November 1
MISSOURI:
Argument preview: Justices to consider another lethal-injection challenge, this
time by inmate with complicated medical history
Next week the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Russell
Bucklew, a Missouri death-row inmate who argues that the state's plan to
execute him by lethal injection violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and
unusual punishment because he suffers from a rare medical condition that could
lead to his gagging on his own blood.
When it was first adopted as a method of execution in the late 1970s, lethal
injection was envisioned as a more humane alternative to other methods - such
as the gas chamber, firing squad or hanging - that states had previously used.
The idea was that the condemned inmate would peacefully drift off to sleep
after receiving a series of drugs designed to anesthetize and then kill him.
But since then, inmates have challenged lethal injections as a violation of the
Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, pointing to a series of
botched executions that sometimes lasted over an hour and left inmates gasping
for breath. They have also raised concerns about the drugs used in executions
and the secrecy surrounding some states' plans for lethal injections.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected challenges to lethal injection. But
now comes Bucklew, who argues that - whatever you think of lethal injection
generally - it would be unconstitutional to execute him specifically by lethal
injection because of the likelihood that he will suffer a gruesome death.
Bucklew was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Michael Sanders, along
with the kidnapping and rape of Bucklew's former girlfriend, Stephanie Ray; a
state trooper was also wounded in a shootout before Bucklew was taken into
custody. Bucklew suffers from an extremely rare disease, known as cavernous
hemangioma, that has caused "unstable, blood-filled tumors to grow in his head,
neck, and throat." He contends that, if he has trouble breathing when the
execution begins, the tumor in his throat could rupture, filling his mouth and
airway with blood and causing his execution to be "painful far beyond the pain
inherent in the process of an ordinary lethal injection."
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit rejected Bucklew's challenges to
the plan to execute him by lethal injection, but earlier this year the Supreme
Court agreed to put Bucklew’s execution on hold while it considers his appeal.
Bucklew argues that the 8th Circuit's decision got it wrong in several ways.
First, he contends, the court of appeals was wrong to assume that Bucklew's
execution will go smoothly when the whole point of Bucklew's challenge is that,
even if all goes according to plan, Bucklew's medical problems mean that
execution by lethal injection will likely cause him agonizing pain.
The state pushes back, expressing skepticism about how serious Bucklew's
cavernous hemangioma actually is: It notes that a "growth near his airway
shrunk nearly 10 % between 2010 and 2016," and it accuses Bucklew of repeatedly
changing his story about the different things that could go wrong if the state
were to try to execute him by lethal injection.
The state stresses that Bucklew has not provided any evidence showing that he
is "sure or very likely" to suffer serious pain as a result of lethal
injection. To the contrary, it emphasizes, the lone drug that the state uses in
its lethal-injection protocol - pentobarbital - will quickly render Bucklew
unconscious, so that he "will not be able to suffer pain from choking,
bleeding, or any other source." The only pain that he might feel, the state
added, would be "minor discomfort associated with inserting an IV."
Bucklew next argues that, contrary to the 8th Circuit's ruling, he should not
have to show that there is another method of execution that is both feasible
and will significantly reduce his risks when he is only challenging the use of
the state's lethal-injection protocol in his own execution (known as an
"as-applied" challenge). Bucklew acknowledges that, under the Supreme Court's
caselaw, an inmate who contends that a method of execution is always
unconstitutional (known as a "facial" challenge) must show that an alternative
method is available; otherwise, inmates would be able to launch a "back-door
attack on the" death penalty itself by taking the only available method of
execution off the table. But that rationale doesn't extend to as-applied
challenges, Bucklew suggests, because the challenged method of execution will
still be available in other cases even if it isn't in his. Moreover, he adds,
no "value would be served by demanding that an inmate with a complicated
medical condition custom-design his own execution."
The state offers a different reading of the Supreme Court's cases, arguing that
the justices have made clear that any inmate who challenges the
constitutionality of a method of execution must suggest an alternative method -
whether he is bringing a "facial" challenge or an "as-applied" challenge. A
certain level of blameworthiness is required for a prison official to violate
the Eighth Amendment; if there isn't an alternative method of execution
available, the state contends, you can't infer that state officials were
sufficiently blameworthy in choosing the method currently in use.
