[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 3 USA: The Cost of Death Sentences: $25 Billion, Much of it Paid by Virginians, Study Says; Study estimates cost of each execution at more than $20 million. Prince William and Fairfax counties are among the 62 jurisdictions that have prosecuted the most criminals executed in the United States since the reinstatement of capital punishment, according to a study released Tuesday, and Virginia taxpayers have paid a substantial portion of the $25 billion spent on death sentences. The report from the Death Penalty Information Center found that the 2 counties were among the 2% of counties in the United States that were responsible for a majority of the 1,320 executions from 1976 to 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Prince William had nine death-row inmates who were executed and Fairfax County had 5. The report showed that geography, rather than the nature of a crime, was the biggest factor in who was executed and who was not. "There's an arbitrariness to the death penalty," Richard Dieter, the Death Penalty Information Center's executive director, told The Washington Post. "Most of the counties in Virginia have never had an execution in this modern era." Among those executed in Prince William County: John Allen Muhammad, part of the sniper team that shot 10 people in the Washington area in 2002. He was executed in 2009. The study cited the cost of each death sentence at $3 million and the cost of each execution at more than $20 million. With more than 8,300 death sentences in the United State since 1976, the total cost of the cases was about $25 billion, the study found, adding that the costs are not limited to the counties involved but hit state and federal budgets. (source: Ashburn Patch) Study: Very small number of counties responsible for most executions Only 2 % of the counties in the U.S. have executed the majority of death row inmates since 1976, a new study finds. This disparate use of capital punishment puts a large financial burden on the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that do not kill inmates, because the process of convicting, housing and ultimately putting to death convicts is incredibly expensive, more so than simply locking them up for life, according to the study from the Death Penalty Information Center. In addition to those inmates put to death, the study states that "only 2 % of the counties are responsible for the majority of today's death row population and recent death sentences. To put it another way, all of the state executions since the death penalty was reinstated stem from cases in just 15 % of the counties in the U.S. All of the 3,125 inmates on death row as of January 1, 2013 came from just 20 % of the counties." The study singled out Maricopa County, the area around Phoenix infamously policed by Sheriff Joe Arpaio. That 1 county has 4 times the number of pending death penalty cases per capita as both Los Angeles and Houston. The study also pointed out that Philadelphia County in Pennsylvania ranks the lowest in the state in paying attorneys representing death row inmates, and it also has the 3rd-largest number of inmates on death row in the country. According to the study's authors, the report is intended to point out that seeking and following through on the death penalty is largely the work of a few driven prosecutors and district attorneys, often at great cost that they only bear a small part of. (source: CBS News) *** Dzhokar Tsaernaev Death Penalty Could Be in Eric Holder's Hands The decision of whether to seek the death penalty for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is in the hands of Attorney General Eric Holder, who likely will decide shortly after the prosecutors make their recommendation to him by October 31. Despite the horrendous nature of the crime of which Tsarnaev is accused and will probably be convicted of, Holder should take a stand and make an example of Tsarnaev by not seeking the death penalty. Of course, it will not be an easy decision for the attorney general. The crimes of detonating a homemade bomb in a public space packed with civilians, and then of killing a pursuing police officer and wounding others, certainly deserve no sympathy. Indeed, punishment to the fullest extent of the law is justified, if not prudent. The usual supporting arguments will be made: How can we justify spending $33,930.00 per year keeping a domestic terrorist in prison? Why should we show him such civility when all he showed this country was brutality? Doesn't he deserve to pay for what he did? However, more is at stake than simple retribution. The United States has been deservedly criticized for its increasingly selective application of the law to terrorists. For example, American citizens accused of terrorist activities abroad can be killed without a trial. So-called "enemy combata
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
USA: Supreme Court to revisit death penalty for mentally disabled How should states decide if someone convicted of a crime has an intellectual disability, when the answer means life or death? This spring the Supreme Court will wade back into these murky waters, 12 years after it took the death penalty off the table for criminals with mental disabilities but left the details to the states. In its 6-3 decision in Atkins v. Virginia, authored by Justice John Paul Stevens, the court prohibited states from executing anyone with "mental retardation." Mental health professionals define it as substantial limitations in intellectual functions such as reasoning or problem-solving, limitations in adaptive behavior or "street smarts," and evidence of the condition before age 18. (Mental retardation is the term used in law, but most clinicians and The Associated Press refer to the condition as intellectual disability.) After the decision, most states stuck with the three-pronged clinical definition, but Florida, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas set their own standards. Under Florida's law, if you have an IQ over 70, you're eligible for execution regardless of intellectual function or adaptive behavior. Freddie Lee Hall, who has been on Florida's death row for more than 30 years and scored in the mid-70s on IQ tests, is arguing the state's standard amounts to unconstitutional punishment. Most likely, the case won't result in a dramatic shift in national criminal justice policy, but will further clarify who should and should not be eligible for execution, said Ronald Tabak, an attorney who has represented multiple clients with intellectual disabilities and chairs the American Bar Association's death penalty committee. "There is no reason to think that the court is taking this case because the court loves that Florida is going against the norms of the mental health field," Tabak said. "The more likely reason they granted (judicial review) is ... to say there are certain basic things about intellectual disability that you can't exclude from consideration." That's not the way Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi sees it. The Atkins decision, she wrote in her brief to the Supreme Court, "expressly left the task of defining retardation to the states," and Florida is free to adopt its own standard for determining who is intellectually disabled. "Freddie Lee Hall faces a death sentence for the 1978 murder of Karol Hurst, and Florida courts have found that he is not intellectually disabled," said Bondi. "We will urge the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Hall's sentence." The court's makeup has shifted since the 2002 Atkins decision. But if the justices split along ideological lines, the vote could favor Hall, assuming that swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with Hall, as he did with Atkins in 2002. Arguments are set for March 3. Similar cases are percolating beyond Florida. In Georgia, death row inmate Warren Hill is fighting execution based on substantial evidence that he is intellectually disabled. In Texas, where the courts use an anecdotal seven-part test largely based on the characteristics of the fictional character Lennie from John Steinbeck's novel "Of Mice and Men" to determine intellectual disability, multiple prisoners have been executed in recent years even when they've scored well below 70 on IQ tests. Last year, Texas executed Marvin Wilson, who was convicted of murder in 1994, even though he had an IQ of 61. In 2010, Virginia executed Teresa Lewis for her role in a murder-for-hire scheme, even though she had an IQ of 72 and her co-conspirators admitted Lewis did not plan the murder. These are the types of cases advocates want the Supreme Court to revisit. "It's our hope that the court will clarify that states must use the clinical definition for intellectual disability???not only for current cases but for future cases, too," said Margaret Nygren, executive director and CEO of the American Association of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. BORDERLINE CASES Freddie Lee Hall was convicted of co-planning and carrying out the murder of 21-year-old Karol Hurst in Leesburg, Fla., in 1978. After spending the day scouting the parking lot of a local grocery store with his partner, Mack Ruffin, Hall forced Hurst, who was 7 months pregnant, into her car and drove her into the woods. There, Ruffin sexually assaulted and shot Hurst. A jury convicted Hall of 1st-degree murder for his role in the murder scheme. Since Hall was sentenced to death in 1981, he has made multiple appeals based on his low IQ, which varied from 71 to 80 depending on the tests and their margins of error. "He has been the same ever since I've known him, and he has the mind of a child," said his attorney, Eric Pinkard, who has been working with Hall since 1999. In multiple hearings to prove his intellectual disability, Hall's family and longtime friends testi
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 29 USA: US death-row inmates could face firing squad With lethal-injection drugs in short supply in America, some death penalty states are considering bringing back relics of the past - firing squads, the electric chair and the gas chamber. Most states abandoned such methods more than a generation ago in a bid to make capital punishment more palatable to the public and to a judiciary worried about inflicting "cruel and unusual" punishments in breach of the constitution. But to some elected representatives, the drug shortages and recent legal challenges are beginning to make lethal injection too vulnerable to sustain. "This isn't an attempt to time-warp back into the wild, wild West or anything like that," said Missouri representative Rick Brattin, who recently proposed the firing squad option. "It's just that I foresee a problem, and I'm trying to come up with a solution that will be the most humane yet most economical." Mr Brattin, a Republican, said questions about the injection drugs would end up in court, delaying executions and forcing states to examine alternatives. It's not fair, he said, for relatives of murder victims to wait years to see justice done. A Wyoming politician proposed a bill to allow the firing squad and Missouri's attorney-general and a state representative have suggested rebuilding its gas chamber. And a Virginia politician wants to make electrocution an option if lethal-injection drugs aren't available. US states began moving to lethal injection in the 1980s in the belief that powerful sedatives and heart-stopping drugs would replace sickening spectacles with a more clinical affair while limiting an inmate's pain. The total number of US executions has dipped from 98 in 1999 to 39 last year. Some states have eschewed the death penalty entirely. In recent years, European drug companies have stopped selling the lethal chemicals to US prisons on moral grounds. At least 2 recent executions have also raised concerns about the drugs' effectiveness. Last week, Ohio inmate Dennis McGuire took 26 minutes to die by injection, gasping as he lay with his mouth opening and closing. And on 9 January, Oklahoma inmate Michael Lee Wilson's horrific last words were: "I feel my whole body burning." Missouri threw out its three-drug lethal injection after it could no longer obtain the drugs. State officials altered the method in 2012 to use propofol, the drug that killed pop star Michael Jackson. The European Union then threatened to impose export limits on propofol if it were to be used in executions, jeopardising the supply of an anaesthetic needed by US hospitals. The state then announced it had switched to a form of pentobarbital made by a compounding pharmacy. Missouri won't name the provider. Missouri has carried out 2 executions using pentobarbital - Joseph Paul Franklin in November and Allen Nicklasson in December. Neither inmate showed outward signs of suffering, but the secrecy of the process resulted in a lawsuit and an inquiry. Michael Campbell, assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Missouri-St Louis, said some politicians simply don't believe convicted murderers deserve any mercy. "Many are trying to tap into a more populist theme that those who do terrible things deserve to have terrible things happen to them," he said. And Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Centre in Washington, cautioned: "These ideas would jeopardise the death penalty because, I think, the public reaction would be revulsion." (source: The Scotsman) The Supreme Court's Responsibility for Recent Death Penalty Mishaps The execution rate in the United States has declined in the last 2 decades, but what the late Justice Harry Blackmun famously called "the machinery of death" remains deeply flawed. Two recent controversial executions illustrate how capital punishment continues to defy attempts at civilizing. A Torturous Lethal Injection Some methods of execution that are now regarded as horrific were first introduced as efforts to decrease the suffering of the condemned during the process by which the state deliberately takes his life. The guillotine and the electric chair were each, in their day, considered humane. In more recent times, lethal injection has become the supposedly humane method of choice. In principle, lethal injection could make death relatively painless. People euthanizing a suffering family pet or, in jurisdictions that permit physician-assisted suicide, hastening their own deaths, routinely choose a lethal dose of barbiturate to ease the passage. But execution at the hands of the state by lethal injection typically involves a "cocktail" of 3 chemicals, rather than a large dose of sedative. As a consequence, it holds the potential for horrific mishaps. If the paralytic chemical takes effect but the anesthetic does not, the condemne
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Feb. 1 USA: Boston Police Commissioner: Pursuing death penalty for Tsarnaev is 'appropriate' The U.S. government will seek the death penalty against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the Boston Marathon bombings. The Boston Marathon bombings killed 3 people and wounded more than 260 others. 17 of the 30 federal charges against Tsarnaev, including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill, carry the possibility of the death penalty. The 20-year-old has pleaded not guilty; no trial date has been set as of yet. Boston Police Commissioner William Evans said he believe the pursuit of the penalty is appropriate, but he wants to remain focused on those who were injured and killed. Evans said, 'It's not so much about the punishment, but it's about not forgetting those victims who still have to live with the events that happened on that tragic day." He said it was likely a difficult decision, but an appropriate one due to the destruction and people hurt. Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said that he supports the decision made and will leave it up to the court process. (source: NECN) * One penalty equal to crime: Death There's an adage holding that hard cases make bad laws, meaning they're so heart-tugging that they shouldn't be the basis for formulating general laws. That's the shelter former House Speaker Tom Finneran sought back in 1997 when he turned his back on demands that the savage killers of young Jeffrey Curley should experience capital punishment. "What I hesitate to do," he said, "is decide the question on the basis of emotion, on the basis of a single case that grabs you by the heart." Please. What murder doesn't grab someone by the heart? Is a kid shot to death in Mattapan Square of any less worth than a young boy abducted and slain in the suburbs? Yet here's Eric Holder, telling us Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should be put to death precisely because of "the nature of the conduct at issue and (its) resultant harm," as if the "conduct and resultant harm" of any other homicidal act is less egregious in his opinion. Try telling that to loved ones who'll grieve forever. The Globe took a more circuitous route to its predictable conclusion yesterday when it editorialized that Tsarnaev's execution would delay the day "that Boston can close the books on the Marathon bombing." What hubris. Does that writer not understand the "books" on what happened here last April will never close for anyone who's missing a son, missing a limb? And as for those "raw wounds" a trial and execution would only inflame, according to the editorial, how much more traumatic might it be to know Tsarnaev will forever be fed and cared for, will have visits, programs, and perhaps even wind up with a college degree? We treat our prisoners much better than we treat their victims. No, Trooper Mark Charbonnier's widow, Ann Marie, had it right the day she addressed the court at the trial of her husband's assassin: "I believe there exists among us savages who lack the human traits of conscience and value of life. "Untamed animals therefore need not be spoken to, only put down." Charbonnier's death was "a single case that grabbed us by the heart" and repulsed us by a monster's "conduct and resultant harm." But then again, any murder should, including those we never read about, those that never make it to Page One, those that have no potential for political posturing. Is there a commensurate punishment for such a crime? Yes. It's called capital punishment. It's our only way to fully measure the worth of lives sacrificed to evil, and our empathy for those other lives that were forever changed. (source: Opinion, Joe Fitzgerald; Boston Herald) ** For Boston bombing victims, death penalty decision a 'step forward' Federal prosecutors say they'll seek the death penalty against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, arguing that he acted in "an especially heinous, cruel and depraved manner" and lacks remorse. The highly anticipated announcement Thursday means that when the case against Tsarnaev goes to trial, jurors will not only weigh whether he's guilty, but also whether he deserves to die. For Liz Norden, it's 1 small step forward. Her sons, JP and Paul, each lost a leg in the bombings, which killed 3 people and injured more than 250 at the April 15 race. "I just am relieved that it's going forward in the right direction, 1 step forward in the recovery process, just that the option is out there on the table for the jurors, if that's the way it goes," she told CNN's The Situation Room. Whenever the case goes to trial, Norden said she plans to attend every day. "It's important to me. I'm trying to make sense of what happened that day. My boys went to watch a friend run the marathon, and one came home 46 days later. The other one, 32 days later. And their lives are forever changed," she told CNN's Wolf Blitzer. "So I want to try
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Feb. 2 USA: US Executions Getting Worse This week a 3rd inmate died by lethal injection in Missouri in as many months. Herbert Smulls, convicted of a 1991 murder, was executed late Wednesday night, after the Supreme Court denied his last-minute appeal. Smulls' attorneys challenged Missouri's refusal to disclose the compounding pharmacy where it got the lethal injection drug, pentobarbital. Compounding pharmacies are not regulated by the federal government, charged the lawyers and the Missouri facility was linked to a 2012 meningitis outbreak that killed dozens and sickened 700. 2 days before the execution, federal district judge Beth Phillips in Kansas City ruled that questions about the drug were not enough to prove that it would cause "needless suffering." Earlier in January, the protracted execution of Dennis McGuire at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility outside of Lucasville also raised questions about lethal injection and whether it is a more humane way of death after all. Under the administration of an untested lethal drug combination, McGuire emitted disturbing sounds suggesting a painful, drawn out suffocation. The number of US executions is declining according to Death Penalty Information Center as are the number of states which impose them. But questions about the justness of the death penalty are growing as death row inmates continue to be found innocent, racial disparities and questions of mental competency continue to surface and lethal injection is questioned as a humane death method. "It is bad enough that the death penalty is barbaric, racist and arbitrary in its application, but it is also becoming less transparent as the dwindling number of death-penalty states work to hide the means by which they kill people," wrote the New York Times in an editorial. Lethal injection has largely replaced electrocution. Deborah W. Denno, Professor of Law at Fordham University School of Law, has been a leading opponent of death by electrocution since the 1990s, asserting it violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition again "cruel and unusual" punishment. "There's substantial evidence that suggests electrocution results in a high risk of pain and prolonged suffering," Denno told the Sun-Sentinel. "Can people say that for an absolute certainty? No. You can't interview a dead person. But when the other side comes back and says there's no evidence of that, that these people die instantaneously, they're being dishonest." But increasingly lethal drugs are looking as just cruel as electrocution, Denno says, because of "grossly inadequate" protocols about which drug are administered, how, by whom and in what quantities and the clandestine nature of lethal injections. (States need to "take their execution procedures out of hiding," she wrote in a 2007 Fordham Law Review article.) Denno is also concerned about the new and untested drugs used in lethal injections. "We don't know how these drugs are going to react because they've never been used to kill someone," she told Mother Jones. The electric chair has a ghoulish history from its invention by employees of Thomas Edison to grisly mishaps like Willie Francis who failed to die in 1946 and had to take the "long walk" twice to Pedro Medina whose face mask burst into flames in 1997. Yet lethal injection, also called Carson's Cocktail after the Oklahoma pathologist who concocted the original formulation, is also prone to mishaps like the 2007 case in which guards failed to find a vein and sobbing inmate Romell Broom lay was asked to find his own vein. (The "self-execution" still failed and Broom will also made the long walk twice.) What happened to Broom is to be expected. Even though it takes a skilled nurse or hemophylist to insert catheters snugly, so that the fluid doesn't leak or the catheters come loose by the writhing of a distraught prisoner, this complex medical responsibility is assigned to prison guards who spend most of their days pacing the corridors twirling a truncheon. After the guards have marched the prisoner to the homey little room with 3 walls and a glass window with a drape and strapped him to the death gurney, the search for big veins to insert the catheters starts--and guards have been known to bumble and fumble for hours, sometimes cutting open the veins with a knife or scalpel, before the warden calls a halt to the evening's proceedings. The Carson Cocktail consists of 3 drugs: a short-acting barbiturate to knock the condemned person out (originally thiopental); a neuromuscular blocking agent to paralyze the skeletal muscles, including the muscles of breathing (pancuronium bromide); and an agent that stops the heart (potassium chloride). Right after the thiopental infusion, pancuronium bromide is administered a curare type agent that paralyses the skeletal and breathing muscles. Theoretically, the condemned is now soundly asleep and prepared to die, tha
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 3 USA: The 3-Drug Cocktail as Cruel and Unusual Punishment This week placed America on the forefront of human rights violations before the entire globe. Amidst stonings in Pakistan and genocide in Syria, Europe and much of this country took notice of our own backyard when Oklahoma brutally executed a man using a new drug that resulted in 43 minutes of visible anguish. Clayton Lockett, the inmate, died via heart attack instead of a purportedly painless death through the three-drug cocktail, the commonly accepted means of state-sponsored execution. Singled out as a "horror" in the New York Times, "inhumane" by the White House, and a "science experiment" by the ACLU, the death of Clayton Lockett was anything but its intended goal of a quick and painless execution. Instead, his death has been relegated to torture, which to some is seen as "cruel and unusual punishment" so clearly prohibited by the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution. What is not cruel and unusual punishment, however, was the mere execution itself. It is not the actual practice of execution, but rather the method by which someone is executed that suddenly has the world aflutter. Although seemingly mutually exclusive, these two concepts are anything but. The 3-drug cocktail has long been a questionable form of execution under the constitution, despite its lawful standing. For a majority of states it consists of sodium thiopental, designed first to anesthetize; pancuronium bromide, second to paralyze; and potassium chloride, third to exterminate. I learned about this practice while a law student at the University of Texas School of Law and subsequently worked on several active death penalty cases -- initially as a student lawyer on a clemency petition and next as a judicial clerk for the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, thus observing the practice from divergent angles. Those experiences directly inspired me to write my first novel, The Execution of Noa P. Singleton, in which both sides of the death penalty debate are explored through the eyes of an inmate and the mother of her victim hoping to file papers to commute her sentence. I focused heavily on the three-drug cocktail in the book, devoting an entire chapter to its enigmatic, inconsistent, and controvertible application because it is precisely that. A practice that is impossible to prove in its current state, and as a result should be inadmissible under the law. We cannot prove that the process is painless because the 2nd drug should paralyze the inmate, but too many examples of faulty executions have been seen recently, poking holes in the otherwise faceless and accepted practice. Separating death so mathematically, dividing it into separate hands for each component of the practice, eliminates so much of the responsibility that it almost feels guiltless. The problem is that it doesn't work, regardless of whether it is truncated to a 2-drug cocktail as recently used in Ohio, or substituted with new drugs as was the case with Clayton Lockett. Because instead of individuals taking responsibility for administering the drugs, governments are responsible for executing the executions, and other countries are starting to say no. It can't work as intended. Many European nations who are responsible for 1/3 of the cocktail have in fact stopped permitting the sale of their drugs for use in capital punishment, leaving many states in a quandary. Try new cocktails or come up with a new form of execution. Yet the option of stopping executions altogether in lieu of human experimentation with new drugs never seemed to be a 3rd option. With the death penalty on the books in 32 states (plus the federal government and military), and its arbitrary application from state to state, we simply cannot risk the possibility of ending human life with such a thin grasp of what passes as humane and what is possibly inhumane, what may work seamlessly and what may fail, what may take minutes to ease into death and what may end in a massive heart attack after 43 minutes. Far too many loopholes reside in a system that could involve torture. Which is why it is the right move for Oklahoma to begin an investigation of the practice. Which is why the second execution of the day for Charles Warner was stayed. Which is why we may start to see the 3-drug cocktail's well-established practice begin to erode, and rightly so. Charles Warner, the 2nd act of April 29th now has a Second Act, but what will it mean? Will Oklahoma place him on the gurney in a matter of weeks once all this white noise subsides? Will the world continue to take notice? Will Americans continue to vote to uphold the death penalty despite its waning support and application? Will this wait serve as torture akin to the 43 minutes Clayton Lockett "writhed" on the gurney in pain? There is a doctrine in tort law called res ipsa loquitur, which in Latin literally means, "
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 5 USA: After Oklahoma screwup, U.S. should end cruel death penalty: Editorial Oklahoma's botched execution - in which a murderer writhed for close to an hour before dying - underscored America's brutal reputation on the world stage. Among western democracies, only the United States still puts convicted criminals to death. The shortage of lethal-injection drugs that led to Tuesday's ham-fisted job is a direct result of worldwide economic sanctions, targeting what is seen as barbaric U.S. policy. Just as we use trade restrictions to punish the likes of China, Iran and North Korea for human rights abuses, Europe has blocked our purchase of drugs used for capital punishment. Most civilized nations already believe the death penalty is cruel and unusual. Oklahoma's screw-up gave them crystallizing proof. The mystery is why more Americans don't agree. Typically, we justify executions as acts of justice, not vengeance. The killers scheduled for death in Oklahoma last week were candidates for both. Clayton Lockett, whose sentence was so painfully carried out, was convicted of raping and murdering an 18-year-old woman who stumbled into a kidnapping. Charles Warner, whose execution has been delayed, raped and killed his girlfriend's infant daughter. No one would argue Lockett and Warner don't deserve punishment. Even those who oppose the death penalty would concede theirs are the kinds of crimes it was meant for. But it's cases like these - unimaginably violent killings that create a thirst for revenge - that can also sap our capacity for mercy. The death penalty's failings are many: It hasn't worked as a deterrent, even in Oklahoma. The poor and minorities receive death sentences disproportionately. By the time New Jersey abolished it in 2007, capital appeals had squandered hundreds of millions of public dollars. And while 60 % of Americans still favor executions, Gallup found in 2013, that's a 40-year low. Most disturbing, however, is how often the system fails: DNA has exonerated 144 condemned prisoners, and a new study estimates that one in 25 inmates on death row were wrongly convicted. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court declared a moratorium, finding its uneven use unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Today, the imbalance of death sentences - by race, class and jurisdiction - remains uneven and unfair. The Oklahoma fiasco only reinforces its cruelty. The alternative - life without parole - is just and severe. Moreover, it allows for the possibility to correct a mistake. It's time for the Supreme Court to step in again - 1st with a nationwide moratorium, and ultimately an end to capital punishment as an Eighth Amendment violation. This isn't a show of mercy for criminals. Rather, it's a question of our national conscience. When it comes to capital punishment, America must set aside its desire for revenge - even when the desire is understandable - and show the world we're capable of more civilized fairness, charity and reason. (source: Editorial, Newark Star-Ledger) Death Penalty: Justice or Inhumane? Death penalty controversy is nothing new in the United States. The debate over whether or not it is an effective means of justice or an inhumane ending to an individual's life continues to rage on from many different aspects. In most recent events, President Barack Obama has called for a Justice Department inquiry into the application of the death penalty, or capital punishment as it is also commonly known, nationwide after the botched execution of an inmate in Oklahoma on Tuesday. The latest botched execution involved Clayton Lockett, who was convicted of murder, rape, kidnapping, and burglary in 2000. It took 43 minutes for Lockett to die after being given a lethal injection, during which time he was subjected to violent convulsions and suffered a massive heart attack leading to his death. Lockett was already a 4-time felon when he was convicted of a multitude of serious offenses in 2000. Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has called for an investigation into Lockett's and state-run executions, as well as issued a stay on the execution of Charles Warner, who was scheduled to be killed by the same drug cocktail that caused Lockett's protracted suffering. In fact, Warner was scheduled for execution with the same cocktail later that same night as Lockett. The White House implied on Wednesday that Lockett's protracted death might have violated the provision against cruel and unusual punishment established in the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. While the debate over whether or not the death penalty is an effective means of justice or an inhumane ending to an individual's life, proponents on both sides of the debate are prepared to state their cases. One proponent of capital punishment who will not be silenced is Oklahoma Rep. Mike Christian, who is a Republican lawmaker who petitioned to have impeachmen
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 8 USA: The Executioner's Lament In 1977, death row inmate Gary Mark Gilmore chose to be executed by a firing squad. Gilmore was strapped to a chair at the Utah State Prison, and 5 officers shot him. The media circus that ensued prompted a group of lawmakers in nearby Oklahoma to wonder if there might be a better way to handle executions. They approached Dr. Jay Chapman, the state medical examiner at the time, who proposed using 3 drugs, based loosely on anesthesia procedures at the time: 1 drug to knock out the inmates, 1 to relax or paralyze them, and a final drug that would stop their hearts. The 3-drug execution cocktail, which later became known as Chapman's Protocol, has been the preferred method across the U.S. ever since. But last week's botched execution - in the same state where the technique was developed - has raised questions about execution norms. Although the drugs and the question of whether they work are at the center of the debate, the reality is executions are carried out by people, and people sometimes make mistakes. Many also struggle with their involvement for years afterward. Chapman's protocol depends on a number of things that he never foresaw: that in the years to come, doctors and nurses skilled in the art of finding veins would no longer agree to participate; that drug makers in Europe would refuse to allow their drugs to be used; that unregulated pharmacies would have to replicate the drugs, or that prison staff would be responsible for the dosage and the administration. Chapman supports the death penalty. But he shakes his head at some of the problems. "In one situation I was made aware of, the needle was inserted into the vein pointing away from the body," he says. "And I have never even known anybody that would imagine doing that sort of thing." There have been all manner of problems: inmates who wake up midway through - or who cry out in pain. Former prison officers say putting a dog to sleep is one thing; killing a person is something else entirely. "This is not normal behavior for right-minded humans to engage in," says Steve Martin, who participated in several executions in Texas in the 1980s. His job was to man the phones in case of a reprieve. He says the whole process is emotionally crippling. He remembers a couple of times when the execution team couldn't get the needles inserted properly. "Boy, it just ratcheted up everything," he says. "People don't realize," he says, "you just killed somebody, and you've been a part of it, and it affects all of us." Carroll Pickett was the chaplain at 95 executions in Texas through the mid-1990s. He remembers one time when prison staff spent 40 minutes trying to find a vein until the inmate sat up and helped them. "Some of them would go outside and throw up," he says. Over time, Pickett says, the staff unraveled. "And these were some good, good men. Basically, they all left. Every one of them," he says. Pickett and Steve Martin both say the memories of every execution haunt them. Martin says he often thinks of one inmate in particular, who worked on an inmate program with the prison director. "The last words he ever uttered on this earth were thanking the director," he says, crying. "It just struck me that this guy's fall partner was not even given the death sentence, and here we have this person we're executing whose last - at least articulated - thought was to give thanks to the person who was going to execute him." Corrections officials in Oklahoma say that, at the moment, they anticipate that the courts will postpone an execution set for next week - at least until they're certain what went wrong last week. (source: NPR) *** The Constitutionality of the Death Penalty After Botched Executions; The botched executions that occurred in Ohio and Oklahoma have many people questioning the legality of the death penalty The botched executions that occurred in Ohio and Oklahoma have many people questioning the legality of the death penalty. In this article, I hope to explain why the death penalty is constitutional in the United States and exactly how it is controlled. Overview of Amendments Relevant to the Death Penalty The death penalty in the United States has three basic controls: the Fifth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Eighth Amendment. To make it simple, the Fifth and the Fourteenth determine the legality and the constitutionality of the death penalty in the United States. The Eighth Amendment controls the manner in which the death penalty can be executed in the United States. The Fifth Amendment states in part: "...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (U.S. Const. amend. V). These three parts each have a meaning at law. Life: the death penalty Liberty: prison or jail Property: RICO, eminent domain So long as due process of law is granted, the Constitutio
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 8 USA: Several states are in a kind of death penalty limbo Oklahoma officially put death penalty executions on hold Thursday for 6 months following last week's bungled execution. The decision adds it to a growing list of states in a kind of death penalty limbo. 18 states have abolished the punishment altogether, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, but it's been put on hold - for now, at least - in at least 9 more. Court rulings that the use of lethal injection procedures need to be changed or reviewed have created de facto moratoriums on the death penalty in California, North Carolina, Arkansas and Kentucky. As in Oklahoma, the state of Louisiana stayed an execution to buy time to review the intended lethal drug. And governors in 3 more states - Colorado, Oregon and Washington - have instituted formal moratoriums citing an imperfect system. In issuing those moratoriums, each governor went to great lengths to explain their thinking, citing flawed procedures and unequal application of the law. Those statements reflect the reasoning and facts behind many of the holds. Here's what they had to say: Washington On Feb. 11, Gov. Jay Inslee (D) announced that he was suspending the death penalty as long as he's in office Equal justice under the law is the state's primary responsibility. And in death penalty cases, I'm not convinced equal justice is being served. The use of the death penalty in this state is unequally applied, sometimes dependent on the budget of the county where the crime occurred. -- Let me say clearly that this policy decision is not about the 9 men currently on death row in Walla Walla. I don't question their guilt or the gravity of their crimes. They get no mercy from me. This action today does not commute their sentences or issue any pardons to any offender. But I do not believe their horrific offenses override the problems that exist in our capital punishment system. Colorado On May 22, 2013, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) issued a temporary reprieve for Nathan J. Dunlap. "[T]he question is about the use of the death penalty itself, and not about [Dunlap]," he said in his executive order. If the State of Colorado is going to undertake the responsibility of executing a human being, the system must operate flawlessly. Colorado's system for capital punishment is not flawless. A recent study co-authored by several law professors showed that under Colorado???s capital sentencing system, death is not handed down fairly. Many defendants are eligible for capital punishment but almost none are actually sentenced to death. The inmates currently on death row have committed heinous crimes, but so have many others who are serving mandatory life sentences. -- The fact that those defendants were sentenced to life in prison instead of death underscores the arbitrary nature of the death penalty in this State, and demonstrates that it has not been fairly or equitably imposed. -- My decision to grant a reprieve to Offender No. 89148 is not out of compassion or sympathy for him or any other inmate sentenced to death. The crimes are horrendous and the pain and suffering inflicted are indescribable. Oregon On Nov. 22, 2011, Gov. John Kitzhaber, a former emergency room doctor, announced that he would no longer allow the death penalty on his watch. Oregonians have a fundamental belief in fairness and justice ??? in swift and certain justice. The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is not swift or certain. It is not applied equally to all. It is a perversion of justice that the single best indicator of who will and will not be executed has nothing to do with the circumstances of a crime or the findings of a jury. The only factor that determines whether someone sentenced to death in Oregon is actually executed is that they volunteer. The hard truth is that in the 27 years since Oregonians reinstated the death penalty, it has only been carried out on two volunteers who waived their rights to appeal. -- It is time for Oregon to consider a different approach. I refuse to be a part of this compromised and inequitable system any longer; and I will not allow further executions while I am Governor. (source: Washington Post) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 13 USA: Death row inmates appeal after botched execution 3 US death row inmates have filed new appeals seeking to stop their executions citing apparent suffering by a prisoner put to death in a botched procedure in Oklahoma last month. Robert James Campbell, who is due to die in Texas on Tuesday, sought a stay on the grounds that he may be subjected to an execution as painful as the one suffered by Clayton Lockett on April 29. Convicted killer and rapist Lockett died 43 minutes after the start of the lethal injection and appeared to be in significant pain. Lethal injections normally take around 12 minutes. US states using the death penalty face critical shortages of lethal injection drugs after European firms stopped supplying pentobarbital. The shortage has prompted many US states to turn to compounding pharmacies to supply untested execution cocktails instead. Campbell on Monday requested a New Orleans' court's reversal of a denial of the execution stay he has sought. Mr. Campbell's "8th Amendment rights can only be protected if he is provided the information required to ensure a humane, non-torturous execution," his attorney Maurie Levin wrote. The eighth amendment bars "cruel and unusual" punishment. Russell Bucklew, who is due to receive a lethal injection next week in Missouri, has argued that a vascular tumour and circulatory problems could put him at risk for the kind of suffering witnessed in Oklahoma. "There is also a grave risk that, because of Mr. Bucklew's severe vascular malformations, the lethal drug will not circulate as intended, delaying the suppression of the central nervous system and prolonging the execution - which will likely cause excruciating pain to Mr. Bucklew," said his attorney Cheryl Pilate. "These risks are heightened by the use of a compounded drug, pentobarbital, in the absence of any disclosure about the drug's safety, purity and potency. In fact, the Department of Corrections will not even confirm whether the drug is subject to any laboratory testing whatsoever," she said. And Richard Poplawski, sentenced to be executed in Pennsylvania but with no date set, is appealing in a bid to get the facts on what drug(s) the state will use and from where. Pennsylvania has not executed an inmate since 1999. (source: AsiaOne) *** The death penalty system is brokenThe U.S. death penalty system is broken. A new report outlines numerous problems and needed reforms. Oftentimes Christians deal with contemporary moral issues in the abstract. They are "against abortion" or ":for peace" or "against divorce" in the abstract. They attempt to reason directly from what they understand to be biblical rules or principles to offer blanket judgments on contemporary moral problems. This often leaves their judgments hopelessly out of touch with what is really going on in relation to the issue at hand. Some Christians are "for the death penalty" in the abstract, while others are "against the death penalty," equally in the abstract. I have long thought these abstract positions were inadequate. My convictions about this were reinforced over the last couple of years as I have had the privilege of serving in a small role on a committee led by genuine policy experts on the actual practice of the death penalty in America. Under the aegis of the Constitution Project in Washington, last week leaders of this bipartisan panel - some of whom favor the death penalty in principle, others of whom oppose it in principle - released a lengthy, detailed report called Irreversible Error: Recommended Reforms for Preventing and Correcting Errors in the Administration of Capital Punishment. I believe it is required reading of anyone who might like to weigh in on the death penalty. Here are some of the key findings of the panel. I will simply quote them: "The administration of capital punishment [in the U.S.] is deeply flawed and???years of mounting evidence demonstrate a continuing and alarming lack of accuracy and fairness" (p. xv). "Several jurisdictions have continued to maintain or have adopted outdated policies that do not reflect current best practices and that increase the risk of wrongful convictions and executions" (p. xvi). "Serious concerns about the safety and efficacy of lethal injection as a method of execution have resulted in litigation and suspensions of executions in some jurisdictions. Due to ... drug manufacturers refusing to provide drugs if they are to be used for executions, prisons have also encountered difficulty in obtaining some drugs previously relied on for this purpose, thus creating acute shortages. In light of these shortages, some states have proceeded with executions using drugs never before used to execute humans. They have also used drugs whose safety and effectiveness cannot be assured ... [and] have intensified their efforts to obscure in
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
