The State of Texas got back into the business of murdering people last night with the first state-sponsored killing of the year.
Rodrigo Hernandez, who was convicted of the 1994 murder of Susan Verstegen, was executed after the US Supreme Court denied his request for a stay on Thursday afternoon.
Mr. Hernandez wasn't a good guy. But his death doesn't undo what he did. His death doesn't bring back Ms. Verstegen. Her son will wake up tomorrow, but she will still be dead.
On the other hand, the Supremes denied the state the opportunity to murder Donald Newbury on February 1. Mr. Newbury was one of seven men who escaped from prison and robbed a Dallas area store, where a police officer was killed. Mr. Newbury was sentenced to die, despite the fact he was not the murderer.
Texas is the only state that permits the execution of a person who only played a supporting role in a murder.
Showing posts with label capital punishment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label capital punishment. Show all posts
Friday, January 27, 2012
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Execution Watch 1/26/2012
The Texas killing machine is back in business.
ON THURSDAY NIGHT, TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE:
RODRIGO HERNANDEZ. Convicted in the murder of a Frito-Lay saleswoman, his appeal was rejected in 2008 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The seven-year gap from Hernandez' 2004 conviction to the 2011 announcement of his execution date was relatively short. Typically a person sentenced to death spends at least 10 years going through the appeals process.
For more information on Mr. Hernandez, click here.
RADIOPROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTIONWATCH
"Unlessa stay is issued, we'll broadcast ..."
Thursday,Jan. 26, 2012, 6-7 PM CT
KPFTHouston 90.1 FM, HD-3
Listenonline: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
You can find more information on Execution Watch's Facebook page.
ON THURSDAY NIGHT, TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE:
RODRIGO HERNANDEZ. Convicted in the murder of a Frito-Lay saleswoman, his appeal was rejected in 2008 by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. The seven-year gap from Hernandez' 2004 conviction to the 2011 announcement of his execution date was relatively short. Typically a person sentenced to death spends at least 10 years going through the appeals process.
For more information on Mr. Hernandez, click here.
RADIOPROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTIONWATCH
"Unlessa stay is issued, we'll broadcast ..."
Thursday,Jan. 26, 2012, 6-7 PM CT
KPFTHouston 90.1 FM, HD-3
Listenonline: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
You can find more information on Execution Watch's Facebook page.
Friday, January 6, 2012
A safer place to live
In 2006, there were 377 recorded murders in Houston. In 2011 that number dropped to 198 - the lowest per capita number since the early 1960's. The number of violent crimes in the city also declined. Interestingly enough, at the same time the murder rate dropped over 26% from 2010, the economy tanked.
Maybe there's not the relationship we thought between economic conditions and crime. What else might account for the change?
Surely it must be the deterrent effect of the death penalty. That's what the law and order types tell us. You remember the stanza - you let the state kill enough people and the rest of the riff raff will get the message that it just isn't okay to go around killing people.
Only that's not it, either. According to the Texas Execution Information Center, the number of inmates on death row has decreased over the last ten years. Texas murdered fewer inmates in 2011 than in any year since 1996.
I have no idea what accounts for the drop in the city's murder rate. I'm sure there are folks who are combing through data trying to come up with some theory to explain it. For all I know the drought caused the drop. Maybe people throughout the city were more worried about how to maintain some semblance of green in their yards than they were about offing someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Maybe there's not the relationship we thought between economic conditions and crime. What else might account for the change?
Surely it must be the deterrent effect of the death penalty. That's what the law and order types tell us. You remember the stanza - you let the state kill enough people and the rest of the riff raff will get the message that it just isn't okay to go around killing people.
Only that's not it, either. According to the Texas Execution Information Center, the number of inmates on death row has decreased over the last ten years. Texas murdered fewer inmates in 2011 than in any year since 1996.
I have no idea what accounts for the drop in the city's murder rate. I'm sure there are folks who are combing through data trying to come up with some theory to explain it. For all I know the drought caused the drop. Maybe people throughout the city were more worried about how to maintain some semblance of green in their yards than they were about offing someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
The slowing down of the death machine
Has the worm turned?
According to Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal, the number of new death sentences handed down in the United States is at its lowest level in 35 years. In 2011, there were 78 death sentences pronounced, a decrease of 30% from 2010, and a steep decline from the 224 death sentences handed down in 2000.
There were 43 executions carried out in the US this year, down from 46 in 2010 and from 85 in 2000.
Public support for the death penalty is also dropping. In 1994, 80% of the populace was in favor of state-sponsored killings. That number dropped to 69% in 2007 and to 61% today.