But in any event, Bucklew continues, he has offered an alternative method of
execution: lethal gas, which is authorized under Missouri law. He suggests that
the state could, for example, administer nitrogen through a gas mask. Bucklew
notes that the state has not seriously contested that lethal gas is a viable
alternative; rather, the only real point of contention in the lower court was
whether using lethal gas would reduce the likelihood that Bucklew would
experience pain - a fact that the court of appeals said Bucklew would need to
establish with just one witness. Such a "1 witness" rule, Bucklew contends, is
not only "wrong in general," but it is "especially perverse in
method-of-execution cases, where inmates will typically be unable to find an
expert willing and able, consistent with ethical constraints, to tell the State
how best to kill an inmate."
The state pushes back against Bucklew's identification of lethal gas as an
alternative method of execution. "Nitrogen hypoxia" is not a method of
execution, the state contends, because no state has ever used it to execute
someone; Missouri had previously used cyanide gas in its gas chamber. Morever,
the state alleges, Bucklew has not offered any information about the pain that
he would suffer from lethal nitrogen, which means that there is no way to
compare lethal gas with lethal injection. And all of this is irrelevant, the
state concludes, because Bucklew's challenge to his execution by lethal
injection has come too late: He could have filed it back in 2008, but instead
waited until 2014, just before his execution was originally scheduled.
Normally, a death-row inmate whose execution has been put on hold can be
cautiously optimistic about his chances for success, because a stay of
execution requires at least 5 votes - enough for the inmate to win on the
merits. But Bucklew also knows that 4 justices - Chief Justice John Roberts and
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch - would have allowed
his execution to go forward. This means that 1 of the 5 votes to put Bucklew's
execution on hold presumably came from Justice Anthony Kennedy, who retired
from the court on July 31. Although not much is known about the views of
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who replaced Kennedy earlier this month, on capital
punishment, Kavanaugh is generally regarded as significantly more conservative
than Kennedy, which could bode poorly for Bucklew.
(source: scotusblog.com)
OKLAHOMA:
DNA provides twist in Oklahoma death row inmate's quest for release
Results from a tested red bandanna match the DNA for a death row inmate who has
maintained his innocence for years, officials announced Wednesday.
Julius Jones was convicted in 2002 for the murder of Edmond businessman Paul
Howell in 1999. Howell was gunned down in the driveway of his home.
Howell was 45 at the time of his murder and the father of 2 young children.
Earlier this year, Jones' defense filed a motion with the Oklahoma County
District Court asking the judge to have the bandanna, which was found in Jones'
home, tested for his DNA to prove his innocence.
The results of the DNA profile show the probability of the DNA belonging to
someone other than Jones is 1 in 110 million African Americans.
"Our responsibility as the attorneys for the state in the criminal appeals
process is to follow the law with the overarching goal of always finding the
truth in the appeals process," Attorney General Hunter said in a statement.
"The lab results, which indicate that Julius Jones's DNA is present on the red
bandanna, is an additional validation of the trial and appellate process in
proving his guilt. I hope and pray this result gives the family members and
loved ones of Paul Howell peace of mind. I also hope that through this process
all Oklahomans who are victims of atrocious crimes know that my office will
continue doing everything we can to ensure evil people who commit atrocious
crimes will stay in prison."
Oklahoma County District Attorney David Prater said those defending Jones have
"disseminated misinformation and lies regarding the trial and evidence" in the
case.
"We have never been afraid of the truth. The testing by the murderer's own DNA
lab corroborates the jury's verdict and exonerates the investigators,
prosecutors and jurors who the murderer's defenders have slandered," District
Attorney Prater said.
Even so, Jones' supporters say they are standing by his side.
"Our family, we still hope. Last night, we had a vigil prayer and it was just
awesome," said Jones' mother Madeline Jones.
Jones' best friend Jimmy Lawson told News 4, he was not worried about the
results of the testing further linking Jones to the crime.
"There were multiple individual strands of DNA on the bandana which means
really at the end result, no one individual could really be pointed to as far
as the DNA goes," Lawson said. "DNA testing is just a piece of the pie. There's
so many other issues for this case that needs to be looked at."
Don Heath, chair of the Oklahoma Coalition To Abolish The Death Penalty, said
he still believes Jones is innocent.
"I know David Prater. I know Mike Hunter. I know they're good people. Julius
Jones is a good person too," Heath told News 4.
Dale Baich, one of Jones' attorney, released this statement in light of the
results:
"The final report shows that the bandana was not worn over the mouth of the
shooter because there is no saliva on the sample. However, there are numerous
profiles on the bandana and the experts need to take a close and careful look
at these results. The testing cannot tell us when DNA was deposited on the
bandana, which is why we cannot draw any conclusions when there are profiles of
3 or more individuals. Additionally, the final report showed that the DNA
sample of Mr. Jones' co-defendant Chris Jordan yielded only a partial profile
that could not be compared to the 3 or more other profiles located on the
bandana.