June 21 USA: Drug Challenges Are Failing to Halt ExecutionsCourts remain skeptical of legal arguments challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection drugs and their origins The execution of 2 inmates late Tuesday night after multiple attempts to halt their lethal injections reveals at least 1 thing: challenging the constitutionality of executions on the grounds that the origin of the drugs is unknown is failing to gain traction. Georgia executed Marcus Wellons, convicted of the 1989 rape and murder of a 15-year-old girl, on Tuesday using the sedative pentobarbital. About an hour later, Missouri used the same drug to execute John Winfield, convicted in the 1996 murder of 2 women. Both states have refused to reveal where they obtained the drug, but it's likely they received it from compounding pharmacies, which are not subject to the same regulations as drug manufacturers. The executions, which appeared to go as planned, were the 1st following the botched lethal injection of Clayton Lockett in Ohio in April Since then, nine executions have been stayed or postponed. In the last few weeks, lawyers for Wellons and Winfield have tried to stop their lethal injections in part by arguing that the secret origins of the drugs being used risked violating the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. Lawyers argue that drugs manufactured by compounding pharmacies behind closed doors and with little oversight risk contamination, which could lead to a prolonged or painful death. Inmates around the country are challenging their pending executions based largely on the drugs' hidden origins and are more often than not running into courts that are unreceptive. Southern Methodist University law professor Meghan Ryan says many courts are generally skeptical of attempts to halt executions and hesitant to rule on an issue where there's little precedent from the Supreme Court. "The arguments being made don't really track with Supreme Court precedent very well, and a lot of courts are unwilling to make that jump," Ryan says. "It's forging into a new area." The Supreme Court ruled lethal injection constitutional in 2008, but drug protocols have changed in most states since then. Many pharmaceutical companies have banned sales of drugs to states for executions, forcing prisons to look elsewhere. Still, Ryan adds that death row inmates have nothing to lose by challenging their executions. "Maybe they have very good arguments, but courts often view them skeptically because they're often considered last-ditch efforts," she says. (source: TIME magazine) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
July 24 USA (VERMONT): Judge orders new trial in Fell case Citing egregious juror misconduct, a federal judge Thursday ordered a new trial in the case of Donald Fell, the man sentenced to death in 2005 for kidnapping and killing a North Clarendon grandmother. "The court finds that Fell has shown juror misconduct and that this misconduct violated his constitutional right to an impartial jury," U.S. District Court Judge William K. Sessions wrote in a 93-page decision released Thursday afternoon. "Fell is therefore entitled to a new trial." Fell has been on death row at a federal penitentiary in Indiana since shortly after a jury found him guilty of kidnapping Terri King as she was arriving for work at a Rutland supermarket on Nov. 27, 2000 and then beating her to death in New York as she prayed for her life. Fell sidekick Robert Lee was also charged in the case, but committed suicide in jail before his case was tried. Sessions based the decision to order a new trial on evidence unearthed by Fell's lawyers regarding the behavior of a single juror, identified as Juror 143 in court papers, during the trial and later, when questioned about his conduct. Sessions wrote that the actions of 2 other jurors targeted by Fell's lawyers did not taint their role in the case. According to court documents filed by Fell's lawyers over the last two years, Juror 143 secretly traveled to Rutland during the trial to look at the crime scenes, told a 3rd party about what he saw and shared his observations with the jury panel. He also failed to tell the court about what he had done. "Juror 143's brazen disobedience, dishonesty, and unwillingness to decide the case based upon the evidence presented at trial demonstrate a partiality that would have resulted in his eviction from the panel during trial, and now invalidates Fell's conviction," Sessions wrote. The decision caught both prosecutors and Fell's defense team by surprise. Lewis Liman, the lawyer who masterminded the effort to win a new trial for Fell by raising jury misconduct claims, said late Thursday afternoon he was pleased with the ruling but had not yet studied it in full. "We are extremely gratified by the Court's decision to grant Mr. Fell a new trial," Liman said in a statement provided the Burlington Free Press. He declined further comment. Vermont U.S. Attorney Tristram Coffin also was clipped in his comments. "We are studying the ruling by Judge Sessions and are assessing our options at this time," Coffin said. (source: Burlington Free Press) Let's debate the death penalty, not the drugs The execution of Joseph Rudolph Wood has once again ignited the debate over lethal injection. Wood was administered the cocktail of lethal of drugs Wednesday just before 2 p.m., but wasn't pronounced dead until nearly 4 p.m. The whole thing lasted nearly two hours, and the manner in which Wood died was denounced by many in the media who were watching as cruel and inhumane. Many said that Wood seemed to gasp for air hundreds of times and thus deduced that he was suffering. These reporters are not doctors, nor do they have any formal training in the ways that humans experience death. Ever seen someone die of natural causes? What did that look like? Wood's attorneys had argued in the weeks leading up to the execution that because Arizona doesn't officially say what drugs it uses to kill the condemned, nor admit to the source or manufacturer of them, that they shouldn't be used. Keep in mind, they didn't push for a more humane method that SHOULD be used, so their real endgame was simply staying the execution for THEIR client. The victim's family, not surprisingly, said they didn't think Wood suffered. Jeannie Brown, daughter of one of Wood's murder victims, said he appeared to be snoring and that he deserved what he had coming. I'll leave it to you to decide if she really means she thinks it was painless, or she hopes it was painful because Wood shot her father and sister as they pled for their lives in 1989 in Tucson. Now the state will have to investigate the medical nature of Wood's death and issue a report about whether or not he suffered. Most death penalty supporters likely don't care if the condemned suffers a bit, considering his crime. Most opponents don't think the death penalty should be used under ANY circumstances, so the supposed debate about the "cruelty" of various methods is just a ruse. Bottom line, you either think the state should be in the business of executing people or you don't. Let's debate that, instead of the drugs the state uses to do it. (source: Karie Dozier, KTAR news) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
July 26 USA: Family outraged by overturned death penalty conviction People who knew and loved Terry King of North Clarendon are stunned Friday after a federal judge threw out the conviction of Donald Fell, the man police say killed her in a drug-fueled spree. The ruling yesterday ordered a new trial, but that could mean the family is facing another lengthy legal process years after they thought they were close to getting justice. "It's like a nightmare that never goes away, you just get to thinking things might be normal and pow, up it comes again," said Bob Maxham, King's brother-in-law. Bob Maxham says he's been quiet during the 14 years since his sister-in-law, Terry King, was murdered. But for his wife, Barbara Tuttle, and the rest of King's loved ones he says he cannot be quiet anymore. "It just boggled my mind, I couldn't believe they were going to put this put these people through this again," said Maxham. The ruling Thursday throws out the 2005 conviction of Donald Fell, who was on death row for kidnapping King outside the Rutland Price chopper in 2000, then killing her as she begged for her life. Judge William Sessions finding that revelations after the trial that a juror went to the crime scene and told jurors information not presented at trial undermined the verdict writing: "Juror 143 violated the fundamental integrity of Fell's trial by deliberately undertaking an independent investigation," said Sessions. Fell's legal team, which worked to uncover the juror misconduct, told WCAX in a statement, "we are extremely gratified by the Court's decision to grant Mr. Fell a new trial." When the jury came back with the death penalty verdict in 2005, King's family thought the 5 years of legal wrangling then had been long. "I thought of my sister, at that moment and i just became overcome with emotion, because I said this is for you Terry," said Tuttle in a previous interview with WCAX. Tuttle is recovering from surgery and declined to talk about the new ruling on camera, but her husband spoke for her blaming the judge. "If it was his wife that was kidnapped and butchered, you can bet he'd feel different about it," said Maxham. While Sessions presided over Fell's trial that ended with a death sentence, he had earlier ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. King's sisters were outspoken proponents of the death penalty for Fell. And Maxham says it is not likely they would agree if prosecutors try to avoid another trial by making a plea deal that does not include death. "The family, of course they want to see him put to death. I guess its how strong are they? How much more of this can they take? But they really have to take it, what are they going to do," said Maxham. The ruling raises questions about what happens now for King's family and for Fell. It shines a light on the problem of juror misconduct. Reporter Kristen Kelly spoke with former federal prosecutor Jerry O'Neill Friday. O'Neill: "When you read the case there is no doubt that Judge Sessions made the right decision. There is a piece in his opinion where he references an supreme court opinion, which says death is different in the federal system and the thoughtful states like New York. If you're going to put someone to death, you have a lot of procedural protections. Once someone's dead, you can't set aside the conviction and when you read through the opinion and you see what this particular juror did, the underlying conduct and how he lied to the court about it, it's difficult not to reach the conclusion," said O'Neill. Kelly: And explain what is so egregious about what the juror did? O'Neill: Well the juror did as reported in the opinion several things, the principal one of which is contrary to specific instruction from court. He went down and did his own investigation, he went down to the scene looked at it, came back and told other jurors about it, provided an affidavit after trial then lied about it in court. The reason why it's so bad is we want jurors to decide the case based upon info they received in the courtroom, we don't want them doing their own investigation. Kelly: So how is this allowed to happen? You've tried a whole bunch of cases, have you ever seen this happen before, a juror doing their own investigation? O'Neill: I have not, not that I'm aware of had an instance with a juror doing his own investigation, but I stress that I'm aware of, you never know what jurors are going to be doing and Judge Sessions gave them clear instructions with respect to this. Crystal clear instruction about it. There's nothing that anybody on the defense team, the U.S, attorney's office or the judicial system did wrong. It's one juror. O'Neill says sequestering juries is one way to try to stop juror misconduct, but it is expensive. Defense attorneys also do not like sequestered juries because they are more likely to convict. Kelly: One thing that
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 16 USA: Sr. Helen Prejean to Receive National Social Justice Leadership AwardIgnatian Solidarity Network, a national social justice organization that partners with Catholic Jesuit institutions will present the award on May 7, 2013, in New Orleans, in recognition of Sr. Prejean's passionate advocacy against the death penalty. The Ignatian Solidarity Network will honor Sr. Helen Prejean, C.S.J., with the "Robert M. Holstein: Faith that Does Justice Award" on Tuesday, May 7, 2013, at an award reception in New Orleans, Louisiana. Sr. Prejean is an internationally-recognized advocate against the death penalty whose passion is rooted in experiences of ministering to death row inmates. She has spoken around the globe and authored 2 books including Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty, which held a spot on the New York Times Bestseller List for 31 weeks in 1994. The award comes at a key time in the capital punishment debate. Recently, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley signed legislation ending the death penalty in his state, and other states are either considering the issue or have had recent votes fail. According to a recent report by Amnesty International, the number of U.S. executions in 2012 was identical to 2011, though only nine states carried executions compared with 13 in 2011. The Robert M. The Holstein award, a national recognition, annually honors an individual who has demonstrated a significant commitment to leadership for social justice grounded in his or her faith. The Ignatian Solidarity Network (ISN) is a national social justice education and advocacy organization inspired by the spirituality of St. Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Jesuit order of Catholic priests and brothers. ISN works primarily with individuals connected with Jesuit universities, high schools, parishes, and social ministries throughout the United States. Sr. Prejean began her prison ministry in 1981 when she dedicated her life to the poor of New Orleans. Since then, she has been committed to educating citizens about the death penalty and counseling individual death row prisoners. She has accompanied six men to their deaths. In 1994, Sr. Prejean turned her experiences into the book titled, Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty, which was later developed into a major motion picture starring Susan Sarandon as Sr. Prejean and Sean Penn as a death row inmate. The movie received 4 Oscar nominations including Tim Robbins for Best Director, Sean Penn for Best Actor, Susan Sarandon for Best Actress, and Bruce Springsteen's Dead Man Walkin for Best Song. Sr. Prejean's 2nd book, The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions, was published in December 2004 and describes her experiences of accompanying 2 men to their executions. She continues her work as a passionate storyteller on speaking tours throughout the U.S. and is presently working on her next book, River of Fire: My Spiritual Journey. Sr. Prejean is a religious sister of the Congregation of St. Joseph, a Catholic community of nearly 700 vowed women religious founded in 1650 in France. Sr. Prejean initially connected with the Ignatian Solidarity Network by speaking to thousands of young people at their annual event, the Ignatian Family Teach-In for Justice in 2003. At that event she formally introduced the Dead Man Walking School Theater Project, and consequently Jesuit high schools were some of the first institutions in the U.S. to perform the play. On awarding Prejean with the national honor, ISN Executive Director, Christopher Kerr said, "Sr. Helen has been a vital part of the Ignatian family over the years, sharing her deep desire to end the death penalty with thousands of Ignatian Family Teach-In for Justice attendees. Her passionate voice is a tremendous witness to work for justice grounded in faith. We are delighted to honor her with this national award and hope it will bring greater attention to her ministry." The Holstein award's namesake, the late Robert (Bob) M. Holstein, was a former California Province Jesuit priest, labor lawyer, fierce advocate for social justice, and one of the founders of the Ignatian Family Teach-In for Justice. Holstein died in 2003, but his family continues to support the work of ISN. Supporters of this year's event include the Ignatian Solidarity Network Board of Directors, Mr. and Mrs. Vince and Robyn Caponi, Mrs. Loretta Holstein (the widow of the late Bob Holstein), Mr. Salvador Colon, Very Rev. David Ciancimino, S.J. (Provincial, New York Province of the Society of Jesus), Very Rev. Mark Lewis, S.J. (Provincial, New Orleans Province of the Society of Jesus), Ms. Susan Sarandon (via the Susan Sarandon Foundation), Very Rev. Michael Weiler, S.J. (Provincial, California Province of the Society of Jesus), and the students of Xavier High School in New York City. The previous
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
June 20 USA: Dead Man Walking: Extended Interview with Sister Helen Prejean on Decades of Death Penalty Activism: In this extended web-only interview, Sister Helen Prejean talks about the 20th anniversary of her landmark book "Dead Man Walking," that chronicles her years of anti-death penalty activism. Sister Helen Prejean is one of the world's most well-known anti-death penalty activists. As a Catholic nun, she began her prison ministry more than 30 years ago. She is the author of the best-selling book, Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty in the United States. The 20th anniversary edition of the book was just published. The book's been translated into numerous languages and turned into an opera, a play and an Academy Award-winning film starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. Prejean is also the founder of Survive, a victims' advocacy group in New Orleans. She continues to counsel not only inmates on death row, but also the families of murder victims. AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh. Our guest is Sister Helen Prejean, one of the world's most well-known anti-death penalty activists. As a Catholic nun, she began her prison ministry over 30 years ago. She's the author of the best-selling book Dead Man Walking: An Eyewitness Account of the Death Penalty. The book has been translated into numerous languages, turned into an opera, a play and Academy Award-winning film starring Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn. The book was published 20 years ago. Let's go to a trailer of the film. ASSISTANT DA: This man, he shot Walter Delacroix 2 times in the back of his dead and raped Hope Percy and stabbed her 17 times. In the courtroom and at sentencing, he was smiling and chewing his gum. He is an unfeeling, perverse misfit, and it is time. CHAPLAIN: You have put in a request to be the spiritual adviser to Matthew Poncelet. This boy is to be executed in 6 days. You must be very, very careful. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: [played by Susan Sarandon] Well, Matthew, I made it. MATTHEW PONCELET: [played by Sean Penn] You've never done this before? SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: No. MATTHEW PONCELET: You've never been this close to a murder before? SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: Not that I know of. WARDEN: What is a nun doing in a place like this? SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: I just want to help him take responsibility for what he did. MATTHEW PONCELET: I like being alone with you. You're looking real good to me. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: Death is breathing down your neck, and you're playing your little man-on-the-make games. REPORTER: You're a white supremacist, a follower of Hitler? MATTHEW PONCELET: Hitler was a leader. He was on the right track that the Aryan was the master race. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: You are making it so easy for them to kill you, coming across as some kind of a crazed, animal, Nazi, racist mad dog who deserves to die. MATTHEW PONCELET: You can leave. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: I'm not going to do that. UNIDENTIFIED: You want to be there to comfort him when he dies? This is an evil man. MATTHEW PONCELET: I didn't kill him. I didn't kill nobody. I swear to God I didn't. I ain't gonna get no chair, Daddy. I'm pissed off at them kids for being parked out in the woods that night, pissed off at their parents for coming to see me die. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: You blame the government. You blame drugs. You blame blacks. What about Matthew Poncelet? What? Is he just an innocent? If you do die, as your friend, I want to help you die with dignity. And I don't see how you can do that unless you start to own up to the part you played in Walter and Hope's death. VOICE OVER: From writer, director Tim Robbins... MATTHEW PONCELET: Don't cry, Momma. I don't want to see no crying. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: Don't execute this man. You can stop this from happening, sir. VOICE OVER: ...comes the story of one woman's unquenchable courage... MATTHEW PONCELET: Will you stay? SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: I'll be there. VOICE OVER: ...and one man's last chance at life. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: You are a son of God, Matthew Poncelet. MATTHEW PONCELET: Nobody ever called me no son of God before. Called me the son of you know whats a lot of times, but never no son of God. VOICE OVER: Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn. Dead Man Walking. AMY GOODMAN: That was a trailer of Dead Man Walking. And Sister Helen Prejean is our guest, the woman on whom this is based. So many emotions and issues that were brought up by - well, why did you decide to walk into the prison that day? What was it like for you to meet the first person you met on death row? In the film, he's Matthew Poncelet, but the real person. SISTER HELEN PREJEAN: Yeah. I got ratcheted into it, because I - it was a spiritual awakening that the gospel of Jesus was not just about being charitable to people and being kind to people, but it was a
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
June 26 USA (NEW YORK): Local Cop killer Ronell Wilson forges a shady plan; Chief witness alleges Wilson told him to tell the jury he had a 'rough upbringing' in hope of escaping the death penalty. The chief witness against Ronell Wilson testified Tuesday that the cop killer asked him to tell the jury they had a "rough upbringing" to help him weasel out of the death penalty. Wilson allegedly dropped the bombshell advice during a chance meeting with ex-cohort Jessie Jacobus on an elevator at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center in 2011. "He said for me to tell the prosecutor we had a rough upbringing," Jacobus said. "I said, 'Upbringing?' I've been in jail this whole time, I've had a rough (time serving my sentence)." Jacobus pleaded guilty to state murder charges and is serving 15 years to life. He testified against Wilson at his 2006 trial, in which a federal jury sentenced Wilson to death for killing undercover NYPD Detectives James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews during a gun buy-and-bust ripoff. After the U.S. Court of Appeals reversed Wilson's death sentence due to prosecutorial error, both men were transferred to the MDC prison while Wilson awaited his resentencing by a new jury, which began Monday in Brooklyn Federal Court. The foundation of Wilson's argument for life in prison instead of a lethal injection is the mitigating factor that he endured a horrendous childhood being raised by a neglectful, crack-addicted mother. Defense lawyer David Stern cross-examined Jacobus about his own dysfunctional childhood and it backfired. "Did not having a father, and a mother addicted to drugs, affect you?" Stern asked. "It still doesn't cause you to commit murders," Jacobus, 27, shot back. "I chose to live a lifestyle, not because of that." Jacobus said he hopes the feds will write a letter to the state parole board when he is eligible for release. He described for the jury how Wilson recruited him as the muscle on what evolved from the sale of a Tech-9 machine gun, to a robbery and then - to Jacobus' shock - the execution-style shootings of the undercover officers. Jacobus was sitting chatting with Andrews when Wilson suddenly pulled out a handgun and blasted the detective in the back of his head. Nemorin pleaded for his life as Wilson demanded the cash, according to Jacobus. "He (Nemorin) said, 'I got a family, don't shoot me!'" Jacobus said. "After that, Ronell just shot him in the back of the head." The bodies of the detectives were pulled out of the car and dumped in the street as the killers fled in the blood-soaked vehicle. "I just wanted to find out what was going on his mind," Jacobus continued. "I asked 'Why did you do that?' He told me he didn't give a f--- about nobody." (source: New York Daily News) *** From Death Row To Free Man MICHEL MARTIN, HOST: This is TELL ME MORE from NPR News. I'm Michel Martin. Later in the program, I have some thoughts on that Paula Deen fiasco. She's asked for the country's forgiveness and I want to talk about that. That's in just a few minutes. But first, another admittedly very different story about punishment, redemption and forgiveness. Texas is scheduled to execute its 500th prisoner since the death penalty was reinstated in the U.S. in 1976. According to The Associated Press, Texas has carried out about 40 percent of the country's executions since the Supreme Court allowed capital punishment to resume. But a number of states have gone in the opposite direction, repealing the death penalty. Maryland is one of the latest, and that's where Kirk Bloodsworth left death row 20 years ago. He had been sentenced to death by the state for a crime he did not commit - the gruesome rape and murder of a nine-year-old girl. But he also became the first person in the U.S. exonerated with DNA evidence, and today he's the advocacy director for Witness to Innocence, which is an organization trying to repeal the death penalty nationwide. And he's with us now from WHYY in Philadelphia. Hello, Mr. Bloodsworth. Thanks so much for speaking with us. KIRK BLOODSWORTH: Oh, it's my pleasure, Michel. MARTIN: When you hear me say that Texas is about to execute its 500th prisoner today, what does that bring up for you? BLOODSWORTH: You know, I can't help but think of 500 executions. I mean, as an innocent person in that midst - I think Cameron Todd Willingham was one of them - and here we are, we keep executing people with one of the states that's had a lot of problems with exonerations. I mean, in just one county alone - I understand in Dallas County, they've had so many different wrongfully convicted individuals. I find this appalling to myself and to a lot of our members at Witness to Innocence, as well. MARTIN: You've had one of those unique experiences. I mean, unfortunately, now we've become accustomed to stories like yours, but yours, as we said, was the 1st.
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
June 13 USA: Episcopal leaders push to abolish death penalty across the country When Gov. Dannel Malloy signed a bill in April making Connecticut the 5th state in 5 years to abolish the death penalty, Episcopal Diocese of Connecticut Bishop Suffragan James Curry’s attendance at the ceremony testified to the influence of Episcopal leaders on ending capital punishment in the state. Curry and other members of the diocese had worked with the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty since the 2005 execution of serial killer Michael Ross, the 1st prisoner put to death in New England in 45 years. Abolishing the death penalty became “a very, very contentious issue” in Connecticut after 2 recently released prisoners invaded a home and “brutally murdered” 2 girls and their mother in 2007, he said. “In the midst of that, it was very hard to have a conversation in this state about not demanding the death penalty for such horrific crimes,” Curry said. “It was also a time in the church where we started to shift the conversation from that this is punishment to [that] the death penalty is really about the kind of statement we want to make about what we want our society to be.” The Episcopal Church officially has opposed the death penalty for more than half a century, and its advocacy is gaining traction as momentum builds across the country to end capital punishment. Bishops and other church leaders are writing letters, joining coalitions, testifying before legislators and publicly demonstrating their opposition to the death penalty. 17 states and the District of Columbia have ended capital punishment. In total, 3,189 people remain on death row in the United States, including some in Connecticut and New Mexico, which repealed the penalty without making it retroactive, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The Episcopal Church first passed a resolution opposing the death penalty in 1958, said Alexander Baumgarten, Episcopal Church director of government relations. “It’s been reaffirmed in multiple conventions since then, so our position as a church has been clear for a long time. “I think the fact that we’ve seen a recent pattern of bishops and other leaders in the church in the dioceses of the United States raising the profile of our advocacy is a reflection of the climate in which public opinion in the United States seems to be moving against the death penalty for the 1st time in a number of years.” A 2011 Gallup poll showed about one in three Americans opposing the death penalty, a 19 % drop in support for capital punishment over 17 years and down from an all-time high of 80 % supporting it in 1994. Baumgarten attributes the trend to an understanding of “the inherent flaws in the application of the death penalty.” Repeated studies, for example, have documented that capital punishment does not deter crime, he said. The death penalty also carries inherent racial and socio-economic biases and the chance of killing innocent people, he said. According to the Death Penalty Information Center: -Studies indicate the chance of being sentenced to death is much higher when murder victims are white, and a 1998 study reported a pattern of race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination or both in 96 % of states where race and the death penalty had been reviewed. -More than 130 people have been released from death row since 1973 with evidence of their innocence, with an average of five people exonerated annually from 2000 to 2011. “As people start to understand the complexities of how the penalty is applied in practice,” Baumgarten said, “I think we start to see people who on its face might not be opposed to the death penalty now start to say: As a matter of applied justice in this country, this doesn’t really work.” While the Episcopal Church has an official stance against the death penalty, this primarily is a state issue, and church abolition efforts have originated mostly at the local level, noted Baumgarten, who works in the church’s Washington, D.C., office. “It’s not something that I think has been driven by central structures of the Episcopal Church or central governing entities of the Episcopal Church,” he said. “Bishops and congregations and leaders in the dioceses have looked at the church’s historic stance on this and applied it to the - context that’s evolving around them.” Cooperative efforts In Connecticut, the diocese worked with the Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty on legislative efforts that fell short more than once before the governor signed the April 25 bill abolishing the death penalty in the state. Then-Gov. M. Jodi Rell vetoed a bill in 2009. A 2011 abolition bill failed by two votes in the state Senate. The 2012 bill ended the death penalty, but not for those previously convicted – including the 2 men sentenced to death for the high-profile 2007 murders. “It’s a flaw in the
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Aug. 21 USA: Wrongful Conviction in the American Judicial Process: History, Scope, and Analysis This paper addresses the historical, current, and projected scope of wrongful convictions in the judicial process of the United States. Herein, numerous research studies are reviewed in order to identify the trend of this problem, determine its origin, and propose solutions. Specifically, the paper addresses the implications of the expanding American custodial system and the decline in homicide clearance rates necessary for the efficacy of the current justice process. It further examines wrongful convictions as a social problem from an interactionist perspective concerning racial and economic inequality and considers the applicability of labeling theory therein. Finally, it identifies the most prominent causes of wrongful conviction from a functionalist view and offers recommendations toward addressing it in the future. Most Americans harbor the presumption that their criminal justice system is fair and blind. Within that a priori delusion, an assumption is made that no person shall ever be convicted for a crime that he or she did not commit (Huff, 2002; Marquis, 2005). The idea that a free citizen could be unjustly sentenced to prison or executed by the State is diametrically opposed to the concept of judicious treatment expected in the United States. Indeed, audiences sympathize with characters such as John Coffey (Michael Clarke Duncan) of "The Green Mile" and Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) of "The Shawshank Redemption" because the notion of wrongful incarceration is utterly terrifying, though ostensibly quarantined to the realm of fiction (Darabont, 1994; 1999). Indeed, every person living in the United States, citizen or not, is afforded the constitutional rights of due process and a trial by a jury of their peers wherein the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of a particular crime. This instrument is specifically designed to protect the innocent, rather than obtain convictions (Anderson, 2005; Givelber, 2005). Schoolchildren are taught to have faith in the criminal justice system and told that an innocent person has nothing to fear (Cross, 2005). Under such an impartial system, is it not a virtual guarantee that only the wicked shall suffer? Unfortunately, the judicial process has been plagued by eyewitness misidentification, unfounded and improper forensic science, false confessions, substandard lawyering, and governmental misconduct leading to myriad wrongful criminal convictions (Rattner, 1988). Such revelations gnaw at the delicate social fabric of democratic republicanism. The American criminal justice system is based on the concept that wrongs have causes, that such causes are preventable, and that injurious acts warrant recompense to victims as well as punishment for offenders (Leo & Gould, 2009). If the problem is to be addressed and rectified, it must first be understood; not as it is perceived, but as it is. The relationship between wrongful convictions and legal procedure is not one of simple cause and effect. Rather, this problem represents a dynamic interaction between defendants and observers wherein all parties play an active role. However, the wrongful conviction trend has only been subjectively accepted by the general public to any measurable degree within the past two decades (Huff, 2002). A History of Wrongful Convictions in the United States Judge Learned Hand said in 1923 that the American judicial system "has always been haunted by the ghost of the innocent man convicted." He referred to the notion of wrongful conviction as an "unreal dream" (Halsted, 1992; Huff, Rattner, Sagarin, & MacNamara, 1986). Serious study of this phenomenon began less than a decade after the judge made his innocuous statements. Contrary to his honor's eloquent rhetoric, time and technology have revealed that an unquantifiable number of wrongfully convicted persons have served prison sentences and even been executed for crimes which were committed by others and even some that never occurred (Huff, 2002). Herein, this paper addresses the prison population explosion of the past 30 years and assesses the decline in homicide clearance rates to ascertain the efficacy of the American judicial process and identify the prevalence of wrongful convictions therein. It is difficult to articulate the wrongful conviction trend and determine the growth or recession of the problem. This is due to the unavoidable fact that a wrongful conviction can only be unequivocally known to have taken place if the offender has been subsequently exonerated by the same system which was responsible for the initial error. Indeed, an appellate verdict of "not guilty" does not inherently translate to innocence (Huff, 2002). Research into wrongful convictions was virtually nonexistent until Professor Edward Borchard of Yale Univer
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 20 USA: Defense wants 9/11 trial televised globally from Guantanamo The death penalty trial of 5 Guantanamo prisoners accused of plotting the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States is so important that it should be televised globally, defense lawyers argued on Friday. The issue of televising the proceedings was discussed on the final day of a week-long pretrial hearing for the alleged mastermind of the hijacked plane attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and 4 co-defendants accused of providing money, training and travel assistance to the hijackers. "If these proceedings are fair, why is the government afraid to let the world watch?" asked Marine Major William Hennessy, a U.S. military lawyer defending Walid Bin Attash, a Yemeni accused of training two of the hijackers at an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan. "The government admits that these are historic proceedings," Hennessy added even as the military judge in the case sounded skeptical about televising the trial and the prosecution said the trial should not become "reality TV." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has sole authority to authorize the broadcast of the trials. A Pentagon spokesman said that no one has formally asked him to do so. The 5 defendants, who could face execution if convicted of charges that include murder and terrorism, skipped Friday's session after the judge declined their request for a recess on the Muslim holy day. Currently, the public can watch closed-circuit broadcasts of the Guantanamo war crimes court proceedings only at a 200-seat theater at Fort Meade, a U.S. Army base in Maryland. Closed-circuit viewing sites at a handful of other military bases in the eastern United States are restricted to relatives of the 2,976 people killed in the September 11 attacks and to the firefighters, police officers and other emergency responders who gave aid and searched for victims at the crash sites in New York, Washington and Pennsylvania. In hearings at the remote U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, lawyers for some of the defendants asked the judge to open those viewing sites to the general public, which the judge declined to do. Lawyers for other defendants said the trial should be televised globally to anyone who wants to watch. Hennessy, the defense lawyer, acknowledged that the rules give the defense secretary sole authority to decide whether to televise the trials, but suggested the judge could make the decision in the interests of ensuring the accused get a fair trial. The judge, U.S. Army Colonel James Pohl, did not immediately rule on the request but seemed skeptical. "I can look at any rule, any statute, and say 'I wouldn't have done it that way.' Is that what you want a judge to do, really?" he asked Hennessy. "I would have to conclude that the lack of public television means the accused is getting an unfair trial?" 'NOT REALITY TV' The prosecution said federal court trials in the United States are never televised. "This is a court of justice. It is not reality TV," said the chief prosecutor, Army Brigadier General Mark Martins, adding that people's behavior sometimes changes for the worse when cameras are present. (source: Reuters) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 9 USA: U.S. Death Penalty Support Stable at 63%; Decade-long decline in support after 2001 seen mostly among Democrats Americans' support for the death penalty as punishment for murder has plateaued in the low 60s in recent years, after several years in which support was diminishing. Sixty-three percent now favor the death penalty as the punishment for murder, similar to 61% in 2011 and 64% in 2010. Gallup first asked Americans for their views on the death penalty using this question in 1936, and has asked it at least annually since 1999. The latest results come from a Dec. 19-22, 2012, USA Today/Gallup survey, conducted in the first few days after the Newtown, Conn., school shooting massacre. Although views on the death penalty have been fairly static since 2010, support has been gradually diminishing since the high point in 1994, when 80% were in favor. By 2001, roughly two-thirds were in favor, and since then it has edged closer to 60%. The death penalty is not relevant in the Newtown case, given that the lone gunman took his own life after his rampage; however, the tragedy could have influenced Americans' thoughts about capital punishment and may be a reason support for it held steady this year, rather than declining any further. Most Groups, but Not "Liberals," Lean in Favor of Death Penalty The majority, or at least plurality, of most demographic and political groups are in broad agreement about supporting the death penalty as punishment for murder. One exception to that is adults who describe their political views as "liberal." Just under half of liberals, 47%, favor the death penalty, while 50% oppose it. However, most conservatives and moderates support it, as do majorities of all party groups, including 51% of Democrats. Additionally, nonwhites are closely divided on the issue, with 49% in favor and 45% opposed. That contrasts with whites, among whom 68% are in favor. These patterns of support are consistent with previous Gallup findings on the death penalty. In addition, men continue to be more supportive than women of the death penalty, this year by 67% to 59%, and those without a college degree are more supportive than those with a college degree. Consistent with their more Democratic political leanings, residents of the East are the least likely to favor the death penalty, while residents of the South and Midwest -- who tend to be the most Republican -- are the most likely. Despite the moral nature of the death penalty as a political issue, with teachings on it differing among the various faiths, Gallup finds virtually no difference in support for it on the basis of respondents' religious background. Two-thirds of Protestants and Catholics, alike, are in favor of the death penalty as a punishment for murder, as are at least six in 10 adults regardless of whether they attend church weekly, monthly, or less often. Only among those who say they have no religious preference, which would include atheists and agnostics, is there a difference, with a slightly smaller 56% in favor of the death penalty. There are, however, sharp differences in views about capital punishment by gun ownership. Those who report personally owning a gun are much more likely than those who do not have a gun to favor the death penalty: 80% vs. 55%. Long-Term Drop in Support Seen Mainly Among Democrats Gallup's annual measurement of death penalty views since 2001 shows that support for it has declined more among young adults (aged 18 to 34) than among those 55 and older, and more among men than among women. Additionally, the trend differs by party ID, with support dropping most precipitously among Democrats, from 59% in 2001 to 51% today. Gallup found a dip in support for the death penalty among independents in 2003, but their views since returned to prior levels and, at 65%, independents' current support for the death penalty is similar to what it was in 2001. At 80%, Republicans' current support also matches the 2001 level. Bottom Line Americans' support for the death penalty has varied widely over the 77 years Gallup has measured it, and now stands at 63%, which is about average for the full trend. Gallup's initial reading in 1936 found 59% in favor, but support then dipped well below 50% at points during the 1960s, only to surge above 70% in the 1980s. Support remained high through the 1st part of this century, but has since waned, possibly relating to several states recently imposing moratoriums on executions or abolishing their death penalty statutes altogether. The future course of public support for the death penalty may depend as much on the impact of unforeseen tragedies such as the Oklahoma City bombing or Newtown shootings, as it does on political campaigns by death penalty supporters and opponents. However, for now, views appear to be at a standstill, with just over 6 in 10 Americans in favor, essentially unchange
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 20 USA: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL USA PRESS RELEASE Amnesty International USA Holds Ninth Annual National Weekend of Faith in Action on the Death Penalty Hundreds of Religious and Spiritual Groups to Participate October 20-22 Amnesty International USA is convening its Ninth Annual National Weekend of Faith in Action on the Death Penalty (NWFA) October 20 to 22, during which thousands of members of faith-based groups and human rights activists throughout the nation will examine their perceptions of the death penalty. More than 500 faith communities, interfaith groups, and individuals in 46 states and the District of Columbia have registered as participants and plan to hold events that will create a safe space for both those who support and oppose the death penalty to discuss their views. Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA, urged, "It is a particularly important time for members of religious and spiritual communities to lead the public in responsibly reflecting on the values of our society. Clearly many Americans believe that it is time to reject the outdated and discriminatory capital punishment system. "The NWFA provides an opportunity for people of faith to continue in the tradition of social change and to raise issues about a system in which the government makes life and death decisions, knowing that the system is fallible. This includes sending to death row at least 123 people who were later found to have been wrongly convicted," continued Cox. Over the weekend of October 20-22, 2006, hundreds of congregations representing the country's faith traditions, interfaith groups, Amnesty International student and community groups, and individuals in nearly every state will devote time during their worship services and spiritual practices to reflect on the death penalty. Here are some examples of events taking place: San Francisco: Buddhism and the Death Penalty Discussion and Sharing. The Buddhist Peace Fellowship has recently published a position paper on the death penalty and various members will speak about this issue. Cottage Grove, Minn.: Candlelight Prayer Service for Peace. An outdoor service, "Your Journey of Peace Labyrinth," will be held on the grounds of Zion Lutheran Church. The service will allow time for personal reflection or walking of the labyrinth following the prayers. Lumanaria will encircle the labyrinth using lighting of individual candles to symbolize how individuals can spread "light" and peace to one another. Oklahoma City: Homilies, films, sermons and discussions on the death penalty will take place in a dozen local faith communities. Framingham, Mass.: Discussion on the death penalty with Amnesty International and Ecclesia members as they share how their moral and religious views influence their stance on the death penalty during the Sunday Protestant service at Framingham State College. There will also be a special candlelight service remembering those whose lives have been affected by the death penalty, followed by an interfaith discussion and viewing of the movie Dead Man Walking. Reno, Nev.: Lecture by Marietta Jaeger-Lane at Temple Sinais Shabbat Services. Marietta Jaeger's daughter Susie was abducted and later murdered at the age of seven during a family camping trip in Montana. Marietta has been an ardent opponent of the death penalty for more than 25 years since Susie's death. Houston: Sunday service at the Unitarian Fellowship of Houston, during which Ray Hill, former Texas inmate and host of The Prison Show on KPFT Pacifica Radio, will be the featured speaker. Hill has worked with the families to secure the release of each inmate as the inmates became eligible for parole. Setting an example of what restorative justice means, the service will incorporate a Burning Bowl Ceremony. Bloomington/Normal, Ill.: The Bloomington/Normal Interfaith Committee for Abolition of the Death Penalty will be showing the film The Exonerated at a local community theatre. Berkeley, Calif.: Opera Concert. Death penalty attorney and mezzo-soprano Dorothy Streutker has enlisted the participation of opera-singing friends for a concert in the sanctuary of First Congregational Church of Berkeley. Major faith traditions around the worldincluding Catholicism, virtually all Protestant denominations, Reform and Conservative Judaism and Buddhismhave adopted explicit positions against the death penalty. Even faith traditions that do not specifically oppose the practice, such as Orthodox Judaism and Islam, have expressed concerns about the death penalty including the random and biased way it is applied and administered in this country. "Faith communities are uniquely positioned to promote reconciliation and restorative justice as alternatives to violence in all its variations," said Kristin Houl, Program Associate for AIUSAs Program to Abolish the Death Penalty and coordinator of the National Weekend of Faith in Action. "The NWFA is a springboard for people of
