a death sentence or penalty of life in prison without parole. The court said a state law allowing capital punishment for gang-related murders applies to slayings of unintended as well as intended victims. The decision was issued at the court's headquarters in San Francisco in the case of Samuel Shabazz, who fatally shot 20-year-old Lori Gonzalez in May 2000. The court unanimously upheld a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole for Shabazz. Gonzales, a college student, was a granddaughter of Bernard Parks, who was then chief of police in Los Angeles. She was not affiliated with any gang and was apparently in the wrong place at the wrong time, according to the high court ruling. Shabazz, a member of the Crips gang, was aiming at Gonzalez' passenger, Ernest Gray, a member of the rival Bloods gang. Gray ducked when he saw Shabazz's gun and the shots fired by Shabazz hit and killed Gonzalez. Shabazz was sentenced in Los Angeles County Superior Court under a provision of state law that makes gang-related murders a so-called "special circumstance" warranting a death penalty or life in prison without possibility of parole. The measure, passed by California voters as Proposition 21 in March 2000, allows capital punishment when an active participant in a criminal street gang "intentionally killed the victim" to further the activities of the gang. Shabazz argued in his appeal that the special circumstance didn't apply to him because he intended to kill Gray rather than Gonzalez, But Chief Justice Ronald George wrote for the court that "a defendant who shoots at an intended victim with intent to kill but misses and hits a bystander instead should be subject to the same criminal liability" as if he had hit his intended mark. The court also upheld an additional sentence of 25 years to life for Shabazz for using a firearm in commission of a murder. (source: KTVU News) MISSOURI: Don't Let Reggie Clemons Die!----Reggie Clemons on Missouri death row: a case of reasonable doubt URGENT - PLEASE TAKE AN INTEREST IN THE REGGIE CLEMONS CASE TO PREVENT ANOTHER UNJUSTIFIED EXECUTION. Reggie Clemons is a 33 year old African American man sentenced to death in Missouri after an unfair trial by a jury that was biased in favor of execution. Reggie's case is filled with many injustices including police brutality, gross prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective trial counsel. Reggie who had no criminal record was 19 years old at the time of his arrest. His interest has been in human rights, mechanics, inventions and he was in the process of starting a small business. Reggie was sentenced to death for the 1991 murder of two young women who drowned after plunging from the Chain of Rocks Bridge into the Mississippi River. He was among a group of four young men (all teens except one) who encountered the victims and their cousin, Thomas Cummins on the Chain of Rocks Bridge. Even though the prosecutors conceded that Reggie neither pushed the women nor planned the crime, he was convicted on the theory that he was an accomplice. There was no physical evidence linking Reggie to the crime for which he received the death penalty, no fingerprints, no DNA, and no hair or fiber samples. The police first arrested Thomas Cummins for the crime. Cummins told the police that he had jumped from the bridge into the Mississippi River. But, Cummins had no injuries and his hair was clean, dry and neatly combed. The police and the Coast Guard doubted Cummins's story. The jump from the bridge to the river was 80 feet, and he would have landed in freezing water. Cummins failed a lie detector test and told police that the two women had fallen from the bridge as a result of an altercation that began after he made a sexual advance on one of them. The police arrested and charged Cummins with the murder of his cousins. Reggie was beaten by the police and coerced into making a false statement. He was denied an attorney. At Reggies arraignment, Judge Michael David noted that Reggie had suffered physical injury while in custody. The prosecutorial misconduct in Reggies case was so severe that the prosecutor was held in criminal contempt of court and fined for his conduct. A Federal Judge vacated Reggies death sentence in 2002 and noted that Nels Moss (Prosecutor) actions were abusive and brutish. However, the 8th Circuit Court overturned the Federal Judges ruling. And Reggie was put back on death row and now faces an execution date being set by the state of Missouri. Marlin Gray, one of the Chain of Rocks codefendants, was executed on October 27, 2005, at 12:07 AM, by the State of Missouri. For additional information about Reggies story and how you can help prevent another unjustified execution, visit his web site at www.justiceforreggie.com or contact Reggies mother at, Vera Thomas (Reggies mother) Justice for Reggie PO Box 210311 St. Louis, MO 63121 (314) 531-2422 Vjust123 at sbcglobal.net (source: Political Affairs) CONNECTICUT: Require Taped Confessions Although Richard Lapointe was convicted of murder 14 years ago, his case still sticks in the craw of the state's criminal justice system. And it argues for the tape recording of criminal confessions. A meek, awkward, mentally handicapped man with no history of violence, Mr. Lapointe was convicted of the brutal rape and murder of his wife's 88-year-old grandmother in Manchester in 1987. Mr. Lapointe was convicted by his confession. Manchester police, unable to solve the crime for two years, invited Mr. Lapointe to the station on July 4, 1989, and kept him there for almost 10 hours. He had no lawyer, and the interrogations weren't recorded. Over the course of the evening, Mr. Lapointe signed three confessions. 