May 15
ALABAMA:
With Vernon Madison's execution in limbo, are Christians conflicted over the
death penalty?
How do we, as Christians, reconcile the death penalty with "Thou shalt not
kill"?
I may be living in the very worst part of the country to bring this up - or
maybe, in truth, this is the best place to do it, so what the heck.
Many of us don't even try to reconcile the 2 seemingly diametrically opposing
forces. We simply site the sixth commandment, and that's pretty much that":
Thou shalt not kill. Period.
But then something heinous happens. An innocent child is murdered, or an entire
family. Or a cop. Or any number of crimes that cause us to, well, reveal our
humanness and want to see the perpetrator PUNISHED.
To some of us, even Christians, that means: They don't deserve to live.
But it's typically pretty easy to simply avoid the conversation altogether.
Sure, crime dominates the headlines but as the accused perpetrators wind their
way through the byzantine criminal justice system, the names, faces and
allegations fade from the headlines and our consciousness.
But then something happens. The state - which is us, really - schedules an
execution. Years after the crime. Years after the initial trial, after the
appeals and motions have been exhausted, someone is scheduled to be put to
death.
And then we have to think...Is this right?
Alabama, of course, is 1 of 31 states executing people right now. Right now,
we're trying to execute death row inmate Vernon Madison for the slaying 31
years ago of Mobile police Cpl. Julius Schulte. We (yes, I am saying 'we" for a
reason) wanted to do so by lethal injection on Thursday night at 6 p.m. at the
Holman Correctional Facility near Atmore. But a federal appeals court granted a
stay on Thursday morning, and late Thursday evening the Anthony Scalia-less
United States Supreme Court, in a 4-4 decision, denied the state's attorney
general's request to carry forth the killing.
As the events surrounding the killing unfolded yesterday, it caused me to
re-ponder and ultimately reaffirm my own view on the death penalty: I'm against
it, period.
Oh, I haven't always been against it, unequivocally. I've been human. I've
thought some perpetrators of heinous crimes were wasting precious air on this
Earth. But as I've grown and strived to live more as Christians are asked to
live - emphasis on strived; Lord knows I'm far from there - I come around to
believe the sixth commandment says what it says.
There is no asterisk, allowing for killing in some circumstances.
Now, some open their Bibles and cite the Mosiac Law of the Israelites' justice
system noted in the Old Testament as justification for the death penalty:
But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye,
tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound,
bruise for bruise. Exodus 21: 23-25
"We should not be about the business of taking lives." Rev. Van Moody, pastor,
The Worship Center
I'm no Biblical scholar, not by any means, so I reached out to a minister
friend for some clarity. She says it is a misuse of that scripture to justify
the death penalty because it was written before Jesus came along and, in the
parable of the Unmerciful Servant, charged Peter (and, by extension, all
Christians) to forgive...and forgive...and forgive....and ...
Then Peter came to Jesus and asked, "Lord, how many times shall I forgive my
brother or sister who sins against me? Up to 7 times?" Jesus answered, "I tell
you, not 7 times, but 77 times. Matthew 18: 21-22 (NIV)
"We should not be participating in [the death penalty] because we are supposed
to turning other cheek," the minister says. "Yes, the [perpetrator] should be
jailed, pay their debt back to society or somehow make amends. But we are
supposed to forgive 7 times 77 times a day - 7 means completion, so it means
absolute forgiveness."
Rev. Van Moody, pastor of The Worship Center, says it is frustrating that many
Christians, especially in these divisive times, are selective when it comes to
how their faith shapes their views on society's hot-button issues, such as
abortion and the death penalty.
"What breaks my heart about the Christian position on issues is that we pick
and choose how to apply our faith," he told me. "Gandhi said he likes Christ
but not Christians because so they're so unlike Christ. We're selective on
which scriptures we want to follow and which we want to ignore.
"Regarding the death penalty, the biggest issue some Christians grapple with is
that God loves all people, even those who commit mass atrocities."
He cites 3 pertinent scriptures:
Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and
saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said unto him,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and
with all thy mind. This is the 1st and great commandment. And the 2nd is like
unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these 2 commandments hang
all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22: 35-40 (KJV)
A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must
love one another. 35 By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if
you love one another. John 13: 34-35 (NIV)
My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. John 15:12 (NIV)
"We should not be about the business of taking lives," Moody says.