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
7 executions scheduled for May, including 1 volunteer Carey Dean Moore is scheduled to be executed by the state of Nebraska on May 8. Aaron Lee Jones is scheduled for execution on May 3, by the state of Alabama. Read more about these and the other cases below -- and ACT! --- Do Not Execute Carey Dean Moore! The state of Nebraska should not execute Carey Dean Moore for the murders of Maynard D. Helgeland and Reuel Van Ness. Moore is volunteering for execution, after a decades-long appeals process that included a challenge to the state's use of the electric chair. ACT NOW by contacting Gov. Dave Heineman requesting that he stop the execution of Carey Dean Moore! Read More and Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/ organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11154 --- Do Not Execute Aaron Lee Jones! The On May 3, Alabama is set to execute Aaron Lee Jones for the Novermber 1978 murders of Carl and Willene Nelson. Jones claims inefective assistance of counsel and has tried to challenge the state's lethal injection protocols. ACT NOW by contacting Gov. Bob Riley requesting that Aaron Lee Jones' execution be halted! Read More and Take Action at: http://www.demaction.org/dia/ organizations/ncadp/campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11152 --- See and act on all current Execution Alerts at http://www.ncadp.org/execution_alerts.html May 3: Aaron Lee Jones, AL http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11152 May 4: David Wood, IN http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11153 May 8: Carey Dean Moore, NE http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11154 May 9: Philip Workman, TN http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11155 May 10: Jose Moreno, TX http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11156 May 16: Charles Smith, TX http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11163 May 24: Christopher Newton, OH http://www.demaction.org/dia/organizations/ncadp/ campaign.jsp?campaign_KEY=11165
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
here is a newly-released report
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 4 USA: US: Executions Across Country On Hold A sudden halt to executions in Texas, the United States's most active death penalty state, may signal that there is now an unofficial national moratorium in place across the nation, pending a ruling by the Supreme Court on whether a specific lethal injection cocktail is legal. On Tuesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals granted a temporary reprieve for a convicted killer, Heliberto Chi, giving the state 30 days to explain why his execution should go ahead. This came 5 days after the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to prevent the execution in Texas of Carlton Turner, Jr., only hours before he was due to die by lethal injection for killing his adoptive parents. At the same time, it also halted the execution of Thomas Arthur in Alabama. "It is an unbelievable awakening to see Texas courts following the national norms," said Rick Halperin, president of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, explaining that the Texas courts did not have a history of following precedent set by the U.S. Supreme Court. The 2 Supreme Court execution stays were interpreted by legal experts as a signal to all U.S. states that they should now wait before carrying out any further executions until the Court ruled on the constitutionality of lethal injections as a method of execution in two separate cases from Kentucky. The 2, Ralph Baze and Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr., both convicted killers and now on Kentucky's death row, have appealed to the Supreme Court to halt their executions, arguing that the chemicals used in their state's lethal injections amounted to "cruel and unusual punishment". This would make the current cocktail a violation of the eighth amendment of the U.S. constitution. On Sep. 25, it was announced that the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2 cases would be handed down sometime during the court's current session, which formally opened on Oct. 1. The ruling could be announced by June 2008. Immediately following the Supreme Court's decision to review the two lethal injection cases, Texas executed Michael Richard, its 405th inmate since the Supreme Court re-instated the death penalty in 1976. Lawyers were not able to file his appeal in time to take advantage of the Court's decision and he was executed the same night. The Supreme Court's decision led 10 other states to halt executions. The U.S. federal government and all but one of the 38 states still with the death penalty on their statute books, use lethal injections for their executions. Most states use the same cocktail of the 3 the drugs administered in Kentucky, an anaesthetic, pancuronium bromide which paralyses muscles and potassium chloride which stops the heart. Nebraska is the only state which still uses the electric chair. The Supreme Court has not addressed the constitutionality of the method of execution for more than 100 years. There are currently more than 3,500 people on death row in the U.S. The 2 inmates in the Kentucky cases and many death penalty opponents argue that if the drugs in the cocktail are not administered correctly, the prisoner can suffer excruciating pain without being able to cry out before death. The current flurry of legal activity around the lethal injection issue in the U.S. coincided with the 192-member U.N. General Assembly in New York. It is here that the EU will soon table a resolution for a worldwide moratorium on state executions. The moratorium will need a majority to pass. The U.S. is expected to strongly oppose this, but now with an unofficial moratorium apparently in place as its highest court prepares to review the legality of lethal injections, it may be more muted in the General Assembly and outside before the final casting of votes. This might leave China, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan, responsible for most of the world's state killings, more isolated in the anti-moratorium camp. Anti-death penalty activists in the U.S. remain cautious over whether the Supreme Court will eventually rule that execution by lethal injection is unconstitutional, fearing that the current unofficial moratorium may be short-lived. "The U.S. Supreme Court has never determined execution to be unconstitutional, and it is not likely they will be any different with lethal injection," Halperin told IPS. "They may tinker with lethal injection but the U.S. Supreme Court is so pro-death penalty that they are unlikely to eliminate the death penalty. There may be a slight moratorium or delay in executions." But he agreed that given the high rate of executions in Texas -- 26 so far this year -- the Supreme Court's temporary stay on executions, followed by the state's own stay of Chi's execution, "was very welcome". "Texas is the lynchpin, the battleground," Halperin said. "It's the worst place for judicial killings in the entire free world." The current reassessment of lethal injections, as well as the upcoming attempt to get the U.N. General Assembly to adopt a worldwide morato
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 8 USA: Going to Court, but Not in Time to Live Let us consider the arithmetic of death. There are 9 justices on the Supreme Court. It takes 4 votes for the court to agree to hear a case. But it takes 5 votes to stay an execution. It is possible, then, for a death row inmate to persuade the court that his case is so important that it deserves a place on the court's tiny docket of roughly 80 cases a year - but not so important that he should be allowed to stay alive in the meantime. Consider the case of Luther J. Williams, who was put to death on Aug. 23 in Alabama. 4 justices had voted to stay the execution. Mr. Williams's appeal included a challenge to the constitutionality of the chemicals used in lethal injections, which have the potential to cause excruciating torture if administered improperly. A month after his execution, the court agreed to hear that question in another case. "They knew they were going to consider the issue and let a man die," Joel L. Sogol, who represented Mr. Williams, said of the justices. "May he haunt their nights for the rest of their lives." Mr. Sogol acknowledged that smart lawyers could distinguish between the 2 cases, but he said the central issue was the same. In any event, he said, he got 4 votes for a stay, which suggested he would have had 4 votes to hear the case had his client lived. Since the Supreme Court accepted the new lethal-injection case last month, even the most pro-execution states seem to have begun an informal death-penalty moratorium. But Mr. Sogol said he was so angry he could not bear to read about those developments. "It doesn't make any sense to me that an issue is important enough that there are 4 votes to take it up," he said, "but let's execute him anyway." Last Monday, in terse legalese, the court denied Mr. Williams's now posthumous request that it consider his case. "The petition," the docket entry said, "is dismissed as moot." Moot, in other words, because the petitioner is dead. Supreme Court math used to yield different results. As Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. wrote in a 1986 decision, "the court has ordinarily stayed executions when four members have voted" to hear an appeal. But Justice Powell, who was in those days often the swing vote, grew testy about the practice. It "illustrates how easily the system is manipulated in capital cases," he wrote to the other justices after providing the 5th vote for a stay as a courtesy in a 1985 case. By 1990, things had changed. "For the first time in recent memory," Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote, "a man will be executed after the court has decided to hear his claim." The man was James E. Smith, and he was put to death in Texas the day the stay was denied. At his Supreme Court confirmation hearing two years ago, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. was asked what he would do "if you had 4 other justices now voting for a stay of execution?" "Do you feel, as chief, you should do the courtesy," Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, asked, "and kick in the 5th one?" "I don't want to commit to pursue a particular practice," Judge Roberts said. "But it obviously makes great sense." "You don't want to moot the case by not staying the sentence," he added. The available information is sketchy, and the court seldom issues explanations for why it declines to hear cases or issue stays. But it does not seem that Chief Justice Roberts has consistently adopted the practice he had tentatively endorsed. Last Monday, Justice John Paul Stevens issued an unusual statement in the case of Christopher S. Emmett. The court had been set to consider Mr. Emmett's appeal on Sept. 24 after returning from its summer break. "Nevertheless," Justice Stevens wrote, "Virginia set an execution date of June 13." 4 justices voted in favor of a last-minute stay of execution, but that was not enough. Two hours before Mr. Emmett was to die, Virginia's governor, Tim Kaine, a Democrat, stepped in to do what the court would not. "Basic fairness demands that condemned inmates be allowed the opportunity to complete legal appeals prior to execution," Mr. Kaine said in a statement. "The irreversibility of an execution and the fact that 4 justices of the court believe a stay is needed to consider the appeal warrant my intervention in this case." In the end, the court turned down Mr. Emmett's appeal, which had been based on a claim of ineffective counsel. He is now scheduled to be executed in October, and his lawyers are working on a stay or reprieve based on the lethal-injection case. Justice Stevens drew a lesson from the experience. Both justice and efficiency would be served, he wrote, by routinely staying all executions until the court can hear a condemned inmate's first petition for a writ of habeas corpus. That would "accord death row inmates the same, rather than lesser, procedural safeguards as ordinary litigants." Justice Stevens said he hoped a majority of the court would "eventually endorse" his thi
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Oct. 11 USA: U.S. Human Rights Network calls for renewed opposition to fatally flawed death penalty system More than 30 years after the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment, problems with the administration of the death penalty across the country continue to plague the system. Many of these problems have human rights components, including execution of the mentally ill and racial and economic discrimination. Despite piecemeal efforts by the courts and state governments to remedy these flaws, they persist unabated - accounts of exonerations and commutations based on unfair and unconstitutional proceedings appear weekly in the media. Given that imperfections in the criminal justice system can never be fully eradicated, any attempts to "fix" the system will inevitably fall short. "We as a society must recognize that the death penalty invariably leads to violations of the most fundamental human right, the right to life," says Ajamu Baraka, Executive Director of the US Human Rights Network. Supporters of capital punishment cling to their belief that the practice serves as a deterrent to murder - though most studies discredit that notion - or some other useful purpose that cannot ultimately be proven. But the well-documented violations of human rights that have attended one capital case after another across the country are indisputable, and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. "Human rights must trump whatever mythical objectives the death penalty allegedly achieves," Baraka says. Death penalty opponents have made progress in recent years. The death penalty has been eliminated for juveniles and those deemed mentally retarded, and public opinion has been steadily shifting away from the unqualified acceptance of executions. These gains, while insufficient, were the direct result of public education and public pressure on legislatures and the courts. Therefore, on October 10, World Day Against the Death Penalty, the US Human Rights Network urges activists to reject complacency and redouble their efforts toward the only solution that guarantees human rights across the board: abolition. >From a human rights perspective, education means furthering the understanding that human rights are interlinked across issue boundaries and should be considered as an inviolable whole, not in isolation. Accepting human rights violations in one arena but not others leads to a fractured, incoherent vision. "The concept that human rights are universal is a fundamental rationale for opposing the death penalty," says Baraka. (source: United States Human Rights Network)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Oct. 19 USA: Supreme Court MemoTrying to Decipher the State of the Death Penalty Is there a death penalty moratorium now in place, and how would we know? The Supreme Court has granted 2 stays of execution and refused to vacate a 3rd in the 3 weeks since it agreed to hear a challenge to Kentucky's use of lethal injection. On Thursday, the Georgia Supreme Court became the latest state court to interpret the justices actions as a signal to suspend at least some executions. It granted a stay to Jack Alderman, who had been scheduled to die by lethal injection Friday night for murdering his wife 33 years ago. The top criminal court in Texas, a state that accounts for 405 of the 1,099 executions carried out in this country since 1976, has indicated that it will permit no more executions until the Supreme Court rules, sometime next spring. The Nevada Supreme Court this week postponed all executions in that state. The governor of Alabama gave 1 inmate a 45-day reprieve. The country's most recent execution took place in Texas on the night of Sept. 25, hours after the Supreme Court announced its review of the Kentucky case. This sequence of events has led some death penalty opponents and other analysts to declare that a de facto moratorium is in place. "The states are getting the message," Richard C. Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, an anti-death-penalty research organization, said in an interview. And Douglas A. Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University who has followed the issue closely, proclaimed "moratorium mojo" Thursday morning on his blog, Sentencing Law and Policy. But there is enough ambiguity to warrant caution. Both the Kentucky case and the national situation are complex, and the signals the Supreme Court has been sending are far from clear. For example, on Wednesday, in granting a stay 4 hours before the scheduled execution of a Virginia inmate, Christopher S. Emmett, the justices said the stay would last only until the federal appeals court in Richmond decided Mr. Emmett's challenge to the state's lethal injection protocol - not until their own ruling. The Supreme Court offered no commitment to extend the stay if the appeals court ruled against him. And the Georgia Supreme Court's 1-paragraph order in Mr. Alderman's case on Thursday noted pointedly that the inmate's challenge to lethal injection could not reasonably have been raised during the time applicant's last state habeas petition was pending." Georgia adopted lethal injection as its method of execution only in 2000, while Mr. Alderman, the country's longest-serving death row inmate, has been on death row more than 30 years and exhausted his appeals many years ago. The state court's clear implication was that an inmate who was in a position to challenge lethal injection in a timely manner and yet failed to do so might be deemed to have forfeited the claim. In another case, an Arkansas inmate, Jack H. Jones, raised the lethal injection issue nine years after his conviction and sentence became final. That tardiness apparently bothered only Justice Antonin Scalia on Tuesday, when by a vote of 8 to 1 the court denied an application by Arkansas to vacate a stay that the federal appeals court in St. Louis had granted to Mr. Jones. Justice Scalia objected that the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Kentucky case "does not alter the application of normal rules of procedure, including those related to timeliness." He said the appeals court appeared to be operating on the "mistaken premise" that every lethal injection challenge now merited a stay. While it might be tempting to infer from the silence of the other justices that the rest of the court has no such qualms about tardy claims, that is not necessarily the case. A stay granted by a lower court arrives with a certain presumption of correctness, and refusing to vacate it is an easier call than deciding to grant a stay in the first instance. The justices, sticklers for procedure, have not yet been asked to grant a stay in a situation of clear "procedural default" - words that strike a chill in the heart of any Supreme Court advocate, even in a non-death-penalty case. "What would the court do in such a case? I wouldn't put my money on anything," Elisabeth Semel, a leading death penalty expert, said in an interview. Professor Semel, who runs the Death Penalty Clinic of Boalt Hall Law School at the University of California, Berkeley, said that it would be inaccurate and very presumptuous to call this a moratorium." Rather, she said, "what we're seeing is a combination of different courts, and different executives, deciding to be prudent" while waiting to see what the Supreme Court will do. The answer could be considerably less than many people seem to expect from the Kentucky case, Baze v. Rees. The question is not the constitutionality of lethal injection as such, and probably not even the constitutionality of the 3-drug combination that inma
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Oct. 25 USA: At http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring07/home.html, you will find links to the new issue of Human RIghts, the magazine of the ABA's Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. The issue is devoted entirely to the subject of capital punishment, and includes the following articles: A Thirty-Year Retrospective of the Death Penalty, By Stephen F. Hanlon Monitoring Death Sentencing Decisions: The Challenges and Barriers to Equity, By Glenn L. Pierce and Michael L. Radelet Mental Disability and Capital Punishment: A More Rational Approach to a Disturbing Subject, By Ronald J. Tabak Will New Jersey Ban Capital Punishment? Understanding the Death Penalty Study Commission Report, By Eddie Hicks ABA State Death Penalty Assessments: Facts (Un)Discovered, Progress (to Be) Made, and Lessons Learned, By Deborah Fleischaker Raising the Bar in Capital Cases, By Talbot D'Alemberte The Global Debate on the Death Penalty, By Sandra Babcock Staying Executions: After Expanding the Death Penalty, the Pendulum Swings Back, By Andrew Cohen A Journey to Abolition, By Virginia Sloan Human Rights Hero: Anthony G. Amsterdam, By Ronald J. Tabak * Monitoring Death Sentencing Decisions: The Challenges and Barriers to Equity Much more needs to be done to effectively monitor homicide cases, ensuring only the worst offenders are being sentenced to death. Given the finality of this punishment, even infrequent mistakes in the application of the death penalty will receive widespread coverage and call into question the overall fairness of the system. Equitable application of death sentences requires careful monitoring of our abilities to rank homicides along various continua that would differentiate the homicides into ascending levels of severity and aggravation. Nonetheless, no state has instituted a program of data gathering and analysis that would allow neutral parties to do this. Even if states agreed that such monitoring should be done, there are barriers that constrain even the best efforts to rank-order homicides on their severity and "deservedness" of death. In recent years, America's death penalty debates have uncovered wide areas of agreement. For example, whether friend or foe of executions, virtually all responsible parties agree that a convicted felon should be punished severely and, in the most extreme kind of case, receive a sentence that ensures that the offender never will be released from prison. (In 37 of the 38 states that today authorize the death penalty, a person convicted of capital murder alternatively can be sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.) Most knowledgeable parties agree that jurisdictions must seek to expand and improve various programs and policies that promise to reduce rates of criminal violence. There is an emerging consensus that the criminal justice system needs to do more to help families of homicide victims. Few would disagree with the assertion of Walter Berns, one of the nation's most articulate supporters of the death penalty, who argues that regardless of how strongly a person may support the death penalty in theory, the propriety of the penalty in practice "depends on our ability to restrict its use to the worst of our criminals and to impose it in a nondiscriminatory fashion." Walter Berns, Defending the Death Penalty, 26 Crime & Delinquency 503, 511 (1980). Acknowledging Fallibility and Unfairness Over the past three decades, researchers have assembled a massive body of evidence that challenges the assertion that modern capital punishment systems have succeeded in assuring that only the "worst of the worst" are sent to America's death rows. This evidence can be categorized into 2 general types: evidence showing the "fallibility" of death penalty decisions and evidence challenging the fundamental "fairness" of such decisions. By fallibility, we refer to evidence showing that as long as states use the death penalty, at least some innocent defendants will be sentenced and (arguably) put to death. While concern about this risk is not new, the apprehension regarding erroneous convictions was rekindled in the years after Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). First, in 1987, an article by Hugo Adam Bedau and Michael L. Radelet in the Stanford Law Review documented 2 dozen cases in which persons sentenced to death since Furman later had been released because of doubts about guilt. The number of known erroneous convictions had grown to 124 by mid-2007, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Second, in the 1990s, improvements in DNA technology provided the means of proving beyond any doubt that innocent people have been convicted of crimes and some sentenced to death: 206 prisoners by mid-2007, including 14 on death row, according to the Innocence Project. Researchers usually include in these tallies only defendants who were legally and factually found not to be involved in the murders for which they were sentenced to death. Innu
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Oct. 28 USA: Death Penalty Systems Questioned Serious problems in state death penalty systems compromise fairness and accuracy in capital punishment cases and justify a nationwide freeze on executions, the American Bar Association says. Problems cited in a report released Sunday by the lawyers' organization include: -Spotty collection and preservation of DNA evidence, which has been used to exonerate more than 200 inmates; -Misidentification by eyewitnesses; -False confessions from defendants; and -Persistent racial disparities that make death sentences more likely when victims are white. The report is a compilation of separate reviews done over the past three years of how the death penalty operates in eight states: Alabama, Arizona, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Tennessee. Teams that studied the systems in Arizona, Florida and Pennsylvania did not call for a halt to executions in those states. But the ABA said every state with the death penalty should review its execution procedures before putting anyone else to death. "After carefully studying the way states across the spectrum handle executions, it has become crystal clear that the process is deeply flawed," said Stephen F. Hanlon, chairman of the ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project. "The death penalty system is rife with irregularity." The ABA, which takes no position on capital punishment, did not study lethal injection procedures that are under challenge across the nation. The procedures will be reviewed by the Supreme Court early next year in a case from Kentucky. State and federal courts have effectively stopped most executions pending a high court decision. Prosecutors and death penalty supporters have said the 8 state studies were flawed because the ABA teams were made up mainly of death penalty opponents. On the Net: ABA Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project: http://www.abanet.org/moratorium/home.html Death Penalty Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org Criminal Justice Legal Foundation: http://www.cjlf.org (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Nov. 1 USA: Death row reprieve has national backlash Earl Berry had eaten his final meal and was just 19 minutes away from his appointment with the executioner on Mississippi's death row when the news arrived that the Supreme Court in Washington had granted him a stay of execution. His lawyers had made a last-ditch appeal arguing death by lethal injection the method of choice in almost every US state that upholds capital punishment constitutes cruel and unusual punishment and was thus barred by the constitution. Berry, a murderer who confessed to the 1987 kidnap and killing of a 56-year-old woman, is far from the only prisoner to make the case. The argument has become widespread ever since a judge imposed a de facto moratorium on executions in California 20 months ago for precisely that reason. But he appears to be the one who has brought the entire machinery of state-administered executions to a halt across the US for the next several months. The Supreme Court, which has leaned ever more conservatively in recent years and doesn't seem a likely source of ardent death penalty opposition, agreed last month to take up the lethal injection question based on a case coming out of Kentucky. Since then it has stayed three executions, including Berry's. Legal scholars now agree that no execution is likely to take place anywhere in the US until the Kentucky case is settled. The Supreme Court will hear arguments in that case in January and is expected to rule in the spring. If the justices decide death by lethal injection needs any modification, however minor, it could be more months still before another execution takes place. Lethal injection was introduced in the late 1970s, because it was supposed to be more humane than the electric chair. But the cocktail of drugs was not concocted by a doctor or chemical expert but rather by a prison board in Oklahoma. Recent medical evidence has suggested that the second drug, a paralysing agent called pancuronium bromide, may only mask the pain of execution. If the sodium pentothal administered first as a painkiller is not effective, then the prisoner can die in horrible agony without any witnesses being aware of it. That argument first won over the courts in California, which has since ordered its prison service to redesign its lethal injection regime. That redesign hit a setback this week when a judge near San Francisco said in a tentative ruling that it needed to be subjected to public review and comment a process that would put off the prospect of another execution in California for months. 2 of the Supreme Court's most conservative members, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito, dissented in Tuesday night's ruling staying Berry's execution. The stay infuriated the relatives of the murdered woman, Mary Bounds. "Now you want to tell me that we got a fair shake today?" her husband, Charles Bounds, said. "Please don't ever let that man out of prison, 'cause you'll have me, then. [...] I'll kill him." (source: The Independent)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 26 USA: More fears about executing the innocent Defense attorneys worry bad evidence, witnesses send men to chambers Nobody has produced irrefutable proof that any innocent man was executed Former prosecutor: Death penalty for a "greatly cruel, sadistic-type crime" Since 1973, 129 people have walked off death rows based on evidence A call from death row inmate Terry Lyn Short interrupted a meeting in the office of his attorney, James Rowan. Short wanted a promise that, after he is put to death next month, he won't end up in a pauper's grave in the cemetery that contains the bodies of many of those hanged, electrocuted and lethally injected at the 100-year-old Oklahoma State Penitentiary. Rowan told his 47-year-old client not to be concerned about that. "It's not going to cost you anything, so don't worry about it. That's the least of your worries," he said. What worries Rowan and other defense attorneys is the possibility that an innocent man could be executed now that the nation's death-row machine is gearing up again following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of lethal injection. They point to past death sentences of men who were later exonerated, blaming ineffective lawyers, overzealous prosecutors and shoddy evidence. "The answer is yes, it could happen," said Rowan, who has defended more than 40 capital cases. Since 1973, 129 people have walked off death rows in 26 states after evidence proved they were wrongfully convicted, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Florida leads all states with 22 exonerations, followed by 18 in Illinois. Oklahoma is 1 of 5 states that have each freed eight inmates from death row. One of the Oklahoma men, Ron Williamson, spent 9 years on death row and came within 5 days of execution before he was set free by DNA evidence. The case formed the basis of John Grisham's best-selling "The Innocent Man." Oklahoma's executioners have administered lethal injections to 86 people since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, trailing only Texas with 405 and Virginia with 98. Nobody has ever been able to produce irrefutable proof that any innocent man was executed in recent U.S. history, but Oklahoma's execution of Malcolm Rent Johnson has troubled many death penalty opponents. He went to his execution proclaiming his innocence. A star prosecution witness against Johnson, convicted of the 1981 rape and strangulation of an elderly woman, was police chemist Joyce Gilchrist, who was later fired amid allegations of shoddy forensic work and misleading testimony. "There were serious questions about his case," said Vicki Werneke, chief of the capital post-conviction division of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. "There was a lot of circumstantial evidence in that case, but he was executed in 2000, right before the whole issue with Joyce Gilchrist came to light." Attempts to contact Gilchrist for comment were unsuccessful; there is no listed telephone number for her in Oklahoma City. A current case that has raised questions is that of Paris Lapriest Powell, convicted in the 1993 shooting death of a 14-year-old in a gang-related, drive-by shooting in Oklahoma City. Powell, then 19, and a co-defendant were convicted and sentenced to death based largely on the testimony of prosecution witness Derick Smith, a convicted drug dealer who has since recanted his testimony and said he lied. A federal judge has ordered a new trial for Powell, now 34. The state has appealed the judge's ruling. Powell, one of 83 condemned inmates in the "H-unit" of the state penitentiary, has always maintained his innocence. "I've never really sat back and contemplated my last meal or anything like that. I've refused to accept that," Powell said in a recent interview with The Associated Press. He describes a sense of community on Oklahoma's death row, where inmates share a common goal of avoiding the nearby death chamber. "You can't help but to think about it. You always know that it's there," Powell said. "I don't prefer death at all, but if I have to die ... I'd choose old age." Both Powell and Johnson were prosecuted by the office of Bob Macy, Oklahoma County's chief prosecutor for more than 2 decades. Macy, now 78 and retired, oversaw an office that sent to death row 34 of the 86 inmates who have been executed in Oklahoma since executions resumed in 1990. While Macy acknowledges that forensic science has advanced greatly in recent years and that appellate courts sometimes criticized his arguments, he said he never sought the death penalty unless he was convinced a defendant was guilty. "I have always believed the death penalty is a deterrent, and it's one reason I sought the death penalty as often as I did," he said. "We tried at least 60 capital murder cases, and I think we got the death penalty in 54 of them," he said in a telephone interview. "The only time you get the death penalty is when you have greatly cruel, sadistic
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 16 USA: Supreme Court upholds Kentucky's use of lethal injections The Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's use of lethal injection executions Wednesday. The justices, by a 7-2 vote, turned back a constitutional challenge to the procedures in place in Kentucky, which uses 3 drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. "We ... agree that petitioners have not carried their burden of showing that the risk of pain from maladministration of a concededly humane lethal injection protocol, and the failure to adopt untried and untested alternatives, constitute cruel and unusual punishment," Chief Justice John Roberts said in an opinion that garnered only 3 votes. Four other justices, however, agreed with the outcome. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented. Executions have been on hold since September, when the court agreed to hear the Kentucky case. There was no immediate indication when they would resume. The argument against the 3-drug protocol is that if the initial anesthetic does not take hold, the other 2 drugs can cause excruciating pain. One of those drugs, a paralytic, would render the prisoner unable to express his discomfort. The case before the court came from Kentucky, where 2 death row inmates did not ask to be spared execution or death by injection. Instead, they wanted the court to order a switch to a single drug, a barbiturate, that causes no pain and can be given in a large enough dose to cause death. At the very least, they said, the state should be required to impose tighter controls on the three-drug process to ensure that the anesthetic is given properly. Kentucky has had only one execution by lethal injection and it did not present any obvious problems, both sides in the case agreed. But executions elsewhere, in Florida and Ohio, took much longer than usual, with strong indications that the prisoners suffered severe pain in the process. Workers had trouble inserting the IV lines that are used to deliver the drugs. (source: Associated Press) * Court Rejects Lethal Injection ChallengeExecutions Had Been on Hold Nationwide While Justices Considered Case The Supreme Court has upheld the three-drug lethal injection method used by the state of Kentucky in a 7-2 decision, clearing the way for a nationwide stay on executions to be lifted. Chief Justice John Roberts penned the case opinion, while two Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, dissented. The two convicted murderers at the center of the case, Ralph Baze and Thomas C. Bowling, had unwittingly caused an unofficial moratorium on executions across the country. Since the high court took their case last September, no executions were carried out as state and federal courts waited to see how the Supreme Court was going to rule. Of the 36 states with a death penalty law on the books, all but one has designated lethal injection as the primary method of execution. Baze and Bowling had argued that death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. The drugs included in the protocol are sodium thiopental, which anesthetizes; pancuronium bromide, which paralyzes; and potassium chloride, which causes cardiac arrest. Lawyers for the inmates argued that the drugs are administered by untrained officials who can botch the execution and cause extreme pain. They also argued that other drug combinations could be more effective in carrying out the death penalty. Donald Verrilli, an attorney for the Kentucky inmates, has said, "It really is not about fine-tuning the system to create an incrementally less amount of pain. This is about avoiding torture." But in court, the justices seemed skeptical of the argument. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Where does this come from that you must find the method of execution that causes the least pain? We have approved electrocution. We have approved death by firing squad. I expect both of those have more possibilities of painful death than the protocol here." There have been instances across the country of fumbled executions. In Florida, convicted murderer Angel Diaz was executed in 2006. But a medical examiner's postmortem examination revealed that due to the improper injection of the anesthetic in his case, he had chemical burns on both arms. Experts believe he would have felt extreme pain for 20 to 30 minutes. In Ohio, Joseph Clark was sentenced to death for killing a gas station attendant. But his 2006 execution was botched. It took him 86 minutes to die while he screamed in pain. Even his victim's brother, Michael Manning, watched in horror. "He started to shake his head from side to side," said Manning. It took a technician 19 tries to insert the deadly intravenous needle. Manning said what he saw in that execution chamber should not have happened. "I believe in the death penalty, but I side on the constitutionality side of it. The Eighth Amendment says no cruel and unusual punishment, and that's what I think
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 16 USA: NCADP: BAZE RULING SIDESTEPS THE CRITICAL ISSUES; DEATH PENALTY SYSTEM REMAINS AS FLAWED AS EVER April 16, 2008 - The U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Kentucky's lethal injection protocol sidesteps the critical issues surrounding the death penalty debate in the U.S., the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty said today. "The death penalty system was a flawed public policy before the Supreme Court agreed to review Kentucky's lethal injection protocol," said NCADP Executive Director Diann Rust-Tierney. "It was a flawed public policy while the Court debated the protocol. And now that the Court has ruled, it remains as deeply a flawed public policy as ever." The relatively narrow scope of the Court's deliberations did not address basic issues of fairness, bias, ineffective assistance of counsel or innocent people being convicted and sentenced to death, Rust-Tierney said. She noted that the U.S. has gone almost 7 months since an execution - the longest period of time without an execution since a 17-month hiatus that stretched from early 1981 into late 1982. "Now, with the possible resumption of executions, we renew our commitment to discuss the critical issues surrounding the death penalty system," Rust-Tierney said. "Since the last person was executed - on Sept. 24, 2007 - we have seen a number of remarkable events. Four names have been added to the list of people freed from death row after evidence of their innocence emerged, bringing that number to at least 128. New Jersey has abolished the death penalty. Nebraska has no effective death penalty after its Supreme Court ruled the electric chair unconstitutional. The American Bar Association has called for a nationwide moratorium on executions. And the United Nations, reflecting evolving trends around the globe, has voted for a worldwide moratorium." In addition, Rust-Tierney said, California and Tennessee have held state hearings in order to study their respective death penalty systems. Constitutional questions have been raised in New Hampshire and New Mexico and wrongful conviction and DNA lab scandals continue in Texas. "And that's just in 7 months," Rust-Tierney noted. "It seems that the more we learn about the death penalty, the more we learn we can live without it." Indeed, Rust-Tierney noted Justice Stevens' concurrence in today's opinion in which he warned that debate will continue - not just over lethal injection protocols "but also about the justification for the death penalty itself." (source: National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 17 USA: States abandon execution moratorium Virginia lifts death penalty moratorium Mississippi, Oklahoma say they'll move to get execution dates for inmates Supreme Court upheld lethal injection method on Tuesday Nation's last execution was September 25, in Texas Many states wasted little time trying to get executions back on track following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding the use of a 3-drug lethal cocktail. Guard Joe Dellabruna opens a door to death row at San Quentin State Prison in California. Almost immediately, Virginia lifted its death penalty moratorium. Mississippi and Oklahoma said they would seek execution dates for convicted murderers, and other states were ready to follow. The ruling Wednesday "should put an end to the de facto moratorium on the death penalty caused by legal challenges to this method of execution," said Kent Scheidegger of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a nonprofit group that supports the death penalty. The chief prosecutor in Houston, Kenneth Magidson, whose surrounding Harris County sends more inmates to death row than any other, said he would seek execution dates for the six inmates awaiting execution "in due course." The nation's high court voted 7-2 Wednesday to reject inmates' challenges to the procedure in Kentucky that use three drugs to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates. Similar methods are used by roughly 3 dozen states. Inmates and death row advocates were frustrated that the court brushed aside their arguments that lethal injections are unconstitutional cruel and unusual punishment. "It's just terrible," said Paris Powell, a convicted killer at the Oklahoma State Prison in McAlester. He added: "It's like the air has just been let out of a balloon. There's disbelief that the ruling came so quickly, but it goes further than just right now. It's now official that the death penalty is here to stay forever, really." Lawyers for death row inmates said challenges to lethal injections would continue in states where problems with administering the drugs are well documented. The nation's last execution was September 25, when a Texas inmate was put to death by injection for raping and shooting to death a mother of 7. They've effectively been on hold as states awaited a ruling from the high court. After the ruling Wednesday, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine promptly lifted a moratorium on executions that he imposed April 1 when he stayed the execution of Edward Nathaniel Bell, who killed a police officer. Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling "affirms that the procedure used in Arizona is humane and allows us to proceed and administer justice." Florida Gov. Charlie Crist praised the court's ruling and said he asked one of his lawyers to put together "a very short list" of death warrants to consider signing. There are 388 people on Florida's death row. "Justice delayed is justice denied, and an awful lot of families of the victims have been waiting for justice to be done, and so that's certainly an important factor," he said. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said the decision supports California's lethal-injection procedure and will allow executions to resume. They have been on hold for 2 years because of legal challenges in federal and state courts. California currently has 669 convicts awaiting execution, the most in the country, although Texas leads the way in the number of executions. Since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Texas has executed 405 inmates. Virginia is 2nd with 99. 26 of the 42 U.S. inmates put to death last year were in Texas. Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland said he hadn't yet been able to determine the legal ramifications of the decision. Ohio also uses a regimen to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates, although its procedure is not identical. "You would just think that because the methodology is quite similar that the legal outcome would be similar as well," Strickland said. "But I just don't want to make that assumption without having a little deeper understanding about what they said." Prosecutors in many states said they were studying the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling to determine how to proceed. Others said there may not be an overnight change. "We're going to read it and see how it impacts us," Arkansas Attorney General Dustin McDaniel said. "There are going to be specific issues of law and fact in Arkansas that are going to be different from Kentucky. It may answer all of our questions, but it may leave some others unanswered." In some states, inmates awaiting execution have pending appeals that are expected to take a long time to finish, meaning the ruling may have no immediate impact. The high court's decision may have helped Nebraska figure out how to proceed with its executions. The state's Supreme Court ruled in February that its only method, electrocution, was unconstitutional. "We now have a road map for selecting a new method of execution for our s