2 were absurd on their faces - in one he confessed but said he didn't remember committing the crime - and a 3rd was inconsistent with forensic evidence in the case, a Courant investigation found, and contained details almost certainly fed to him by police. With no witnesses nor any probative forensic evidence, it was the admission of guilt, such as it was, that did him in. A confession is a powerful tool. Jurors often don't believe that a person would confess to a crime he didn't commit. Yet, according to experts such as Richard Ofshe, professor emeritus at the University of California at Berkeley, false confessions happen all the time. An Illinois study found that coerced confessions were the leading cause of criminal convictions being overturned. Particularly vulnerable are mentally handicapped persons, who often wish to please authority figures. Alone, tired, wanting to go home, Mr. Lapointe might have confessed to the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand. Did Mr. Lapointe, who stared blankly out the window at his trial while his public defenders fought to stave off the death penalty, understand what he was doing when he confessed? Was he coerced? We would have a much better idea if the proceedings were recorded. Mr. Lapointe could very well be guilty, but his confession is suspect. For at least a decade, advocates have pushed for a law requiring that interrogations of suspects be recorded. There's a bill now before the General Assembly that would require any interrogation or statement by someone being investigated for a serious crime, Class B felony or above, to be electronically recorded when feasible. When a statement is not recorded, a defendant would be allowed to so inform the jury. Such a law would be fair to suspects, encourage sound interrogation techniques and protect police officers from false claims of abuse. A handful of other states and many local jurisdictions require taping. Connecticut should as well. (source: Editorial, Hartford Courant) USA: America doesn't resemble Founding Fathers' vision I feel as if I am living in a foreign land. When I was a young man, African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanics, homosexuals and women were looking forward to civil rights that reflected the promises of the Declaration of Independence. We were working for an America where truth and justice could truly be part of the American way. Sadly, that is all in the past. Fundamentalists are moving to dominate legislatures, the courts and education, as in Iran. Without warrant, the government may have access to my computer search-engine files and can bug my telephone, as in Red China. My government uses torture and imprisons aliens without writs of habeas corpus, as in Burma. Pre-emptive war and capital punishment are as acceptable here as they are in Pakistan. Cronyism and corruption are as common as they are in Russia and Syria. As in much of Latin America, taxation of the working poor supports the lavish life-style of the wealthy. As we claim to be striving against the powers of repression and terrorism, we look less like the nation our Founding Fathers envisioned in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and more like the nations we hope to change. J. Gordon Maule----Palmer Township (source: Letter to the Editor, The Morning Call) ******************* National Jury Center Reports 139 Death Sentences in 2005 The Capital Case Data Project of the American Judicature Society announced today that 139 people were sentenced to death in the United States in 2005. Of these, 125 were first-time death sentences, and 14 were imposed through new sentencing proceedings after appellate reversals. The largest ethnic representation was White - non-Hispanic (63), followed by Black (57), Hispanic (15), Asian (2) and American Indian (2). Only 5 of the death sentences were imposed on women, the same as in 2004. Almost 1/2 of those sentenced to death were multiple murderers (66 of 139), based on the fact that they were either convicted for multiple murders, or were otherwise proven to have committed multiple other murders closely connected with those for which they were convicted: 1 defendant killed nine people, 1 killed 6 victims, 7 killed 5, 8 killed 4, 17 killed 3, and 32 committed double murders. The largest number of death sentences was imposed in California (19). Also in double-digits were Florida (16), Texas (14 -- down significantly from 24 in 2004), and Alabama (11). Jurisdictions with from 5 and 9 death sentences were Pennsylvania (8), Arizona and Oklahoma (7), North Carolina, Ohio, and the federal government (6), and Georgia and South Carolina (5). Arkansas had 3 death sentences. Several jurisdictions had 2: Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Nevada, Tennessee, and the United States military. The 4 remaining jurisdictions had only 1 death sentence apiece: Kansas, Kentucky, Oregon, and Virginia. In 11 states with the death penalty, no death sentences were imposed in 2005: Colorado, Delaware, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. (There are 13 states do not have capital punishment: Alaska, Iowa, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New York (statute declared unconstitutional and not amended to cure), North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.) Drake University Law professor David McCord, director of the National Jury Center's Capital Case Data Project, said the figures were obtained by painstakingly comparing consecutive quarterly "Death Row USA" reports compiled by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (each listing the approximately 