My heart wrenches for the living victims of the murders that seemingly flood
our site every day. We should never stop praying for them, their healing -
especially so after the original crime slips from the headlines and our
consciousness.
Almost a year ago, the families of the victims the horrific murders of 7
members of the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston during a prayer meeting and
Bible study, just 2 days after the event, told the gunman, 21-year-old Dylann
Roof, they had forgiven him. "I forgive you. My family forgives you," said 1
family member, a sentiment that was repeated by a representative of each of the
victims' families as Roof watched via video from jail.
I heard many people, some of them Christians, say they would not be able to
forgive Roof, and that they could not fathom how the victims' families could do
so.
I can.
(source: Column, Roy S. Johnson, al.com)
KANSAS:
Kansas GOP rejects death penalty platform plank
Kansas Republicans have rejected a proposal to add a statement expressing
support for capital punishment to the state party's platform.
The GOP State Committee on Saturday voted 90-75 against adding the language
before approving the platform for the next 2 years. The platform continues to
express opposition to abortion and gay marriage and strong support for gun
rights.
The platform as adopted does not mention the death penalty.
Republican activist Jeffrey Locke of Satanta proposed the pro-death penalty
language. He said he supports capital punishment because doing so shows support
for murder victims.
Some GOP activists said leaving the language out allows Republican candidates
to stake out their own positions. But former Kansas College Republicans
President Dalton Glasscock said opposition to capital punishment is consistent
with the party's anti-abortion stance.
The Kansas Republican Party is endorsing the ouster of 4 state Supreme Court
justices in the November election.
The GOP's State Committee approved a resolution Saturday urging voters not to
retain Chief Justice Lawton Nuss and Justices Carol Beier, Dan Biles and Marla
Luckert. State Chairman Kelly Arnold said the party "definitely" will promote
the idea.
Many Republicans are upset with the court over rulings on public school funding
and decisions reversing death sentences in capital murder cases. Voters will
decide in November whether to retain five of the seven justices for another six
years.
The only justice not mentioned in the resolution is Caleb Stegall. He was
appointed by conservative Republican Gov. Sam Brownback.
The others were appointed by Democratic Gov. Kathleen Sebelius or moderate GOP
Gov. Bill Graves.
(source: heraldonline.com)
UTAH:
Murder defense challenges Utah law's constitutionality
A defendant in a St. George murder case is arguing that Utah's homicide laws
violate the U.S. Constitution's equal protection guarantees as well as the
state Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment in law for defendants who
face accusations so similar that they are deemed parallel situations.
The defense for Brandon Perry Smith, 34, states in a memorandum filed in 5th
District court last month that the constitutionality of the law, sponsored 7
years ago in the Senate by St. George legislator Stephen Urquhart, must be
determined before a trial scheduled in October so that instructions to the jury
can be crafted appropriately.
The prosecution filed a memorandum last week arguing Utah's law is
constitutional and is similar in purpose to a New York law that was upheld by
the U.S. Supreme Court in 1977.
Smith is accused of killing Leeds resident Jerrica Christensen during a grisly
middle-of-the-night incident Dec. 11, 2010, in St. George. Smith's
co-defendant, Paul Clifford Ashton, was convicted 3 years ago of killing St.
George resident Brandie Sue Dawn Jerden and attempting to kill St. George
resident James Fiske during the same incident.
Judge G. Michael Westfall has scheduled a 10-day trial in Smith's case
beginning Oct. 17 and set a July 1 deadline for filing any remaining motions.
Smith's attorney, Gary Pendleton, has argued in prior court proceedings that
the evidence shows Ashton called on Smith, his friend, for help in defending
himself against a perceived threat and then manipulated or coerced Smith into
becoming involved in Ashton's scheme to kill people who were at his 600 South
home.
Pendleton's arguments about the constitutionality of Utah's criminal laws
target how a defendant might approach a jury with a potential excuse or
justification for killing someone that could potentially lessen the sentencing
penalty - something Urquhart described as the "yeah but" defense while
presenting Senate Bill 85 to the House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice
Committee.
SB-85 became the foundation of state law that changed the way "extreme
emotional distress" is dealt with as a defense during a trial.
"Prior to 2009, when the evidence could be interpreted to support the accused's
contention that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional distress, the
accused was entitled to a manslaughter (jury) instruction" as a possible
alternative, Pendleton wrote, adding that the prosecution was then required to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act under the
alleged emotional distress.