What accounts for the drop?
Kent Scheidegger of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation attributes it to a drop in violent crime. According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes has dropped 35% over the past 20 years. Doug Berman a professor at Ohio State University (and of Sentencing Law and Policy) thinks the decrease is due to the extreme costs associated with death penalty cases.
The Urban Institute conducted a study in Maryland in 2008 and found that a "successful" death penalty prosecution (I would assume that's a euphemism for "conviction") cost taxpayers an average of $3 million while a non-death capital prosecution ran a tab of $1.1 million.
Then there are the lingering concerns that innocent people could be executed. The state of Illinois has abolished the death penalty over concerns that innocent people were on death row. Oregon has imposed a moratorium on executions. New York, New Jersey and New Mexico have all repealed their death penalty statutes.
While cost may influence politicians to reconsider the efficacy of strapping a person to a gurney and injecting poison into their veins, the larger concern to most folks is the possibility that the courts got in a wrong in a given case. While death penalty supporters point to recent exonerations as proof that the system works, most of us recognize that with every death row inmate who is exonerated we have further evidence that our criminal (in)justice system is broken.
Faulty and unreliable eyewitness testimony, junk science, perjury and the weakening of the presumption of innocence have put innocent men and women behind bars. Junk science killed Cameron Willingham. Faulty and unreliable eyewitness testimony killed Troy Davis.
It's time to make the death penalty history.
According to Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal, the number of new death sentences handed down in the United States is at its lowest level in 35 years. In 2011, there were 78 death sentences pronounced, a decrease of 30% from 2010, and a steep decline from the 224 death sentences handed down in 2000.
There were 43 executions carried out in the US this year, down from 46 in 2010 and from 85 in 2000.
Public support for the death penalty is also dropping. In 1994, 80% of the populace was in favor of state-sponsored killings. That number dropped to 69% in 2007 and to 61% today.
What accounts for the drop?
Kent Scheidegger of the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation attributes it to a drop in violent crime. According to the FBI, the number of violent crimes has dropped 35% over the past 20 years. Doug Berman a professor at Ohio State University (and of Sentencing Law and Policy) thinks the decrease is due to the extreme costs associated with death penalty cases.
The Urban Institute conducted a study in Maryland in 2008 and found that a "successful" death penalty prosecution (I would assume that's a euphemism for "conviction") cost taxpayers an average of $3 million while a non-death capital prosecution ran a tab of $1.1 million.
Then there are the lingering concerns that innocent people could be executed. The state of Illinois has abolished the death penalty over concerns that innocent people were on death row. Oregon has imposed a moratorium on executions. New York, New Jersey and New Mexico have all repealed their death penalty statutes.
While cost may influence politicians to reconsider the efficacy of strapping a person to a gurney and injecting poison into their veins, the larger concern to most folks is the possibility that the courts got in a wrong in a given case. While death penalty supporters point to recent exonerations as proof that the system works, most of us recognize that with every death row inmate who is exonerated we have further evidence that our criminal (in)justice system is broken.
Faulty and unreliable eyewitness testimony, junk science, perjury and the weakening of the presumption of innocence have put innocent men and women behind bars. Junk science killed Cameron Willingham. Faulty and unreliable eyewitness testimony killed Troy Davis.
It's time to make the death penalty history.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
EU to ban export of execution drugs
States wishing to murder inmates in the US will now have a harder time restocking their medicine cabinets with lethal drugs thanks to the European Union.
Some states have been stockpiling the lethal drugs in the face of export controls imposed by other countries and licensing agreements required by manufacturers. Of course prisons have been able to purchase the drugs through back channels - even though that would appear to violate federal laws that make it illegal to sell a drug for "off label" purposes.
The alternative for states is to use other drugs as part of the lethal cocktail, but such a move would precipitate new legal challenges under the Eighth Amendment.
The death penalty is an anachronism whose time has come and gone. Whether it is abolished by statute, court decision or the realities of the modern-day marketplace, the state-sponsored killing of inmates is dying a slow, lingering death.
The European Commission said Tuesday it would strengthen export controls on the sale of sodium thiopental, a sedative used as part of a lethal injection combination, as well as other drugs that could be used for executions. The commission said it wanted to "prevent their use for capital punishment, torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."The immediate effect will be to cut off the supply of so-called "short and medium acting anesthetics." That means no more pentobarbital or sodium thiopental will be shipped to prison officials.