While no one can draw any final conclusions at this stage, we do know that
Julius Jones's trial was tainted by racial bias and there is overwhelming doubt
about the fairness and reliability of the conviction and death sentence. We
have always known that Mr. Jones' DNA could be on the bandana because his DNA
was present in his parents' home where the red bandana was planted. At trial,
the prosecution did not object when the defense said Mr. Jordan admitted hiding
the gun in Mr. Jones' parents' home.
These facts about Mr. Jones' case are incontrovertible: several eyewitnesses
place Mr. Jones at his parents' home at the time of the murder; Mr. Jones'
co-defendant matched the only eyewitness description of the shooter while Mr.
Jones did not; Mr. Jones' co-defendant admitted his involvement in the crime,
was heard bragging that he set up Mr. Jones, and is now free after serving only
15 years. Additionally, there is strong evidence that the prosecution
misrepresented to the jury the deal that was made with Mr. Jones' co-defendant
at trial. The prosecutor's files must be released in order for there to be
public confidence in this conviction. There is much more to do moving forward
and we are confident that in the end Mr. Jones will be vindicated."
We spoke with David McKenzie on Wednesday, who represented Jones in the 2002
trial. He said he was worried the results would "turn the public" against
Jones, also claiming the ABC docu-series "The Last Defense" including
inconsistencies about what happened in court.
"One of the defenses was, and it was a very viable defense, that the person
that Mr. Howell's sister Ms. Tobey identified could not have been Julius Jones
because of hair length. We had photographs of Mr. Jones, showing that he kept
his hair very short. Not shaved but incredibly short whereas Mr. Jordan, the
other defendant, who was testifying against him had cornrows, an inch maybe
longer but certainly fuzzy and that type of thing," McKenzie said. "What they
told me was there was no photographs of Mr. Jones to show the length of his
hair at the time, and when they made a comment about that...I think I made a
comment 'oh my'. Maybe I was negligent. Maybe I was...in so many words, I
didn't do a good job if I didn't do that."
McKenzie pointed News 4 to court transcriptions of closing arguments during the
2002 trial. Referring to co-defendant Chris Jordan, he told the jury "You've
seen the pictures of Mr. Jordan and Mr. Jones in this case. I want to show them
to you again."
(source: KFOR news)
UTAH:
Utah attorney banned from practicing law for 3 years
A Utah attorney has been barred from practicing law in Utah for the next 3
years after several clients complained about him to the Utah State Bar.
An August settlement agreement says at least 20 clients have complained about
North Salt Lake-based attorney Sean Young.
Young admitted to violating attorney rules in 4 cases, and the Utah State Bar's
Office of Professional Conduct agreed to drop 16 other complaints.
Young says though he admitted to the violations, he doesn't agree with them and
isn't liable for them under the terms of a settlement he signed.
The complaints include Young failing to contact witnesses in a death penalty
case, not filing or asking for documents in other proceedings, not meeting with
a client he was representing and not refunding fees to clients in a timely way.
(source: Associated Press)
USA:
Prosecutors want the death penalty for Robert Bowers. Here's why rabbis oppose
it.
Judaism has traditionally been of 2 minds about capital punishment. It exists
in Jewish law, but has rarely been used and is strongly discouraged.
The Torah and other texts of rabbinical Judaism say it's okay, but under only
limited circumstances. In the wake of Saturday's shooting at a Pittsburgh
synagogue, both state and federal prosecutors plan to move forward with capital
murder charges against suspect Robert Bowers.
Federal death sentences are relatively rare, and most death-penalty activity is
carried out at the state or local level. There have been only 3 executions
since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988.
Many would say that Bowers, 46, who police say left 11 dead and many others
wounded, undoubtedly deserves the death penalty. But not all rabbis from the 3
major Jewish movements agree.
The Torah has capital crimes from murder to profaning the sabbath; there's a
section where a man was put to death for gathering wood on Shabbat.
But Jewish law doesn't start and stop with the Torah's text.
Like the American criminal justice system, the Torah draws a distinction
between intentional homicide and non-intentional homicide, instructing that
capital punishment is appropriate only in the former.
The text creates a set of Jewish evidentiary standards to prove that the
accused truly intended to commit murder.