But after the law changed, the Legislature shifted the responsibility to the
defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant acted under
extreme emotional distress.
"And so that is my burden to say "yeah but - I committed the crime but you
should take some other factors into consideration to drop my sentence,"
Urquhart explained during Senate floor debate about the bill on Feb. 9, 2009,
according to a transcript of the hearing provided to the court.
The Washington County Attorney's Office initially intended to seek the death
penalty if Smith is found guilty at trial, but in February announced an
agreement to stop pursuing the death penalty and instead seek up to life in
prison if Smith is convicted.
That decision was applauded by Christensen's mother, who said she asked for the
change in order to bring a more speedy resolution to the years-long case. But
the defense's latest motion is part of a continuing effort to establish the
degree of "manipulation" Smith experienced and "the whole nightmare that it
presented for him" when the case goes to trial, Pendleton said.
Pendleton argues that prior to 2009, an "extreme emotional distress" defense
and other mitigating circumstances such as those who claim they acted in
self-defense but were found to have done so illegally, were handled similarly
as potential causes for pleading for a more lenient sentence than originally
contemplated.
Pendleton states the new law is unconstitutional because it no longer treats
defendants who are "imilarly situated" in a similar fashion - in other words,
someone claiming they acted in self-defense would put the prosecution in the
position of trying to prove that the self-defense claim is false or mistaken,
while an emotional distress claim requires the defense to prove its own mental
state.
"This change in Utah law has resulted in disparate treatment of those
defendants who assert ... (they were) thrust into circumstances involving
unusual and overwhelming external stressors. The viability of both defenses is
judged based upon an objective assessment of the defendant's reaction to these
external stressors,' Pendleton wrote in his memorandum.
While legislators clearly intended to shift the burden of proof to the
defendant in emotional distress cases, "the sponsors of Senate Bill 85 seem to
have been unaware of the fact that they were creating a disparity," Pendleton
wrote.
Washington County Attorney Brock Belnap argues that the change in the law
didn't create an unconstitutional disparity in how similarly situated suspects
are treated and the court should deny the defense's motion.
Belnap's memorandum cites the same 3 cases Pendleton relies on for his primary
argument and agrees that the mitigating "emotional distress" and "imperfect
self-defense" claims were once regarded similarly under state law.
But Belnap argues defendants making the 2 different types of claims are not
"similarly situated," and that the Legislature recognized the difference,
drawing on the New York Supreme Court case, when it made the change in who
bears the burden of proving the arguments in 2009.
"A person who murders someone after a loss of self-control caused by extreme
emotional distress is not similarly situated to someone who mistakenly believes
they are acting in self-defense. The underlying facts might occasionally
overlap - but the statutes address different scenarios," Belnap wrote.
"Imperfect self-defense and mental illness delusion both require the defendant
to argue that the actions came under a mistaken belief of legal justification,"
he wrote. "In contrast, extreme emotional distress does not depend upon a
defendant's mistaken belief about legal justification; rather, it depends upon
whether 'the average reasonable person under the same circumstances [would]
experience a loss of self-control and be overborne by intense feelings.'"
If the court does find that the law is unconstitutional, the court must find
that the entire statute is faulty rather than trying to selectively correct it
or restore it to its former status, Belnap concludes.
"The judiciary has no mechanism to rewrite the statute to reinstate a defense
which the legislature has repealed," he wrote.
The court has not yet announced a date for a decision on the motion or further
in-court arguments.
(source: The Spectrum)
CALIFORNIA:
Scot facing death row for killing parents opts for 'military trauma' defence
A Scottish-born army veteran accused of killing his parents will try to save
himself from execution in America by arguing that he is severely traumatised
after fighting in Iraq for the United States.
Derek Connell, from Glasgow, has pleaded not guilty to 2 counts of 1st-degree
murder after being charged with murdering his mother and stepfather in the US.
Police in Bakersfield, California, found the bodies of Kim and Christopher
Higginbotham shot dead in their home on April 30 and arrested Connell as he was
seen leaving the property.
Connell, is also alleged to have taken a video of their dead bodies on his
mobile phone and sent it to a relative, reportedly his aunt who still lives in
Scotland.
Police say Connell confessed to the killings but has pleaded not guilty to two
counts of first degree murder as he is suffering from post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD), after being stationed in the Gulf for more than two years with
a US army platoon.
Last night, officials from the Kern County district attorney's office in
California, which is prosecuting the case, told the Sunday Herald that the
allegation of "multiple murders" made Connell eligible for the death penalty.