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
April 23 USA: LETHAL-INJECTION CASE After Court Ruling, States to Proceed With Executions States began moving forward with plans for executions this week after the Supreme Court declined last Wednesday to review the appeals of death row inmates who had challenged lethal-injection methods in nearly a dozen states. The court had issued orders staying several executions last year and earlier this year while it weighed whether Kentucky's lethal-injection procedure constituted cruel and unusual punishment. States had postponed at least 14 scheduled executions pending the high court's decision, creating a de facto moratorium on capital punishment, according to the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes capital punishment. In a 7 to 2 vote last week, the justices said the three-drug cocktail used by Kentucky, which is similar to the one employed by the federal government and 34 other states, does not carry so great a risk of pain that it violates the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. With three executions already scheduled for this summer, Virginia could be the 1st state to carry out the punishment after the resolution of the Kentucky case. The state has scheduled a May 27 execution date for Kevin Green, who killed a couple in Brunswick County; June 10 for Percy L. Walton, who killed three neighbors in Danville; and July 24 for Edward Nathaniel Bell, who shot a police officer in Winchester. "I actually expect to see a spate of scheduled executions," said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center. Dieter said that despite its approval of Kentucky's lethal-injection procedure, the Supreme Court left room for lawyers to contest other states' procedures. "That sets the stage for a state-by-state resolution of this conflict," he said. Attorneys contesting lethal injections have focused on training and procedures as ways to challenge them. In numerous cases before federal and state courts, attorneys have argued that people who deliver anesthesia do not know how to insert a needle properly into a vein. They have contended that lighting has been poor during some executions, limiting the ability to see mistakes. And they have argued that some technicians hired to conduct medical procedures are not qualified. Opponents said court arguments over these subjects are likely to continue. Ty Alper, associate director of the Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California at Berkeley's law school, said the Supreme Court's ruling in the Kentucky case means nothing has changed: State officials will try to carry out executions and opponents will question their procedures. "It's going to be like it was before," Alper said. "In some states, prison officials are going to be pushing for round-the-clock injections -- there are 40 or 50 in Texas. The open question will be whether those states can reach the standard that the court has set for lethal injection." After the Supreme Court declined to step in yesterday, some state courts, governors and corrections boards vowed to press forward with their execution plans. Texas will attempt to reschedule the execution of Carlton Turner Jr., who killed his parents and hid their decomposing bodies. Mississippi will try to schedule the execution of Earl Wesley Berry, who kidnapped a woman and beat her to death after she left choir practice. And Alabama will seek to schedule the lethal injection of Thomas Arthur, who fatally shot a man through the eye as he slept. Clay Crenshaw, chief of the capital litigation division in the Alabama attorney general's office, said a motion will be filed with the state Supreme Court to set an execution date. Shortly after the Supreme Court decided the Kentucky case, the attorney general asked the state's highest court to schedule executions in 3 other cases. Crenshaw said challenges to the executions are likely to fall on deaf ears. "I think all nine justices basically say that based on what they've seen, there is no question that if the anesthesia goes in the bloodstream, the execution will be painless," he said. "The problem with their argument is there is just nothing to it." Mississippi was awaiting the high court's decision to move forward with Berry's execution, said Jan Schaeffer, a spokeswoman for the state's attorney general. Texas, the state with the largest number of inmates on death row and stayed executions, said the discretion of rescheduling lethal injections is left to state district courts. Tennessee corrections officials said stays on three executions set for December and January might soon be lifted by the state attorney general and the executions rescheduled. Oklahoma requested execution dates for Terry Lyn Short, who was convicted of killing a man in a fire, and Kevin Young, who was convicted of killing a man during a bungled robbery. Arkansas is reviewing the court's ruling before deciding how to proceed with three stayed executions. In Florida, wher
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 28 USA: Justice Scalia, the Great Dissenter, Opens Up Justice Antonin Scalia has carried the conservative banner in the U.S. Supreme Court since President Ronald Reagan nominated him in 1986. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has agreed to a few select interviews to promote his new book,Making Your Case: The Art of Persuading Judges, written with lexicographer Brian Garner. This is the 1st of a 3-part interview with NPR. Justice Antonin Scalia has carried the conservative banner in the U.S. Supreme Court for more than a quarter century. Though he has failed to persuade a majority of his colleagues on many high profile cases, supporters and critics alike agree that he has changed the terms of the debate. What's more, with the addition of two appointees during President George Bush's time in office, he is on the verge of prevailing in most cases for the first time in his tenure on the court. Scalia is a man of many contradictions. An only child, he is the father of 9 children. Tough-minded and thick-skinned in public, in private he suffers when attacked. Often confrontational on the bench, and sarcastic in dissent, he is charming and funny in private. Scalia has made his biggest mark, so far, in those famous biting dissents. He has mocked Chief Justice John Roberts, a fellow conservative, accusing him of "faux judicial restraint." He's said that former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's view on abortion "cannot be taken seriously." Just this month, he derided Justice John Paul Stevens' views on the death penalty, calling them "the purest form of rule by judicial fiat," even though Stevens agreed with Scalia on the end result. "I think when it's wrong, it should be destroyed," Scalia says, when asked whether such language might not alienate potential allies. "[If] it is profoundly wrong, [it] should be pointed out and pointed out forcefully. And I don't mind people doing that to my opinions. A good hard-hitting dissent keeps you honest." A Dead Constitution "My Constitution is not living, it is dead," Scalia says. As an "originalist" and a "textualist," to Scalia the Constitution means what the framers intended back at the founding of the republic. "Whatever they understood then is, in my view, the meaning ... and it's not up to me to say it really shouldn't mean that any more, it should mean something different. Once you get into that boar, you have no criterion," he says. By this logic, if capital punishment was constitutional in 1791, it would be constitutional today. Theoretically, this means that putting people in stocks in the public square, a punishment used in 1791, is also constitutional. "I would say that may be very stupid," he says, referring to the stocks, "but it's not unconstitutional, if indeed it was a punishment that was at that time accepted." Scalia's Differences with Clarence Thomas Contrary to public perceptions, Scalia and fellow conservative Clarence Thomas do not march in lockstep. Thomas is far less willing to abide by the court's past decisions, while Scalia says he generally does not believe in undoing old laws. "I'm an originalist and a textualist, not a nut," he says. His mantra is that states are free to decide for themselves whether to legalize controversial matters like abortion, homosexual conduct and assisted suicide. But when Oregon did in fact legalize assisted suicide, he dissented on other grounds. He has accused his fellow justices of taking sides in the culture wars, but his critics say that it is he who has taken sides. For example, in the case where the court struck down a state law that made private homosexual conduct a crime, Scalia dissented vociferously, even accusing his colleagues of setting the stage for legalizing homosexual marriage under the Constitution. "I don't know why that's taking sides," he says, contending that it is hard to distinguish invalidating a state law banning homosexual sodomy and making homosexual marriage legal. "It's happened in Canada." Comfort with Controversy Scalia is no stranger to criticism. When he provided the 5th vote to strike down a law making it a crime to burn the American flag, his own wife greeted him in the morning singing "It's a Grand Old Flag." Scalia says he "got a lot of heat from that opinion, really serious biting criticism from the quarter I normally don't get criticism from that is to say from the right rather than the left." But his wife got a very special letter from the first President Bush, George H.W. Bush. Scalia summarized the letter as saying: "I know your husband has been getting a lot of criticism for his flag burning decision. Tell him not to worry about it. He did the right thing." With the addition of two new Bush appointees on the Supreme Court, Scalia's views are now on the verge of prevailing more frequently than they ever have before. "I'm not as much of a big loser as I used to be if you want to keep score," Scalia concedes. You know, winning and losing,
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
April 28 USA: Killing in Secret: Death by Lethal Injection "The right of freely examining public characters and measures, and of freely communicating thereon... has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every other right."-- James Madison In our post-9/11 world, government secrecy has become an accepted norm, whether the topic is national security, government spending or constitutional protocols for executions. (Consider that Americans barely protested at the news that President Bush had authorized government agents to secretly listen in on our phone calls and read our emails.) Yet transparency in government is critical to maintaining a democracy. Meaningful public review enables citizens to hold their elected officials accountable, which ensures an open and free government. Without transparency in government, those in power fall prey to corruption and general incompetence. The present controversy over lethal injection protocols is a prime example of this. For 3 decades, prison employees in states across the nation have implemented virtually every aspect of lethal injection executions, largely outside of public view and without legislative or executive oversight. Unfortunately, the U.S. Supreme Court dodged the issue of government secrecy and its impact on lethal injection procedures and executions when it recently handed down its ruling in Baze v. Rees. The case challenged Kentucky's lethal injection protocol, which uses a three-drug injection sequence that has been shown to carry an unnecessary risk of inflicting pain on the condemned. Currently, 36 of the 37 states that have the death penalty use lethal injections and have protocols similar to Kentucky's. This method of execution was first used in Oklahoma and then adopted by other states with no scientific study as to its effects on those executed. However, studies have since indicated that the risks of torturous death are real and significant. In fact, the possibility exists than an inmate executed by lethal injection could remain conscious, experiencing severe pain as he slowly dies. For example, Angel Diaz took more than twice the usual time to die and had to be given a rare second dose of deadly chemicals. Consequently, a medical examiner reported that Diaz had chemical burns on both arms. "It really sounds like he was tortured to death," said Dr. Jonathan Groner of the Ohio State Medical School. Diaz's botched execution led Florida Governor Jeb Bush to suspend all executions. Regrettably, incompetence resulting in botched executions has become a hallmark of many state and federal executions. Even so, states continue to cloak their lethal injection protocols and executions in secrecy. For example, some of the most closely guarded secrets relate to the qualifications and training (or lack thereof) of those administering lethal injections, often to the detriment of death row prisoners. In Missouri, for example, when the media uncovered the identity of the state's lethal injection supervisor, they also learned that he had confused dosages during executions and had lost his privileges to practice in two hospitals. Incredibly, after a federal court barred him from participating in Missouri executions, he was hired as part of the federal government's execution team. Incredibly, the responsibility for creating lethal injection procedures is often delegated to prison employees without discussion, meaningful study or oversight by elected representatives. In California, in response to a federal court order, corrections officials agreed to reexamine their policies but then sought to keep the review process secret. Although the judge denied that request, the construction of a new death chamber began without the public, their elected representatives or even the governor knowing anything about it. Many states even refuse to disclose information about their execution procedures to lawyers whose clients will be subjected to lethal injections. The shroud of secrecy remains even after an inmate's death, preventing a final assessment of the lethal injection procedure. All but 2 states maintain complete secrecy regarding post-execution records and autopsies. These records contain data that is critical to evaluating whether inmates were conscious during execution, but government officials refuse to release this information. However, scientists who have studied post-execution materials in the 2 states where they are available, North Carolina and California, have concluded that lethal injection is not working the way states claim. The manner in which capital punishment is meted out in this country is nothing less than a travesty of justice. And lethal injections, with their shroud of secrecy, are just one part of the problem. We must hold our government accountable, especially when it comes to the state executing citizens. If we are going to allow the government to kill us, then we certainly need to know all the facts beforehand. Clea
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
August 18 USA: On the Trail of Former Death Row Inmates Joan Cheever, author of Back from the Dead, followed former death row inmates who were released when the Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional in 1972. see: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5662491 see:_http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5662491 NPR: Tales from the Underworld: _On the Trail of Former Death Row Inmates Related NPR Stories June 13, 2006Justices Open Door for Death Row Challenges June 12, 2006High Court Allows Lethal-Injection Challenges Jan. 17, 2006California Executes Oldest Death Row Inmate Jan. 11, 2006High Court Hears DNA Appeal from Death Row Dec. 12, 2005Road to Redemption Difficult on Death Row (source: NPR) *** Back From The Dead What would happen if the United States abolished the death penalty and emptied its Death Rows? If the killers were released from prison? What would they do with their 2nd chance to live? Would they kill again? Back From The Dead is the story of 589 former death row inmates who, through a lottery of fate, were given a 2nd chance at life in 1972 when the death penalty was abolished; it returned to the United States 4 years later. During the years she represented Walter Williams on Texas Death Row, Cheever always wondered what would happen if his death sentence was reversed and he was eventually released from prison. Would he have killed again? 2 years after Williams' execution, Cheever was determined to find the answer. Leaving her young family and comfortable life in suburbia, she traveled across the U.S. and into the lives and homes of former death row inmates, armed only with a tape recorder, notepad, a cell phone that didnt always work, and a lot of faith. In Back from the Dead, Cheever describes her own journey and reveals these tales of 2nd chances: of tragedy and failure, racism and injustice, and redemption and rehabilitation. see: http://www.backfromthedeadusa.com/ (source: Joan Cheever)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
March 21 USA: Executions halted as doctors balk After 897 executions by lethal injection over the past 25 years, the role of doctors in carrying out the death penalty is surfacing as the latest ethical issue to force a re-examination of capital punishment in the United States. A conflict between medical ethics and court orders that a doctor participate in lethal injections has halted executions in California, Missouri and North Carolina. But the ethical issue raised by doctors in the death chamber lurks beneath the surface in most of the 37 capital-punishment states that sanction chemical execution, a mode of death also facing separate constitutional challenges over whether it unduly inflicts pain on prisoners. The American Medical Association is adamant that it is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to participate in, or even be present at, executions. But recent court rulings have called for people with medical expertise to assist in executions by mixing and injecting the lethal drugs or monitoring the inmate's vital signs. "That's the conundrum, right? The people who are best able to ensure that the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment is not going to be violated are the people who want to have nothing to do with this," said Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham University School of Law and a capital-punishment expert. Lethal injection, in theory, provides a quiet death in which inmates simply sleep and never awaken. First used in 1982, it was seen as a more humane alternative to the gas chamber, electric chair, firing squad or gallows. (Nebraska is the only of 38 states with the death penalty not to use lethal injection; it still uses the electric chair.) But personnel with little or no medical training at times have struggled to find veins of inmates or have incorrectly administered the drugs. In Florida, the December execution of Angel Diaz, who killed a topless club manager, required 34 minutes twice the usual time and 2 lethal doses because, on the 1st attempt, the needle missed the vein and went into soft tissue. It was later revealed that the lead executioner had no medical training whatsoever. The death penalty is now on hold in 13 states, in 11 because of questions over use of lethal injections. 3 of those moratoriums force a spotlight on the largely hidden role of doctors in overseeing executions. The sharpest debate over use of doctors in executing prisoners is shaping up in North Carolina, where the state corrections department and the state medical board are headed for a showdown over the board's declaration that it will punish any doctor who participates in executions. The fight in North Carolina is the 1st time a state medical board, a state agency that licenses and disciplines physicians, willingly has pushed itself into the debate. Months after a judge said a doctor must monitor a death-row inmates vital signs to ensure there is no pain, the states medical board in January said it would punish any doctor who did anything more than observe executions. As a result, a judge has stayed five executions. The situation escalated March 6 when the North Carolina Department of Corrections filed a lawsuit seeking to strip away the medical board's power to punish physicians for assisting in executions. The corrections department claimed that executions arent medical procedures and so arent under the jurisdiction of the board. In California, a federal judge in February 2006 ordered anesthesiologists to be at the execution of Michael Morales, who killed and raped a 17-year-old girl, after hearing evidence that previous inmates still may have been conscious when the final, heart-stopping drug in the lethal mix was injected. But two anesthesiologists who agreed to be present later backed out when they realized they might have to participate should something go wrong. Morales execution was stayed. In December, a federal judge found that Californias current lethal-injection procedure is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Among the reasons were lack of training for the execution team and improper mixing of the anesthetic. While the judge ruled that a medical professional wasnt required, he said the state's lethal-injection procedures must ensure that enough anesthetic is given and provide a reliable way to monitor the inmate's vital signs. In Missouri, a lawsuit by inmate Michael Taylor, who killed and raped a 15-year-old honor student, exposed that a dyslexic surgeon was mixing the lethal drugs, despite little training in anesthesiology, no written execution protocol and little oversight. The judge called for a licensed anesthesiologist to be used. The state then sent letters to 298 certified anesthesiologists in Missouri and southern Illinois but could find no one willing to participate. In Maryland, where one inmate's lawyers demanded the state add a general surgeon to the execution team, the state likewise said it wouldnt be able to find doctors. Al
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
March 21 USA: Executions halted as doctors balk After 897 executions by lethal injection over the past 25 years, the role of doctors in carrying out the death penalty is surfacing as the latest ethical issue to force a re-examination of capital punishment in the United States. A conflict between medical ethics and court orders that a doctor participate in lethal injections has halted executions in California, Missouri and North Carolina. But the ethical issue raised by doctors in the death chamber lurks beneath the surface in most of the 37 capital-punishment states that sanction chemical execution, a mode of death also facing separate constitutional challenges over whether it unduly inflicts pain on prisoners. The American Medical Association is adamant that it is a violation of medical ethics for doctors to participate in, or even be present at, executions. But recent court rulings have called for people with medical expertise to assist in executions by mixing and injecting the lethal drugs or monitoring the inmate's vital signs. "That's the conundrum, right? The people who are best able to ensure that the Eighth Amendment against cruel and unusual punishment is not going to be violated are the people who want to have nothing to do with this," said Deborah Denno, a professor at Fordham University School of Law and a capital-punishment expert. Lethal injection, in theory, provides a quiet death in which inmates simply sleep and never awaken. First used in 1982, it was seen as a more humane alternative to the gas chamber, electric chair, firing squad or gallows. (Nebraska is the only of 38 states with the death penalty not to use lethal injection; it still uses the electric chair.) But personnel with little or no medical training at times have struggled to find veins of inmates or have incorrectly administered the drugs. In Florida, the December execution of Angel Diaz, who killed a topless club manager, required 34 minutes twice the usual time and 2 lethal doses because, on the 1st attempt, the needle missed the vein and went into soft tissue. It was later revealed that the lead executioner had no medical training whatsoever. The death penalty is now on hold in 13 states, in 11 because of questions over use of lethal injections. 3 of those moratoriums force a spotlight on the largely hidden role of doctors in overseeing executions. The sharpest debate over use of doctors in executing prisoners is shaping up in North Carolina, where the state corrections department and the state medical board are headed for a showdown over the board's declaration that it will punish any doctor who participates in executions. The fight in North Carolina is the 1st time a state medical board, a state agency that licenses and disciplines physicians, willingly has pushed itself into the debate. Months after a judge said a doctor must monitor a death-row inmates vital signs to ensure there is no pain, the states medical board in January said it would punish any doctor who did anything more than observe executions. As a result, a judge has stayed five executions. The situation escalated March 6 when the North Carolina Department of Corrections filed a lawsuit seeking to strip away the medical board's power to punish physicians for assisting in executions. The corrections department claimed that executions arent medical procedures and so arent under the jurisdiction of the board. In California, a federal judge in February 2006 ordered anesthesiologists to be at the execution of Michael Morales, who killed and raped a 17-year-old girl, after hearing evidence that previous inmates still may have been conscious when the final, heart-stopping drug in the lethal mix was injected. But two anesthesiologists who agreed to be present later backed out when they realized they might have to participate should something go wrong. Morales execution was stayed. In December, a federal judge found that Californias current lethal-injection procedure is unconstitutionally cruel and unusual. Among the reasons were lack of training for the execution team and improper mixing of the anesthetic. While the judge ruled that a medical professional wasnt required, he said the state's lethal-injection procedures must ensure that enough anesthetic is given and provide a reliable way to monitor the inmate's vital signs. In Missouri, a lawsuit by inmate Michael Taylor, who killed and raped a 15-year-old honor student, exposed that a dyslexic surgeon was mixing the lethal drugs, despite little training in anesthesiology, no written execution protocol and little oversight. The judge called for a licensed anesthesiologist to be used. The state then sent letters to 298 certified anesthesiologists in Missouri and southern Illinois but could find no one willing to participate. In Maryland, where one inmate's lawyers demanded the state add a general surgeon to the execution team, the state likewise said it wouldnt be able to find doctors. Alt
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news------USA
July 30 USA: After Flawed Executions, States Draw Hoods Tighter A Missouri doctor who had supervised more than 50 executions by lethal injection testified last year that he sometimes gave condemned inmates smaller doses of a sedative than the state's protocol called for, explaining that he is dyslexic. "So it's not unusual for me to make mistakes," said the doctor, who was referred to in court papers as John Doe I. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch identified him last July as Dr. Alan R. Doerhoff, revealing that he had been a magnet for malpractice suits arising from his day job as a surgeon and that two hospitals had revoked his privileges. In September, a federal judge barred Dr. Doerhoff from participating "in any manner, at any level, in the State of Missouri's lethal injection process." Naturally, state lawmakers took action to address the issue. A new law, signed this month by Gov. Matt Blunt, makes it unlawful to reveal "the identity of a current or former member of an execution team," and it allows executioners to sue anyone who names them. The governor explained that the law "will protect those Missourians who assist in fulfilling the state's execution process." In the wake of several botched executions around the nation, often performed by poorly trained workers, you might think that we would want to know more, not less, about the government employees charged with delivering death on behalf of the state. But corrections officials say that executioners will face harassment or worse if their identities are revealed, and that it is getting hard to attract medically trained people to administer lethal injections, in part because codes of medical ethics prohibit participation in executions. The Missouri law addresses that point, too. It bars licensing boards from taking disciplinary actions against doctors or nurses who participate in executions. The job of executioner has never been a high-status profession, of course, which accounts for the hoods that hangmen wore. But in the old days, as John D. Bessler wrote in a history of executions, killing condemned prisoners "called for no expertise apart from the ability to tie a knot." Lethal injections are different. They require executioners to insert catheters and to prepare 3 chemicals and inject them, in the right dosage and sequence, into intravenous lines. If the 1st chemical is ineffective as a sedative, the other 2 are torturous. Yet a federal judge in California found last year that prison execution teams there had been poorly screened and included people who had been disciplined for smuggling drugs and who had post-traumatic stress disorder. In a decision a week ago Sunday, a state court judge in Florida, Carven D. Angel, halted the execution of a death row inmate, saying, "We need to have people with competence and experience" to perform executions. But, according to lethal injection procedures issued by Florida's corrections department in May, there is only one job requirement to be an executioner there: you must be "a person 18 years or older who is selected by the warden to initiate the flow of lethal chemicals into the inmate." Those credentials struck Judge Angel as a little thin. "I don't think that any 18-year-old executioner," the judge said from the bench, "with the pressure of a governor's warrant behind him to carry out an execution, and with the pressure of the whole world - the press and the whole world - in front of him and looking at him is going to have enough experience and competence to stop an execution when it needs to be stopped." The concern is not hypothetical. In December, Florida executioners had to inject Angel N. Diaz, a convicted murderer, with a second dose of lethal chemicals after the 1st set did not do the trick. It took Mr. Diaz 34 minutes to die, and witnesses said he continued to move, squint and mouth words after the 1st dose hit. It would be good to know more about who is performing executions in Florida. But that state's law, like Missouri's, forbids the disclosure of "information which identifies an executioner." Quite a few states have similar laws, and a new Virginia law shielding executioners came into effect this month. A forceful and persuasive article published in the Fordham Law Review in April argued for "a right to know who is hiding behind the hood." Its author, Ellyde Roko, who will start her 3rd year of law school at Fordham in the fall, said in an interview that society's interest in knowing how the death penalty is administered should outweigh the relatively flimsy interests supporting secrecy. "Not knowing who the executioners are takes away a huge check on the system," she said. A 2002 decision of the federal appeals court in San Francisco allowing the press and public to view executions in California supports Ms. Roko's position. "Even assuming an execution team member were identified by a witness, the notion of retaliation is pure speculation," Judge Raymond C. Fisher
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
here is a current breakdown of impending USA executions thus far in 2009: execution by month: January (8 total)--in Texas--6 in rest of USA2 February (6 total)-in Texas--3 in rest of USA3 March (6 total)in Texas--4 in rest of USA2 April (3 total)in Texas--1 in rest of USA2 Total:Texas--14 rest of USA-9
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Jan. 19 USA: 9/11 suspects declare guilt at Gitmo war court 2 alleged orchestrators of the 2001 attacks on America casually declared their guilt on Monday in a messy and perhaps final session of the Guantanamo war crimes court. This week's military hearings could be the last at Guantanamo President-elect Barack Obama has said he would close the offshore prison and many expect him to suspend the military tribunals and order new trials in the U.S. Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the terrorist attacks, were unapologetic about their roles during a series of outbursts as translators struggled to keep up and the judge repeatedly sought to regain control. "We did what we did; we're proud of Sept. 11," announced Binalshibh, who has said he wants to plead guilty to charges that could put him to death. The judge must first determine if he is mentally competent to stand trial. Mohammed shrugged off the potential death sentence for the murder of nearly 3,000 people in the Sept. 11 attacks. "We don't care about capital punishment," said Mohammed, whose thick gray beard flows to the top of his white prison jumpsuit. "We are doing jihad for the cause of God." Mohammed, representing himself, insisted that a uniformed lawyer assigned to assist him be removed from his defense table, saying he represents the "people who tortured me." In another diatribe over secrecy, the acknowledged terrorist ridiculed the government's position that national security had to be protected. "They want to hide their black sites, their torture techniques," he said. Told by the judge to limit his remarks to a legal issue being discussed at that moment, Mohammed bristled: "This is terrorism, not court. You don't give me the opportunity to talk." Mohammed has openly sought to become a martyr at the hands of the Americans. He threw his death-penalty trial into disarray in December when he declared that he would confess to masterminding the Sept. 11 attacks. In March 2007, he told a military panel that he played a central role in about 30 other terrorist plots around the world. Separately, a judge held pretrial hearings for Omar Khadr, who was 15 when he allegedly killed a U.S. soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Christopher Speer of Albuquerque, New Mexico, with a grenade during a battle in Afghanistan in 2002. Lawyers for the Toronto, Canada native want to exclude statements they say Khadr made through torture and coercion. Prosecution witnesses denied their allegation. One, identified only as "interrogator 11," characterized some sessions as "lighthearted," and testified that "he always came in smiling and very willing to talk to us." In both cases, judges denied defense requests to make the Pentagon arraign the men all over again after withdrawing and refiling charges in about 20 cases, a step the Pentagon described as merely procedural. The judge in the Sept. 11 case, Army Col. Stephen Henley, acknowledged doubts about the future of the hearings, saying one legal matter could be addressed "at later sessions, if later sessions are scheduled." Lawyers and representatives of human rights groups who observed the hearings believe Obama will suspend the military commission system created by Congress and President George W. Bush in 2006 to prosecute dozens of men held at Guantanamo. Obama's nominee for attorney general, Eric Holder, in his confirmation hearing, said the commissions lack sufficient legal protections for the defendants, and said they could be tried in the United States. "The military commissions should be at the very least suspended immediately," said Gabor Rona, observing as the international legal director of New York-based Human Rights First. "I'm certainly optimistic and hopeful that it will happen as one of the first orders of business." (source: Associated Press) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 21 USA: BOOKS: Love, life and death on Execution Row Writing for Their Lives: Death Row USA edited by Marie Mulvey Roberts University of Illinois Press, $19.95 IF I had nothing more to do each day than consider matters of life and death and all that happened in between from the confines of an 8ft x 8ft cell then I'd probably be a much better writer. I'd probably also go insane and hope to die before someone else killed me. The madness of death row in the USA is described in graphic detail in this collection of testimonies, short stories and poems. In addition to contributions from prisoners, included are accounts from people employed in the business of killing: defence lawyers, psychiatrists, spiritual advisers, abolitionists and executioners. The journey to a horrific and excruciating death is documented from a capital trial to the point of execution through the testimony of the prisoners themselves and those who love, watch, listen and write to them. It is an uncomfortable journey, however far removed you may be from the ultimate destination when you embark on it. Whether it is the careless humiliations heaped upon Martin Draughton's elderly and infirm mother by his jailers when she comes to visit him on death row in Texas, or the complicity of the guards in allowing a violent assault on Michael Ross, a serial killer from Connecticut, by another (non-death row) prisoner, conditions on death row mean it is nothing short of miraculous that residents make it to the death chamber at all. When they do, prisoners can expect to be gassed, injected with a lethal cocktail of drugs that shuts down the vital organs one by one, a process that can take up to half an hour to complete, or electrocution, depending on which state condemned them to die in the first place. In many states death row prisoners are not allowed any form of socialisation with each other and some are even denied their choice of spiritual adviser if they do not practice a recognised, sanctioned religion. Most moving, inevitably, are the testimonies of the prisoners themselves. Most do not question either their guilt or their fate, accepting their lot with resignation. It is a tragic expectation of American life that if you are poor or black or both then this is the way things have always been. It is the accounts from those in a position to effect change that carry the most weight. These include an account from former Illinois governor George Ryan, who became so concerned about miscarriages of justice on his watch that he took the unprecedented step of commuting the death sentences of all death row prisoners to life imprisonment. For anyone brave enough to wonder what being killed by the state entails, Erika Trueman details the final hours leading up to the execution of her friend Ignacio Ortiz. In stark prose she takes you inside the prison, allowing you to wait those excrutiating final hours with her before being taken to the death chamber. "The curtain opened and we saw Ignacio. He was already strapped onto the gurney, with a white sheet covering him up to his neck. We could not see the straps that held him, nor could we see the needles they had inserted ready for the poison to flow. Ignacio lay still. His eyes shut and head towards the ceiling. An officer announced that there was no stay [of execution]. The microphone was switched off and the officer walked out without looking at the man waiting to die. Ignacio's head and chest heave up once as if he was choking. He breathes twice more, and lies still, his mouth slightly open. An officer came in and announced: 'Death at 3.05pm.' It was as if the man on the gurney did not exist, as if he had already gone, left his humanity behind like an old coat that one can just take off or put on as one pleases." Very few books have the power to change the world. This book is unlikely to be the exception. And for that we should all be very sorry indeed. (source: Tribune Magazine; Cary Gee) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Feb. 9 USAbook review To Kill Or Not by Peter Byrne Turow, Scott: Ultimate Punishment, A Lawyer's Reflections On Dealing With The Death Penalty, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NYC 2003, ISBN 0-330 42688 5 HB, 164 pages. Reversible Errors, Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, NYC 2002, ISBN 0-374-28160-2 HB, 433 pages. "The case never was about the victim, or the defendant, or even what happened. Not really. For the cop and the lawyer and the judge you could never keep it from being about you." Reversible Errors, (Page 344). In the fall of 2001 Scott Turow made up his mind. He could no longer support capital punishment. The long road to his decision had never confined him to libraries or the groves of academe. A public prosecutor in Chicago and then a defending lawyer, he knew violent life and death on a big city level. His writing, whether fiction or non-fiction, always started with people. His essay Ultimate Punishment recounts the anxious itinerary that led him to speak out against the death sentence. Turow is also a novelist who has earned a place among the best authors of legal thrillers. One of these, Reversible Errors, replays the drama of the death penalty in terms of the real, error-prone actors and the faulty institutions that regulate their work. The 2 books are best considered together as one thoroughly detailed enquiry whose point of departure isn't abstract principle but experience as concrete as a lethal injection. And both books deserve our attention in the wake of a noisy presidential campaign that relegated capital punishment to the category of subjects too serious to risk talking about. In Slate, December 28, 2007, Niko Karvounis listed a number of campaign firsts before concluding: There's another first that's gone largely unnoticed: This is the first election in 20 years in which the death penalty isn't a go-to issue for conservatives. For a generation, Republican candidates wielded their fondness for executions like a weapon, and Democrats either summoned their own righteous bloodlust and embraced capital punishment, or avoided the subject altogether. But the Bush years have witnessed a steady shift in how Americans perceive the death penalty, and this time around, it's the last thing Republicans want to talk about. And yet, faced with an opportunity to seize the high ground in a debate they've been losing for decades, the Democrats can't summon the nerve. So, 2008 could go down in history as the year the Democrats had the chance to confront the death penalty -- and didn't. Literary men who oppose the death penalty generally agree with what George Orwell wrote in his essay The Hanging: "I saw the mystery, the unspeakable wrongness, of cutting a life short when it is in full tide." Victor Hugo, Feodor Dostoievski, Arthur Koestler, and Albert Camus all dwell on the inviolability of life, the mental torture involved in a programmed putting to death and the essential barbarity behind any such undertaking. Turow, a lawyer to his fingertips, leaves aside these sentiments. No more does he debate the classic arguments of principle. He passes over Cesare Beccaria's utilitarian objection that capital punishment is not a greater deterrent than life in prison. He's unfazed by Immanuel Kant's reasoning that in the case of murder, nothing but capital punishment can make the culprit realize the significance of the wrong done. And Turow is probably unconcerned that in fact his own position echoes Kant's great commonplace that only the guilty may be punished -- that a system of punishment that does not protect the innocent is immoral. For it's the prospect of error that motivated Turow's decision. Unlike these writers and thinkers, Turow doesn't dwell on the instant when life is snuffed out, nor does he build syllogisms on the philosophic heights. He starts at the beginning with the presumed criminal's arrest and follows through with a thorough study of the legal process. It's a hands-on perspective. He considers honest but mistaken eyewitnesses; cops under pressure to produce quick solutions; their habit of choosing one scenario and closing their eyes to all others; state's attorneys who while investigating must think of the next election; overworked defense lawyers insufficiently financed; confessions obtained by torture or deception, misguided pleading by the innocent; opportunist jailhouse snitches; irrational pressure from families of victims; and juries that by law must not include anyone disapproving of capital punishment. The shift in American opinion noted by Karvounis was anything but steady in Illinois. It exploded in 2000 when Governor George Ryan declared a death-penalty moratorium after the state had been forced to release 13 innocent victims from death row. His move put 167 death sentences on indefinite hold. Unfortunately, the image of the Republican governor as a moral crusader didn't survive the fact that he's now a convicted felon serving time for corruption. His biographer
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