Capital cases were once heard by a Jewish court known as the Sanhedrin, made up
of either 23 or 70 rabbis. Unanimous verdicts were forbidden, for someone
always needed to speak on behalf of the accused. Although the tribunal
typically rendered a verdict when there was a margin of 1 vote, capital cases
required a majority of plus-2.
The tribunal could not impose a death sentence unless and until they heard from
2 eyewitnesses. Both needed to see each other at the time of the offense and
have warned the assailant of the consequences of his action. Both also needed
to hear the perpetrator's verbal assent.
Officially, all prominent Jewish movements oppose capital punishment, most of
them in all cases, according to Pew Research Center.
Although many rabbis soft-pedal those positions when an individual commits a
horrific act, the proper religious response, they say, is neither to take
another person's life nor decide for the state to do so. Even the synagogue
gunman, according to them, does not deserve the death penalty.
Barbara Weinstein, associate director of the Religious Action Center, an
advocacy arm of Reform Judaism, said the movement opposed the state's use of
the death penalty as a matter of principle. Moral concerns have led the
movement to worry the justice system applies punishments unequally.
"It's hard to find words to capture the pain felt across the Jewish community,
but as broken as our hearts are, we continue to believe there are no crimes
where the taking of a human life is justified," she said.
Yet, she added, the gunman should still be held accountable.
According to Shmuly Yanklowitz, a modern Orthodox rabbi and founder of a
progressive-minded Orthodox rabbinical association, the Orthodox movement "is
certainly in opposition toward capital punishment, with exception."
But, he said, "when dealing with a gentile society and government, we're no
longer dealing formally with the Jewish legal system and largely move from law
to ethics. There, they become somewhat intertwined with our personal politics.
It breaks down more on party lines than denomination lines."
Rabbi Julie Schonfeld, chief executive of the Rabbinical Assembly, the premier
international membership organization of Conservative rabbis, similarly told
The Washington Post that for decades the organization maintained the committee
on Jewish laws and standards, which debates how to apply law and tradition in
an evolving contemporary society. A more recent opinion shifted its stance to
allow sitting on a jury where the death penalty was being debated.
Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky, a Conservative rabbi and member of the committee,
reiterated, "the death penalty has not existed as a judicially appropriate
outcome for more than 2,000 years. It is bad policy. In modern states, we
shouldn't put people to death unless it's the only way to prevent them from
causing more crime," he said.
Kalmanofsky highlights the complex relationship Jews have with the idea of
capital punishment through the execution of Otto Adolf Eichmann, a high-ranking
member of Nazi leadership responsible for Jewish extermination camps. Eichmann,
who was hanged in 1962, is the only person that the state of Israel has ever
executed judicially.
"As a Jew, it's hard to argue that Eichmann didn't deserve execution. Killing
Nazis in the wake of the Holocaust makes for rough justice," Kalmanofsky said,
yet Eichmann no longer presented a threat of future crime.
Tree of Life Rabbi Jeffrey Myers told The Post that in light of the horror to
his congregation, he was not yet ready to talk about Bowers, adding that "in
the Conservative movement, each rabbi will make a decision in an individual
congregation."
In one sense, that this happened in the open and diverse community of the
Squirrel Hill neighborhood of Pittsburgh was shocking, but in another sense,
this surprises few. American Jews have always been aware that anti-Semitism is
a part of Western civilization, Yanklowitz said.
"When you have a moment to step back, you'll have difficulty finding mainstream
Jewish rabbis endorsing death," Yanklowitz said.
(source: Washington Post)
******************
Death penalty cases tick back up under President Trump
Before a suspect was even publicly named, President Donald Trump declared that
whoever gunned down 11 people in a Pittsburgh synagogue should "suffer the
ultimate price" and that the death penalty should be brought back "into vogue."
Mr. Trump has largely gotten his wish, at least on the federal level, with
death penalty cases ticking back up under his Justice Department after a
near-moratorium on such prosecutions in President Barack Obama's last term,
when he directed a broad review of capital punishment and issues surrounding
lethal injection.
Mr. Trump's attorney general, Jeff Sessions, has so far approved at least a
dozen death penalty prosecutions over the past 2 years, according to court
filings tracked by the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel, with cases
ranging from the high profile to the relatively obscure.
They include the man charged with using a rented truck to fatally mow down 8
people on a New York City bike path a year ago; 3 men charged in a fatal
armored truck robbery in New Orleans; a gang suspect in Detroit charged with
"murder in aid of racketeering"; and a man charged with fatally shooting a
tribal police officer in New Mexico on the nation's largest American Indian
reservation.