Deputy district attorney Arthur Norris stated that he "did not rule" out the
possibility of capital punishment being an option if Connell is found guilty.
However, Connell's defence team will mount a defence around PTSD. They say
Connell suffers PTSD brought on by traumatic and harrowing combat experiences
during his military service in the Gulf.
It will be claimed that Connell suffers from blackouts and self medicates with
large amounts of alcohol, after which he does know know what has happened and
often begins to panic.
His lawyer Paul Cadman, is expected to draw heavily on Connell's time as a
combat soldier and his service in a frontline US army platoon in Baghdad and
Fallujah between 2007 and 2009, a period that saw some of the fiercest fighting
in the conflict.
Cadman is understood to be preparing his case around a claim that Connell was
traumatised by the experience that included the period known as "the surge"
when the then US President George W Bush ordered the deployment of more than
20,000 soldiers into Iraq.
The case aimed at saving Connell from being executed will highlight incidences
of him seeing fellow troops killed during bloody battles in Baghdad and
Fallujah, as well as himself killing Iraqi insurgents in combat situations.
Cadman, a high profile criminal lawyer in California, will use a defence
similar to one he employed during a notorious high school shooting at Taft
Union High School in Kern County, that saw 16-year-old Bryan Oliver, who walked
into a classroom and shot at 2 students in January 2013, avoid a life sentence
without parole.
Public defence attorney Cadman used a diminished responsibility defence to
argue that Oliver was pushed to violence because he was tormented by bullies at
school, which saw the teenager instead jailed with the possibility of parole
after 13 years rather than the whole life-term sought by prosecutors.
Cadman is understood to be planning to mount a "traumatic disorder defence" for
Connell, with the principle aim of staving off the death penalty, which remains
a legal option in California.
Cadman will argue that Connell, who won campaign medals for service in Iraq as
well as taking part in a tour of duty of Afghanistan, has struggled to adjust
to civilian life and has been scarred by wartime experiences, particularly
deaths he witnessed in frontline combat.
During an initial hearing, Cadman said the failure of authorities to provide
his client with proper medical treatment was the 'root' of the double murder
case.
"Derek Connell is a highly decorated Iraq war veteran whose experiences in Iraq
caused him all kinds of medical and mental conditions," he said.
The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs failed to get Connell the help he
needed upon his return, the attorney claimed.
Connell was born in Rutherglen Maternity Hospital and lived with his mother in
Shawlands on Glasgow's south side as a child, although no details of his father
were listed on his birth certificate.
His mother worked as a secretary in Glasgow and met her future husband while he
was stationed with the US Navy in Scotland.
She moved with her son to be Higginbotham when he went back to America more
than 20 years ago and the family settled in California.
Connell, who worked in the oil industry after leaving the US army, has spent
most of his life in America, where he attended high school.
He will face a preliminary court hearing on July 26. However, his trial is
unlikely to start until for at least a year.
Sources close to Connell's legal team have said that he is "in shock" and is on
suicide watch at the Kern County Central Receiving Facility, where inmates are
often held during their initial appearances. He is likely to be moved to Lerdo
County Jail within the next few months.
Deputy district attorney Norris said that the murder charges were aggravated by
the alleged use of a firearm, as he set out what is likely to be a protracted
legal process facing Connell.
Naomi McAuliffe, Amnesty International's Scotland programme director issued
called on prosecutors to rule out the use of the death penalty in light of
Connell's post-traumatic stress disorder.
She said:"If Derek Connell is found to be suffering from mental illness, it is
worth noting that executing people with mental illness is clearly prohibited by
international law but the US has executed dozens of prisoners known to be
suffering from severe mental illness."
Meanwhile,a Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesman added: "We are in contact
with local authorities following the detention of a British man in connection
with a murder case in Bakersfield, California."
(source: heraldscotland.com)
USA:
Pfizer v. Lethal Injections----The pharmaceutical giant imposes new controls to
prevent its drugs from being used in executions.
Pfizer said Friday it would impose stringent controls on distributors to block
its drugs from use in lethal injections, underscoring the pharmaceutical
industry's consensus against participation in the death penalty amid a
nationwide shortage in execution drugs.
"Pfizer makes its products to enhance and save the lives of the patients we
serve," the pharmaceutical giant's updated policy said. "Consistent with these
values, Pfizer strongly objects to the use of its products as lethal injections
for capital punishment."