Some states have been stockpiling the lethal drugs in the face of export controls imposed by other countries and licensing agreements required by manufacturers. Of course prisons have been able to purchase the drugs through back channels - even though that would appear to violate federal laws that make it illegal to sell a drug for "off label" purposes.
The alternative for states is to use other drugs as part of the lethal cocktail, but such a move would precipitate new legal challenges under the Eighth Amendment.
The death penalty is an anachronism whose time has come and gone. Whether it is abolished by statute, court decision or the realities of the modern-day marketplace, the state-sponsored killing of inmates is dying a slow, lingering death.
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Off with her head!
The Salem witch trials live on... in Saudi Arabia.
On Monday, Saudi authorities beheaded a woman who had been convicted of practicing witchcraft. Her crime, apparently, was bilking people out of money promising she could cure their ills.
According to Amnesty International, sorcery is not a capital crime, but some conservative clerics have urged that the penalty be death in order to discourage others from practicing. According to the BBC, the woman's conviction was upheld by Saudi Arabia's highest court. But that still doesn't explain why she was executed.
It is a fundamental tenet under the rule of law that the accused be made aware of both the charges levied against her and the possible range of punishment. A court isn't free to set its own range - it must adhere to the statutory scheme. Obviously if the death penalty is levied for a non-capital crime, the rule of law has been cast aside. And, without the rule of law, we are left with a bunch of thugs ruling by force.
Yet we continue to send millions of dollars a year to the Saudi regime so that it can continue to put folks to death for minor crimes on the whim of a handful of clerics. Executing someone for the crime of theft - and that's all this was, religious mumbo-jumbo aside - is both cruel and unusual and should be condemned.
Along the same lines, the Chinese government just murdered a South African national caught with three kilos of methamphetamine back in 2008. In China, drug trafficking is a capital crime - the Chinese execute more drug traffickers in a year than the rest of the world kills for all other crimes.
Drug abuse is a scourge. Those suffering from addiction harm themselves, their families and those around them. But drug traffickers are fungible. So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Taking a person's life is the ultimate sanction that a state can impose on any individual. It is the antithesis of limited government. It solves nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back or put the genie back in the bottle.
It's just an exercise in control. It's the way the state reminds you just who's really in charge.
On Monday, Saudi authorities beheaded a woman who had been convicted of practicing witchcraft. Her crime, apparently, was bilking people out of money promising she could cure their ills.
According to Amnesty International, sorcery is not a capital crime, but some conservative clerics have urged that the penalty be death in order to discourage others from practicing. According to the BBC, the woman's conviction was upheld by Saudi Arabia's highest court. But that still doesn't explain why she was executed.
It is a fundamental tenet under the rule of law that the accused be made aware of both the charges levied against her and the possible range of punishment. A court isn't free to set its own range - it must adhere to the statutory scheme. Obviously if the death penalty is levied for a non-capital crime, the rule of law has been cast aside. And, without the rule of law, we are left with a bunch of thugs ruling by force.
Yet we continue to send millions of dollars a year to the Saudi regime so that it can continue to put folks to death for minor crimes on the whim of a handful of clerics. Executing someone for the crime of theft - and that's all this was, religious mumbo-jumbo aside - is both cruel and unusual and should be condemned.
Along the same lines, the Chinese government just murdered a South African national caught with three kilos of methamphetamine back in 2008. In China, drug trafficking is a capital crime - the Chinese execute more drug traffickers in a year than the rest of the world kills for all other crimes.
Drug abuse is a scourge. Those suffering from addiction harm themselves, their families and those around them. But drug traffickers are fungible. So long as there is a demand, there will be a supply.
Taking a person's life is the ultimate sanction that a state can impose on any individual. It is the antithesis of limited government. It solves nothing. It doesn't bring anyone back or put the genie back in the bottle.
It's just an exercise in control. It's the way the state reminds you just who's really in charge.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Should DWI be a capital crime?
Douglas Berman over at Sentencing Law and Policy seemed quite upset that motorists in Texas continued to get behind the wheel of a car after drinking. He couldn't understand why, even with No Refusal weekends popping up all across the state, we insist on drinking and driving.
His suggestion was to make a drunk drivers involved in accidents in which another person is killed eligible for the death penalty. Whoa! There's crazy and then there's driving the bus over the cliff. Mr. Berman is driving the bus.
In Texas you are eligible for the needle if you kill a police officer or a prison guard. You are eligible for the needle if you kill someone during the commission of certain felony offenses (kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, burglary or arson - among others). You are eligible for the needle if someone paid you to kill another person. You are also eligible if you kill more than one person or a child under the age ofsix ten (thanks, Amy).
