Aug. 18
CONNECTICUT:
Death penalty ended by judicial contrivance
Having determined 4 years ago that capital punishment was constitutional in
Connecticut, the state Supreme Court decided Thursday that it isn't
constitutional anymore, because of a law passed three years ago that repealed
capital punishment for new offenses while confirming the death sentences
already pending.
The court found last week that the new law signified a consensus in society
that capital punishment is indecent and that this makes the pending death
sentences "cruel and unusual" and thus unconstitutional.
No all-star first baseman ever accomplished such a stretch.
In fact the new law was a political compromise recognizing that there was no
consensus against capital punishment in Connecticut - that, as polls long have
shown and as the court recognized 4 years ago, most people support capital
punishment in general; that even more support it in regard to the 11 murderers
whose death sentences were pending and whose guilt was unquestioned; that many
people regret the expense incurred by the long appeals of death sentences; that
many people fear that death sentences might be imposed mistakenly in the
future; and that opinion so favors capital punishment that repeal could be
arranged only by splitting the difference.
As Gov. Dannel Malloy put it 3 years ago: "Any legislation I would sign would
be prospective -- out into the future." The governor even "guaranteed" that any
repeal of capital punishment would not affect death sentences imposed for the
murder of the Petit family in Cheshire, an atrocity that shook the state.
A similar "guarantee" was offered by legislators advocating the repeal
legislation, like then-Sen. Edward Meyer, D-Guilford, who said: "It doesn't
affect the 11 inmates who are on death row right now." Then-Sen. Edith Prague,
D-Columbia, said she would not support repeal if it saved the perpetrators of
the Cheshire atrocity.
Chief State's Attorney Kevin Kane knew better. He warned the legislature that
the state Supreme Court would use any "prospective" repeal of capital
punishment to undo all the pending death sentences as well. Indeed, that seemed
to be the secret hope of many of the legislation's advocates -- that they could
pretend to their constituents to be keeping the pending death sentences and the
Supreme Court would take the responsibility for getting rid of them.
Writing for the court's 4 to 3 majority, Justice Richard Palmer acknowledged
suspicion that such deception was the strategy of the repealers all along.
Palmer even argued that the governor and legislators didn't really mean the
assurances they gave the state about splitting the difference, that they really
were part of the supposed consensus against capital punishment in all
circumstances, including the circumstances in which the governor and
legislators were assuring the state that death sentences would be imposed.
That was enough to cause the court's majority to invoke the constitutional
doctrine most loved by judicial supremacists -- that "evolving standards of
decency" allow courts to rewrite constitutions without benefit of public
participation, so that, for example, a constitution that explicitly recognizes
capital punishment, as Connecticut's does, can be cleansed of it by applying a
phrase, "cruel and usual," that doesn't appear in that constitution but rather
in the federal constitution, though the latter's arbiter, the U.S. Supreme
Court, construes the phrase not to forbid capital punishment.
Judicial imperialism as it is, Thursday's decision was no surprise. For 30
years Connecticut's Supreme Court has been a "results-oriented" court, a court
that first chooses the policy it favors and then contrives a judicial rationale
for it, the facts of the case, the law, and precedent notwithstanding. The only
real change here since the court upheld capital punishment 4 years ago has been
in the court's own composition -- the addition of another liberal justice, the
former state senator and Malloy aide Andrew J. McDonald.
(source: Commentary; Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in
Manchester, Conn.)
NORTH CAROLINA:
On death penalty drugs, what does NC have to hide?
North Carolina has taken measures to gut the transparency of its execution
process. Gov. Pat McCrory has signed into law HB 774, which classifies
information on the manufacturers of lethal drugs and removes a requirement that
the public be allowed to review and comment on proposed execution protocols.
This makes it impossible for citizens, experts and the media to obtain basic
information about the state's process of executing prisoners. By cutting off
public access to this information, North Carolina has shrouded in secrecy the
implementation of the most serious punishment a state can impose.
The death penalty is not at issue in this controversy. The new law will not end
North Carolina's de facto moratorium on executions. Rather, it will extend
litigation, create difficult legal questions and increase delays. For death
penalty supporters, HB 774 is not the solution to resuming executions. It
instead restricts accountability and transparency, allowing the government to
hide basic information for no good reason.