The tally could grow higher over the next 2 months as federal prosecutors await
Sessions' decision in several other cases, including against the alleged
synagogue shooter, Robert Bowers, who faces federal hate crime charges and 11
counts of murder.
By comparison, in Obama's final year in office the Justice Department
authorized just 1 capital prosecution, that of Dylann Roof, the white
supremacist who fatally shot 9 black people in 2015 during a church service in
Charleston, South Carolina.
But while the Justice Department under Mr. Trump has increased death penalty
prosecutions, the numbers are not entirely out of line with those earlier in
the Obama administration under Attorney General Eric Holder, who approved 11
capital prosecutions in 2009 and at least 13 in 2012.
And both the Trump and Obama administrations pale in comparison to that of
President George W. Bush and his attorney general John Ashcroft, who in 2003
alone signed off on capital prosecutions against more than 3 dozen defendants,
at times overruling his own prosecutors when they recommended against seeking
capital punishment.
What makes Mr. Trump different, death penalty experts say, is that he publicly
advocates for the ultimate punishment in specific cases.
"I think they should very much bring the death penalty into vogue," he told
reporters Saturday shortly after news broke of the synagogue shooting. "Anybody
that does a thing like this to innocent people that are in temple or in church.
We had so many incidents with churches. They should really suffer the ultimate
price."
And he took to Twitter just a day after last year's Manhattan bike path attack
to call suspect Sayfullo Saipov a "Degenerate Animal" and argue he "SHOULD GET
DEATH PENALTY!"
Mr. Trump also said this year that capital punishment should be used to
prosecute drug traffickers. Sessions followed a day later with a memo urging
prosecutors to seek the death penalty "for certain drug-related crimes,"
including killings occurring during drug trafficking.
"If we're to be a nation of laws, then the legal process has to be allowed to
play itself out without being subject to political manipulation," said Robert
Dunham, executive director of the Washington-based Death Penalty Information
Center. "Charging decisions should be made based on the evidence, not based on
politics and not based on political pressure."
The Justice Department did not respond to a request for comment.
Mr. Trump was a vocal proponent of the death penalty for decades before taking
office, most notably in 1989 when the real estate magnate took out full-page
advertisements in New York City newspapers urging elected officials to "BRING
BACK THE DEATH PENALTY" following the rape and sexual assault of a jogger in
Central Park. "If the punishment is strong," he wrote at the time, "the attacks
on innocent people will stop."
Polls show a majority of Americans still back the death penalty, but support
has been declining in recent years. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 55 % of Americans
supported the death penalty for a person convicted or murder, the lowest
percentage in 45 years.
The death penalty remains legal in 30 states, but only a handful regularly
conduct executions. Texas has executed 108 prisoners since 2010, far more than
any other state.
But such executions on the federal level have been rare. The government has put
to death only three defendants since restoring the federal death penalty in
1988, the most recent of which occurred in 2003, when Louis Jones was executed
for the 1995 kidnapping, rape and murder of a young female soldier.
In 2014, following a botched state execution in Oklahoma, Obama directed the
Justice Department to conduct a broad review of capital punishment and issues
surrounding lethal injection drugs. It remains unclear today what came of that
review and whether it will change the way the federal government carries out
executions.
The U.S. Bureau of Prisons did not respond to requests for comment.
Mr. Trump himself railed against this disconnect between prosecutions and
actual executions in his comments after the Pittsburgh attack.
"They shouldn't have to wait years and years," he said. "Now the lawyers will
get involved, and everybody's going to get involved, and we'll be 10 years down
the line."
(source: CBS news)
*****************
Death penalty cases rare in federal court; executions more rare
Death penalty cases are relatively rare in the federal courts system and
executions even more rare.
Only three people have been executed since the federal death penalty was
reinstated in 1988; the vast majority of the nation's capital cases are handled
at the state level.
But in either jurisdiction, the appeals process is long and involved and the
will to impose the ultimate sanction seems to have dwindled over the years.
President Donald Trump supports the death penalty but it's not clear if that
will translate into more federal executions.
If it does, accused synagogue shooter Robert Bowers would seem to be a likely
candidate for lethal injection at the federal death chamber in Terre Haute,
Ind.
He is only the 4th defendant in the history of Western Pennsylvania's federal
district, which comprises 25 counties, to face the federal death penalty.
None of the others was executed.
The only 3 federal inmates to be put to death in modern times are Timothy
McVeigh, Juan Garza and Louis Jones, all of whom were executed in the early
2000s when George W. Bush was president.