In each instance, the defendant must have committed the murder - or the underlying felony offense - with the proper mental state. You remember, that whole bad act + bad thought = crime.
Now Mr. Berman is correct that some DWIs are prosecuted as felonies. If you are driving while intoxicated with a child under the age of 15 in the car - that's a state jail felony (if you're not from Texas, don't ask). Rack up two DWI convictions and your next will land you in felony court as well.
But here's where Mr. Berman's idea fails - there is no culpable mental state for driving while intoxicated. The theory is that an intoxicated person cannot form the necessary mental state to commit a felony offense. And, if you think about the definition of intoxication in Texas, it makes sense.
Texas defines intoxication as the loss of the normal use of one's mental or physical faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body. Well, if you've lost the normal use of your mental faculties, you are incapable of intentionally or knowingly committing any other act. That's why when someone is killed in a wreck involving an alleged drunk driver, the defendant is charged with intoxication manslaughter, not murder.
One thing we don't know from the data Mr. Berman is viewing is how many of those deaths in 2010 were the result of the drunk driver's negligence. As perverse as it sounds, it's quite plausible that the drunk driver was not at fault for the accident. I would also argue that it's possible that the increased number of deaths resulting from drunk driving has more to do with increased detection through the use of mandatory blood draws in fatality accidents in which intoxication is suspected.
I don't know whether Mr. Berman was being extreme in order to generate discussion or whether he actually feels that way; either way, as a civilized society we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of people our government kills, not increasing it.
His suggestion was to make a drunk drivers involved in accidents in which another person is killed eligible for the death penalty. Whoa! There's crazy and then there's driving the bus over the cliff. Mr. Berman is driving the bus.
In Texas you are eligible for the needle if you kill a police officer or a prison guard. You are eligible for the needle if you kill someone during the commission of certain felony offenses (kidnapping, robbery, sexual assault, burglary or arson - among others). You are eligible for the needle if someone paid you to kill another person. You are also eligible if you kill more than one person or a child under the age of
In each instance, the defendant must have committed the murder - or the underlying felony offense - with the proper mental state. You remember, that whole bad act + bad thought = crime.
Now Mr. Berman is correct that some DWIs are prosecuted as felonies. If you are driving while intoxicated with a child under the age of 15 in the car - that's a state jail felony (if you're not from Texas, don't ask). Rack up two DWI convictions and your next will land you in felony court as well.
But here's where Mr. Berman's idea fails - there is no culpable mental state for driving while intoxicated. The theory is that an intoxicated person cannot form the necessary mental state to commit a felony offense. And, if you think about the definition of intoxication in Texas, it makes sense.
Texas defines intoxication as the loss of the normal use of one's mental or physical faculties by the introduction of alcohol into the body. Well, if you've lost the normal use of your mental faculties, you are incapable of intentionally or knowingly committing any other act. That's why when someone is killed in a wreck involving an alleged drunk driver, the defendant is charged with intoxication manslaughter, not murder.
One thing we don't know from the data Mr. Berman is viewing is how many of those deaths in 2010 were the result of the drunk driver's negligence. As perverse as it sounds, it's quite plausible that the drunk driver was not at fault for the accident. I would also argue that it's possible that the increased number of deaths resulting from drunk driving has more to do with increased detection through the use of mandatory blood draws in fatality accidents in which intoxication is suspected.
I don't know whether Mr. Berman was being extreme in order to generate discussion or whether he actually feels that way; either way, as a civilized society we should be looking for ways to reduce the number of people our government kills, not increasing it.
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Update: Texas kills again
The State of Texas killed Guadalupe Esparza Wednesday night. There were no dramatic last minute appeals - Mr. Esparza had long since exhausted his appeals. Earlier this year the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review claims that Mr. Esparza was mentally retarded.
The victim wasn't magically brought back from death. Her mother's life wasn't put back together. Nothing was accomplished in Huntsville.
Mr. Esparza wasn't a nice person. He had a very bad past going back to his days in school. His own testimony at his trial may very well have been what put that needle in his arm.
But did killing him make anything better?
What does it say about our society that we can't come up with another way to punish someone other than killing them?
The victim wasn't magically brought back from death. Her mother's life wasn't put back together. Nothing was accomplished in Huntsville.
Mr. Esparza wasn't a nice person. He had a very bad past going back to his days in school. His own testimony at his trial may very well have been what put that needle in his arm.
But did killing him make anything better?