The secretary of the Department of Public Safety, an unelected official, now
has sole authority to choose execution procedures, unanswerable to public
concerns.
Public notice and comment have long been a crucial part of policymaking in the
federal and state governments. They provide a safeguard to ensure policies are
fair, effective and constitutional, even on the most mundane topics such as
driver's license registration. Yet, for execution procedures, North Carolinians
now have no opportunity to offer opinions before these protocols go into
effect.
The foundation of our constitutional republic lies in accountability and
transparency, enabling American citizens to learn and debate about policy. Yet
citizens cannot engage in robust conversations when basic information is
hidden. The media, experts and the public can no longer serve as effective
monitors of government activity on this important issue.
Both supporters and opponents of the death penalty should be outraged. Until
now, public access to this information has been considered a basic and crucial
part of policymaking, not a harmful release of confidential data. Such secrecy
has no place in a democracy, especially not for actions as irreversible as
executions.
Concerns about these new limits to transparency are not just theoretical. A
lack of public awareness of execution protocols could pave the way for lax
regulations. In 2010, Arizona obtained lethal drugs from a company operating
out of the back of a West London driving school. Other states have acquired
lethal drugs from pharmacies that combine or alter ingredients, resulting in
drugs not approved by the FDA. In some states, those being executed have
struggled, apparently in pain or unable to breathe, because of the kinds of
drugs used.
Regardless of our views on the death penalty, Americans must maintain a
principled approach to its implementation. The standard ought to be the U.S.
Constitution, which mandates the government impose no cruel and unusual
punishments. As long as states implement the death penalty, we must ensure they
follow this constitutional standard.
The Constitution Project's Death Penalty Committee, in its recent report
"Irreversible Error," offered recommendations to prevent errors in the
administration of capital punishment. They called for jurisdictions to act
transparently in developing execution protocols, requiring some minimal
safeguards. HB 774 completely eliminates several of these safeguards, making it
difficult to ensure an aspect of state government functions fairly and
constitutionally. North Carolinians should be asking themselves, "What does our
government have to hide?"
(source: Op-Ed; Mark White is a former governor of Texas, having previously
served as the state???s attorney general. Gerald Kogan is a former chief
justice of the Florida Supreme Court. They are co-chairs of the Constitution
Project Death Penalty Committee----News & Observer)
LOUISIANA:
No A/C for death row inmates at Angola: decision made final, barring another
appeal
Death row inmates at Louisiana State Penitentiary who claimed in a federal
lawsuit that triple-digit temperatures inside their cells at Angola amounts to
cruel and unusual punishment have been denied a rehearing of their case.
The decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals not to re-examine the
case, which was handed down Friday (Aug. 14), upheld a decision delivered July
8 by a three-judge 5th Circuit panel. The July 8 decision found heat indices
reaching up to 108 inside the inmates' cells did, in fact, violate the Eighth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. However, the panel explained in its July 8
decision, the prison should not be required to install air-conditioning on
death row to remedy the violation.
U.S. District Judge Brian Jackson had earlier ruled the conditions were
unconstitutional and ordered the state to create and implement a plan, which
included air conditioning, for cooling off death row.
The state appealed Jackson's decision, but in the meantime, a plan was drafted.
Death row tiers, built in 2008, are only heated and ventilated. The plan would
have also provided inmate with chests filled with ice and allowed them daily
cold showers. An appeals court intervened on behalf of the state before the
prison ever put the plans in place, halting the implementation with an
injunction while agreeing to take a look at the case.
The 5th Circuit on July 8 offered a few reasons why installing air conditioning
on death row would have gone too far to provide relief for the plaintiffs. Air
conditioning would be available year-round, when temperatures were often not
extreme; it would cool off inmates who didn't have medical conditions worsened
by heat; and air conditioning "of course is expensive."
Attorneys for the inmates argued in their request for a rehearing that
Jackson's order for air conditioning was less intrusive -- and involved more
micromanaging -- than the remedies suggested by the panel.
The 3 inmates who filed suit, Nathaniel Code, 57; Elzie Ball, 60; James Magee,
35, all have medical conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension, that can be
exacerbated by high heat.
It's unclear, the inmates' attorney Mercedes Montagnes indicated, whether or
not the inmates will appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"We...have not yet decided our next step," she said in an emailed statement.