The new policy's impact on future executions will be difficult to measure. Many
states with capital punishment have also enacted laws that shield the
identities of execution-drug providers, making those drugs' origins hard to
trace. It is also unclear when or how often Pfizer-manufactured drugs have been
used in U.S. executions.
But Pfizer's move adds new barriers as states struggle to find reliable
suppliers of execution drugs. Maya Foa, executive director of Reprieve, a
U.K.-based human-rights organization, said in a statement that Pfizer's move
means "all FDA-approved manufacturers of all execution drugs have spoken out
against the misuse of medicines in lethal injections and taken steps to prevent
it."
A Pfizer spokesperson said the company opposed the use of its drugs in lethal
injections before today's update. An earlier version of its policy on capital
punishment took a less forceful stance on the issue than Friday's update,
insisting that "efforts to influence policy" were better directed towards
legislators and public officials.
"Our distribution plan, which restricts the sale of these 7 products for
unintended uses, implements our publicly stated position against improper use
of our products and, most importantly, doesn't stand in the way of patient
access to these critical medications," an October 2015 version of the policy
stated.
"However, due to the complex supply chain and the gray market in the United
States, despite our efforts, Pfizer cannot guarantee that a U.S. prison could
not secure restricted products through other channels not under Pfizer's
control," it cautioned.
The updated policy includes neither the redirection towards lawmakers nor the
hedging of its own ability to control the supply chain. Instead, it outlined
the company's efforts to regulate the distribution of key lethal-injection
drugs.
Pfizer's distribution restriction limits the sale of these seven products to a
select group of wholesalers, distributors, and direct purchasers under the
condition that they will not resell these products to correctional institutions
for use in lethal injections. Government purchasing entities must certify that
products they purchase or otherwise acquire are used only for medically
prescribed patient care and not for any penal purposes. Pfizer further requires
that these Government purchasers certify that the product is for "own use" and
will not resell or otherwise provide the restricted products to any other
party.
Pfizer will consistently monitor the distribution of these 7 products, act upon
findings that reveal noncompliance, and modify policies when necessary to
remain consistent with our stated position against the improper use of our
products in lethal injections. Importantly, this distribution system is also
designed to ensure that these critical medications will remain immediately
available to those patients who rely on them every day.
States rely on a small collection of drugs to perform lethal injections,
typically administered in 1-drug or 3-drug cocktails. Pfizer manufactures 7 of
them: the sedatives propofol, midazolam, and hydromorphone, the muscle relaxant
pancuronium bromide and 2 variants of it, and potassium chloride, which is used
to stop the inmate's heart.
Until recently, the standard method of lethal injection used sodium thiopental,
a sedative, followed by a muscle relaxant and then potassium chloride. In 2007,
the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the sodium thiopental cocktail's
constitutionality in Baze v. Rees. In recent years, death-penalty opponents
began pressuring drug manufacturers to stop selling it and other key drugs to
U.S. prisons for executions. The European Union imposed an export ban on drugs
for lethal injections to the U.S. in 2011.
With major pharmaceutical companies off limits and supplies dwindling, states
turned to alternative, "grey market" sources instead. Multiple state
departments of corrections purchased lethal-injection drugs from unlicensed
suppliers in Britain and India, including 1 provider based in a single office
above a driving academy. Both the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Food and Drug
Administration have repeatedly seized unlicensed imports of lethal-injection
drugs from states over the past 3 years.
States have also relied on clandestine domestic outlets to obtain the drugs,
including compounding pharmacies with less stringent regulations. The
Apothecary Shoppe, a compounding pharmacy in Oklahoma, secretly manufactured
drugs for at least 3 executions in Missouri in 2013 and 2014, a BuzzFeed
investigation found. The pharmacy shut down earlier this year after state and
federal investigators found thousands of regulatory violations.
Another compounding pharmacy also provided the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections with the midazolam used in the botched execution of Clayton Lockett
on April 29, 2014. Lockett's death triggered a legal battle by other inmates
that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court last year, where the justices
upheld the use of the controversial sedative midazolam by a 5-4 vote in Glossip
v. Gross.
Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, accused
capital-punishment foes of waging a "guerrilla war against the death penalty"
during oral arguments. In a lengthy dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer urged the
Court to reconsider the constitutionality of the death penalty itself.
(source: The Atlantic)
_______________________________________________
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