What does it say about our society that we can't come up with another way to punish someone other than killing them?
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Execution Watch 11/16/2011
Texas plans to murder Guadalupe Esparza on Wednesday night.
TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE
GUADALUPE ESPARZA. Mr. Esparza, 46, received his execution date August 16, 2011, from a San Antonio judge who ignored his attorney's request for a delay to prepare an appeal based on evidence that Esparza is mentally retarded. A jury ordered Esparza put to death in 2001 following his conviction in the abduction, rape and strangulation of a 7-year-old girl. The victim's mother, Diana Berlanga, said she planned to witness Esparza's execution. More background at executionwatch.org.
RADIO PROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast on ...
Nov. 16, 2011, 6-7 PM CT
Houston: KPFT 90.1 FM, HD-3
Streaming worldwide: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
You can find more information on Execution Watch's Facebook page.
TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE
GUADALUPE ESPARZA. Mr. Esparza, 46, received his execution date August 16, 2011, from a San Antonio judge who ignored his attorney's request for a delay to prepare an appeal based on evidence that Esparza is mentally retarded. A jury ordered Esparza put to death in 2001 following his conviction in the abduction, rape and strangulation of a 7-year-old girl. The victim's mother, Diana Berlanga, said she planned to witness Esparza's execution. More background at executionwatch.org.
RADIO PROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast on ...
Nov. 16, 2011, 6-7 PM CT
Houston: KPFT 90.1 FM, HD-3
Streaming worldwide: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
You can find more information on Execution Watch's Facebook page.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
Court stays Skinner execution
On Monday afternoon the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals stayed Texas' planned killing of Hank Skinner on Wednesday night.
The Court issued the stay to allow Mr. Skinner to litigate the issue of whether or not he is entitled to have DNA tests run on items taken into evidence by investigators. The laws regarding post-conviction DNA testing changed after Mr. Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two adult sons back in 1993, but the new law was never applied in Mr. Skinner's case.
Last week Gray County District Judge Steve Emmert denied Mr. Skinner's request to test the items.
Next to Mr. Skinner, the happiest person in the room is Gov. Rick Perry who dodged having to decided between killing a man and granting a 30-day stay so that the matter could be litigated. With his presidential campaign taking on water at a rapid pace, he couldn't have been happy with the choice that was put before him.
By now we should all be aware that you don't walk out of a courtroom knowing the truth. You walk out of the courtroom with a verdict. There is a big difference.
Mr. Skinner was convicted of three murders. That jury decided it was appropriate for the state to kill him. But, if we're going to allow the state to take lives, shouldn't we at least make certain that the right person is being killed? DNA testing was not performed on certain pieces of evidence - that was a tactical decision by Mr. Skinner's attorney. That decision may have been right or it may have been wrong.
But the fact remains that the items were never tested.
The results of the testing may or may not prove Mr. Skinner's innocence. The fact that someone else's DNA is on those items doesn't mean that Mr. Skinner didn't commit the crimes for which he was convicted; but it does cast more than a shade of doubt on that determination.
And if we're going to sit back and watch the government exercise its greatest power - the power to take a life - then we damn well better be certain that the person strapped to that gurney did the deed.
Skinner stay of execution
The Court issued the stay to allow Mr. Skinner to litigate the issue of whether or not he is entitled to have DNA tests run on items taken into evidence by investigators. The laws regarding post-conviction DNA testing changed after Mr. Skinner was convicted of killing his girlfriend and her two adult sons back in 1993, but the new law was never applied in Mr. Skinner's case.
Last week Gray County District Judge Steve Emmert denied Mr. Skinner's request to test the items.
Next to Mr. Skinner, the happiest person in the room is Gov. Rick Perry who dodged having to decided between killing a man and granting a 30-day stay so that the matter could be litigated. With his presidential campaign taking on water at a rapid pace, he couldn't have been happy with the choice that was put before him.
By now we should all be aware that you don't walk out of a courtroom knowing the truth. You walk out of the courtroom with a verdict. There is a big difference.
Mr. Skinner was convicted of three murders. That jury decided it was appropriate for the state to kill him. But, if we're going to allow the state to take lives, shouldn't we at least make certain that the right person is being killed? DNA testing was not performed on certain pieces of evidence - that was a tactical decision by Mr. Skinner's attorney. That decision may have been right or it may have been wrong.
But the fact remains that the items were never tested.
The results of the testing may or may not prove Mr. Skinner's innocence. The fact that someone else's DNA is on those items doesn't mean that Mr. Skinner didn't commit the crimes for which he was convicted; but it does cast more than a shade of doubt on that determination.