(source: The Times-Picayune)
OHIO:
Anthony Sowell, 'Killer Instinct': 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know
Anthony Edward Sowell, born in August, 1959, is currently sitting on death row
for the murders of 11 women over the span of several years in Cleveland, Ohio.
Sowell's murderous rampage will be detailed in the new Discover ID series
Killer Instinct With Chris Hansen, debuting on Monday night at 10 p.m.
Here's what you need to know about the man they called The Cleveland Strangler:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Sowell Was Known as the 'Cleveland Strangler' in the Press
The serial killer earned the notorious nickname in local media reports after he
was arrested in October 2009 as a suspect in the murders of 11 women whose
bodies were discovered at his duplex home.
Sowell was first discovered in September 2009 when he invited a woman to his
home for a drink. She reported that after a few drinks Sowell grew angry and
started to hit her, choke her and raped her. When police arrived at his home on
October 29 with a warrant for the alleged rape, they found 2 bodies on the
living room floor. 4 other bodies were eventually found throughout the home and
authorities began searching for other victims.
By the end of the investigation, police had found 11 bodies, including a human
skull, inside and around the house. Sowell had been living in the duplex for 4
years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. He Was Charged With 11 Counts of Murder, Rape & Kidnappin
Sowell was arrested in 2009 and was charged with 11 counts of murder, rape and
kidnapping, held on $6 million bond. After nearly half a dozen delays, Sowell's
trial did not begin until June 6, 2011 and he plead not guilty by reason of
insanity.
On July 22, 2011 Sowell was convicted on all but two counts against him,
including the murders of the 11 women whose bodies were found in his house. On
August 10, jurors recommended the death penalty and Judge Dick Ambrose upheld
the decision. The family members of many of Sowell's victims also supported the
verdict, as Adlean Atterberry, mother of victim Michelle Mason said:
Sowell requested a change to his sentence in 2013, suggesting that he did not
receive a fair trial based on the extensive media coverage of the murders. The
request was denied and Sowell is currently on death row at Chilicothe
Correctional Institution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Sowell Grew up in East Cleveland With His Mother, Claudia 'Gertude' Garrison
Sowell was born and raised in East Cleveland, 1 of 7 children born to Claudia
"Gertrude" Garrison, who worked a single mother. The house was jam-packed with
7 other children, Sowell's cousins, living there after their mother passed
away.
It was not a good place to live. According to Sowell's niece, Garrison
regularly abused the siblings while her own children watched near by. While
testifying during Sowell's trial, that same niece, told the Cuyahoga County
court that he had begun raping her when he was just 11 years old.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. He Entered the Marine Corps at 19 Years Old
Sowell entered the United States Marine Corps in January, 1978, attending
recruit training at Depot Parris Island in South Carolina. There, he worked and
trained as an electrician before moving to Camp Lejeune in North Carolina.
Sowell entered the Corps shortly after his daughter was born.
On July 13, 1978 Sowell was assigned to the 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing at the
Marine Corps Air State in Cherry Point, North Carolina. Sowell spent a year in
North Carolina and then served overseas in Okinawa, Japan. He spent 7 years in
the Marine Corps and received a Good Conduct Medal with 1 service star, a Sea
Service Deployment Ribbon, a Certificate of Commendation, a Meritorious Mast
and 2 Letters of Appreciation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Sowell Released a Letter Through the Website 'Serial Killers Ink' in 2012
In November 2012, shortly after the release of 2 books chronicling his killing
sprees, Sowell released a self-penned letter through the website Serial killers
ink. He wrote to the people of Cleveland and rallied against trial judge Tim
McGinty.
Sowell also wrote about his art work, which he drew while on death row, and the
sale of his work. The letter was actually posted with a pencil drawing of 11
tombstones but Sowell made sure to point out that he did not profit from the
sale, writing:
Frist [sic] let me say that I give out artwork to you and others all the time.
I'm not breaking any laws and I will keep on sending out letters, artwork, and
photo's [sic]. I'm not being paid for them, they have nothing to do with my
case and what ever people do with them is up to them.
The drawing was eventually purchased by Philadelphia businessman Paul Duffy for
$225.
(source: heavy.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