July 30 USA (NEW YORK)possible federal death penalty Syracuse man could face federal death penalty for shooting of Kihary Blue Syracuse police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office this morning accused a member of the V-Not Gang of shooting Kihary Blue and setting off a cycle of retaliation that included the death of 20-month-old Rashaad Walker Jr. Kahari Smith, 26, of Syracuse, faces state and federal murder charges in the shooting of Blue, a former star athlete at Henninger High School who was home from college when he was killed. Smith is being held in police custody and is accused of 2nd-degree murder and 2nd-degree criminal possession of a weapon, said Syracuse Police Chief Frank Fowler. He will be arraigned on those charges in Syracuse City Court. At the same time, Assistant U.S. Attorney John Katko announced that a federal indictment accusing Smith of murder in aid of racketeering activity in the Blue shooting was unsealed. Smith will be arraigned on those charges in federal court. The case is being considered for the federal death penalty, Katko said. The federal indictment accuses Smith of shooting at a car on Nov. 26 that was traveling on Interstate 81 near the Interstate 690 interchange in Syracuse. Blue was riding in the car with several members of the Bricktown gang. The shots struck Blue, who died later at Upstate University Hospital and another person riding in the car. The shooting was in retaliation for an earlier shooting, the federal indictment said. Authorities also said during a morning news conference: Bricktown gang member Saquan Evans, 21, mistakenly believed that the 110 gang was behind the Blue shooting. Evans is accused of second-degree murder in the Nov. 28 fatal shooting of Rashaad Walker Jr., whose father was a member of the rival gang. (source: The Post-Standard) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Aug. 18 USA: Research Examines the Black-And-White Issues Surrounding Executions in the South An examination of post-emancipation executions in the South is revealing how race played a significant and under-examined role in executions. Annulla Linders, a University of Cincinnati associate professor of sociology, will present the research on Aug. 21, at the 106th annual meeting of the American Sociological Association in Las Vegas. Linders combed through newspaper archives in the Library of Congress to examine the meanings and understandings about race and justice that were produced in newspaper accounts of legal, public executions of African-American convicts -- reports produced by white reporters for white readers. Previous research has suggested that capital punishment in the South was used against African-Americans in the late 19th and early 20th century to ensure and reinforce white domination, says Linders. However, she writes that, "Partially concealed under the weight of oppression is evidence that the execution also served as a critical site of resistance." She explains that the executions of black convicts also became black cultural events that evolved into sites of black resistance to oppression. "Thus it is evident, despite many accounts to the contrary, that the white authorities recognized the danger of using capital punishment as a form of racial domination, even as they held on to the belief that the (public) execution of black criminals was an important tool in the control and submission of blacks," writes Linders. Linders explains that while "white justice" was put on public display, there could be hundreds of African Americans congregating at the site, taking off work and traveling long distances. "It's quite clear that these events posed a potential source of conflict. Thousands of black people are coming to town to see one black person publicly executed. "So, there are two fundamental ways in which the reporters addressed that conflict," says Linders. "One was to try to reassure readers that the black community also felt the event was a 'just' execution. Also, the portrayal of hostility served different purposes, primarily to justify the oppression. So it was a difficult balancing act for the news writers in downplaying the oppression and legitimizing it at the same time." Linders adds that the reports of the religious fervor of the audience was another signal that these executions had become sites for black resistance, adding that segregated churches were the sites where the Civil Rights Movement was eventually born. "Taken together, the subversion of executions by black audience members fits into the much larger mobilization of black resistance throughout the late 19th and early 20th century," concludes Linders. The research was supported by the University of Cincinnati's Charles Phelps Taft Research Center. (source: Science Daily) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 7 USA: US court allows life terms for juveniles A US federal appeals court today held that juveniles convicted of murder can be sentenced to life in prison without parole, seeking to settle a lingering debate over how the courts punish minors who commit serious offences. The US Supreme Court has already ruled that juveniles cannot be sentenced to death and that they also can't be sentenced to life in prison without parole for rape and other non-homicide offences. The ruling by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals today, though, upheld life sentences for juveniles convicted of murder. The decision came in the case against Kenneth Loggins, who was convicted in Alabama of killing a hitchhiker in 1994 and originally sentenced to die. He was 17 at the time of the killing, so his punishment was reduced to life without parole because the Supreme Court banned such executions in 2005. His lawyers had urged the 3-judge panel to broaden a 2010 Supreme Court ruling to include murders. That 5-4 ruling held that juveniles cannot be sentenced to life in prison without parole if they haven't killed anyone, and ordered the courts to allow them a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release." But prosecutors argued that the high court took pains to specify the ruling only applied in non-homicide cases, and the 11th Circuit said it found no reason to toss out Loggins' prison sentence. The decision, written by Circuit Judge Ed Carnes, said "there's nothing in law or logic" to support the argument that a state shouldn't be allowed to impose the next most severe punishment if a death penalty sentence is banned. The 11th Circuit has jurisdiction over federal cases in Georgia, Alabama and Florida, but lawyers in other areas will likely use the opinion to back up their own arguments. Mr Carnes had been the head of Alabama's capital punishment unit before he joined the court in 1992. He also wrote that the state shouldn't be blocked from imposing the prison sentence because it "lacked the clairvoyance to know that the Supreme Court would do an about-face and rule out death sentences for 17-year-old murderers." In the decision, he said only a few jurisdictions have repealed laws permitting life without parole sentences for homicides committed by juveniles, and that the national consensus seems to be in favour of keeping those laws on the books. "The long-term national trend is not away from life without parole sentences for homicides committed by juveniles but toward them," he said. The ruling comes in a case involving the gruesome murder of a woman, who was picked up by Loggins and three other teens and taken to a secluded rural area as she was travelling to her mother's home in Louisiana. One of the men hit the woman in the head with a beer bottle and then tackled her when she tried to run away, and all four savagely kicked her, the court said. When they realised she was still alive after the vicious beating, Loggins stood on her throat until she died, the ruling said. Loggins and two others later mutilated the body by cutting off her fingers and thumbs and removing part of a lung. They were arrested after one of the teens was reported to have been showing one of the victim's severed fingers to friends. The 3 others - who were 19, 17 and 16 at the time of the killing - were also convicted of the slaying and sentenced to either death or life in prison. (source: Adelaide Now) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 10 USA: From Wall Street to death row: Lawyer finds a calling in ministry When a prison chaplain first asked Dale Recinella to minister to the inmates at Apalachee Correctional Institution, Recinella's first thought was, "Absolutely not." He never wanted to step foot inside a prison. Locked doors and small spaces make him sweat. But he had to consider: Was this God's will? He convened a family meeting to ask his wife and five kids what they thought. They all had their Bibles open to Matthew 25:26: "I was in prison and you came to visit me." "You always say that Jesus meant what He said," one daughter piped up. "Well, he said this." Still not convinced, Recinella sought the advice of his pastor and his spiritual advisor. They were unanimous. God was calling him to this work. The former high-powered attorney, who was used to top-down decision-making, surrendered. Into prison he would go. Today, Recinella spends several days a week visiting death row inmates, getting to all 400 by the end of the month. And he sweats. The cells have no air conditioning and in the summer it feels like a furnace. But the worst part is witnessing executions. He's seen 5 of them. In his recently published book, "Now I Walk on death row," Recinella writes about the spiritual journey that led him from a lucrative job as a finance lawyer to his ministry with death row inmates. On Sunday, he'll discuss the highlights of his book at 2 p.m. at the Co-Cathedral of St. Thomas More. His talk is sponsored by Pax Christi, the Florida Catholic Conference and Tallahassee Citizens Against the Death Penalty. "The story line is really about what God can do with us if we let him," Recinella said during a phone interview. "I write about where he led us." Shirley Poore, a personal friend and a member of Pax Christi, said many people don't want to follow that inner voice. "It will take you where you don't want to go," she said. "But Dale is one of those people who listened. (The book) is the story about having the guts to do that." The Rev. Bernyce Clausell, pastor emeritus of Calvary Missionary Baptist Church, said she couldn't put the book down. "Every spare moment I got," she said, "I was reading it." His images of the conditions in the prison still haunt her, especially the description of one of the botched lethal injections he witnessed. "He did what he could to make the conditions better," she said. "He kept fighting the fight. I give him credit for telling the story." Giving up control Recinella said surrendering to God's will doesn't come naturally - that the 1st-generation Italian lawyer in him wants to do things his way. And in his case, figuring out what to do in life isn't just about him, it's about his whole family. "I'm a married man with five children, so this has to be something the whole family is called to," he said. "This is not a cowboy's journey." Recinella grew up in Detroit, the oldest of eight children. When he was 9, he experienced his 1st real tragedy - his younger sister, Jan, contracted encephalitis and never walked or talked again. She spent most of her life in a home for severely ill children. He begged God to take the life out him and give it to her, but nothing happened. As a teenager he entered a seminary, thinking if he became a priest, God would heal his sister. But seminary didn't work out. By his early 20s, he was married with 2 children and finishing up his law degree. After graduation, his career took off and by the early 1980s he was living in Miami and working as a public finance lawyer representing state and local governments on Wall Street. But his life was a mess. He drank. He smoked. In 1982, he got divorced. A year later, a 2nd marriage bombed. One day when he was drinking wine and vodka and smoking filterless Camels, his brother, Gary, came over. Gary suggested he give his life to Jesus. Recinella hardly could take it in. But his brother's sincerity impressed him. In his book, Recinella described that moment: "Okay," I say with a nod, sweeping my hand in a gesture that takes in the empty rooms of my empty house and my empty soul. "What have I got to lose?" It's the first of many such decisions that propel him on his spiritual path. Finding their calling 2 years later, Recinella married his 3rd wife, Susan, and in 1986, they moved to Tallahassee and bought a spacious home in Highgrove. They became involved with Good News Ministries, Habitat for Humanity and Big Bend Cares. Still, they began to question if they were being called to do something more. They eventually downsized and moved to midtown where they could be closer to the people they were ministering to. Recinella started working part time and then quit altogether to become a stay-at-home dad. Later, the family sold all their belongings and went to Rome to live in an intentional Christian community. In 1998 they were back in the s
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news------USA
Sept. 19 USA: The Death Penalty: Why We Fight for Equal JusticeThe Buck and Davis cases are a reminder of how far we've come, and how far we have to go, toward fair and accurate capital punishment in America Last week, Texas officials refused to halt the execution of Duane Edward Buck even though his 1997 capital murder trial was concernedly tainted by unconstitutional racial testimony from an expert witness. The Supreme Court, which temporarily blocked the execution, will review Buck's case later this month. Meanwhile, on Wednesday, Georgia officials plan to execute convicted murderer Troy Davis, whose guilt is much more in doubt today than it was two decades ago when he was sentenced to die. Despite the public protests over Davis's fate, the justices in Washington will likely have to intervene there, too, if his life is to be spared while the "new" evidence is meaningfully re-examined. "Nearly 40 years after the Supreme Court first took away the death penalty, we may be closer than many people think to another turning point on capital punishment."At a Republican presidential debate earlier this month, just the mere mention of Rick Perry's record execution rate -- he's overseen more executions than any governor in modern history -- generated a primal war-whoop from the partisan crowd. And as to the solemnity of the act itself, of the lethal injection execution protocol whereby the government prematurely ends a natural life in the name of the people? Evidently it has become so routine in the Lone Star State that the governor qua presidential candidate was fundraising in Jefferson County, Iowa on the night Buck was scheduled to die. I can't imagine a more solemn or important function for an elected official than presiding over an execution. But for Gov. Perry, it was just another day out of state on the campaign trail. He was available by cellphone. The roiling uncertainty surrounding the Buck and Davis cases is a sad but timely reminder that the center has not held on capital punishment in America. The legal compact demanded by the United States Supreme Court when it reinstituted capital punishment as a sentencing option in 1976 has been broken, repeatedly, not by convicts, but by hundreds of overzealous administrators of the nation's justice systems. In Texas, Georgia, Florida, and in the other states which continue to push capital punishment, the "law" in capital cases now is mostly used as a weapon -- not as a shield for the individual against the might of government. It is not justice under law. And it is certainly not equal justice under the law. It is instead far too often a perversion of justice -- and of the Court's well-meant precedent. In the modern era of capital punishment -- since the Supreme Court's decision in Gregg v. Georgia -- three main camps have emerged. First, there are those who are for the death penalty all the way; the ones who lament the time and money it takes from trial to execution. Then, there are those who are against capital punishment all the way; the ones who believe that the state should never be in the business of killing its own citizens. And between the two solitudes, there is a vast middle; those who believe that there is a place for the death penalty, but only if it can be administered fairly and accurately, free from the sort of arbitrary and capricious decision-making that pushed the justices to do away with it in the first place in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia. With the Buck case coming back around later this month, with the Davis case right before us this week, with a leading presidential candidate making his capital punishment record a point of political pride, and with the Tea Party crowd cheering execution statistics, now seems as good a time as any to dig around a little at this strange legal confluence we've come to on the death penalty. Nearly 40 years after the Supreme Court first took away the death penalty, we may be closer than many people think to another turning point on capital punishment. We may be reaching the Icarus point -- and don't say I didn't warn you. Hobbes v. Locke When the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty in 1976 in a brief per curiam opinion, it congenially (and conveniently) assumed an awful lot of unapparent virtue and goodness in the present and future participants of the criminal justice system. Justice Byron White, the Kennedy appointee who turned out to a staunchly conservative vote, endorsed Georgia's new death penalty statutes, writing that the law: not only guides the jury in its exercise of discretion as to whether or not it will impose the death penalty for first-degree murder, but also gives the Georgia Supreme Court the power and imposes the obligation to decide whether in fact the death penalty was being administered for any given class of crime in a discriminatory, standardless, or rare fashion. If that court properly performs
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 23 USA: SMU Human Rights Activist Rick Halperin: 'No Such Thing As a Better Victim' The execution of Troy Davis was a tragedy and a failure in every sense of the word. How we can kill someone when there is reasonable doubt of innocence is mind-boggling. But it’s not surprising. The Davis case wasn't just about killing Troy Davis. It’s about us. It's about who we are — as a people and as individuals — and what sense of morals and principles we believe in and are committed to defending and advocating. On the same night as Troy Davis’ execution, Lawrence Brewer was executed in Texas for arguably one of the worst crimes in recent memory — of killing James Byrd, dragging him behind a truck to a horrific death. And here were two very different types of cases: One regarding a black man with strong claims of innocence being executed for killing a white policeman. Another for a white supremacist who admitted to his guilt for killing a black man. Though the Davis case was certainly compelling because of his potential innocence, and the Byrd murder is nothing less than despicable, we should feel the same outrage over all death penalty cases. There's no such thing as a better victim. Rather than using the law to put to death the innocent and guilty alike, we should be using the law to lead this country to a more enlightened set of behaviors, ones that will make us better as a people and make us better than we think we can be. (source: SMU News) * With the death penalty, ‘probably’ isn’t good enough The death penalty is a barbaric anachronism, a crude instrument not of justice but of revenge. Most countries banished it long ago. This country should banish it now. The state of Georgia was wrong to execute convicted murderer Troy Anthony Davis as protesters and journalists kept a ghoulish vigil Wednesday night — just as the state of Texas was wrong, hours earlier, to execute racist killer Lawrence Russell Brewer. That’s hard for me to write, because if anyone deserved a syringe full of lethal poison it was Brewer. He was an avowed white supremacist who had been convicted, along with two accomplices, of the 1998 hate-crime murder of a black man, James Byrd Jr. They offered Byrd a ride, beat him up and then killed him by chaining his ankles to the back of their pickup and dragging him for more than two miles. When police found Byrd’s body, it was dismembered and decapitated. “I have no regrets,” Brewer said in an interview with Beaumont, Tex., television station KFDM this year. “I’d do it all over again, to tell you the truth.” Sweet guy, huh? Still, I can’t applaud his death at the hands of the well-practiced Texas executioners. It’s not that I believe his life had any redeeming value, just that the state was wrong to snuff it out. The Davis case drew worldwide attention because of questions about the evidence of his guilt. Davis was found guilty of killing a Savannah, Ga., police officer, Mark MacPhail, in 1989. The conviction was based almost entirely on eyewitness testimony, and in the 2 decades since that trial, 7 of 9 witnesses have at least partially recanted. The case became a cause celebre. Luminaries who could never be accused of being soft on crime — such as former FBI Director William Sessions and former GOP Rep. Bob Barr — argued that Davis should not be executed because of doubt about his guilt. Wednesday night, in his last words, Davis told MacPhail’s family that “I did not personally kill your son, father and brother. I am innocent.” Then a deadly cocktail of drugs was pumped into his veins. The Davis case makes a compelling case against the death penalty — but not because it is exceptional. On the contrary, it’s fairly ordinary. Despite what you see on “CSI,” there isn’t always DNA or other physical evidence to prove guilt with 99.9 % certainty. Jurors often have to rely on witnesses whose field of vision may have been limited — and whose recall, imperfect to begin with, degrades over time. Even when there’s no “reasonable doubt” about the defendant’s guilt — the standard for conviction — there’s often some measure of doubt. And there are questions of process. Were witnesses coerced into testifying against Davis? A few say now that they were. Did prosecutors prove their case? The jurors certainly believed they did. Could racial bias have been a factor? Unlikely, given that the jury included seven blacks and five whites. Should Davis’s attorney have done a better job of presenting a defense? Almost surely. It’s a mixed bag. I can’t ignore the fact that over the years, not one of the many judges who examined the case concluded there had been a true miscarriage of justice. This suggests to me that Davis was probably guilty. But “probably” isn’t good enough in a capital case — and this is why the death penalty is flawed as a practical matter. Someone who is wrongly imprisoned can always b
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 24 USA: Troy Davis execution protest confronts support for death penaltyWhile the Troy Davis execution may not be a game-changer for the death penalty, it has become part of a growing conversation about ensuring that innocent people aren't killed or die in prison. The execution Wednesday of Troy Davis, a Georgia death row inmate who convinced thousands across the world of his innocence, capped a sobering week of death penalty debate likely to play into shifting attitudes in the US over the ultimate sanction. The execution, also on Wednesday, in Texas of Lawrence Brewer, convicted of dragging a black man to death in 1998, led to the elimination of the execution day "last meal" in Texas after Mr. Brewer ordered an elegant feast that he declined to eat. Also this week, the US Supreme Court stayed the executions of two other Texas men in order to further review their innocence claims, while Alabama went forward with the 36th execution of the year in the US on Thursday, leading to the death of Derrick Mason for a 1994 murder. And lingering anger over the execution of Mr. Davis led filmmaker Michael Moore to urge a boycott of Georgia, which he called "a murderous state." Taken together, these events aren't likely by themselves to spark reforms of the US death penalty system, which relies largely on states to mete out justice. Even as Davis supporters vow to keep up the fight to abolish the sanction, the loose coalition of human rights groups struggled to come up with a plan for where to focus their appeals next. "His case could set in motion a chain reaction that galvanizes the innocence movement and put even more pressure on the justice system to get serious about reform," writes Dax Devlon-Ross, the author of a novel, "Make Me Believe," about the execution of an innocent man. "Or it could just be another moment." But while the Davis execution may not be a game-changer for the death penalty, it did become part of a growing conversation — more across kitchen tables than legislative chambers — about the courts' ability to ensure that innocent people aren't killed or die in prison. Troy Davis, whose case sparked a rare Supreme Court ruling for a new evidentiary hearing, built a phalanx of support on the fact that 7 of 9 eyewitnesses recanted or changed their testimony, which helped turn public opinion, including those of world leaders like Pope Benedict and President Jimmy Carter, in his favor. The European Union issued a statement against the execution of Davis, saying "serious and compelling doubts have persistently surrounded the evidence on which Mr. Davis was convicted." But it's likely that not just the prosecutor and the victim's family were the only ones convinced of Davis' guilt in killing off-duty Savannah police officer Mark MacPhail outside a Burger King in 1989. Court after appeals court upheld the conviction. Last week, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles failed for a 4th time to be convinced by arguments of faulty ballistics testing and the alleged confession of another man to the crime. Davis was convicted in 1991 after witnesses — including strangers — testified they saw him shoot MacPhail as the officer came to the rescue of a homeless man that two men, including Davis, were pistol-whipping after he refused to give them a beer. Davis was also convicted of shooting another man earlier in the evening, with a gun that ballistics testing tied to the MacPhail murder scene. No conclusive physical evidence tied Davis to the crime, and he maintained his innocence until the end, telling MacPhail's family before the execution that he did not "personally kill" the officer, adding, "I did not have a gun." While the bar for convincing courts of post-conviction innocence is high, Federal District Court Judge William T. Moore last year found the changed testimony unreliable and unconvincing. Defense attorneys, moreover, were loathe to put 2 eyewitnesses who substantively recanted their testimony on the stand at that hearing because of concerns about cross-examination. Critics say the global outpouring of support for Troy Davis was disingenious, an example of death penalty opponents picking sympathetic cases to tout while ignoring other claims of innocence, such as those expressed by Mr. Brewer, who was also executed Wednesday, in Texas, for the killing of James Byrd in a race-motivated dragging. While protesters helped shape the coverage of the execution, they ultimately came up against the determination of the court system as a brief delay in the execution as the US Supreme Court considered an appeal gave way to a lethal injection after the court, after several hours' consideration, dismissed the plea. "There was this invisible support for the execution that didn't need to be shaped or guided, and I think Troy Davis supporters were blindsided by that invisible support," Michael Leo Owens, a political scie
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/stop-death-penality-now-memory-troy-davis/jXgRx4bt ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 25 USA: Only conservatives can end the death penalty. How can we end the death penalty in the United States? Every so often, one capital case receives wide attention and makes a public spectacle of the American machinery of death. Last week, it was the controversy over Troy Davis, who was executed in Georgia after years of impassioned argument, organizing and litigation. I honor those who worked so hard to save Davis’ life because they forced the nation to deal with all of the uncertainties, imperfections and, in some instances, brutalities of the criminal justice system. Yet after all the tears are shed and after the last candlelight vigil ends with a prayer, the repeal of capital punishment is still a political question. Can the politics of this question change? The answer is plainly yes. It’s hard to imagine now, but in 1966, more Americans opposed the death penalty than supported it — by 47 % to 42 %. But the crime wave that began in the late 1960s and the sense that the criminal justice system was untrustworthy sent support for capital punishment soaring. By 1994, 80 % of Americans said they favored the death penalty and only 16 % were opposed. Since then, the numbers have softened slightly. Over the last decade, the proportion of Americans declaring themselves against capital punishment has bumped around between 25 % and 32 %. The mild resurgence of opposition — caused by a decline in violent crime and by investigations raising doubts about the guilt of some prisoners on death row — has opened up political space for action. Forgive me, fellow liberals, but we’re not going to be the ones who lead this fight. Too many Democratic politicians remember how the death penalty was used in campaigns during the 1980s and ‘90s, notably by George H.W. Bush against Michael Dukakis in 1988. They’re still petrified of looking “soft” on crime. Moreover, winning this battle will require converting Americans who are not liberals. The good news is that many of our fellow citizens are open to persuasion. Gallup’s own polling shows that support for capital punishment drops sharply when respondents are offered the alternative of “life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole.” When Gallup presented this option in its 2010 survey, only 49 % still chose the death penalty; 46 % preferred life without parole. And a survey last year for the Death Penalty Information Center by Lake Research Partners showed that if a variety of alternatives were offered to respondents (including life without parole plus restitution to victims’ families), hard support for the death penalty could be driven down to 33 %. If a majority is open to persuasion, the best persuaders will be conservatives — particularly the overlapping groups of religious conservatives and opponents of abortion — who have moral objections to the state-sanctioned taking of life or see the grave moral hazard involved in the risk of executing an innocent person. There have always been conservatives who opposed the death penalty, but perhaps now their voices will be heard. In Ohio this summer, state Rep. Terry Blair, a Republican and a staunch foe of abortion, declared flatly: “I don’t think we have any business in taking another person’s life, even for what we call a legal purpose or what we might refer to as a justified purpose.” Last week, Don Heller, who wrote the 1978 ballot initiative that reinstated the death penalty in California, explained in the Los Angeles Daily News why he had changed his mind. “Life without parole protects public safety better than a death sentence,” he wrote. “It’s a lot cheaper, it keeps dangerous men and women locked up forever, and mistakes can be fixed.” The most moving testimony against Troy Davis’ execution came from a group of former corrections officials who, as they wrote, “have had direct involvement in executions.” “No one has the right to ask a public servant to take on a lifelong sentence of nagging doubt, and for some of us, shame and guilt,” they said. “Should our justice system be causing so much harm to so many people when there is an alternative?” We live in an unreasonable time when political ideology has built a thick wall that blocks us from acknowledging that some of the choices we face are tragic. Perhaps we can make an exception in this case and have a quiet conversation about whether our death-penalty system really speaks for our best selves. And I thank those conservatives, right-to-lifers, libertarians and prison officials who, more than anyone else, might make such a dialogue possible. (source: Column, E.J. Dionne; He is a twice-weekly columnist for the Washington Post Writers' Group and a senior fellow in governance studies at The Brookings Institution, a professor at Georgetown University and a NPR commentatorWashington Post) *** Ebenezer pastor continues fight against death p
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 26 USA: An Indefensible Punishment When the Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty 35 years ago, it did so provisionally. Since then, it has sought to articulate legal standards for states to follow that would ensure the fair administration of capital punishment and avoid the arbitrariness and discrimination that had led it to strike down all state death penalty statutes in 1972. As the unconscionable execution of Troy Davis in Georgia last week underscores, the court has failed because it is impossible to succeed at this task. The death penalty is grotesque and immoral and should be repealed. The court’s 1976 framework for administering the death penalty, balancing aggravating factors like the cruelty of the crime against mitigating ones like the defendant’s lack of a prior criminal record, came from the American Law Institute, the nonpartisan group of judges, lawyers and law professors. In 2009, after a review of decades of executions, the group concluded that the system could not be fixed and abandoned trying. Sentencing people to death without taking account of aggravating and mitigating circumstances leads to arbitrary results. Yet, the review found, so does considering such circumstances because it requires jurors to weigh competing factors and makes sentencing vulnerable to their biases. Those biases are driven by race, class and politics, which influence all aspects of American life. As a result, they have made discrimination and arbitrariness the hallmarks of the death penalty in this country. For example, 2/3 of all those sentenced to death since 1976 have been in 5 Southern states where “vigilante values” persist, according to the legal scholar Franklin Zimring. Racism continues to infect the system, as study after study has found in the past 3 decades. The problems go on: Many defendants in capital cases are too poor to afford legal counsel. Many of the lawyers assigned to represent them are poorly equipped for the job. A major study done for the Senate Judiciary Committee found that “egregiously incompetent defense lawyering” accounted for about 2/5 of the errors in capital cases. Apart from the issue of counsel, these cases are more expensive at every stage of the criminal process than noncapital cases. Politics also permeates the death penalty, adding to chances of arbitrary administration. Most prosecutors in jurisdictions with the penalty are elected and control the decision to seek the punishment. Within the same state, differing politics from county to county have led to huge disparities in use of the penalty, when the crime rates and demographics were similar. This has been true in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas and many other states. So far, under this horrifying system, 17 innocent people sentenced to death have been exonerated and released based on DNA evidence, and 112 other people based on other evidence. All but a few developed nations have abolished the death penalty. It is time Americans acknowledged that the death penalty cannot be made to comply with the Constitution and is in every way indefensible. (source: Editorial, New York Times) * The Death of the Death PenaltyThe courts and public are moving toward repeal but not fast enough for inmates like Troy Davis The executions last week of Troy Davis in Georgia and Lawrence Russell Brewer in Texas, as well as the United States Supreme Court’s recent decisions to stay the execution of two other Texas inmates, Duane Buck and Cleve Foster, have pushed the death penalty back into the national spotlight. Davis’s case, which inspired protests around the world, and Brewer’s, whose crime earned him universal loathing, remind us of the intense and conflicting emotions that continue to surround the vexed issue of capital punishment. The truth is that the death penalty in the U.S. is withering, albeit at a pace too slow for many. That may seem like a paradoxical observation coming after a week in which 2 men were put to death and 2 others still stand hours away from execution, but there is no doubting that momentum is moving against capital punishment. In the past 7 years, 4 states (New Jersey, New Mexico, Illinois, and New York) have abandoned it. Even in the 34 states where executions remain lawful, death sentences have grown rarer. There were 46 executions in the U.S. last year, compared with 85 a decade before. From 2000 to 2010, juries across the country imposed only 1/2 the number of death sentences they had in the 1990s. Yet some might say that someone like Brewer surely deserves the death penalty. Brewer made no bones about the fact that he was one of three white supremacists who kidnapped James Byrd because he was black and dragged him for 2 miles behind their pickup truck. It was a murder of unique savagery. Some Americans believe in the death penalty “because the victims deserve it,” yet Byrd’s son’s oppositi
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 26 USA: Think the Death Penalty Can't Be Abolished? Here's How It Happened Before With polls showing that roughly 6 in 10 Americans still support capital punishment in the US (even with that number declining somewhat) it’s hard to make the case that the practice will be abolished any time soon. But I’ve argued otherwise, pointing to support dropping to under 50% when life without parole is listed as an option, and the continuing fall in the number of executions in America. Still, most in the media find the end of executions in the US a farfetched dream. I’d guess that most probably are not even aware that the death penalty was once banned in America—and not so long ago. And it happened rather suddenly and unexpectedly. There was no one event or factor that caused it. Yes, there were several notable cases in the 1950s that sparked protest, including the Rosenbergs and Caryl Chessman (left). In 1959, Susan Hayward won an Academy Award for her portrayal of a condemned murderess in I Want to Live, based on the true story of Barbara Graham. The film concluded with a graphic and troubling depiction of the woman’s execution in the San Quentin gas chamber. Pope Pius XII offered only a timid plea for “charity” in the Chessman case, but even that was breakthrough for Catholics, a “tentative step on the road to recovering the pastoral practice of St. Augustine, disapproving all executions, and especially those based on political motives,” James Mcgivern wrote in his book on this subject. Chessman’s pleas for a new trial inspired the first mainstream churches, such as the Methodists, to join the so-called “peace” churches in taking a stand against capital punishment. By the end of the 1960s, the Methodists were joined in the abolitionist camp by the American Baptists, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the Lutheran Church, the National Council of Churches (but not the Catholic Church). Hawaii and Alaska entered the union abolitionist. Oregon and Iowa, which had gone abolitionist once before—only to reinstate the death penalty—now banned executions once again. Delaware outlawed executions in 1958, but then, following outrage over a brutal murder in the state, reinstituted it in 1961. More nations abolished executions. In 1955, Arthur Koestler had observed that Great Britain “is that peculiar country in Europe where people drive on the left side of the road, measure inches in yards, and hang people by the neck until dead,” a practice he likened to “a slightly off-color family joke.” 10 years later, England suspended the practice as an experiment; for years later it decided to make the ban permanent. In America, the average number of annual executions had stood at about 120 during the 1940s, but now declined to about 70 per year during the 1950s, and then to 21 in 1963, 7 in 1965, and 2 in 1967—the last executions for more than a decade. (My new book Dead Reckoning traces the death penalty in America right up to the Troy Davis case.) There were several reasons for this. New studies seemed to suggest that the deterrence theory was hogwash; in fact, in some states, the murder rate appeared to rise after a wave of executions. A new generation of anti-death penalty lawyers, led by the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, adopted a strategy of contesting nearly every capital conviction, up the appeals process, log-jamming the death penalty machinery, hoping this might lead to a permanent shutdown. A kind of moratorium on state killings was established while numerous legal issues, often centering on the Eighth Amendment, were decided in the courts. Since the 1950s, under the influence of the Warren Court, the notion of equality before the law had held sway, and few could deny that the death penalty had been exacted on the poor and minorities far out of proportion. In addition, the trend in criminal justice was toward rehabilitation of inmates. For the 1st time, surveys showed that a majority of Americans, influenced by all of the above trends, and a general period of economic well-being and social stability, opposed the death penalty. One survey tracked the drop in support for the death penalty from 68% in 1953 to 51% in 1960 to 45% in ’65. So, much like today, prosecutors were hesitant to seek it and juries reluctant to grant it. Matters came to a head in 1972 when Furman v. Georgia came before the Supreme Court, and the justices were, essentially, asked to rule on the validity of the death penalty in light of the Eighth Amendment. The justices split into three factions. Marshall and Brennan felt that it indeed amounted to cruel and unusual punishment per se. Each cited evolving moral standards as one reason for their beliefs. Brennan, in addition, argued that capital punishment was degrading and humiliating and “does not comport with” the fundamental right to “human dignity.” Marshall stated that it was, in any case, “exc
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 27 USA: Steve Earle: Still a Leading 'Hard-Core Troubadour' Against the Death Penalty It was hardly a surprise that my favorite songwriter/actor/novelist Steve Earle got involved in activism surrounding the execution of Troy Davis by the state of Georgia last week. He was among the many celebrities who signed the petition calling on the state to grant Davis clemency. Earle told an interviewer, “My deal with Troy Davis and everybody else like that is: I’m opposed to the death penalty for anybody. It’s a big deal, that possibility of a person being innocent and being executed.” But politicians afraid to look weak keep the death penalty in place in America, he charged. Earle, now 56, is no latecomer to the cause. In fact, he has probably been the most consistently outraged and active in the musical world (especially with the passing of Johnny Cash) since the early 1990s when he penned his first protest song, “Billy Austin.” Later he wrote “Ellis Unit One” about prison personnel “putting down” prisoners in Texas (it was used for the Dead Man Walking soundtrack) and then “Over Yonder (Jonathan’s Song),” about a death row prisoner he befriended. That man, Jonathan Nobles, asked Steve to witness his execution, and Earle agreed to do it—a rarity among celebrities—and, then wrote about it brilliantly (as I recount in my new e-book, Dead Reckoning). Earle, who spent his own stint in prison on drug charges, has also performed at numerous anti–death penalty benefits and joined activists camping out overnight outside the US Supreme Court. In 2010 Earle was awarded the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty’s Shining Star of Abolition award. I interviewed Earle (one of my favorite songwriters going back to “Guitar Town”) about all of this a few years ago, and in meeting him a couple of times since he always brings me up to date on his efforts—although he’s also been very active in Farm Aid and with the Stop Landmines campaign, among others. He even had a weekly show on Air America a few years back. And in December he will sing and talk (along with wife Alison Moorer) during The Nation’s annual cruise. Somehow Earle has found time to move to New York City and Woodstock with swell singer Moorer, appear as an actor in The Wire and Treme (though he got killed off in a key plot point last season), and keep on touring and recording (his tribute to Townes Van Zandt won him another Grammy). A few years ago, I was delighted when Steve told me that he was working on a novel—he had just published a collection of short stories—loosely inspired by the infamous “Dr. Toby” who “treated” Hank Williams just before he died at the age of 29. That resulted in Steve’s new novel, with the title taken from Hank’s final single, I’ll Never Get Out of This World Alive (also the title of Earle’s latest CD). Still, one of his most important pieces of writing remains a lengthy account of witnessing his friend Jonathan Nobles’s execution, first published by Tikkun and then widely elsewhere (an excerpt closes my Dead Reckoning book). Minutes from death, Nobles had told Earle, “Steve, I can’t believe that I had to go through all this to see you in a suit coat.” Here’s how Earle concluded his piece. When he finishes reciting he takes a deep breath and says: “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.” The warden, recognizing the prearranged signal he and Jon had agreed on, nods toward the unseen executioner and Jon begins to sing. “Silent night?/?Holy night…” He gets as far as “mother and child” and suddenly the air explodes from his lungs with a loud barking noise, deep and incongruous, like a child with whooping cough. “HUH!!!” His head pitches forward with such force that his heavy, prison-issue glasses fly off his face, bouncing from his chest and falling to the green tile floor below. And then he doesn’t move at all. I watch his eyes fix and glaze over, my heart pounding in my chest and Dona squeezing my hand. Dead men look… well, dead. Vacant. No longer human. But there is a protocol to be satisfied. The warden checks his watch several times during the longest 5 minutes of my life. When the time is up, he walks across the room and knocks on the door. The doctor enters, his stethoscope earpieces already in place. He listens first at Jon’s neck, then at his chest, then at his side. He shines a small flashlight into Jon’s eyes for an instant and then, glancing up at the clock on his way out, intones: “6.18.” We are ushered out the same way we came, but I don’t think any of us are the same people who crossed the street to the prison that day. I know I’m not. I can’t help but wonder what happens to the people who work at the Walls, who see this horrific thing happen as often as four times a week. What do they see when they turn out the lights? I can’t imagine. I do know that Jonathan Nobles changed profoundly while he was in prison. I know that
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
URGENT ACTION APPEAL - From Amnesty International USA -- For a print-friendly version of this Urgent Action (PDF): http://www.amnestyusa.org/actioncenter/actions/uaa15411.pdf Note: Please write on behalf of these persons even though you may not have received the original UA when issued on 26 May 2011. Thanks! Further information on UA: 154/11 (26 May 2011) Issue Date: 17 October 2011 Country: USA DEATH PENALTY ON TABLE FOR GUANTANAMO TRIAL The death penalty has been approved as an option for the upcoming trial of a Saudi Arabian man held at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. He is to be tried by military commission, under a system which fails to meet international fair trial standards. Saudi Arabian national 'Abd al Rahim Hussayn Muhammed al Nashiri has been in US custody for nearly nine years. Arrested in Dubai, United Arab Emirates, by local security forces in October 2002, he was handed over to US agents a month later, and held in secret custody at undisclosed locations by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for almost four years, during which time he was subjected to torture and other ill-treatment and to enforced disappearance. In September 2006, he was transferred to US military custody at Guantanamo, where he remains. On 20 April 2011, the US Department of Defense announced that 'Abd al Rahim al Nashiri had been charged under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 with, among other things, "murder in violation of the law of war", and "terrorism". He is accused of having had a leading role in the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen on 12 October 2000 in which 17 US sailors were killed and 40 others wounded, and in the attack on the French oil tanker MV Limburg in the Gulf of Aden on 6 October 2002, in which a crew member was killed. The prosecution's recommendation that the death penalty be an option at the trial was approved on 28 September 2011 by the "convening authority" of the military commissions, retired Navy Vice Admiral Bruce MacDonald, when he referred the charges against 'Abd al Nashiri on for trial as capital charges. 'Abd al Nashiri's arraignment hearing, at which the charges against him may be read and he will be called upon to plead, is scheduled for 9 November 2011 at Guantanamo. No date for his actual trial has yet been set. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty unconditionally. While international human rights law recognizes that some countries retain the death penalty, it prohibits the imposition and execution of a death sentence based on a trial that has not met the highest standards for fairness. The US military commissions fail to meet international fair trial standards. Any use of the death penalty after such trials would violate international law (see overleaf). PLEASE WRITE IMMEDIATELY in your own language: -Express concern that the charges against Abd al Rahim al Nashiri have been referred on for trial as capital; -Point out that international law prohibits the death penalty based on any trial that has not met the highest standards of fairness, and arguing that the military commission trials do not meet such standards; -Urge that the military commissions be abandoned in favor of trials in US District Court and that pursuit of the death penalty be dropped in any case, whatever the trial forum; -Condemn the USA's failure to respect international human rights law in the case of 'Abd al Rahim al Nashiri over the past nine years, heightening the need for rigorous respect for human rights principles now. PLEASE SEND APPEALS BEFORE 28 NOVEMBER 2011 TO: President President Barack Obama The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington DC 20500, USA Fax: 1 202 456 2461 Email: http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/ Salutation: Dear Mr. President Secretary of Defense The Honorable Leon Panetta Secretary of Defense 1000 Defense Pentagon Washington DC 20301-1000, USA Fax: 1 703 571 8951 Salutation: Dear Secretary of Defense Please check with the AIUSA Urgent Action Office if sending appeals after the above date. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Despite being named on an indictment in US federal court only months after his arrest in 2002, 'Abd al Nashiri was not brought promptly before a judicial authority and brought to trial without undue delay, as required by international law. Instead he was detained in secret until he was transferred to Guantanamo in 2006. During his time in CIA custody, he was subjected to torture, including by "water-boarding", where the process of drowning the detainee is begun, as well as other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. Information released into the public domain indicates 'Abd al Rahim al Nashiri was also subjected to shackling, hooding and nudity as well as to a number of "unauthorized" techniques, including being threatened with a handgun and a electric power drill, "potentially injurious stress positions" and the use "of a stiff brush [us