3,500 death-row inmates) name-by-name to find the new additions. Then news articles or personal contacts were found to verify that the sentence had, in fact, been imposed in 2005. Summaries of the facts of all 139 cases are available online at the American Judicature Society Web site: http://www.ajs.org/jc/death//jc_death.asp In reporting the figures, McCord noted the remarkable similarity between 2004 (figures for which the Capital Case Data Project had earlier made available at the same Web address), with the 2005 figures: "The figures are almost exact duplicates: 140 death sentences, including 14 re-sentences in 2004; 139 death sentences including 14 re-sentences in 2005." McCord added, "The official government tally - the annual 'Capital Punishment Report' of the Bureau of Justice Statistics for 2005 - will be made public much later this year. Unlike our report, however, it does not list death- sentenced inmates by name, does not include summaries of their cases, and does not include re-sentences in its total." --- Founded in 1913, AJS is a leader in improving the nation's courts. AJS, which brings a public perspective to justice system issues, has the mission to secure and promote an independent and qualified judiciary and a fair system of justice. For more information on AJS, visit the Web site at http://www.ajs.org. (source: US Newswire) ******************* A doctor rethinks the ethics of execution Dr. Atul Gawande, a surgeon at Brigham and Women's Hospital, wrote an article for The New England Journal of Medicine (edited excerpts below) in light of a US District Court ruling last month that an anesthesiologist must supervise an execution in California. Gawande, also an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and the Harvard School of Public Health, supported Bill Clinton's stance in favor of capital punishment when he worked on the president's 1992 election campaign. But the interviews he conducted in writing this piece changed his mind. He is ready to oppose capital punishment, he wrote, if lethal injections require the involvement of a doctor -- which he believes is unethical. For the full text of the article, go to http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/12/1221?query=TOC . States have affirmed that physicians and nurses -- including those who are prison employees -- have a right to refuse to participate in any way in executions. Yet they have found physicians and nurses who are willing to participate. Who are these people? And why do they do it? It is not easy to find answers to these questions. The medical personnel are difficult to identify and reluctant to discuss their roles, even when offered anonymity. Among the 15 medical professionals I located who have helped with executions, I found four physicians and one nurse who agreed to speak with me; collectively, they have helped with at least 45 executions. None were zealots for the death penalty, and none had a simple explanation for why they did this work. The role, most said, had crept up on them. Dr. A has helped with about eight executions in his state. He was extremely uncomfortable talking about the subject. Nonetheless, he sat down with me in a hotel lobby in a city not far from where he lives and told me his story. Almost 60 years old, he is board certified in internal medicine and critical care, and he and his family have lived in their small town for 30 years. He is well respected. Almost everyone of local standing comes to see him as their primary-care physician -- the bankers, his fellow doctors, the mayor. . . . Only one execution seemed to really bother him. The convict, who had killed a policeman, weighed about 350 pounds. The team placed his intravenous lines without trouble. But after they had given him all three injections, the prisoner's heart rhythm continued. The team looked to Dr. A. . . . He had agreed to take part in the executions simply to pronounce death, but just by being present, by having expertise, he had opened himself to being called on to do steadily more, to take responsibility for the execution itself. Perhaps he was not the executioner. But he was darn close to it. I asked him whether he had known that his actions -- everything from his monitoring the executions to helping officials with the process of delivering the drugs -- violated the ethics code of the American Medical Association, which has said since 1980 that participating in executions is a violation of core medical ethics. ''I never had any inkling," he said. And, indeed, the only survey done on this issue, in 1999, found that just 3 percent of doctors knew of any guidelines governing their participation in executions. . . . Dr. D is a 45-year-old emergency physician. He is also a volunteer medical director for a shelter for abused children. He works to reduce homelessness. He opposes the death penalty because he regards it as inhumane, immoral, and pointless. And he has participated in 6 executions so far. . . . ''We, as doctors, are not the ones deciding the fate of this individual," he said. ''The way I saw it, this is an end-of-life issue, just as with any other terminal disease. It just happens that it involves a legal process instead of a medical process. When we have a patient who can no longer survive his illness, we as physicians must ensure he has comfort. A death penalty patient is no different from a patient dying of cancer except his cancer is a court order." . . . The doctors' and nurse's arguments for competence and comfort in the execution process do have some force. But however much they may wish to be there for an inmate, it seems clear that the inmate is not really their patient. Unlike