McVeigh, who blew up the Oklahoma City federal building in 1995, was executed
in 2001. Garza, a marijuana dealer who killed 3 other dealers in Texas in 1993,
was also executed in 2001. And Jones, a Gulf War veteran who kidnapped and
murdered a female soldier in Texas in 1995, was executed in 2003.
In all, 78 defendants nationwide have been sentenced to death since 1988.
3 locals - Joseph Minerd, Lawrence Skiba and Jelani Solomon - have all faced
possible execution initially but none was sentenced to death.
Minerd was the 1st.
In 1999, he used a pipe bomb to blow up a house in Connellsville to kill his
pregnant ex-girlfriend because she refused to get an abortion. Her 3-year-old
daughter also died. A federal jury in Pittsburgh convicted him but spared him
execution in 2002. Now 63, he is serving life at a federal prison in New
Hampshire.
Lawrence Skiba of White Oak hired a hitman to kill a McKeesport used-car dealer
in 2000 so he could collect insurance money. He originally faced the death
penalty but pleaded guilty and cooperated against the hitman, Eugene DeLuca, in
exchange for the chance to get out of prison someday. Now 65, he's due to be
released from the federal prison in Loretto, Pa., in 2020.
Jelani Solomon of Beaver Falls ordered the 2004 contract killing of a witness
against him on the eve of his drug trial. A jury convicted him of using a gun
during a drug trafficking crime resulting in death and conspiracy to distribute
cocaine but spared him the death penalty. Now 39, he is serving 2 life terms at
the federal prison in McKean.
No one can say if Mr. Bowers will end up on federal death row.
But David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, said the Justice
Department is more likely under Mr. Trump to pursue the death penalty in
general and that fact alone increases the odds that someone - maybe Mr. Bowers
- will be executed someday.
Still, the final decision is in the hands of a jury, not a prosecutor or a
judge. And in some instances the victims may not want the death penalty.
Prosecutors don't have to abide by those wishes because they represent the
people as a whole, not the victims, but they will take victim families into
account.
"They always consider it," said Mr. Harris. "They're not, frankly, controlled
by it."
The federal prosecution of Dylann Roof is probably the closest parallel to Mr.
Bowers' case.
Roof, a white supremacist, was sentenced to death last year for the hate-driven
killing of 9 parishioners at a black church in Charleston, S.C., in 2015. But
the families of his victims have said they do not want him to be executed
because of their Christian beliefs.
Mr. Harris said it's too early to know whether the same dynamic will play out
with Mr. Bowers' Jewish victims.
It's hard to predict how long it will take for Mr. Bowers to go to trial or if
he goes to trial at all. The vast majority of federal defendants, about 95
percent, plead guilty.
Even if he is convicted and sentenced to death, however, the appeals process is
likely to take years. State death penalty cases afford defendants a double
layer of appeals, in which an inmate first exhausts state appeals and then
starts the process again in the federal courts through a habeas petition.
The federal system is less complex because there is no state involvement and
because Congress and the Supreme Court have been trying to streamline the
process. 2 years after the Oklahoma City bombing, for example, President
Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which covers
both state and federal prisoners. It established stricter filing deadlines,
limited evidentiary hearings and allowed a prisoner to file only a single
habeas petition.
Despite those measures, appeals still take time as inmates pursue any number of
arguments, from ineffective counsel to prosecutorial misconduct. And sometimes
those claims are validated.
"The gears of the justice system turn slowly, and this is not entirely
inappropriate," Mr. Harris said. "This is something you want to get right.
You're talking about the state [or federal government] taking someone's life."
Support for the death penalty has been dropping for decades. Slightly less than
1/2 of Americans now support it, down from 80 % in the mid-1990s. Former
President Barack Obama called the practice "deeply troubling."
While most people are familiar with the death penalty as it applies in state
homicide cases, there are about 60 federal crimes that also provide for the
death penalty, such as murder for hire, murder during a kidnapping or murder
committed during a drug-trafficking crime.
In Mr. Bowers' case, the charges include obstruction of exercise of religious
beliefs resulting in death and use of a gun to commit murder during a crime of
violence.
Use of the death penalty is authorized by the Justice Department in
consultation with the local U.S. attorney's office. Almost all federal
prisoners on death row - 62 as of this week - are housed at Terre Haute. Many
states have just 1 or 2 defendants on federal death row. Texas has the most by
far with 13. Pennsylvania has 1.
The state has many people on death row in its prisons but, like the federal
government, hasn't executed anyone in decades. The last executions were in the
1990s.
(source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
_______________________________________________
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