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Nov. 24 USA: There is much to be thankful for in today's America. Despite its numerous economic, social, cultural, and political problems (and they are numerous), this is still a great country to live in and to work for social justice through peaceful means. I give thanks for many things, including the fact that occasionally we see an elected official stand on principle and the moral high ground to do what is right. Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber recently announced that he would no longer acquiesce in that state's ongoing system of capital punishment. He ordered a halt to the Dec. 6 execution there as well as announcing that no further executions would occur under his watch--[see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtK6m2H-ds0] Kitzhaber allowed 2 executions there to proceed earlier in his tenure, but no more. His moral beliefs and his political courage are in stark contrast to Texas Gov. Perry and his pride at having presided over 238 executions in his decade long tenure in office. Gov. Kitzhaber and those who specifically work for a death penalty-free America are a major reason I give thanks today; it's an honor and a privilege to work peacefully for a better society that will one day recognize that truly there is no such thing as a lesser person. (source: Rick Halperin, Amnesty International; Letter to the Editor, Dallas Morning News) ___ DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/ ~~~ A free service of WashLaw http://washlaw.edu (785)670.1088 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 3 USA: The racial bias of the US death penaltyWhat does it mean that just a handful of counties, mostly in the South, are responsible for the majority of executions in the US? The application of the US death penalty is unfair, arbitrary and racially biased. Whether a defendant receives a death sentence depends not on the merits of the case, so much as on his or her skin colour – and the race of the victim – and the county in which the murder case was prosecuted. 2 recent news items in the US provide some illustrative context. First, the issue of bias: the North Carolina Senate recently approved Senate Bill 9, a measure that would repeal the state's Racial Justice Act. The act, signed into law by Governor Bev Purdue in 2009, allows inmates to challenge their death sentences through statistical evidence of racial bias, including the exclusion of blacks from juries. Republican lawmakers and prosecutors opposed the law. Fortunately, the governor vetoed SB9, which would have required prosecutors to openly confess to racism. This would have made it far more difficult for prisoners to prove racial discrimination in their sentence, despite evidence such as a study of North Carolina which found that defendants whose victims were white were 3.5 times more likely to receive a death sentence. Second, the geographical anomalies: an analysis by the Houston Chronicle found that 12 of the last 13 people condemned to death in Harris County, Texas were black. After Texas itself, Harris County is the national leader in its number of executions. Over 1/3 of Texas's 305 death row inmates – and 1/2 of the state's 121 black death row prisoners – are from Harris County. One of those African Americans, Duane Buck, was sentenced based on the testimony of an expert psychologist who maintained that blacks are prone to violence. In 2008, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal resigned after sending an email message titled "fatal overdose", featuring a photo of a black man lying on the ground surrounded by watermelons and a bucket of chicken. But this is nothing new: race and capital punishment in the US have always been inseparable. According to the Washington-based Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC), 56% of death row inmates are black or Hispanic. However, although racial minorities comprise 1/2 of all murder victims nationwide, a far greater proportion (77%) of the victims in capital convictions were white. The racial identity of the murder victim is thus a leading factor in determining who receives a death sentence in America. Amnesty International also reports that 20% of blacks nationwide were convicted by all-white juries. Given the over-representation of black and Hispanic prisoners on death row, it is hardly surprising that of the 139 capital convicts found innocent since 1973, 61% have been of color. The disparities multiply: nationally, Alabama ranks 23rd in population, but 2nd in executions in 2011. In Alabama, African-Americans are 27% of the population, yet comprise 63% of the prisoners. And while 65% of murders involve black victims, 80% of death sentences involve white victims. Further, according to the Equal Justice Initiative, 60% of black death row prisoners were convicted of killing a white person, although cases involving black defendants and white murder victims represent a mere 6% of the murders in Alabama. In the past 10 years, 23 Alabama death penalty cases have been overturned because prosecutors had illegally struck black people from the juries. Alabama has no black appellate judges, and only 1 black prosecutor. And nationally, 98% of prosecutors are white. If the death penalty is highly racialised, it is a regional and local phenomenon as well. Over 3/4s of executions take place in the states of the former Confederacy (including 35% in Texas alone) with their history of racial violence, lynching and arbitrary Black Codes and Jim Crow laws, which sanctioned death for blacks for certain offenses. In death penalty states, the decision to seek the death penalty takes place on the county level at the discretion of the district attorney. Only 10% of the 3,148 counties in America have returned a single death sentence; a mere 1% of counties returned one or more death sentences per year. According to data from DPIC, 15 US counties accounted for 30% of the executions since 1976 – which is less than 1% of counties in the country, and less than 1% of the total counties in all death penalty states. 9 of these counties are in Texas, and 3 are in Alabama. Capital punishment has national and international implications, yet in the US – where a very small number of counties, largely in the South, accounts for a majority of the executions – local officials enjoy broad powers to prosecute and execute based on groundless assumptions and bias about race. Questions of guilt and innocence are subordinated to expediency a
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 12 USA: Should Christians support the death penalty? Unquestionably the news of the day is the political primaries. For the first time in many years there is no clear heir apparent to be the nominee in either party, and the pundits are absolutely beside themselves because they don't yet have an easy call to make. It will be the news for some time to come. But while all of this is going on there is another story of greater importance in my opinion taking place at the Supreme Court. Last Tuesday the Court began hearing arguments in a pair of Kentucky lawsuits challenging the lethal 3-drug cocktail used in most U.S. executions. The argument against the method is that if the drugs are not administered properly the criminal may be paralyzed but still conscious when the Potassium Chloride causes cardiac arrest, leading to excruciating pain. Some say this amounts to a violation of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution subjecting the criminal to "cruel and unusual punishment." But for all of the prima facie rationales offered against the use of this form of execution the root motivation for this challenge is against the death penalty altogether. Many believe strongly that capital punishment is morally barbaric and should be banned by civilized nations. Many Christians agree with this. There are growing numbers in the body of Christ that believe only God can make the call as to whether someone should live or die, and if someone deserves to die God will take care of that in His own way. For them the Biblical commands to practice the death penalty are Old Testament laws that have no place in the New Testament kingdom of Christ. But such a position cannot pass the scrutiny of Biblical teaching. First of all punishment by death is sanctioned by God, and God did not place a statute of limitations on its use. In Genesis 9:6 (before the Mosaic law was given) God said to Noah: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." In the Bible some sins, especially those which constituted desecration of the family, were particularly heinous to God. He instructed His people to after due process remove such offenders from their community and into the judgement of God immediately. Their sin could not be restituted adequately in this world to allow for them to restored to society and they were executed. The attempt to relegate capital punishment to only an Old Testament practice ultimately fails in the face of the teaching of Jesus. Many Christians are surprised when they hear that Jesus approved of the death penalty as they have superimposed on Him a humanistic morality. In Mark 7 Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for prizing their traditions over the Word of God, and His specific example was how they ignored punishing a capital crime in favor of the rules of men. God authorized the civil magistrate to carry out such punishment in His behalf. It is the role of the civil government to judge rightly, and enforce the law so that peace and justice are upheld a point clearly spelled out by the Apostle Paul in Romans 13. Occasionally there are some who believe that while capital punishment is permissible it ought to be suspended in certain circumstances, such as when a death row inmate comes to faith in Christ. This was seen most vividly when Pat Robertson joined the ultra-liberal World Council of Churches in appealing to then Texas Governor George W. Bush to commute the sentence of Karla Faye Tucker (which was a moot issue since under Texas law governors cannot commute death sentences). Tucker was convicted of brutal first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Tucker converted in prison and was immediately the cover story of several Christian magazines. Robertson (and others) believed that Tucker should be allowed to live and tell her story in the hopes that she could have a positive influence on others. But their efforts failed and she was executed in 1998. While the desire to spare Tucker was understandable it was not Biblical. Not only would this lead to a flood of spurious and convenient "conversions," but it puts the church squarely in league with the Pharisees who believed that they could sidestep Gods Law so long as the ends were noble. No one questions whether someone like Tucker can repent of their sin and be saved by God's grace. But the Bible does not say that conversion absolves anyone of the consequences God has spelled out. It remains to be seen what the High Court decides. But regardless of that Christians need to remember that the Supreme Court does not stipulate morality by arbitrarily interpreting law. Law and morality are not democratically determined. They ultimately come from God and those laws need to be followed and upheld even when they are unpopular. (source: The Rev. Marty Fields is the pastor of Westminster Presbyterian Church in Laurel; The Laurel (Miss.) Leader Call)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Jan. 12 USA: Humane Executions? It hath often been said, that it is not death, but dying which is terrible.Henry Fielding, Amelia The question everyone is asking is whether anything is happening in the United States of America other than a two year long marathon to decide who will be the next president of the United States, news of each milestone being covered as though it were the determining factor in establishing the winner. As we draw closer to the time when there will be an event that actually determines that fact, news of all else is virtually eclipsed by news of what was, was not, is, is not, will be, may be, or wont be insofar as it affects those seeking the presidency. I am happy to report that there is other news even though it is not altogether new news. It concerns the death penalty. And it is a subject with which 2 countries that treasure human rights above all else-the United States and China-are dealing. In the United States the Supreme Court heard oral arguments on January 5 addressing the important question, simply stated, of whether being executed by a e drug lethal injection is more likely to hurt than being put to death by a one drug injection because of the protocol accompanying the injection. If it does, it may be unconstitutional and if it doesn't, it isn't. The people who are best able to answer that question are those who have received the injections and they are unable to give an opinion. Next best, however, are lawyers and Supreme Court Justices and it is the lawyers who presented the arguments as to why the 3-drug injection is apt or not apt to hurt, and the Justices who will decide whom to believe. As the Supreme Court case demonstrates, many people in the United States are concerned about the pain inflicted on those being executed notwithstanding Justice Antonin Scalia's sensitive observation during oral argument that there's no constitutional requirement that executions employ the "least painful method possible." Some medical evidence suggests that a single barbiturate is easier to administer and less likely to cause pain than the 3-drug approach now commonly used. The one drug method is used by the humane society in Kentucky and other states when euthanizing animals and is reportedly painless yet effective. According to Adam Liptak of the New York Times, however, one of the objections to switching to the single drug method employed on animals is that it is employed on animals. Death penalty proponents think that human beings are better than animals and should not be put to death the same way animals are put to death. It devalues the entire procedure. While the Supreme Court contemplates the question, China has announced it, too, is trying, to use Chief Justice Roberts' words from the oral argument, to have a procedure that produces a "humane death." Traditionally China has executed those who have earned the right to be put to death by one shot to the back of the head. Mindful of the sensitivities of the survivors, those being shot have been asked to open their mouths when the shot is fired so that the bullet can pass through the head and out the mouth without disfiguring the victim. Early in the New Year, Jiang Xingchang, vice-president of the Supreme Peoples Court announced that lethal injection was more humane than the shot to the back of the head and would eventually replace the latter method of execution. It is already being employed in some places in China although the formula is the same three-drug formula that the Supreme Court is considering. Thanks to a relatively new invention, however, death by lethal injection has been made much more pleasant as well as efficient, in China. According to a report in USA Today, in 2004 authorities began acquiring a new death van designed by Kang Zhongwen in which executions by lethal injection take place. Mr. Kang says that their introduction shows that China "promotes human rights." The vans enable executions to take place in the communities where the condemned lived thus making it more convenient for family members who want to attend, a truly thoughtful touch. Mr. Kang was quoted in USA Today as saying of the van: "I'm most proud of the bed. It's very humane, like an ambulance." He then shows how the bed in the van slides out so the victim can lie down and when secure, be powered into the van. All in all, it seems like a highly civilized approach to state sponsored death. Whether China will be influenced by the U.S. Supreme Courts opinion of 3 drugs vs. 1 drug only time will tell. Now you readers who have wasted 2 minutes reading the foregoing can go back to the internet to see if the polls that are frequently wrong but slavishly reported and commented on, show any change in the standings of the candidates. (source: Christopher Brauchli; Common Dreams)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Jan. 18 USA: Kenny Richey is proof that the death penalty doesn't need to be carried out to destroy a lifeThe Scot has considered suicide more often in the past week than during his time in jail Kenny Richey, the 43-year-old Scotsman who returned home 10 days ago after 21 years on death row in the US, says he has never been more miserable than since he was let out. In a BBC interview, he reveals that he has considered suicide more often in the past week than during all his time in an American jail. He says that in Scotland he feels "left behind" by a world that has "moved on", and that he is finding it hard to fit in. "So much has changed - even the scenery," he says. "This is a society that has grown up without me." Richey has always protested his innocence of causing the death of a two-year-old girl, killed in an alleged arson attack in Ohio on the house of his former girlfriend and her lover in 1986. I believe in his innocence, since he even refused a plea bargain that would have changed his conviction from murder to manslaughter and reduced his sentence from death to 11 years. As a result, he once came within an hour of being executed. Yet even this horror pales before what he has endured since becoming a free man again. This may seem extraordinary, but it is a well-documented fact that his experience is far from unique. In the great controversy that continues to rage in America about the death penalty - that great blot on the country's reputation for humanity and human rights - the plight of those on death row who are eventually released is almost totally overlooked. They may have been spared the terrible finality of lethal injection or the electric chair, but nevertheless they have had to spend years in prison expecting it, dreading it and preparing for it. Then, all of a sudden, when doubt as to their guilt is grudgingly recognised by the authorities, they are suddenly set free. But to what? Not to a normal life, but to broken marriages, unemployment and social ostracism. In America, state governments that have spent millions of dollars trying to get them executed offer them almost no help or support. The most they may get is the standard "gate money" of between $10 and $200, which is given to all prisoners upon release. It has repeatedly been shown that the death penalty doesn't have to be carried out to rob people of their lives. Richey, it seems, is one such victim. Asked if he feels bitter, he replies: "They took 21-and-a-half years of my life for something I didn't do. Of course I'm bitter. Who wouldn't be?" It is terribly sad. (source: The Guardian)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Jan. 27 USA: Make The Death Penalty Constitutional-Death Penalty Arguments Ignore Simple Alternative - Replacing Lethal Injections With Pills Solves the Constitutional Problems Recent arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on the death penalty ignored a simple alternative to lethal injections which would avoid virtually all of the problems the justices discussed, as well as the so-called 'botched executions- cited by capital punishment opponents, suggests public interest law professor John Banzhaf. Since virtually all the concerns of using drugs for capital punishment involve problems with lethal injections - e.g., finding a suitable vein, positioning the needle, being sure it doesn't come out, using a syringe, problems with tubing crimping or clogging, etc. - an obvious constitutional alternative would be to use pills rather than injections to administer the barbiturate. 'Providing a condemned man with barbiturate pills to cause a quick and painless death does not require any trained (much less medical) personnel, and avoids all of the physical problems with injections (even inter-muscular ones),- notes Banzhaf. If the prisoner refuses to take the pills, or only pretends to swallow them, he can hardly complain about 'cruel and unusual punishment- if the state thereafter uses lethal injection - whether the current 3-drug sequential combination or a massive dose of barbiturates - since his own actions were the direct cause of his pain. To paraphrase an old legal saying, he had the key to his own freedom from pain, says Banzhaf. Since as little as 3 grams of barbiturates like sodium thiopental is virtually certain to cause death, this amount could be administered in 3 or 4 pills similar to those containing vitamin C which could be prepared by a government agency to prevent any problems involved in drug compounding. Concerns that the convict will fill his stomach to slow the absorption of the ingested drug are groundless because condemned prisoners are usually kept under constant watch 24 hours before the time of execution, and because any such ploy would likewise make the condemned responsible for his own pain. Likewise, since oral administration takes somewhat longer for the drugs to reach the system than injections, this method of administration is much less likely to cause the sudden reactions lethal injections have sometimes been said to cause, apparently on rare occasions. Prof. Banzhaf says he takes no position on the public policy or constitutional issues of capital punishment, although any consideration of the issue of using drug rather than injections - one not even raised in yesterday's arguments - might require a remand to a lower court, and a continuation of the moratorium on executions. PROFESSOR JOHN F. BANZHAF III Professor of Public Interest Law George Washington University Law School FAMRI Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professor 2000 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006, USA (source: PR-Inside.com)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
February 11, 2008 USA: U.S. Said to Seek Execution for 6 in Sept. 11 Case Military prosecutors have decided to seek the death penalty for six Guantánamo detainees who are to be charged with central roles in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, government officials who have been briefed on the charges said Sunday. The officials said the charges would be announced at the Pentagon as soon as Monday and were likely to include numerous war-crimes charges against the six men, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the former Qaeda operations chief who has described himself as the mastermind of the attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. A Defense Department official said prosecutors were seeking the death penalty because "if any case warrants it, it would be for individuals who were parties to a crime of that scale." The officials spoke anonymously because no one in the government was authorized to speak about the case. A decision to seek the death penalty would increase the international focus on the case and present new challenges to the troubled military commission system that has yet to begin a single trial. "The system hasn't been able to handle the less-complicated cases it has been presented with to date," said David Glazier, a former Navy officer who is a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. In addition to Mr. Mohammed, the other five to be charged include detainees officials say were coordinators and intermediaries in the plot, among them a man labeled the "20th hijacker," who was denied entry to the United States in the month before the attacks. Under the rules of the Guantánamo war-crimes system, the military prosecutors can designate charges as capital when they present them, and it is that first phase of the process that is expected this week. The military official who then reviews them, Susan J. Crawford, a former military appeals court judge, has the authority to accept or reject a death-penalty request. A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on Sunday. Some officials briefed on the case have said the prosecutors view their task in seeking convictions for the Sept. 11 attacks as a historic challenge. A special group of military and Justice Department lawyers has been working on the case for several years. Even if the detainees are convicted on capital charges, any execution would be many months or, perhaps years, from being carried out, lawyers said, in part because a death sentence would have to be scrutinized by civilian appeals courts. Federal officials have said in recent months that there is no death chamber at the detention camp at the United States naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and that they knew of no specific plans for how a death sentence would be carried out. The military justice system, which does not govern the Guantánamo cases, provides for execution by lethal injection in death sentence convictions. But the United States military has rarely executed a prisoner in recent times. The last military execution was in 1961, when an Army private, John A. Bennett, was hanged after being convicted of rape and attempted murder. Currently, there are six service members appealing military death sentences, according to a recently published article by a lawyer who specializes in military capital cases, Dwight H. Sullivan, a former chief military defense lawyer at Guántanamo. One official who had been briefed on the war-crimes case said the charges were expected to be lodged against six detainees held at Guantánamo, including Mr. Mohammed, who is said to have presented the idea of an airliner attack on the United States to Osama bin Laden in 1999 and then coordinated its planning. The official identified the others to be charged as Mohammed al- Qahtani, the man officials have labeled the 20th hijacker; Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said to have been the main intermediary between the hijackers and leaders of Al Qaeda; Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, known as Ammar al-Baluchi, a nephew of Mr. Mohammed, who has been identified as Mr. Mohammeds lieutenant for the 2001 operation; Mr. al-Baluchis assistant, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi; and Walid bin Attash, a detainee known as Khallad, who investigators say selected and trained some of the hijackers. Relatives of the Sept. 11 victims have expressed differing views of potential death sentences, with some arguing that it would accomplish little other than martyring men for whom martyrdom may be viewed as a reward. But on Sunday, Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 that was crashed into the Pentagon, said she would approve of an effort by prosecutors to seek the execution of men she blames for killing her brother. Ms. Burlingame said such a case could help refocus the publics attention on what she called the calculated brutality of the attacks, which she said has been largely forgotten. "My opinion is," she said, "if the death of 3,000 people isn't sufficient for a de
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
This Tuesday evening, a new cable TV network will air a special, commercial-free, 40-minute report entitled, "Dan Rather Reports: Did Texas Execute Innocent Men?" The report, partly reported and entirely anchored anchored by Dan Rather, looks at the cases of Ruben Cantu and Carlos De Luna, who were two of the four people included in NCADP's 2006 report, "Innocent and Executed: Four Chapters in the Life of America's Death Penalty." The program, which is quite favorable from our perspective, will air at 8 p.m. East Coast time and again at 11 p.m. East Coast time so that people on the West Coast can see it during prime time. The new cable network carrying the report is called HDNet, and is unavailable to most American viewers (it only goes into 400,000 households.) If you visit HDNets web site, you can see that a lot of restaurants and, strangely, sports bars do carry the network as part of their satellite programming (go here to see what cable systems carry HDNet: http://www.hd.net/watch_at_home.html And go here to see whether restaurants or bars in your town carry it: http://www.hd.net/sportsbars.html ) Also, the executive producer of Tuesday's program has assured us that in time, the entire program will be posted for everyone to see on HDNet's web site. (They're not doing this yet for obvious reasons - they want people to watch their network!) For now, you can see a clip from Tuesday's program by going here: http://www.hd.net/drr229 The tricky thing about Tuesday night's broadcast is this: Its impact will be limited because HDNet has so few viewers UNLESS we can get the word out to all of our listservs about the broadcast's existence and UNLESS we can let the world know when the entire program is available on HDNet's web site. We will let you know when the entire program has been posted. For now, we ask you to consider distributing the following press release to your local supporters and listservs. Best to all, David Elliot NCADP Communications DID TEXAS EXECUTE INNOCENT MEN? DAN RATHER REPORTS INVESTIGATES SIGNIFICANT FLAWS IN TWO TEXAS DEATH PENALTY CASES DAN RATHER REPORTS Examines the Death Penalty Cases of Ruben Cantu and Carlos De Luna, September 4 at 8:00 p.m. ET Dallas (August 28, 2007) -Next Tuesday's DAN RATHER REPORTS will reveal new details surrounding two capital murder cases in Texas - leading to the executions of two men that may have occurred as the result of flawed evidence. The episode airs on Tuesday, September 4 at 8:00 p.m. on HDNet. A clip of the program can be viewed at the following link: http://www.hd.net/drr229 In "Did Texas Execute Innocent Men?" Dan Rather speaks with key players in the cases of both Ruben Cantu and Carlos De Luna both of whom died by lethal injection in Texas where more than one-third of the nation's executions take place. Ruben Cantu was never convicted of a crime before the November 1984 murder case that led to his execution in 1993. In his investigation, Dan Rather speaks with former San Antonio district attorney Sam Millsap who originally sought the death penalty for Cantu but now believes he made a mistake. Rather also speaks with principal investigators in the case and eyewitnesses, who expose serious discrepancies in the evidence that ultimately led to the execution of Cantu, who was only 17 at the time of his arrest. DAN RATHER REPORTS also investigates the 1989 execution of Carlos De Luna, whose conviction relied on uncertain eyewitness testimony. No physical evidence was ever found linking De Luna to the murder for which he was convicted, and for the first time on television, the private investigator who scrutinized the case discloses new information which could have exonerated De Luna 17 years ago. Were Cantu and De Luna innocent and wrongly executed? Rather delves into these gripping cases on DAN RATHER REPORTS, Tuesday, September 4 on HDNet at 8:00 pm. ET. The program also airs at 11:00 pm ET, to accommodate west coast prime time television. About HDNet HDNet (www.hd.net) provides viewers with the best in original comedy, drama, news, sports and music programming. HDNet is your exclusive, high definition home for popular, critically acclaimed original programming, including television's only HD news feature programs "HDNet World Report", "Dan Rather Reports" featuring legendary journalist Dan Rather and "NASA on HDNet" (presenting live shuttle launches through 2010). Launched in 2001 by Mark Cuban and General Manager Philip Garvin, the HDNet networks are available on AT&T, Bright House Networks, Charter Communications, DIRECTV, DISH Network, Insight, Mediacom, Time Warner Cable, Verizon and more than 40 NCTC cable affiliate companies. For more information visit www.hd.net.
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
Sept. 27 USA: The Upcoming Supreme Court Lethal Injection Death Penalty Case: How It Will Likely Illustrate the Serious Ideological Divisions That Continue to Separate the Justices With the welter of cases that the Supreme Court accepted for review yesterday, it became all the more likely that this Term (which begins next Monday) will continue last Term's dramatic trend away from Chief Justice John Roberts's ideal of a more unified, collegial court. Instead, we are very likely to see a Court that continues to be riven by emotionally-charged ideological divisions. Even before yesterday, the justices were set to review highly contentious cases involving such hot-button political issues as the rights of Guantanamo detainees and the contours of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. As of yesterday, they have also granted review of, among other issues, the constitutionality of voter registration laws that demand photo identification, and of the way 37 states use lethal injection to carry out the death penalty. In this column, I'll focus on the latter case, and the way it may divide the Court. The History of, and Issues Concerning, the Use of Lethal Injection Of all the cases on the docket, the lethal injection death penalty case may well prove the most divisive, and reflect most clearly the unbridgeable chasm that currently divides liberal and conservatives in our legal culture. 220 years after the Constitution was written, we are as much at sea as ever about how to read our founding charter. In the 1980s, most of the states that have capital punishment switched over from electrocution to lethal injection, on the theory that injecting a cocktail of poisons would be more painless and humane than the "old sparkies" that then prevailed (and sometimes malfunctioned, to horrific effect). Today, of the 38 death penalty states, all but Nebraska use lethal injection, and almost 90% of all executions since 1976 have used the needle rather than the chair or other methods. For decades, the lethal injection states have used the same 3-drug combination - sodium thiopental (a short-acting anesthesia), pancuronium bromide (which paralyzes the muscles), and potassium chloride (which stops the heart). There is a growing consensus, however, that this now long-since-antiquated cocktail, even when properly administered, causes extraordinary and unnecessary pain. Indeed, in many places, the cocktail used to kill humans is banned for use in the euthanasia of animals. And, as might be expected of such a morbid process, the process of execution by lethal injection, like the process of electrocution before it, is also prone to human error, further exacerbating the risk of unnecessary pain. For these reasons, a number of states have halted the use of lethal injection, pending a review of their respective death penalty "protocols." And elsewhere, federal judges have stepped in to stop executions or prompt further review. Why the Lethal Injection Case Will Directly Touch on Divisions Regarding Constitutional Interpretation Over the last several years, a few of the Justices have expressed interest in taking up the issue of lethal injections - and, as of yesterday, that number finally reached the critical mass of four votes necessary to grant review. It's not hard to see why. Around the country, different courts have been using different standards to assess whether the three-drug cocktail violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments. In granting review of a case coming from Kentucky, the Court has stepped in to create a single standard for deciding under what circumstances, if ever, a risk of unnecessary pain in executions is so significant as to violate the Constitution's Eighth Amendment. It is hard to imagine a case more perfectly suited to capture the jurisprudential dilemma that has consumed and divided our legal culture for the last thirty years - namely, the tension between interpreting our Constitution in a way that is responsive to the nation's history and experience, and making the interpretive process a free-for-all in which unelected and generally unaccountable judges impose on the Constitution their own personal political and moral beliefs. This dilemma arises in significant part because some of the Constitution's key phrases (like "due process") are inherently amorphous. The lethal injection case raises a classic example, for it will turn on an interpretation of one of the Constitution's less pellucid phrases - the prohibition on "cruel and unusual" punishments. There is no self-evident benchmark for what is too cruel or too unusual. Rather, deciding what punishments are "cruel" or "unusual" seems to cry out for some sort of subjective judgment - a search for standards and benchmarks that will never be completely value-neutral. But if defining "cruel and unusual" necessarily calls for some inherently subjective assessment, what limits are there on judicial discretion in
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Sept. 30 USA: Supreme Court deliberations delay US executions While the US Supreme Court this week raised the prospect of a drop in executions by agreeing to consider whether the lethal cocktails used to kill most prisoners are constitutional or cruel, the future of pending death sentences is unclear. Amid controversy over how the injections are given -- they can cause an agonizing death if done incorrectly -- the court said Tuesday it would examine the cases of two men condemned to death in the southern state of Kentucky. Anti-death penalty campaigners immediately demanded that all executions be suspended pending the court decision, expected by next summer. But the deliberations came too late for Michael Richard, 48. Within hours of the Supreme Court's decision to consider the issue, it refused to stop the state of Texas from giving him a lethal injection for raping and killing a mother of seven in 1986. Alison Nathan, a law professor at New York's Fordham University, criticized the state's decision to go ahead. She wrote that continuing executions while the court debates lethal injections "serves only an unwarranted rush to execution." "Executing a death row inmate while the Supreme Court is deliberating on the appropriate standard by which to assess the constitutionality of a method of execution ... offends basic notions of fairness and even-handed justice," she wrote. The Houston Chronicle agreed, writing in an editorial that "it is inappropriate for Texas to proceed with executions until the court has ruled." Although the Supreme Court allowed Texas to kill Richards, two days later they granted a stay of a stay of execution to Carlton Turner, 28, condemned in Texas for killing his adoptive parents. The court gave no explanation for its differing rulings. But Harvard University law professor Carol Streiker said Turner's lawyers benefited from having time to appeal to a Texas judge before approaching the Supreme Court. She suggested that the court may delay execution to a condemned person who first contests the use of lethal injection in the state courts where they were sentenced. In an execution, three drugs are administered to the condemned: one to sedate him, one to paralyze him, and one to stop the heart. However, there is no national protocol for administering the drugs and it is not always done by a medical professional. Several studies and botched executions have shown that death may be prolonged and painful. In Florida in December, Angel Nieves Diaz, his eyes wide open, grimaced and shook for more than 30 minutes before finally suffering convulsions and dying. Authorities later found that the needles were inserted too far and the lethal cocktail was injected outside his veins. The court is now to consider whether the injections are "cruel and unusual" punishment, as banned by the constitution. So far this year, 40 of the 41 people executed in the United States have been killed by lethal injection, with one choosing the electric chair. Most of the executions have taken place in Texas. If the Supreme Court fixes criteria that rule a method of execution constitutional, as many expect, judicial killings could resume in earnest. Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center, earlier stressed that the court is unlikely to end capital punishment even if its deliberations cause a temporary slow-down. "I don't think the US Supreme Court is about to eliminate the death penalty with this decision," he said. "I think they're going to say what the standards are for lethal injection." The high court has never ruled on a particular method of execution. Instead, under legal challenge, states that used gas chambers, hanging or electric chairs switched to lethal injection. "Death row inmates about to be executed committed their crimes 15-20 years ago. Where is the harm in postponing executions for a few months until the court makes its ruling?" the Houston Chronicle editorial said. "After executing more than 400 people since 1977, Texas can afford to wait". (source: Agence France-Presse) *** Major upcoming cases Major cases before the Supreme Court in the fall: -- Guantanamo: Do the foreign nationals held at Guantanamo Bay have a right to plead their innocence before a judge? (Boumediene v. Bush) -- Voter ID: Can states require all voters to show photo identification at their polling places ? (Crawford v. Marion County) -- Lethal injection : Does an inmate facing execution have a right to be protected against the "unnecessary risk of pain?" (Baze v. Rees) -- Mexican prisoners: Can the president require states to reopen death-penalty cases in order enforce an international treaty? (Medellin v. Texas) -- Drug sentences: Can judges set lower prison terms for those convicted of selling drugs, including crack cocaine? (Kimbrough v. U.S. and Gall v. U.S.) -- 401(k) plans : Can an employee sue to recover his money if his retirement fund lost $15
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
May 2 USA: In Death Row Case, Justices Order Retrial Over Evidence With the first opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the Supreme Court ordered a new trial on Monday for an inmate on South Carolina's death row because the state courts improperly excluded evidence showing that another man might have committed the crime. The decision was unanimous. Go to Complete Coverage Justice Alito said the rule of evidence applied by the South Carolina courts was irrational and arbitrary and served to deprive the defendant, Bobbie Lee Holmes, of a "meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense." The rule in question, which is used by a small minority of states, says that when the state has presented strong forensic evidence of the defendant's guilt, like DNA analysis or a fingerprint, the defense can be prevented from offering the jury contradictory evidence that points to the guilt of another person. Justice Alito noted that the South Carolina courts applied the rule even when the defense evidence, "if viewed independently, would have great probative value," as it might have had in the case at hand. Justice Alito, the newest member of the court and a former federal prosecutor, said that "the true strength of the prosecution's proof cannot be assessed without considering challenges to the reliability of the prosecution's evidence." He added, "The point is that by evaluating the strength of only one party's evidence, no logical conclusion can be reached regarding the strength of contrary evidence offered by the other side to rebut or cast doubt." The South Carolina rule was arbitrary and irrational in failing to heed this point, he said. Although the unanimous 11-page opinion made the conclusion seem rather obvious, that was not necessarily how the case appeared as it reached the court. A coalition of 18 states, led by Attorney General Phill Kline of Kansas, filed a brief on South Carolina's behalf to argue that the issue was one of federalism, urging the court to grant the states "substantial latitude and respect" for their various approaches to their criminal justice systems. Steffen N. Johnson, the lawyer for the state coalition, told the justices when the case was argued on Feb. 22 that nine states had similar rules. On the defendant's side, the case, Holmes v. South Carolina, No. 04-1327, drew interest from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and from a group of 40 professors of evidence law, who told the court in their brief that the South Carolina rule was "a judicial usurpation of the jury's constitutional authority to decide guilt or innocence in criminal prosecutions." The professors' brief said "the fundamental issue in this case is the right to trial by jury." The court has in recent years been paying renewed attention to the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury, overturning, for example, sentencing systems that allow judges to make the central factual findings that in the court's view should be left to juries. In his opinion on Monday, however, Justice Alito did not analyze the case as presenting a question under the Sixth Amendment or any other specific constitutional provision. His emphasis on what he called the irrationality and illogic of the South Carolina rule brought the opinion closer to a generalized due process analysis. No matter what route the court took, its opinion was greeted with approval by defense lawyers. Barry C. Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, which filed a brief for Mr. Holmes, said the decision was "a strong signal that the Supreme Court is taking the right of defendants to prove their innocence very seriously and is taking a critical look at forensic evidence." Mr. Scheck said that while DNA evidence had led to many exonerations of criminal defendants, it was "still subject to erroneous interpretation or application, and the defense has a right to challenge that in court." In this case, Mr. Holmes was convicted of murdering an 86-year-old woman, Mary Stewart, who was robbed, beaten and raped by someone who entered her home. Mr. Holmes was connected to the scene through a palm print, fiber analysis and DNA evidence. He argued that the forensic evidence was unreliable because it had been contaminated and that the police were trying to frame him. At a pretrial hearing, his lawyers presented witnesses to support his argument that another man was Ms. Stewart's attacker. But the trial court refused, under the South Carolina rule, to allow this evidence to be introduced at trial. Justice Alito said that while states were free to exclude defense evidence that "has only a very weak logical connection to the central issues," the type of evidence at issue in this case did not come under that description. "Just because the prosecution's evidence, if credited, would provide strong support for a guilty verdict," he said, "it does not follow that evidence of 3rd-party
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
[This is narrated by Ani DiFranco... http://emproductions.net/] Fighting For Life In The Death-Belt (DVCAM 52 min) considers the controversial institution of capital punishment in America through the eyes of Stephen Bright, the nation's leading anti-death penalty lawyer. For twenty years Bright has defended death row inmates deep in the heart of America's "death-belt" - the Southeastern States where 90% of executions occur. There he has built the Southern Center for Human Rights (SCHR), a renowned public interest law firm.The film follows Bright and the SCHR in the final days and hours, as they desperately fight to spare two clients from execution. Although both men stand convicted of horrible crimes, these defense attorneys never waiver in their dedication, and present compelling arguments against the criminal justice system that seeks to end their clients' lives.