genuine patients, an inmate has no ability to refuse the physicians' ''care"; indeed, the inmate and his family are not even permitted to know the physician's identity. And the medical assistance provided primarily serves the government's purposes, not the inmate's needs as a patient. Medicine is being made an instrument of punishment. The hand of comfort that more gently places the IV, more carefully times the bolus of potassium, is also the hand of death. We cannot escape this truth. . . . It is this truth that persuades me that we should seek a legal ban on the participation of physicians and nurses in executions. And if it turns out that executions cannot then be performed without, as the courts put it, ''unconstitutional pain and cruelty," the death penalty should be abolished. It is far from clear that a society that punishes its most evil murderers with life imprisonment is worse off than one that punishes them with death. But a society in which the government actively subverts core ethical principles of medical practice is patently worse off for it. The government has shown willingness to use medical skills against individuals for its own purposes -- having medical personnel assist in the interrogation of prisoners, for example, place feeding tubes for force-feeding them, and help with executing them. As medical abilities advance, government interest in our skills will only increase. Preserving the integrity of our ethics could not be more important. The four physicians and the nurse I spoke to all acted against longstanding principles of their professions. Their actions have made our ethics codes effectively irrelevant in society. Yet, it must be said, most took their moral duties seriously. It is worth reflecting on this truth as well. Unlike Dr. D, who later allowed me to reveal his identity as Dr. Carlo Musso of Georgia, nearly all these doctors and nurses have sought to keep their actions hidden in order not to face the consequences. In the final analysis, I think this is what makes their actions seem particularly troubling. We cannot blame them for their impulse to hide. But we cannot admire them either. [source: Massachusetts Medical Society] (source: Boston Globe) ********************** Justices Review Prison Disciplinary Rules As states have gotten tougher on crime, prisons have cracked down on disruptive inmates by creating high-security segregation units with rules designed to cut off contact with the outside world. In Pennsylvania, prison officials want to put their most incorrigible inmates in solitary confinement and keep them from reading secular newspapers and magazines, or even possess personal photographs, for months and sometimes years. Lawyers for the state are asking the Supreme Court on Monday to reject a claim by inmate advocates who say access to reading material and photos cannot be used as an incentive for the state's most troublesome inmates to behave themselves. The key question is whether prison officials can transform constitutionally protected rights, such as freedom of speech, into privileges that can be taken away unless inmates do as they are told. The case's outcome could affect prison operations nationwide if the justices require state officials to prove that their policies serve legitimate security and rehabilitative interests inside prison walls. The Bush administration is siding with Pennsylvania, saying the state's policy deserves deference by the courts because it involves maintaining order in prisons. "It is a matter of common sense that withholding desirable inmate privileges - as a sanction for misbehavior - may deter prisoner misconduct and induce behavioral reform," Solicitor General Paul Clement told justices in a filing. But religious and civil liberties groups say fundamental rights are not mere privileges that can be granted or revoked at the whim of a prison official. Lawyers for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty worry that prison officials won't stop with newspapers but "declare open season on all constitutional rights" by one day possibly barring inmate access to the Bible. Pennsylvania prison officials allowed the 40 inmates held in the high-security disciplinary unit to have access to religious materials, two paperback books of general interest, their legal documents and letters from family. But newspapers, magazines and personal photographs were banned. "Although Pennsylvania exempts religious materials from its policy today, it may not do so tomorrow if it decides that withholding access to religious texts would enhance its leverage over prisoners," the Becket Fund lawyers wrote in a friend-of-the-court filing. The case also is significant because new Justice Samuel Alito won't participate in the arguments. Alito wrote the dissenting opinion - siding with Pennsylvania prison officials - in the case as a judge on the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In October 2001, Ronald Banks filed a civil rights lawsuit on behalf of himself and other inmates in the disciplinary unit, then located in Pittsburgh, after prison officials barred him from receiving his subscription to the Christian Science Monitor, a newspaper specializing in foreign affairs coverage. The appellate court's majority sided with Banks, ruling that prison officials had failed to show the policy had any effect on behavior or offer proof that inmates had misused newspapers and magazines to start fires or throw human feces at guards. The case is Beard v. Banks, 04-1739. On the Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----VA., ILL., CALIF., MO., USA
Rick Halperin Mon, 27 Mar 2006 16:07:11 -0600 (Central Standard Time)