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news-----USA
May 3 USA: FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE9/11 Family Members Express Relief Over Verdict Family members of those killed in the attacks of September 11, 2001 expressed relief at the jury's decision to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to life today. "More than anyone, we understand why the jury chose the sentence they did," said Terry Rockefeller, whose sister Laura Rockefeller was in the North Tower of the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. "As a long-time opponent of the death penalty, a belief even this devastating personal tragedy has not altered, I am relieved by the jury's decision not to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to death." Rockefeller, a member of the Board of Directors of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation, was among the dozen 9/11 family members to testify for the defense in the punishment phase of the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui. The federal rules regarding victim statements significantly restricted what Terry and others could say on the stand, and the attorneys for the defense asked Terry and others not to speak to the press until after the jury returned their verdict. This is the first time victim family members who oppose capital punishment have ever testified in a federal death penalty trial. Such testimony is becoming more common at the state level where increasing numbers of murder victim family members who oppose the death penalty are making their feelings known. "Mr. Moussaoui's trial has been an expensive diversion in the struggle against terrorism. His alleged crime of conspiracy could have been quickly disposed if the option of execution were not possible," said Patricia Perry, whose son John William Perry, was a member of the New York Police Department who died at the World Trade Center. "Beyond the verdict in this trial, I oppose using the death penalty to demonstrate to citizens that murder is so wrong that we will kill to prove it wrong. State killing teaches our children that we do not mean what we say and inures us as a society to the horror of killing." "My husband and I both opposed the death penalty in general. For me, now, this particular case is no exception," said Andrea LeBlanc, whose husband Robert was a passenger on United Flight 175, the 2nd plane that crashed into the World Trade Center, hitting the South Tower. "Violence takes many forms and killing another human being will never undo the harm that has been done. Killing Zacarius Moussaoui would not have helped us understand those things that lead to 9/11. Nor would it have helped create the kind of compassionate world I want to live in." For Loretta Filipov, whose husband Al was on American Flight 11 from Boston, the first plane to hit the World Trade Center, crashing into the North Tower, said, "Killing Zacarius Moussaoui will not bring my husband back. It will not change the life my family and I now have without my husband and their father. But what killing will do is to continue the cycle of violence, hate and revenge. This is not the face we want for our future, for our children and grandchildren." Family member Antonio Aversano, who testified for the defense and whose father Louis Aversano, Jr., was a World Trade Center victim, believes "that our best personal defense against terrorism is to not let the fear and hatred of terror consume our lives but to take whatever steps are necessary to reclaim our hearts, to honor each other and to live life well." "A number of us have tried to turn our anger and pain into solutions," said Rockefeller. "For many who lost loved ones that Tuesday morning the answer is not more killing to attempt to solve the past, but rather steps to a future in which all killing is condemned and terrorists cannot find purchase." (source: MVFR) ** A death worse than a dog's For the last 12 years, I have delighted in the companionship of a golden retriever, rescued from neglect as a puppy. He is the most amiable dog in the world. He is getting on in years, and I know that in the not too distant future a vet is going to encourage me to have him put down. I hope it never comes to this, but at least when we put animals down the injection administered by the vet will not contain the drug potassium chloride, as it has been found to cause intense pain unless the animal is deeply unconscious. This is not a reassurance that I can offer to my clients on death row. The lethal cocktail administered in 37 US states and by the federal government to prisoners condemned to death typically does include potassium chloride, despite years of criticism. This drug is preceded by an anaesthetic and then a drug that paralyses the prisoner's muscles. I suspect this is done more to make society feel better rather than the prisoner. They used to cover the face of the electric chair's victim with a leather mask and strap him in so tightly that he could not writhe - not for the benefit of the prisoner, but for the witnesses. With lethal injection, if the prison
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 8 USA: Moussaoui moves to withdraw guilty pleaAl Qaeda conspirator says he lied during sentencing Convicted September 11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui says he lied on the witness stand about being involved in the plot and wants to withdraw his guilty plea because he now believes he can get a fair trial. In a motion filed Friday but released Monday, Moussaoui said he testified March 27 he was supposed to hijack a fifth plane on September 11, 2001, and fly it into the White House "even though I knew that was a complete fabrication." A federal court jury spared the 37-year-old Frenchman the death penalty last Wednesday. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema gave him six life sentences, to run as 2 consecutive life terms, in the federal supermax prison at Florence, Colorado. At sentencing, she told Moussaoui: "You do not have a right to appeal your convictions, as was explained to you when you plead guilty" in April 2005. "You waived that right." She said he could appeal his sentence but added, "I believe it would be an act of futility." Moussaoui's court-appointed lawyers told the court they filed the motion even though a federal rule "prohibits a defendant from withdrawing a guilty plea after imposition of sentence." They did so anyway because of their "problematic relationship with Moussaoui" and the fact that new lawyers have yet to be appointed to replace them. (source: CNN)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
May 22 USA: US top court won't decide lethal injection challenge The Supreme Court on Monday declined to decide if a drug combination used to execute convicted murderers violated the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. The justices refused to hear the appeal by a death row inmate who said one of the drugs may inflict inhumane pain and that 30 states, including his state of Tennessee, have banned that drug's use for the euthanasia of animals. The high court at the end of April heard arguments in a similar case from Florida on whether death row inmates can bring a last-minute challenge to the lethal injection method under a federal civil rights law. A decision is expected by the end of June, but the Florida case does not address the same constitutional issues. (source: Reuters) * Big FishIt's time to put the al-Qaida ringleaders on trial. 4 1/2 years after Sept. 11, we are still struggling to decide whether this "War on Terror" should be fought in courts, on a battlefield, or in some black hole in between. The government uses courts to prosecute low-level terrorists: the guys who trained at camps in Afghanistan, or played paintball in the Virginia woods. But it uses the rules of war, modified for its own convenience, to indefinitely hold the ringleaders either at Guantanamo or at so-called "black sites" around the world. Those black sites were appealing precisely because the government intended to hold no trials. There was never a plan for what would happen next. For years now, the government has been holding key plotters and participants in the attacks of 9/11. People from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - considered by the 9/11 Commission to be the "principal architect" of the attacks - to Ramzi Bin al-Scheib, the alleged paymaster. People like Abu Zubaida, one of Osama Bin Laden's chief recruiters, and Mohammed al-Qahtani, the man alleged to be the real "20th hijacker." These men, and other "big fish" like them, have been held for interrogation that may have amounted to torture - be it Mohammed's alleged water-boarding, or sexual degradation and sleep deprivation. They long ago exhausted their intelligence value. And now, if the government is finished with them, we the people should get a crack at them. Americans are entitled to their Nuremburg. It's time for these men to be put on trial. It's time for us to see their faces, hear their sick stories, and to expose their twisted logic. Bringing such men to justice may not heal the wounds of 9/11. But knowing that they were tried and held to account may help us move on. There are three main arguments against trying the real ringleaders of the 9/11 attacks. The 1st is something of a truism among legal commentators and scholars: These men cannot be tried because they were tortured, which immunizes any confessions, and evidence stemming from those confessions, from being used in court. The 2nd argument is strategic: We cannot try these criminals in open court because it would mean divulging critical intelligence information that could threaten national security. The 3rd argument is one of optics: We cannot try these men because it would lead to the disclosure of their torture or not-quite-torture. And that would look bad. The problem with the legal argument - and, to be fair, it's a point that I have made myself - is that it's a cop-out. Claiming that torture evidence could taint future prosecutions was, initially, a very good argument against abusing captives. But, years after the torture has happened, it's somehow morphed into an argument against holding open criminal trials. The government still has a legal and constitutional burden to afford its prisoners some due process. That doesn't end because it decided to torture them. The other problem with this legal argument is that it minimizes the glorious reality of federal conspiracy law - a doctrine so flexible as to allow for convictions based on even the flimsiest connection between the defendant and the crime. If criminal conspiracy law allows for a Zacarias Moussaoui to be nearly executed for not disclosing details he did not know about 9/11 (to people who would not have listened anyhow), imagine what prosecutors can achieve with the great heaps of untainted evidence against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Even if we were to exclude any confessions tainted by torture, and whatever secondary evidence that may stem from those confessions, we might still have ample evidence to convict most of these ringleaders under federal conspiracy law. The 9/11 Commission Report is damning in its detail, and prosecutors could certainly start there. Other intelligence information, plus untainted evidence from al-Qaida sources, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's nephew Ramzi Yousef - now serving a life sentence for the 1st WTC bombing - may well offer sufficient connection between these men and the crime. At the very least, it's time we start to figure that out. Which leads to the 2
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
March 27 USA: Amnesty International USA: Government must ensure meaningful judicial review of Mexican death row cases 27 March 2008 AI Index: AMR 51/025/2008 On 25 March 2008, in a case involving the USA's obligation to comply with judgments of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of the State of Texas and against a Mexican national on death row there. The Supreme Court has effectively passed the buck to the other branches of government to act to ensure that the USA meets its international obligations. Amnesty International urges them to do so. The 6-3 ruling, Medelln v. Texas, concerns the case of Jos Medelln, a Mexican national and 1 of 5 people sentenced to death for the murder of 14-year-old Jennifer Ertman and Elizabeth Pena, 16, in Houston in 1993. All 5 were teenagers at the time of the crime. 2 of them who were 17, Raul Villareal and Efrain Perez, had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment in 2005 following the Supreme Court's decision to exempt under 18-year-olds from the death penalty (the USA, led by Texas, was until then a world leader in executing child offenders). A 3rd, Sean Derrick O'Brien, was executed on 11 July 2006. He was 18 at the time of the murders, as were Peter Cantu and Jos Medelln, who remain on death row. Under article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR), the Texas authorities should have notified Jos Medelln "without delay" after his arrest of his right to have the Mexican consulate informed of his detention. They failed to do so. He subsequently became one of more than 50 Mexicans on death row in the USA named in a case brought against the USA by the government of Mexico in the ICJ, the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (UN). By ratifying the VCCR Optional Protocol on the compulsory settlement of disputes, the United States recognized the authority of the ICJ to order legally binding remedies for its Vienna Convention violations. On 31 March 2004, the ICJ handed down its judgment (the Avena decision) finding that the USA had violated article 36 of the VCCR by failing to notify the detainees of their right to contact their consulate after arrest. The ICJ stated that "the remedy to make good these violations should consist in an obligation on the United States to permit review and reconsideration" of the cases in the US courts, to determine any prejudicial impact of the VCCR violation on the defendant. The Court emphasised that this judicial review and reconsideration must be meaningful and effective, and must relate to both sentence and conviction. It added that the US doctrine of "procedural default" - whereby claims not raised earlier are generally not considered by appellate courts - was not a legitimate obstacle to such review. Moreover, review by executive clemency authorities alone would not be sufficient, the ICJ stated. After the ICJ's decision, the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed Medelln's appeal on the grounds that the VCCR did not confer individually enforceable rights and that his claims were anyway procedurally defaulted. The Supreme Court agreed to take the case, but before it heard oral arguments, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum to the Attorney General stating that "the United States will discharge its international obligations" under the Avena ruling, "by having State courts give effect to the decision". The Supreme Court dropped the case, but after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals dismissed Medelln's appeal, finding that neither the ICJ's opinion nor the President's memorandum overrode limitations on the filing of successive habeas corpus applications, the Supreme Court again agreed to consider the issue. In its ruling on 25 March 2008, a majority of Justices stated: "No one disputes that the Avena decision constitutes an international law obligation on the part of the United States. But not all international law obligations automatically constitute binding federal law enforceable in United States courts. The question we confront here is whether the Avena judgment has automatic domestic legal effect such that the judgment of its own force applies in state and federal courts." The majority found that it did not. The VCCR Optional Protocol, they concluded, was not self-executing (automatically enforceable as federal law upon ratification) and no implementing legislation to give it such domestic effect had been passed by Congress. Having found that the Avena ruling did not constitute binding federal law "that pre-empts state restrictions on the filing of successive habeas petitions", the Justices moved on to consider whether the President's memorandum to the Attorney General altered their conclusion. They concluded that it did not. They said that although the President "seeks to vindicate United States interests in ensuring the reciprocal observance of the Vienna Convention, protecting relations with foreign governments
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA
Nov. 16 USA: Easing the Burden of Public Defenders: Letters to the Editor: Re "Citing Workload, Public Lawyers Reject New Cases" (front page, Nov. 9): The assertion that despite increasingly overwhelming workloads, public defenders must "tighten their belts" during these times of severe reductions in state and local revenues is an affront to the constitutional guarantee of effective assistance of counsel for indigent criminal defendants. We must not shortchange our Constitution regardless of our economic woes. There are, however, huge savings to be had that would substantially reduce the financial burden on public defenders offices and other components of our criminal justice system while maintaining our constitutional commitment to ensuring that all defendants receive quality representation. As has been established by numerous studies in numerous states, including California, North Carolina, Maryland, New Jersey and Tennessee, the repeal of capital punishment would save taxpayers many millions of dollars a year. The time has come for Americans and their elected representatives to seriously consider whether we can afford our error-prone, discriminatory and bankrupting death penalty system. John Holdridge Director, A.C.L.U. Capital Punishment Project Durham, N.C., Nov. 10, 2008 To the Editor: Your article accurately described the difficulties public defenders across the country are facing as they grapple with increasing caseloads and diminishing resources. Ethics requires that they resist more cases than they can effectively handle. What is not so apparent is how this problem reaches beyond public defenders and their clients and then to our communities. Public defense like the prosecution, the courts and the police plays a vital role in ensuring that the justice system works reliably and efficiently. When the system is working right with adequate resources, the guilty are convicted, victims get the closure they deserve, the rights of the innocent are upheld and community safety is maintained. When public defenders lack the time and resources necessary to prepare a full and fair defense for each client, the horrible result can be wrongful convictions that inevitably leave criminals free in our communities. Public defenders are seriously overworked and underpaid. States that fail to recognize the importance of public defenders to a functioning justice system are ultimately playing Russian roulette with our safety. John Wesley Hall President, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Little Rock, Ark., Nov. 10, 2008 To the Editor: I just got back from working an arraignment shift, and decided to check my e-mail before I left for the Elmhurst Hospital prison psychiatric ward, where I need to interview a client who has been waiting for an arraignment since last Sunday (first arrest, minor charges). It is Saturday. I need to interview her tonight, because I don't have enough time to conduct a proper interview on Monday, which is her arraignment date. On Monday, I have to handle 7 cases in 4 court parts, including 3 cases on which hearings are supposed to occur, and must attend a psychiatric examination as well as make time for this arraignment. These 7 cases include 2 assault, a contempt, a burglary, an attempted murder of a corrections officer, and a homicide case. A rare-bookseller friend of mine e-mailed me your article, which I then e-mailed to the lawyers in my office. One of my colleagues promptly replied (from her office): "I can't believe you are in the office. Get a life (LOL)." This is the life of a public defender. Mary Beth Anderson Kew Gardens, Queens, Nov. 8, 2008 The writer is a mental health lawyer with the Legal Aid Societys criminal defense practice. (source: Letters to the Editor, New York Times)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Oct. 26 USA: UNITED STATES CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE--Cardinal Opposes Expanding Death Penalty For Terrorists Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick has urged House and Senate conferees working on legislation concerning intelligence reform and 9/11 recommendations to report out a final bill without the expansion of the death penalty for terrorists. Cardinal McCarrick, Archbishop of Washington, is Chairman of the Domestic Policy Committee, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). The Cardinal's letter to conferees concerned the National Intelligence Reform Act (S. 2845) and the House-passed version of S. 2845, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. The Senate version of the bill does not contain any death penalty provisions. "The cowardly acts of September 11 and their tragic human costs still haunt our nation," Cardinal McCarrick said. "There can be no diminishing the horror of terrorism or the responsibility of those who employ wanton violence on the innocent." "Based on our Catholic teaching, however, we oppose expanding the death penalty even for terrorists," the Cardinal continued. "As you know, the bishops of the United States oppose the use of the death penalty in any instance. Catholic teaching on capital punishment is clear: If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person (Catechism of the Catholic Church)." Besides Catholic teaching on the death penalty, Cardinal McCarrick cited other considerations. He noted that expansion of the death penalty was not included in the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. "Congress need not go any further," he said. "Secondly, we feel strongly that suicidal terrorists are not going to be deterred by the death penalty. "In fact, many terrorists believe that if they die committing an act of terrorism they will become martyrs. At the very least, it would seem that executing terrorists could make them heroes in the minds of other like-minded advocates of terror." "As pastors, we believe that the use of the death penalty under any circumstances diminishes us as human beings," Cardinal McCarrick stated. "As we said in Confronting a Culture of Violence: "We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing.'" Earlier, the USCCB wrote to conferees on issues impacting immigration within the House-passed version of the Senate bill. (source: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops) *** Prof's research finds way into Supreme Court brief A Dartmouth psychology professor's research is playing an important role in a case on juvenile capital punishment currently before the Supreme Court. Professor Abigail Baird's research, which shows that cognitive development continues well past the age of legal adulthood, has been cited in amicus briefs submitted to the Court by the American Medical Association in the case of Roper v. Simmons. The brief argues that the defendant, who was 17 at the time of crime, has a compromised mental state because of his young age and should not be executed for his role in the grisly murder of a woman. The brief also seeks to draw parallels with previous court precedent. The Supreme Court ruled more than a decade ago that states cannot execute mentally retarded people, because it qualifies as cruel and unusual punishment. Those with Down's syndrome and others with compromised level of cognitive development are exempted from capital punishment. Baird's research supports these claims. Her studies, and those of her colleagues, have shown that the brain continues maturing until about age 25. This continual progress affects teen male cognitive function, Baird said. "Brain growth doesn't force anyone to do anything, but it does make certain behaviors more or less likely," she said. Baird completed a study commonly known as the Good Idea, Bad Idea test. She created a list of actions, and requested that subjects press one button if they believed the behavior to be a good idea, and a second if they believed it to be bad. When monitoring brain activity during these decisions, Baird found that adults had a nearly thoughtless, knee-jerk reaction to potentially dangerous activities. Teens, especially males, did not have this visceral reaction. Instead, they considered the pros and cons of activities immediately shunned by their elders, like riding a bicycle down a set of stairs. Because of these cognitive disparities, those appealing Simmons' conviction believe that teenage criminals should not be punished identically to adult criminals. Baird said she doesn't advocate relieving teen criminals from all responsibility for their actions, but emphasized that the brain structure differences between a typical 18-year-old and that of a
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news October 29, 2004 USA: Capital Punishment-Just or Unjust My name is Tanya Thornton, I am going to tell you why I believe capital punishment is unjust. I have found a lot of my research to not only be compelling, but sad in some cases. I am going to start off by sharing a story about a death row inmate I have corresponded with for my presentation. His name is Rogers LaCaze, he is 29 and has been on death row since he was 19. He is in Louisiana State Penitentiary, otherwise known as Angola. Rogers is not only a death row inmate, but a father of 3 children. He is very intelligent and devoted to God. I wrote to Rogers to get an idea of the life of a man who knows he is going to die but, don't know when. It was 1993, Rogers then 18, met up with a 24 year old female police officer (soon to become his "accomplice") , who is supposed to be looked up to as an authority figure in our society. This is a police officer who knew before the crime she was doomed in her life, as she told her father, but she also failed a police dept. psychiatric exam and was hired anyway. This is a woman that reported her father missing before the crime took place, and while in prison his bones were found buried in her back yard of the house she lived in. Now the crime: it was a botched robbery at a vietmnese restraunt, 3 people were shot and killed. Two of the victims were the 18 and 24 year old children of the owners, the other was an off duty police officer who was moonlighting as a security officer. The police officer was the female officer's ex-partner, as she was moonlighting at the same restraunt. The initial news reports say she stood over the wounded officer and shot him in the head. I believe Rogers was somehow involved in the crime, that is obvious. But, this was a woman much older than he and she was someone he looked up to. I fully believe he was groomed by this woman and made to participate in this crime. The investigative work I have done to find out this information leads to my belief. While in jail after his guilty verdict he received a letter from the son of the jury forewoman, in this letter he said that his mother told him the jury found him guilty before the trial began. How is that justice? If it would have been found Rogers didn't do the actual killing, he would have received life, not death. As I will show throughout the rest of my presentation, Rogers had a few statistical "marks" against him from the start. 1) He is black 2) he was poor and 3) One of the victims were white, 2 were Vietnamese 4) One was a police officer. From these graphs (dated Oct. 14, 2004) 54% of the death row pop. Are nonwhite. Where only 46% make up the white pop. A study done on interracial murders in N. Carolina showed that it is 3.5 times more likely to receive the death penalty for killing a white person than that of a nonwhite person. It is obvious from these stats that the death penalty is racial and bias. I am going to go on to the methods of execution for a min. All of the methods I am going to mention are practiced in the United States. All of the states give lethal injection as an alternative except for Alabama. 1) Hanging-This was the primary method of execution until the 1890s. Hanging is still a method used in Delaware and Washington. 2) Firing squad-This method is still used in the states of Utah and Idaho. 3) Electrocution-Trying to find a more humane way to execute the condemned, New York made the 1st electric chair in 1888, and executed William Kemmler in 1890. Today electrocution is the sole means of execution in the state of Alabama. But, still used in 2 other states, Georgia and Nebraska. 4) Gas chamber-Cyanide gas was introduced in 1924 by the state of Nevada. Gee John was the 1st man executed by this method. They tried to pump the gas in his cell while he slept. This was impossible because the gas leaked out from the cell. Then came the Chamber. This method was called "cruel and unusual" by the federal government. 5) Lethal injection- Oklahoma became the 1st state to adopt this method in 1977. Charles Brooks became the 1st to be executed with this method on Dec. 2, 1982. 34 out of the 38 death penalty states use this method. This method has been deemed the most humane way to perform an excecution. Some are now saying this method does not go w/o mistakes. There is a recent controversy re: the 1st drug administered. The 3 drugs used are 1) sodium thiopental 2) pancuronium bromide and 3) potassium chloride. The 1st is supposed to make the condemned unconscious, but the new evidence shows that if enough is not administered the condemned is awake, just unable to speak. The 2nd paralyzes the muscles in the body and the 3rd stops the breathing. Now, if enough of drug #1 isn't administered they are awake thru the entire process, how is this humane? Due to medical ethics, DR. s are not allowed to participate in the actual execution, only to pr
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Oct. 29 USA: President's policies are in opposition to a culture of life President George W. Bush has visited Michigan many times during the campaign, including a recent visit to Farmington Hills, but he has never stopped in Detroit's inner city. If he did, he would meet firsthand many men, women and children who have dramatically experienced the effects of his policies. When Bush travels the country, he often says that he stands "for a culture of life in which every person counts and every being matters." These words resonate deeply with Catholics. But is Bush's agenda really the Catholic agenda? Does he really stand for a "culture of life" that recognizes and celebrates the worth of every human being? The United States Catholic Bishops have written that "any politics of human life must work to resist the violence of war and the scandal of capital punishment. Any politics of human dignity must address issues of racism, poverty, hunger, employment, education, housing and health care." Applying this agenda as the guide, it is clear that the president's words have not translated into action. War: In a "culture of life," we are called to be peacemakers. Bush, however, chose to pursue a war over the moral objections of hundreds of religious leaders, including Pope John Paul II, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the leaders of the president's own Methodist Church. The report released on Oct. 6 by chief weapons searcher Charles Duelfer definitively proves that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction. The evidence is now clear that the Bush administration misled the American people into the war in Iraq. Speaking at the United Nations this month, Vatican official Archbishop Giovanni Lajolo said, "Everyone can see that (the war) did not lead to a safer world either inside or outside Iraq." Now, more than 1,000 American soldiers have been killed and upward of 7,000 have been injured. The sinful and systematic abuses committed in Iraqi prisons have rocked the moral conscience of our nation and soiled our credibility in the international community. An estimated 13,000 innocent Iraqis have died as the result of the invasion. All the while, the Bush administration refuses even to tally Iraqi civilian casualties. Capital punishment: In a "culture of life," we are called to be merciful. As the governor of Texas, however, Bush approved the execution of 152 people. In one infamous incident, he publicly mocked a woman as she awaited execution on death row. The president's attorney general has ordered a federal prosecutor to seek the death penalty despite the prosecutor's own recommendation of a life sentence in at least 12 cases. In other words, current U.S. policy is that some human life does not matter. Human dignity:In a "culture of life," we are called to care for the least among us, including human life in the womb. One proven way to reduce abortions is to reduce the numbers of people living in poverty. Unfortunately, under Bush, statistics show that the abortion rate has gone up. Since he took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has risen by 4.3 million, to a total of 35.9 million. I see these real people and hear their stories at the doorstep of St. Leo's every day. One of every three people living in poverty is a child. During the Bush presidency, the number of Americans without health insurance has risen by 5.2 million. Our economy has lost over 1 million jobs, and the wages that our families depend on have become stagnant. Meanwhile, the richest 1 percent received a tax break 70 times greater than the tax cut for the middle class. How are Catholics to deal with this split between rhetoric and reality? Ours must be a prophetic voice. We must call on Bush to account for a deeply troubling record. And we must also challenge Democrats to embrace the entire culture of life, not just a selective economic and social agenda. The sad reality of American political life is that no candidate or party embraces and advances a "culture of life" in the fullest sense of the term. Yet responsible citizenship calls us to cast our vote Nov. 2. How do we choose amongst imperfect candidates? We must each consult our conscience and consider the entirety of church teaching. And, as the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' voter guide, Faithful Citizenship, encourages, we should measure "all candidates, policies, parties and platforms by how they protect or undermine the life, dignity, and rights of the human person, whether they protect the poor and vulnerable and advance the common good." What we will not do is vote for a candidate just because he uses words that we like to hear; remembering, as scripture tells us, that we must be "doers of the Word and not hearers only." (source: Opinion; Bishop Thomas J. Gumbleton is an auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit and pastor at St. Leo Parish in Detroit; Detroit Free Press, Oct. 20)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Barring rescheduling due to whatever calamities may arise, death row survivors Ron Keine , Ray Krone and Gary Gauger will be on CNN live (Larry King show) @ 9 PM E.S.T. Wed Nov. 17.
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Nov. 22 USA: What's behind decline in death sentencesAmericans are using the ultimate punishment less and less. But that doesn't mean it's on the way out. Some took plea deals to avoid the possibility; others were spared the ultimate punishment by juries who didn't think it made sense in their cases. But they all reflect the current downward trend in death sentences nationwide. When the United States Justice Department recently released statistics showing that the number of death sentences imposed in 2003 had hit a 30-year low, it deepened a debate over society's ultimate punishment, fueling a controversy that has simmered from statehouses to courtrooms for years. Opponents read the decline as part of growing public uneasiness, as exonerations based on DNA evidence continue. Supporters say the drop simply reflects a decline in murder rates and changes in sentencing laws. What no one seems to dispute is that the numbers are dropping: Only 144 new inmates were sent to death row last year, down from a high of 320 in 1996. In addition, the number of executions actually carried out is falling, as well as the number of murder cases submitted for capital-punishment consideration. The explanations are varied and conflicting. As the debate goes on, all eyes are on the US Supreme Court and its pending decision on whether juvenile offenders should be eligible for the death penalty - a case that will test the court's barometer of public sentiment, not only on juvenile executions, but on capital punishment more generally in the United States, one of the only countries that still allows it. "Much depends on this juvenile case," says Michael Radelet, a sociologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and an expert on Florida's death row. "But the downward trend has been happening for [several] years." In Florida, for instance, almost 40 people were sent to death row annually in the 1990s. By 2001, that number was 16, and today it is only 8. Dr. Radelet attributes the decline to a combination of factors: the media's attention to wrongful convictions, the high cost of prosecuting capital cases, and the passage of life-without-parole laws, which many states enacted in the mid-1990s and which give jurors an option short of death but severe enough to ensure that a criminal will never rejoin society. In Ohio, for instance, death sentences have been cut by almost 1/3 since the state enacted its life-without-parole law in 1996, and the numbers are even higher in Florida. Only two of the 38 death-penalty states lack that option: Texas and New Mexico - and New Mexico has only two inmates on its death row. Texas, with 446 inmates on its death row, is the exception - and a big one - to the national trend. The state continues to put an average of 34 people on death row each year, and many experts point to the fact that Texas juries do not have the range of options that exist other states. Here, the choice is between life with parole and death. "When juries in Texas consider what is an appropriate sentence, life with parole has got risks associated with it," says Richard Dieter of the Death Penalty Information Center, which opposes the punishment. "But polls show that the public wants alternatives to the death penalty." A recent state poll, for instance, shows that 78 % of respondents are in favor of changing the law to allow life in prison without parole. It has failed in past legislative sessions, but will be offered again in the upcoming session. Yet 3 in 4 Texans also still support the death penalty - even though 70 % believe that the state has executed an innocent person. Such poll numbers are lower nationally, but the inconsistencies between these two ideas remain, says Franklin Zimring, a law professor and director of the criminal-justice research program at University of California at Berkeley. "The United States is the world capital of ambivalence on this issue. We don't want to see innocent people executed, but we don't like murderers." Still, some insist the two seemingly incompatible ideas can be reconciled, and that the societal benefits of capital punishment outweigh its risks. "If you have the same system for the next 100 years, the odds are that an innocent person will be executed," says Joshua Marquis, the district attorney in Astoria, Ore., and a death-penalty supporter. "But is that going to change my opinion that the death penalty is necessary? No." Mr. Marquis says part of the decline in death sentences has to do with medical advances in the past 30 years. Victims of gunshot wounds, for instance, are being saved at higher rates - making irrelevant the need for capital charges. Also, he says, crime rates have decreased while pressure to not seek the death penalty has risen because of the high costs associated with it. But perhaps most important, he says, prosecutors have become more discriminating in the kinds of capital cases they present to juries. A murder case may be eligible
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news-----USA
Nov. 30 USA: Luring Pro Bono Lawyers For Death Row's Forgotten Robin Maher is a traveling saleswoman whose wares are condemned prisoners. >From Boston to Albuquerque, from Denver to New Orleans, she pulls out their pictures and histories and makes her pitch. They have been sentenced for sometimes gruesome crimes, she acknowledges. Many may be guilty as convicted; others have circumstances that could save their lives. A few could be innocent. Not one has an attorney. "Every face looking back at you is a human being on death row without a lawyer," she tells audiences. "This is a terrible crisis of counsel." Maher leads the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Representation Project, and the people to whom she pitches are fellow lawyers. Most work at large, prestigious civil firms, specializing in such fields as antitrust and securities litigation for powerful people and major corporations. She asks them to take on the cases of murderers for what could be years of effort and scant compensation. In the national debate on capital punishment, much has been made of lawyers who show up in court drunk or sleep through testimony or do such paltry or inept work as to violate their clients' constitutional rights. But there is another equally daunting issue for indigent inmates with lives on the line: the lack of any lawyer at all. As their cases wend their way through appeals, as state and federal deadlines and hearings come and go and executions near, the Constitution guarantees no right of legal assistance. The result is a system rooted in crisis. The ABA and other groups estimate that hundreds of inmates are without representation. And with the nation's death-row population nearing a record level and the appeals process still constricted by federal and state laws, soliciting pro bono counsel for them has become increasingly critical and difficult, Maher said. Even so, the bar project has found lawyers for more than 100 cases since the late 1990s -- not just lawyers who decry the death penalty, but those who back it completely. Maher always has dozens of cases in her office on 15th Street NW. She sends a Virginia file to potential counsel in Detroit. With lawyers in Philadelphia, she talks about prisoners in Tennessee and Texas. "This is not a good answer to the problem," she said. For now, though, "this is the only answer." No Moral Stand Maher flew to Seattle with high hopes early this year, a full schedule of recruitment meetings set up with law firms. She stayed on message: The bar association neither supports nor opposes capital punishment. Its interest is ensuring legal counsel. Over coffee at Preston Gates & Ellis, her 1st morning stop, Maher described the record that many court-appointed trial attorneys leave behind, sometimes so slim that it fits within a couple of folders. She conceded the complexity of death penalty appellate law and the gravity of what is at stake. She mentioned, as she often does, her own representation of a young man sitting on death row in the South for a restaurant robbery gone horribly awry. He was 16, reckless and stupid, she said. His murder trial, start to finish, lasted just 1 1/2 days. His attorneys did no investigation; at sentencing, they presented a single witness. 1 of the 3 Preston Gates lawyers listening shuddered. "We've never, to my knowledge, done a death penalty case here," Susan Jones said. "We're not criminal lawyers." "Neither was I," Maher stressed. "I can hear in our executive committee, 'What are the hard-dollar costs?'" Jones said. "They're all over the place," Maher answered. Still, no case comes cheaply. As for the most challenging cost: "There's so much riding on it," Jones began. Maher understood immediately. "Of course, it's possible," she said, possible that a volunteer lawyer could have to walk a client to execution. "The only thing I can tell you," she continued, "is that you're giving [them] some hope and advocating for them." When the ABA began its project nearly 2 decades ago, most state courts or laws afforded little assistance to death row prisoners once their initial appeal was concluded. Few gave them the right, or the public money, for a lawyer. Congress decided in 1988 that a capital inmate was entitled to representation during a federal appeal, and it created a series of centers staffed with highly specialized defense lawyers to provide for that. Supporters praised their work as essential to the system's integrity, but critics decried them as obstructionists bent on destroying capital punishment from within. After 7 years, opponents successfully terminated funding; most of the centers closed soon after. Simultaneously, Congress passed sweeping changes to the death penalty, collapsing the time period an inmate has to appeal into the federal courts and requiring those judges to defer far more to their state counterparts' rulings on constitutional issues. Advocates have seen progress since then, but it has
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Dec. 8 USA: MURDER VICTIMS FAMILIES FOR HUMAN RIGHTS PRESS RELEASE CONTACT: Renny Cushing, MVFHR executive director 617-930-5196 2161 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02140 rrcush...@earthlink.net www.murdervictimsfamilies.org SURVIVORS OF MURDER VICTIMS OPPOSED TO THE DEATH PENALTY TO LAUNCH NEW GROUP ON INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY Dec. 8, 2004 - Survivors of murder victims who oppose the death penalty will observe the launching of a new organization at 11 a.m. Friday at the United Nations in New York City. The new organization, Murder Victims Families for Human Rights, will be unveiled as part of International Human Rights Day, celebrated Dec. 10 of every year. On hand to welcome the new organization will be leaders of the abolition movement, both in the United States and abroad. Renny Cushing, executive director of Murder Victims Families for Human Rights and himself a murder victim survivor, said the decision to launch the new organization was made at the Second World Congress Against the Death Penalty, which was held this past October in Montreal. At that conference, a recommendation was made to launch an international network of family members who oppose the death penalty. "Our organization is both pro-victim and anti-death penalty," said Cushing, a former New Hampshire state legislator whose father was murdered. "When I was a lawmaker, I was an advocate for laws that benefited victims. And I also sponsored legislation to abolish the death penalty. I believe in victims rights and I believe in human rights. Both go hand in hand." The new group will include relatives of murder victims as well as relatives of those who have been executed. Among the speakers at Fridays event will be Bud Welch, whose daughter Julie died in the Oklahoma City bombing; Robert Meeropol, whose parents, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, were executed during the McCarthy era for allegedly spying; and Bill Pelke, chairman of the board of directors of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, who lost his grandmother to murder. At the ceremony, national abolition leaders will discuss the important role MVFHR will play in the abolition movement as well as the importance of bringing a national and international human-rights focus to the death penalty debate in the United States. NOTE TO REPORTERS: The founding ceremony will take place on the top floor of the Church Center for the United Nations at 777 UN Plaza. To get there, enter the building on the 44th Street side of the UN Church Center Building, sign in with the security guard and take the elevator to the 12th floor. Renny Cushing, Executive Director Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights 617 930 5196 rrcush...@earthlink.net www.murdervictimsfamilies.org (source: MVFHR)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Dec. 10 USA: ACLU REPORTHow the Death Penalty Weakens U.S. International Interests Table of Contents I. Introduction II. The Death Penalty in the International Arena A. International Efforts to Abolish the Death Penalty B. International Efforts to Limit the Death Penalty C. Foreign Officials Raise the Issue with the U.S D. Interventions by Foreign Governments E. Extradition Cases Involving the Death Penalty F. Challenges by International Tribunal Hearing G. Human Rights Inquiries and Other Reports III. Effects on the International Image of the United States A. International Press Coverage B. International Cooperation in the "War on Terror" IV. Conclusion Endnotes HOW THE DEATH PENALTY WEAKENS U.S. INTERNATIONAL INTERESTS It is in all candor that we say to you that maintaining the death penalty in your country profoundly affects the friendship which we feel for you. If Americans must understand that the death penalty is intolerable, it is up to you, as responsible politicians, to help them understand that. You are the representatives of a country that certain people consider the greatest democracy in the world. But you will never be elected in a model democracy as long as the death penalty exists there. --Letter to Members of the United States Congress from Members of the French National Assembly, July 2000. I.Introduction In the face of a clear world trend toward abolition of capital punishment, executions in the United States continue unabated. Europeans and other allies find such U.S. practices as the execution of juvenile offenders, the mentally ill, and the mentally retarded to be particularly repugnant. International human rights inquiries and other studies regularly describe problems with the United States death penalty system, including wrongful convictions of innocent people, inadequate legal representation for defendants, and racial and economic disparities in its application. Many allies consider such practices to be unfit for a great democracy seeking to assert leadership on human rights and other international policy matters. The United States refusal to take any significant steps in response to international concerns regarding the death penalty is harming its relations with important allies and costing the United States prestige and leadership on human rights and other issues. This is happening at a time when, as President Bush recognizes, the United States must rely on international cooperation. The costs to the United States in terms of its international interests simply are not worth whatever benefits might be had from executing 100 criminals per year rather than imprisoning them for life. It is time for the United States to reevaluate its commitment to this outdated and controversial practice. II. The Death Penalty in the International Arena The forfeiture of life is too absolute, too irreversible for one human being to inflict it on another, even when backed by legal process. And I believe that future generations, throughout the world, will come to agree. -- Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary General, accepting a petition calling for a worldwide moratorium on the death penalty, Dec. 18, 2000. The international communitys efforts to abolish, or at least limit, the practice of legal executions are reflected in numerous multilateral treaties and protocols. The United States, however, generally either refuses to sign, signs with reservations, or simply ignores such treaties, and continues to apply the death penalty without regard for the concerns of other nations. As a result, foreign officials increasingly have challenged the United States on this issue. A. International Efforts to Abolish the Death Penalty The primary goal of most of the international community regarding the death penalty is abolition. Efforts to abolish the death penalty have been conducted through multilateral organizations, such as the United Nations, and regional organizations, such as the European Union. These efforts have realized a great degree of success. The number of countries that have stopped imposing the death penalty has grown to an all-time high of 118 as of 2003. Eighty countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes. Fifteen countries have abolished the death penalty for all but exceptional crimes, such as those committed during wartime. 23 countries can be considered abolitionist in practice: They retain the death penalty in law but have not carried out any executions for 10 or more years, and are believed to have a policy or practice of not carrying out executions. Countries renouncing the death penalty for all crimes in recent years include Chile, Ukraine, Estonia, Azerbaijan, Canada, the United Kingdom, Poland, Lithuania, South Africa, Turkmenistan, and Bulgaria. Still others have abolished the death penalty for "ordinary crimes" and retained it for serious crimes against the state like treason or war crimes. By ignoring international efforts t
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news---USA
Dec. 10 USA: NOTEAmerica will not have any executions in December, 2004, thus ending a string of 124 consecutive months in which at least 1 person was put to death om the USA. The last month without an execution in the USA was July 1994; the last time America did not execute anyone in the month of December was in 1991. (source: Rick Halperin, TCADP/AIUSA)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news-----USA
Dec. 14 USA: Lawyer Backed in Conceding Client's Guilt The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that faced with overwhelming evidence that a client is guilty of capital murder, a defense lawyer can make a reasonable strategic decision to concede guilt in open court, even if the client has not authorized such a strategy, in order to preserve some credibility with the jury that will soon decide whether to impose a death sentence. The 8-to-0 decision, with an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and with Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist not participating, overturned a ruling by the Florida Supreme Court that a lawyer who concedes a defendant's guilt, for whatever reason, in the absence of explicit authorization, has deprived the client of the effective assistance of counsel. Applying that rule, the Florida Supreme Court last year ordered a new trial for Joe Elton Nixon, who was convicted and sentenced to death in 1984 for kidnapping a woman, tying her to a tree, and setting her on fire while she was still alive. He then confessed the killing to his brother, took 2 of his victim's rings to a pawnshop and tried to sell the sports car he stole from her. Justice Ginsburg said that Mr. Nixon's lawyer, Michael Corin, who was experienced in defending murder cases, calculated that a denial of guilt in the face of "overwhelming evidence" of the gruesome crime would have appeared incredible to the jurors before whom he would soon be asking for leniency in the sentencing phase. The lawyer's strategy was aimed at "preserving his credibility," she said, adding, "In a capital case, counsel must consider in conjunction both the guilt and penalty phases in determining how best to proceed." That the strategy failed - the jury decided on a sentence of death after only three hours of deliberation - did not necessarily mean that the representation was ineffective, Justice Ginsburg said. She added that while lawyers ordinarily had a duty to consult with their clients on questions of "overarching defense strategy," that obligation did not extend to "every tactical decision." In this instance, the client was unresponsive, neither giving nor withholding his consent, when the lawyer tried 3 times to discuss the trial strategy with him. Mr. Corin had previously tried to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecution, offering a guilty plea in exchange for a sentence of life in prison, but the effort failed because the state would accept nothing less than a death sentence. Under the opinion, Florida v. Nixon, No. 03-931, the Florida court must now evaluate Mr. Corin's courtroom behavior under a standard more flexible than the absolute rule it applied. The two-part inquiry for ineffective assistance of counsel, which the Supreme Court first set out in a 1984 decision, Strickland v. Washington, asks whether the lawyer's performance was deficient and, if so, whether the deficiency actually hurt the defense. The answer to both those questions is almost certainly "no." At the end of the penalty phase of the trial, the trial judge commended Mr. Corin for his "excellent analysis of the reality of his case." At the penalty phase, the lawyer tried to persuade the jury that Mr. Nixon's low I.Q., possible brain damage and history of mental instability should all militate against a death sentence. Under Supreme Court precedents, a defendant must give explicit consent to a guilty plea. Justice Ginsburg said on Monday that the Florida Supreme Court's mistake in this case was to equate the concession the lawyer made in court with a formal plea of guilty. While a guilty plea forfeits the right to a trial and relieves the prosecution of the need to prove its case, she said, in this case Mr. Nixon retained all ordinary trial rights and the government was still obliged to put on evidence. Consequently, Justice Ginsburg said, the Florida court's analogy was incorrect. The case was argued on Nov. 2, shortly after Chief Justice Rehnquist began aggressive treatment for thyroid cancer. While the court first announced that the chief justice, who has been absent since Oct. 22, would participate in all the court's cases by reading the briefs and argument transcripts, that turned out not to have been the case, at least for the cases the court heard in November. Kathleen Arberg, the court's public information officer, said on Monday that the chief justice had decided to participate only in those November cases that would otherwise have resulted in a 4-to-4 tie. He will participate in all the cases argued in the court's December sitting, she said. Despite the announcement on Friday that Chief Justice Rehnquist planned to administer the oath of office at President Bush's 2nd inauguration, on Jan. 20, there has been no indication whether he will be back in court in time for the next argument session, which begins Jan. 10. The brief session the court held on Monday morning to announce decisions - there were no arguments - found Justice Antonin Scal
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news December 15, 2004 USA: Americans and the Death Penalty Gallup reviews public opinion on the death penalty in wake of Scott Peterson case On Monday afternoon, a jury recommended death by lethal injection for Scott Peterson for murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. This comes at the same time that a new study released by the Death Penalty Information Center reports a sharp decrease in the number of death sentences imposed and executions carried out over the past five years. Both the highly visible Peterson sentencing and the reduction in executions in this country draw attention again to American public opinion on this controversial issue. A review of Gallup polling finds that about two in three Americans say they are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers. But support is considerably lower when Americans are asked to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment. Death penalty supporters cite justice and fairness as the main reasons for their support, while those opposing the death sentence say it is wrong to take a life. A majority of Americans also say the death penalty is applied fairly in this country, and nearly half say it is not imposed often enough. Support for the death penalty is higher among men than among women, higher among Republicans than among Democrats, and higher among whites than among blacks. Support for the Death Penalty Gallup began asking Americans if they are "in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder" in the 1930s, and has updated this measure on a regular basis in the decades since. The results from two polls conducted this year show that, on average, 68% of Americans say they support the death penalty. The percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty has fluctuated significantly over the years, ranging from a low of 42% in 1966, during a revival of the anti-death penalty movement, to an all-time high of 80% in 1994. Over the past several years, public opinion on the death penalty has been more stable, with upward of two in three Americans supporting it. Which groups of Americans are most likely to support the death penalty? In order to answer this question, Gallup recently combined the results of the nine surveys that asked the basic death penalty question from 2001 through 2004 (see "Who Supports the Death Penalty?" in Related Items). The overall results show some interesting differences: Eighty percent of Republicans support the death penalty, compared with 65% of independents and 58% of Democrats. Nearly three in four conservatives (74%) support capital punishment, compared with 68% of moderates and 54% of liberals. More than 7 in 10 men (74%) support the death penalty, compared with 62% of women. There are substantial differences between whites and blacks in their support for capital punishment, with 71% of whites supporting the death penalty and only 44% of blacks supporting it. There are only slight variations by age, with roughly two in three Americans in every age group supporting capital punishment. The data show that 65% of those who attend church services weekly or nearly weekly favor capital punishment, compared with 69% of those who attend services monthly and 71% of those who seldom or never attend. Death Penalty vs. Life Imprisonment Support for the death penalty is considerably lower when respondents are asked to choose between the death penalty and "life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole" as the better punishment for murder. Americans were essentially divided on this measure this past May, with 50% choosing the death penalty and 46% choosing life imprisonment. There has been a good deal of fluctuation on this specific measure in recent years. The highest level of support for the death penalty in response to this question came in August 1997, when 61% chose the death penalty and just 29% life imprisonment. On the other hand, just a few years later, in late August/early September 2000, the two alternatives were virtually tied, with 49% support for the death penalty and 47% for life imprisonment. Between 50% (the current percentage) and 54% have supported the death penalty in response to this question in the years since 2000, while support for life imprisonment has varied between 42% and 46% (the current percentage). Variations of Death Penalty Support In the last few years, Gallup has found support for the death penalty ranging from 13% to 81% when Americans are asked about its use in specific cases or for specific groups of people. Timothy McVeigh, the man convicted of murder in the Oklahoma City bombing case, was put to death by lethal injection on June 11, 2001. In the months prior to his death, roughly 8 in 10 Americans supported the death penalty in his case, including about one in five adults nationwide who said they generally opposed the death penalty but supported it in the
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news-----USA
Dear friends: We write today to tell you about a unique opportunity to reach out to loved ones who are spending this holiday season incarcerated. This coming Monday, Dec. 20th, a special radio program will air on radio stations across the United States. The radio program will allow people who have friends or relatives in prison to call a toll-free line and send a message to those who are incarcerated. The message might be in the form of a poem, a song, a blessing or other spoken word. The program will air 7 to 10 p.m. Eastern time; 6 to 9 p.m. Central, 5 to 8 p.m. Rocky Mountain and 4 to 7 p.m. West Coast. The toll-free number to call is 1-888-396-1208. This program is being produced by Holler to the Hood, a project of Appalshop, a non-profit media arts center located in the coalfields of central Appalachia. Appalshop operates a community radio station that broadcasts to eastern Kentucky, southwest Virginia and parts of West Virginia, Tennessee and North Carolina. Holler to the Hood is working through the Pacifica Radio Network to try to get Monday's program aired in cities and towns all over the United States. For more information about the program - and to listen to it live on Monday, please visit this link: http://www.appalshop.org/h2h/calls.htm Meanwhile, on behalf of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, I would like to wish everyone a happy holiday season! David Elliot NCADP Communications
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news December 21, 2004 USA: The Forgotten and the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the Heart of America The issue of the Death Penalty isn?t really directly important for most of us in Europe, because we have no death penalty. And so a lot of my friends or family members were surprised to hear of my interest in helping to abolish the Death Penalty in other regions of the world, with a focus on the United States. That was four years ago. Now, when I look back I see how naive I was to believe that someone in Europe could change a broken system in another country. But I am a part of this fight now and every day I learn what that means. I met a lot of people over these four years - people who lost family or friends through a crime, people who are on Death Row and people who dedicate their time and resources to fight against the Death Penalty. I have heard many different stories. I heard arguments for the Death Penalty and of course, against it. I have witnessed small, but important victories toward the Abolition of the Death Penalty in the U.S. I have also very close to people who have been executed by the State. Let me share with you some details* and personal experiences so you can better understand why I will never give up my fight against state executions. There are 38 States in the USA who have the Death Penalty. The total Death Row population is about 3.471 inmates. The three Death Rows in the U.S. with the largest number of condemned are: - California with 638 inmates - Texas with 455 inmates - Florida with 384 inmates The three Death Rows with the least number (2 each) of condemned prisoners are: - New Mexico - New York - Wyoming This year 59 inmates were executed ( last year 65 ) and 130 Death Sentences were given (last year 144). The percentage of executions by U.S. regions: - South 85% - Midwest 12% - West 3 % - Northwest 0% There were 117 inmates who were exonerated and freed from Death Row since the Death Penalty was reinstated! Last year we had 12 people who were freed from Death Row, this year 5 people have been exonerated. In Texas for example more and more concerns about the Death Penalty have been expressed because of the questions raised by DNA labs: "Do we honestly want to risk executing people who may be innocent? I had enough questions about our administration of the death penalty to have my name taken off the prison that houses death row inmates. This is one of the reasons why I did so." - Former TDCJ Chairman Charles Terrell (in a letter to The Dallas Morning News, supporting calls for a moratorium on Harris Co. executions in the wake of the Houston crime-lab fiasco.) A few days ago the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the death penalty unconstitutional. Earlier this year it was the New York Supreme Court that halted its state?s practice of capital punishment. Under its new Governor, New Jersey is shortly expected to enact a moratorium on executions while a thorough study of that state?s death penalty system is being carried out. I do not suggest that all Death Row inmates are innocent of the crimes with which they have been charged. No, most of them are not, but if you read all of this it shows that it is time to have a moratorium to take a closer look at this system, as was done in Illinois 2000. During the last 4 years I have corresponded with people condemned on America?s Death Rows and have traveled from Germany to visit with some of them. Through this correspondence and travels I have learned a great deal about these folks and about myself. I have come to know some and have seen some put to death. One of my first pen-pals was one of the 117 inmates who had been released. In a letter, he offered that if I ever had any questions about the death penalty I could ask, Esther Brown, Executive Secretary/Treasurer of the Project Hope to Abolish the Death Penalty (www.phap.org) Nearly four years ago, I wrote a short e-mail message to Esther which resulted in a wonderful friendship. Esther Brown is a powerful, "free world" voice of the Death Row inmates. She is the coordinator for meetings, interviews with the media and much more. For the past year and a half she has been traveling through Alabama to demand a moratorium on executions. Thirty three (33) city councils/ county commissions in Alabama have so far passed the resolution. In November I visited her for the second time and she asked me if I would be interested in going with her to the city council of a small town to urge another moratorium. I was pleased to do so. It involved a two hour drive with a short stop at the highest point in Alabama. The city, Ridgeville, has a population of 158 people and 124 are African-American. When we arrived the meeting point, I understood what these trips mean to Esther. Some of these small towns and cities have so many problems like bad water, poor public education, poverty, unemployment and so on. We came into
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news December 30, 2004 USA: - book review - Dead men walking away from justice - Sister Helen Prejean tries again to stop the death penalty in America By Steve Weinberg When an obscure nun from Louisiana named Helen Prejean wrote the bestselling book "Dead Man Walking" 12 years ago, she was amazed that her words could spawn a passionate debate about the death penalty. A year later, the movie version led to an Academy Award for Susan Sarandon as Sister Helen and sparked an expansion of the debate. Now comes a sequel of sorts. Prejean's editor said during a recent meeting, "With the publication of 'Dead Man Walking,' we opened the national conversation about the death penalty. With 'The Death of Innocents,' we're going to catalyze public discourse that will end the death penalty." Maybe. But it probably will not turn out to be that simple. The core of her new book rests on two state-sponsored executions, one in Louisiana, one in Virginia. Prejean came to know the men convicted of murder, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph Roger O'Dell, when each requested her as an official spiritual adviser. She became convinced that each man was innocent, making their executions unimaginably horrible for her. In the abstract, Prejean's polemic is filled with logic: If there is any possibility that governments have executed or will execute innocent defendants, then the death penalty must be abolished because it's irreversible. Moving beyond the abstract, journalists like myself who have written extensively about wrongful convictions understand that innocent defendants have been executed - before DNA testing could prove prosecutors wrong; before we grasped the frequency of mistaken eyewitness testimony, false confessions, and the lies of jailhouse snitches cutting secret deals with district attorneys. Unfortunately, though, Prejean's reportage is less compelling than her logic. Her presentation of the Williams and O'Dell cases show questionable conduct by police, prosecutors, and judges, to be sure. But, after reading each account, I am uncertain about the innocence of either dead defendant. That uncertainty, should it exist in the minds of other readers, will make it difficult to generate new opposition to the death penalty. For the sake of debate, let us assume for a few paragraphs that Prejean's instincts are wrong, that Williams and O'Dell were guilty of murder. In that case, did they deserve to be killed by the state? This is where the polemic becomes as much faith-based and law-based as fact-based. Prejean ranges wide, discussing the teachings of her own Catholicism as well as other organized religions, the intent of the US Constitution's drafters, the defensibility of dozens of Supreme Court decisions, the personal moral codes of court justices such as Antonin Scalia (her preeminent whipping boy) and Harry Blackmun (her judicial exemplar). Are state-sponsored executions always morally wrong, even when a guilty defendant has committed a heinous murder, sometimes combined with sexual degradation before or after the homicide? Yes, Prejean says. For her, no sound reasoning, on any level of abstraction, can support the death penalty. Her new book is almost certain to promote reflection rather than harden positions because Prejean commands respect. She left a comfortable upbringing to join the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille. Next, she left a comfortable position within her religious order to live in squalor, assisting poverty-ridden, nearly hopeless urban residents left in the backwash of politicians' empty promises. She answered affirmatively when asked to counsel the condemned, despite knowing she would be haunted by nightmares the remainder of her life. Risking calumny, she also began counseling the families of murder victims, despite the hatred some family members directed at her for befriending murderers. Unlike most participants in the death penalty debate, Prejean has mingled with every type of person involved, including the prison wardens and the guards who actually extinguish lives under color of law. Because of her actions and the impassioned yet thoughtful words arising from those actions, she continues to deserve an audience. Steve Weinberg is a freelance investigative journalist who writes frequently about the criminal justice system. The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions Sister Helen Prejean Random House310 pp. (source: Christian Science Monitor)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news-----USA
Dec. 28 USAbook review Dead men walking away from justiceSister Helen Prejean tries again to stop the death penalty in America When an obscure nun from Louisiana named Helen Prejean wrote the bestselling book "Dead Man Walking" 12 years ago, she was amazed that her words could spawn a passionate debate about the death penalty. A year later, the movie version led to an Academy Award for Susan Sarandon as Sister Helen and sparked an expansion of the debate. Now comes a sequel of sorts. Prejean's editor said during a recent meeting, "With the publication of 'Dead Man Walking,' we opened the national conversation about the death penalty. With 'The Death of Innocents,' we're going to catalyze public discourse that will end the death penalty." Maybe. But it probably will not turn out to be that simple. The core of her new book rests on 2 state-sponsored executions, one in Louisiana, one in Virginia. Prejean came to know the men convicted of murder, Dobie Gillis Williams and Joseph Roger O'Dell, when each requested her as an official spiritual adviser. She became convinced that each man was innocent, making their executions unimaginably horrible for her. In the abstract, Prejean's polemic is filled with logic: If there is any possibility that governments have executed or will execute innocent defendants, then the death penalty must be abolished because it's irreversible. Moving beyond the abstract, journalists like myself who have written extensively about wrongful convictions understand that innocent defendants have been executed - before DNA testing could prove prosecutors wrong; before we grasped the frequency of mistaken eyewitness testimony, false confessions, and the lies of jailhouse snitches cutting secret deals with district attorneys. Unfortunately, though, Prejean's reportage is less compelling than her logic. Her presentation of the Williams and O'Dell cases show questionable conduct by police, prosecutors, and judges, to be sure. But, after reading each account, I am uncertain about the innocence of either dead defendant. That uncertainty, should it exist in the minds of other readers, will make it difficult to generate new opposition to the death penalty. For the sake of debate, let us assume for a few paragraphs that Prejean's instincts are wrong, that Williams and O'Dell were guilty of murder. In that case, did they deserve to be killed by the state? This is where the polemic becomes as much faith-based and law-based as fact-based. Prejean ranges wide, discussing the teachings of her own Catholicism as well as other organized religions, the intent of the US Constitution's drafters, the defensibility of dozens of Supreme Court decisions, the personal moral codes of court justices such as Antonin Scalia (her preeminent whipping boy) and Harry Blackmun (her judicial exemplar). Are state-sponsored executions always morally wrong, even when a guilty defendant has committed a heinous murder, sometimes combined with sexual degradation before or after the homicide? Yes, Prejean says. For her, no sound reasoning, on any level of abstraction, can support the death penalty. Her new book is almost certain to promote reflection rather than harden positions because Prejean commands respect. She left a comfortable upbringing to join the Sisters of St. Joseph of Medaille. Next, she left a comfortable position within her religious order to live in squalor, assisting poverty-ridden, nearly hopeless urban residents left in the backwash of politicians' empty promises. She answered affirmatively when asked to counsel the condemned, despite knowing she would be haunted by nightmares the remainder of her life. Risking calumny, she also began counseling the families of murder victims, despite the hatred some family members directed at her for befriending murderers. Unlike most participants in the death penalty debate, Prejean has mingled with every type of person involved, including the prison wardens and the guards who actually extinguish lives under color of law. Because of her actions and the impassioned yet thoughtful words arising from those actions, she continues to deserve an audience. The Death of Innocents: An Eyewitness Account of Wrongful Executions Sister Helen Prejean Random House 310 pp., $25.95 (source: The Christian Science Monitor; Steve Weinberg is a freelance investigative journalist who writes frequently about the criminal justice system) *** The courage of her convictionsSister Helen Prejean continues her crusade against the death penalty with a new book, 'Death of Innocents' Sister Helen Prejean is a woman on a mission, and that mission is to abolish the death penalty. "I've walked out of that execution chamber six times after watching the state kill a human being. I was filled with outrage, anger and despair that I was powerless to stop it," she said. "And what I do is, I write and I become a witness. Because until the American people u
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news-----USA
Jan. 1 USA-television note The movie version of "The Exonerated" airs on the Court T.V. network -- on January 27th.-check your local listings for times.
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Pending U.S. Executions (as of 12/29/04) Please note that these dates are only tentative. Execution dates known or thought to be considered SERIOUS are marked with a *.The designation indicates that an execution is considered more likely to be carried out. Please note that this designation should in no way be construed as absolute. Stays can be granted or denied at the very last momemt prior to an execution. A name with no * designation may simply mean that not enough information is currently available to know whether the execution date is serious. In other words, please DO NOT automatically equate the fact that a name with no * designation means that his/her assigned execution date is not serious. It might, in fact, be (very) serious. January 2005 4* James Porter Texasvolunteer 19* Donald Beardslee California 20* Jose Briseno Texas 25* Troy Kunkle Texas 26* Michael Ross Connecticutvolunteer 27* George Jones Texas February 17* Dennis Bagwell Texas 17Roy L. Williams Pennsylvania 24Douglas Roberts Texas March 8* George HopperTexas 10* Alexander Martinez Texasvolunteer 15Christopher DavisTennessee 16* Pablo Melendez Jr. Texas April 12Robert Leach Tennessee
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news January 2, 2005 USA: The Year in Death Only a few years ago, in 1999, Americans saw 98 people put to death -- a modern record following two decades of steady increases. Since then, however, there has been a precipitous decline in capital punishment. Two years after its peak, the number of executions had fallen to 66, according to data from the Death Penalty Information Center. And after blipping marginally back up for a year, it fell again -- from 71 executions in 2002 to 65 executions in 2003 and down to 59 executions this past year. This is a 40 percent drop from the 1999 figure. What's more, new death sentences have fallen by more than 50 percent since the mid-1990s, and death row is gradually shrinking. Public support for capital punishment has also decreased. The distribution of executions this year is no surprise. Texas as usual has the dubious honor of leading the nation in death -- by a country mile. The Lone Star State killed 23 people, more than three times the seven executions that second-place Ohio carried out. The regional concentration of executions, which has become particularly dramatic in recent years, continued in 2004. Only 12 of the 38 states that permit the death penalty actually conducted executions last year, and just three of those -- Ohio, Nevada and Maryland -- were outside the South. The top six death-penalty states this past year -- Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma (which executed six), Virginia (five), North Carolina (four) and South Carolina (four) -- accounted for 83 percent of the country's executions. Capital punishment, in short, is not merely becoming rarer; it is significantly more geographically isolated than during the 1990s. These trends are promising, because they reflect growing public concerns over the death penalty. And that concern is crucial to ultimately abolishing it. The political will to abolish the death penalty does not exist. But the fewer states that actually carry out executions regularly, the easier it becomes to demonstrate that capital punishment is an unnecessary and reckless gambit that accomplishes nothing at great moral and financial cost and always carries some risk of an irreversible catastrophe. That risk is not trivial. The advent of DNA testing has spurred a rash of death row exonerations over the past several years -- exonerations that have driven the reform movement. Only last month the Chicago Tribune reported on its remarkable investigation of the case of Cameron Todd Willingham, who was executed in Texas in February. The Tribune reported that the case against him for killing his children by burning down his home was "based primarily on arson theories that have since been repudiated by scientific advances"; the fire may well have been accidental and Mr. Willingham innocent. The truth is that nobody can say with confidence that all of the 944 people executed in the United States in the modern era of capital punishment were guilty. The laws of probability, rather, strongly suggest otherwise. Capital punishment in this country is not going to be abolished overnight. And it is surely premature to venture the prediction that the past five years are the beginning of its final decay. It is not, however, too soon to venture that hope. (source: Washington Post)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Jan. 5 USA: The Attorney General Choice: Al Gonzales has serious questions to answer Although the war on terror isn't a conventional confrontation, a memo suggesting that some parts of the Geneva Conventions might be "obsolete" and "quaint" is eyebrow-raising legal advice. So when Alberto Gonzales slides into the chair before the Senate Judiciary Committee tomorrow, his Jan. 25, 2002, memo and its implications on how the administration approaches the war on terror will precede him. In many respects, Mr. Gonzales should be a shoo-in. He's bright, carries a Harvard sheepskin, was a Texas Supreme Court justice and is a longtime confidant of the president. The son of Mexican immigrants, Mr. Gonzales also shatters a glass ceiling in government. Nominees, however, are judged not only by their resume, but also by the advice they offer. Mr. Gonzales' role in formulating the administration's legal foundation for detainees is disconcerting, as this editorial board noted in a May editorial. "The thrust of this memo is troubling," the editorial noted, "because one wonders whether Mr. Gonzales' legal opinion gave rise to a mind-set that eventually culminated in the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison." The White House counsel has not yet offered a full explanation of the legal reasoning behind his memo or discussed the administration's new standard for detainees. The key issue is the moral and legal judgment of a man who would be the nation's chief law enforcement officer. The Senate Judiciary Committee and the American people deserve candid and complete answers. We will be looking for a forthright explanation affirming that Mr. Gonzales has sufficient respect for civil liberties and legal due process, and enough independence to tell the president what he doesn't want to hear, if it comes to that. Unless the hearings uncover damning information beyond the memos - such as the serious questions Democrats are expected to raise about the advice Mr. Gonzales gave to then-Gov. Bush in death penalty cases - we lean toward affirming the Gonzales nomination. Absent compelling reasons to object, a president has the right to choose his Cabinet. But the American people must have confidence that their attorney general understands and respects the law. (source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news January 29, 2005 USA: What Does the Bible Say About Capital Punishment? The Origin of Capital Punishment Capital punishment is a difficult subject to discuss as there are many different opinions that all contain some truth about this issue. Some believe it is fair and just to administer the death penalty when criminals take a life or lives, while others think that it is cruel and unusual punishment for civilized societies. Many Christians are divided on this issue as well, with some following the Old Testament law of capital punishment and others choosing the seemingly gentler side of the Bible--the New Testament--as the basis for their opposition to this law. Are these two Testaments in opposition to each other? Since God does not contradict Himself, perhaps we need a deeper understanding of the Bible as a whole. Where did the idea of capital punishment come from? The first definition in the Webster's New World Dictionary for the word "capital" is: 1) Involving or punishable by death (originally by decapitation) (a capital offense). Decapitation was the beheading of those who were convicted of any crime deserving the death penalty (thus Capital comes from the Latin word "capitalis" which means "of the head"). Murder, treason and other high crimes were punishable by death. Usually the state or governments set the standards for carrying out this punishment. However, before governments established this practice, the idea of capital punishment was first instigated by God in the Old Testament in the Bible. Genesis 9:5-6: "And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Leviticus 24:17-22: "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death. 18 And he that killeth a beast shall make it good; beast for beast. 19 And if a man cause a blemish in his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him; 20 Breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth: as he hath caused a blemish in a man, so shall it be done to him again. 21 And he that killeth a beast, he shall restore it: and he that killeth a man, he shall be put to death. 22 Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God." Why Did God Institute Capital Punishment? Why would a loving God who is supposed to love all of mankind issue these edicts? To answer this question, we must understand the overall purpose of God. In the first scripture we can see that God's command was based on the dignity of man, as he is made in the image of God. God created the first man, Adam, gave him Eve, and told them to be fruitful and multiply. God desired not only to have fellowship with them, but with all subsequent generations. However, to be able to have real communion with man, God created him with a will. Men were given the right to choose if they wanted to commune with, and love and obey God or if they would rather choose to live apart from God, and reject and disobey Him. God knew when He created men with free wills that not all would follow and obey Him. However, He also knew that many would want to love and serve Him. In giving men free will, He also had to establish laws for men to live by. When we look at the Ten Commandments listed in Exodus 20:1-17, we can see that these laws were given for the good of mankind. One of these laws is in verse 13: "Thou shalt not kill." You may wonder if God said "do not kill," why He would then decree that a murderer should be put to death. The reason is that the Hebrew meaning of the word translated as "kill" actually means "murder" or "to slay someone in a violent manner unjustly." So, in the Ten Commandments God is saying, "Thou shalt not murder." God Sanctioned Government Authorities to Enforce Laws God set boundaries on mankind by establishing ruling authorities that would make and enforce the laws He gave. The purpose for this was because He knew unregenerate society, without any restraints, would seek to destroy good men. God's desire is that all men would come to Him and live by His laws. However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God and broke His law, sin entered into the world and was passed down to all of mankind through Adam's seed. God, in His love for mankind, made a way for men to come back to Him, through the sacrifice of His Son, Jesus. Because Jesus lived free of sin and obeyed the law of God perfectly, He became the sin offering and died upon a cross, thus paying the price for all men's sin. He then rose from the dead the third day showing that He indeed was the son of God. Now those who accept what Jesus did and repent of their sins can find their way through faith to be reconciled to God. This sacrific
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news Feb 14, 2005 USA (death penalty related): BuzzFlash interview: Susan Jacoby ...liberals tend to be looking for common ground, but I don't believe the right wing in this country wants common ground. To liberals and people who believe in secular government ? I say forget about the fundamentalists. Appeal to the 60 or 70 percent of the American people who aren't fundamentalists ? who may have lots of religious beliefs, but who also believe in secular government. Don't waste time trying to persuade people who believe that the earth was created in seven days. You're not going to persuade those people of anything. * * * Susan Jacoby, a fervent believer in the separation of church and state, recently spoke with BuzzFlash about America's historical roots in secularism, or freedom of religion. Her latest book, Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism (a BuzzFlash premium), is an exploration of the rich history of our secular country, a nation conceived in the "Age of Reason," in response to European religious oppression. As she argues so persuasively, our American revolution, our heroic and enlightened founders, and our unique Constitution left behind the old European model of governments founded on a fixed religious hierarchy and belief in the divine rights of monarchs. America was founded to allow religious thought and practice, not to endorse a single form of it. Trouble is, some of our most powerful leaders today would have us march right back to that pre-revolutionary, "divinely inspired" model of governing. Susan Jacoby is director of the Center for Inquiry - Metro New York, as well as an independent scholar, author of seven books, a respected journalist and a Guggenheim Fellow. * * * BuzzFlash: The chapter in your book entitled "Reason Embattled" is of special interest to BuzzFlash, because we?ve covered Antonin Scalia's religious outlook quite a bit. In that chapter, you refer to a speech Supreme Court Justice Scalia gave at the Chicago Divinity School, which went largely unnoticed by the media. More recently, he has been stampeding around the country, making speeches to synagogues, saying that Jews would be safer in a Christian nation. At a recent Knights of Columbus meeting, he proclaimed that no one should be afraid to be a fool for Christ. Amidst all his proselytizing, you bring up the point that he uses this rationale as an argument for capital punishment ? that this is a Christian nation and the United States -- as a Christian nation -- shouldn't question the notion of capital punishment because it's really divine dictum, in a way. Susan Jacoby: Well, actually he's more general than that. His argument is simply this: that capital punishment is lawful because all just governments derive their power from God. That's number one, ignoring the fact that our Constitution says nothing about God, but ascribes powers to "we the people." And so the argument, by extension, for a death penalty is simply this: that because God has the power of life and death, and since all just governments derive their power not from the consent of the governed, but from God Himself ? and I'm sure Scalia's God is a Himself, not a Herself ? therefore, governments, too, should have power over life and death. Scalia is a devout right-wing Catholic, and one of the things that's mildly interesting about this is the one problem he has with that is the fact that it's been denounced by the Pope, who argues exactly the opposite ? that only God should have the power of life and death. But I guess that makes Scalia more Catholic than the Pope. But in terms of American government, what is so disturbing is this argument in favor of a public policy -- which one can certainly argue about on secular grounds -- on the grounds that if God can do it, so too can we, because we get our power of the government from God, according to Scalia. BuzzFlash: Your book, Freethinkers, of course, debunks the notion that the Constitution was a document that was written as, let?s say, the Ten Commandments ? something that was given from God to the founders of this country. They expressly wrote out that this was NOT a divine document, but it was a document of reason and of reasonable men at the time. BuzzFlash is also offering a book on the Founding Fathers and their opinions on the separation of church and state, where it is quite clear that they thought they should be separated. So how does Scalia get away with calling himself a strict constructionist of the Constitution when Susan Jacoby: Somehow that?s very interesting, because, in fact, Scalia has often called the Constitution a dead document, meaning that it means exactly what it said when it was written at the time, but no more. And that?s why he calls himself a strict constructionist. But in fact, reading God into the Constitution is the exact opposite of strict constructionism. In fact, leaving God out
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA
Feb. 20 USA: Bush budget scales back funding for death-penalty improvements In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush declared his commitment to improving legal representation for defendants facing the death penalty. But the details of his budget proposal suggest something less than full-throated support for such a measure. Little more than three months after signing legislation that called for boosting the training of lawyers involved in capital cases, Bush proposed in his budget to dramatically scale back funding for the effort. Instead of spending more than $350 million over 5 years, as proposed in the earlier legislation, the president's new planoutlines $50 million over three years, beginning with $20 million in the fiscal year 2006 budget to address what many legal observers say is one of the biggest flaws in the criminal justice system. Critics have been skeptical of Bush's interest in addressing the issue, especially since as governor of Texas he presided over more than 150 executions, often turning aside claims from Death Row inmates that defense lawyers were ineffective. Some proponents of the legislation Bush signed last October - the Justice For All Act - welcomed the president's attention to the problem but voiced concern about the administration's dramatic reduction in funding. "It was a step forward for the president to at last acknowledge the problem of indigent defense in state capital cases, and we welcome the president's words," said Sen. Patrick Leah, D-Vt., chief Senate sponsor of the Justice For All provision that called for improving capital defense work. "But any serious commitment to addressing this problem must start with the counsel program authorized in the Justice for All Act." The law, which drew bipartisan support, represented "a noble commitment to put politics aside in the interest of improving the quality of justice for all Americans," Leahy said, but he added that it "will not become a reality until the new law is funded and implemented." He called on Bush and Congress to "follow through on that commitment" by approving the necessary funding. Key Republican supporters of last fall's legislation were more hopeful, saying that in light of cuts to other domestic programs the smaller amount for improved legal training was welcome. "I'm not disheartened by it at all. Obviously we'd like to have more money to get the program going. ... But I think that we have to be realistic," said Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Ill. "Everything around here is being cut. When the president is eliminating 150 programs and reducing a lot of others, given those set of circumstances, any money is encouraging." The president's budget proposal also addresses the need to reduce backlogs in DNA testing throughout the country. The Justice Department plans to spend $236 million for DNA-related programs, but only $20 million is earmarked for the training of lawyers in death penalty cases, according to department spokesman John Nowacki. The $20 million is part of the three-year, $50 million Capital Defense Initiative that Bush mentioned in his State of the Union address. The budget document does not mention a congressional plan that provided more funding for various DNA initiatives as well as the much higher amount for the lawyer training in capital cases. "The president's budget does not specify that money is under the Justice for All Act," Nowacki said, but noted that the funding does pay for some of the programs covered by the act. (source: Chicago Tribune) * LAW OF THE LANDEvil to be 'measured' in death-penalty casesPsychiatrists develop 'depravity rating' to decide which convicted killers die Research psychiatrists say they can now quantify evil, and they will be lobbying state legislatures to adopt their "depravity ratings" for use by courts determining whether to impose the death penalty on convicted murderers. Long seen as a subjective moral term, evil, 2 recent studies of criminal personalities claim, can now be measured objectively. "People say evil is like pornography - they know it when they see it, but can debate whether or when it is harmful," Dr. Michael Welner, a forensic psychiatrist and professor at New York University, told the London Telegraph. "This is not true. We are finding widespread agreement about what is evil." Welner's research has focused on the scientific definition of "aggravating" factors in crimes that could guide judges and juries charged with imposing the death penalty. "Jurors are left to decide on the fate of criminals on the basis of mere emotions, and we want to define the term," says Welner. "It might sound like parsing words to us, but it would not do so to the victim. We need a serious attempt to engage evil in the modern world: we have lost our compass of what is unacceptable. If there is a clear sense of what is beyond the pale, or evil, it is easier to promote good." Welner's depravity scale is
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news March 1, 2005 USA: High court: Juvenile death penalty unconstitutional Tuesday, March 1, 2005 Posted: 10:19 AM EST (1519 GMT) The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel. (source: AP / CNN) Supreme Court Bars Death Penalty for Juvenile Killers The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel. It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, cited the fact that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice. "Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote. (source: AP / New York Times) - Supreme Court Strikes Down Death Penalty for Juveniles The Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution forbids the execution of killers who were under 18 when they committed their crimes, ending a practice used in 19 states. The 5-4 decision throws out the death sentences of about 70 juvenile murderers and bars states from seeking to execute minors for future crimes. The executions, the court said, were unconstitutionally cruel. It was the second major defeat at the high court in three years for supporters of the death penalty. Justices in 2002 banned the execution of the mentally retarded, also citing the Constitution's Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments. The court had already outlawed executions for those who were 15 and younger when they committed their crimes. Tuesday's ruling prevents states from making 16- and 17-year-olds eligible for execution. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that most states don't allow the execution of juvenile killers and those that do use the penalty infrequently. The trend, he noted, was to abolish the practice. "Our society views juveniles ... as categorically less culpable than the average criminal," Kennedy wrote. Juvenile offenders have been put to death in recent years in just a few other countries, including Iran, Pakistan, China and Saudi Arabia. All those countries have gone on record as opposing capital punishment for minors. The Supreme Court has permitted states to impose capital punishment since 1976 and more than 3,400 inmates await execution in the 38 states that allow death sentences. Justices were called on to draw an age line in death cases after Missouri's highest court overturned the death sentence given to a 17-year-old Christopher Simmons, who kidnapped a neighbor in Missouri, hog-tied her and threw her off a bridge. Prosecutors say he planned the burglary and killing of Shirley Crook in 1993 and bragged that he could get away with it because of his age. The four most liberal justices had already gone on record in 2002, calling it "shameful" to execute juvenile killers. Those four, joined by Kennedy, also agreed with Tuesday's decision: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, as expected, voted to uphold the executions. They were joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. (source: Reuters / Washington Times)
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news --- USA
death penalty news March 1, 2005 USA: Excerpts of Supreme Court opinions in juvenile death penalty case (sorry for the poor layout!) Here are excerpts from the Supreme Court opinion outlawing the death penalty for offenders under 18 when their crimes were committed: Majority opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy: ___The objective indicia of national consensus here _ the rejection of the juvenile death penalty in the majority of states; the infrequency of its use even where it remains on the books; and the consistency in the trend toward abolition of the practice _ provide sufficient evidence that today our society views juveniles, in the words ... used respecting the mentally retarded, as "categorically less culpable than the average criminal." ___Three general differences between juveniles under 18 and adults demonstrate that juvenile offenders cannot with reliability be classified among the worst offenders. First, as any parent knows and as the scientific and sociological studies ... tend to confirm, "a lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions." ... The second area of difference is that juveniles are more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures, including peer pressure. The third broad difference is that the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as that of an adult. The personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed. ___Once the diminished culpability of juveniles is recognized, it is evident that the penological justifications for the death penalty apply to them with lesser force than to adults. ___Drawing the line at 18 years of age is subject, of course, to the objections always raised against categorical rules. The qualities that distinguish juveniles from adults do not disappear when an individual turns 18. By the same token, some under 18 have already attained a level of maturity some adults will never reach. For the reasons we have discussed, however a line must be drawn. ___Our determination that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under 18 finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United States is the only country in the world that continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty. This reality does not become controlling, for the task of interpreting the Eighth Amendment remains our responsibility. Yet ... the court has referred to the laws of other countries and to international authorities as instructive for its interpretation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishments." ___Dissenting opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia:The court ... claims halfheartedly that a national consensus has emerged since our decision in Stanford, because 18 states _ or 47 percent of states that permit capital punishment _ now have legislation prohibiting the execution of offenders under 18, and because all of four states have adopted such legislation since Stanford. Words have no meaning if the views of less than 50 percent of death penalty states can constitute a national consensus. ___That 12 states favor no executions says something about consensus against the death penalty, but nothing _ absolutely nothing _ about consensus that offenders under 18 deserve special immunity from such a penalty. In repealing the death penalty, those 12 states considered none of the factors that the court puts forth as determinative of the issue before us today _ lower culpability of the young, inherent recklessness, lack of capacity for considered judgment. ___All the court has done today ... is to look over the heads of the crowd and pick out its friends. We need not look far to find studies contradicting the court's conclusions. ... The American Psychological Association, which claims in this case that scientific evidence shows persons under 18 lack the ability to take moral responsibility for their decisions, has previously taken precisely the opposite position before this very court. ___Dissenting opinion by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:The fact that juveniles are generally less culpable for their misconduct than adults does not necessarily mean that a 17-year-old murderer cannot be sufficiently culpable to merit the death penalty. ___An especially depraved juvenile offender may nevertheless be just as culpable as many adult offenders considered bad enough to deserve the death penalty. Similarly, the fact that the availability of the death penalty may be less likely to deter a juvenile from committing a capital crime does not imply that this threat cannot effectively deter some 17-year-olds from such an act. ___The overall number of jurisdictions that currently disallow the execution of under-18 offenders is the same as the number that forbade t
[Deathpenalty]death penalty news----USA----
Cite as: 543 U. S. (2005) 1 Opinion of the Court NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in th= e preliminary print of the United States Reports. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _ No. 03.633 _ DONALD P. ROPER, SUPERINTENDENT, POTOSI CORRECTIONAL CENTER, PETITIONER v. CHRISTOPHER SIMMONS ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI [March 1, 2005] JUSTICE KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires us to address, for the second time in a decade and a half, whether it is permissible under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States to execute a juvenile offender who was older than 15 but younger than 18 when he committed a capital crime. In Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U. S. 361 (1989), a divided Court rejected the proposition that the Constitution bars capital punishment for juvenile offenders in this age group. We reconsider the question. I At the age of 17, when he was still a junior in high school, Christopher Simmons, the respondent here, committed murder. About nine months later, after he had turned 18, he was tried and sentenced to death. There is little doubt that Simmons was the instigator of the crime. Before its commission Simmons said he wanted to murder someone. In chilling, callous terms he talked about his plan, discussing it for the most part with two friends, Charles Benjamin and John Tessmer, then aged 15 and 16 2 ROPER v. SIMMONS Opinion of the Court respectively. Simmons proposed to commit burglary and murder by breaking and entering, tying up a victim, and throwing the victim off a bridge. Simmons assured his friends they could .get away with it. because they were minors. The three met at about 2 a.m. on the night of the murder, but Tessmer left before the other two set out. (The State later charged Tessmer with conspiracy, but dropped the charge in exchange for his testimony against Simmons.) Simmons and Benjamin entered the home of the victim, Shirley Crook, after reaching through an open window and unlocking the back door. Simmons turned on a hallway light. Awakened, Mrs. Crook called out, .Who.s there?. In response Simmons entered Mrs. Crook.s bedroom, where he recognized her from a previous car accident involving them both. Simmons later admitted this confirmed his resolve to murder her. Using duct tape to cover her eyes and mouth and bind her hands, the two perpetrators put Mrs. Crook in her minivan and drove to a state park. They reinforced the bindings, covered her head with a towel, and walked her to a railroad trestle spanning the Meramec River. There they tied her hands and feet together with electrical wire, wrapped her whole face in duct tape and threw her from the bridge, drowning her in the waters below. By the afternoon of September 9, Steven Crook had returned home from an overnight trip, found his bedroom in disarray, and reported his wife missing. On the same afternoon fishermen recovered the victim.s body from the river. Simmons, meanwhile, was bragging about the killing, telling friends he had killed a woman .because the bitch seen my face.. The next day, after receiving information of Simmons. involvement, police arrested him at his high school and took him to the police station in Fenton, Missouri. They read him his Miranda rights. Simmons waived his right to Cite as: 543 U. S. (2005) 3 Opinion of the Court an attorney and agreed to answer questions. After less than two hours of interrogation, Simmons confessed to the murder and agreed to perform a videotaped reenactment at the crime scene. The State charged Simmons with burglary, kidnaping, stealing, and murder in the first degree. As Simmons was 17 at the time of the crime, he was outside the criminal jurisdiction of Missouri.s juvenile court system. See Mo. Rev. Stat. =A7=A7211.021 (2000) and 211.031 (Supp. 2003). He was tried as an adult. At trial the State introduced Simmons =2E confession and the videotaped reenactment of the crime, along with testimony that Simmons discussed the crime in advance and bragged about it later. The defense called no witnesses in the guilt phase. The jury having returned a verdict of murder, the trial proceeded to the penalty phase. The State sought the death penalty. As aggravating factors, the State submitted that the murder was committed for the purpose of receiving money; was committed for the purpose of avoiding, interfering with, or preventing lawful arrest of the defendant; and involved depravity of mind and was outrageously and wantonly vile, horrible, and inhuman. The State called Shirley Crook.s