And if we're going to sit back and watch the government exercise its greatest power - the power to take a life - then we damn well better be certain that the person strapped to that gurney did the deed.
Skinner stay of execution
Friday, November 4, 2011
Judge denies request to test evidence in death row case
That clock keeps a-ticking. That clock that's counting down the days, hours, minutes that Hank Skinner has remaining. Mr. Skinner has another date with the executioner next Wednesday. The State of Texas has another chance to murder Mr. Skinner. Of course it's probably too late for the latest state-sponsored killing to help Rick Perry's sinking presidential campaign.
Mr. Skinner was tried and convicted of the murders of his girlfriend and her two sons in 1993. The state introduced evidence that Mr. Skinner's blood was at the scene. An ex-girlfriend testified that he confessed to her; but, then, she recanted.
There was a great deal of biological evidence that was never tested because Mr. Skinner's attorney was afraid it would (further) incriminate his client. It was a valid fear and one that we have to deal with from time to time. Heads you win, tails you get the needle in your arm.
Among the items that were never tested were a rape kit, biological material found under the victim's fingernails, sweat from a jacket, a bloody towel and knives. To this day no one knows whose DNA will be found. And, thanks to Gray County District Judge Steven Emmert, we're not likely to know.
Judge Emmert, you see, denied Mr. Skinner's petition to have the items tested before his schedule execution. But why?
Why is the state so resistant to testing the items? Is it because someone's worried about what the results might be? Why didn't prosecutors test the items in the first place? If Mr. Skinner's DNA wasn't present, that would constitute Brady material.
The State of Texas is seeking to murder a man. Aren't we entitled to know whether the state is strapping the right man down on the gurney? We're not talking about a wrongful conviction in which an innocent man spends 10 or 20 years in prison (with no hope of ever getting that time back), we're talking about taking a man's life.
From the Texas Tribune:
The slavish adherence to artificial deadlines allows a judge to avoid making a real decision. Judge Emmert had the opportunity to do the right thing. He had the opportunity to say that if the State of Texas is going to mete out the ultimate punishment then the state needs to be damn sure they're killing the right person. Judge Emmert could have done that. But, instead, he passed the buck. All because a deadline was missed.
For all the talk of the need for finality, no one seems to appreciate that death is final. Once the drugs are pumped into Mr. Skinner's veins it's too late to make certain the state murdered the right person. Once the drugs start flowing, there is no exoneration.
See also:
"Next verse, same as the first," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 6, 2011)
"To test or not to test," The Defense Rests (Mar. 24, 2010)
"Nope, no balm in Gilead. Sorry," Defending People (Mar. 23, 2010)
"Questions arise over DNA in death row case," Texas Tribune (Jan. 28, 2010)
Mr. Skinner was tried and convicted of the murders of his girlfriend and her two sons in 1993. The state introduced evidence that Mr. Skinner's blood was at the scene. An ex-girlfriend testified that he confessed to her; but, then, she recanted.
There was a great deal of biological evidence that was never tested because Mr. Skinner's attorney was afraid it would (further) incriminate his client. It was a valid fear and one that we have to deal with from time to time. Heads you win, tails you get the needle in your arm.
Among the items that were never tested were a rape kit, biological material found under the victim's fingernails, sweat from a jacket, a bloody towel and knives. To this day no one knows whose DNA will be found. And, thanks to Gray County District Judge Steven Emmert, we're not likely to know.
Judge Emmert, you see, denied Mr. Skinner's petition to have the items tested before his schedule execution. But why?
Why is the state so resistant to testing the items? Is it because someone's worried about what the results might be? Why didn't prosecutors test the items in the first place? If Mr. Skinner's DNA wasn't present, that would constitute Brady material.
The State of Texas is seeking to murder a man. Aren't we entitled to know whether the state is strapping the right man down on the gurney? We're not talking about a wrongful conviction in which an innocent man spends 10 or 20 years in prison (with no hope of ever getting that time back), we're talking about taking a man's life.
From the Texas Tribune:
For a decade, Skinner has sought DNA testing on the additional items, but the state has refused, citing restrictions in Texas' 2001 post-conviction DNA testing law. Last year, less than an hour before he was to be executed, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a stay. The high court sent the case back to the federal district court to decide whether Skinner's civil rights were being violated by the state's application of the 2001 DNA law.
State lawmakers, though, made significant changes to that DNA testing law this year, expanding access and eliminating many of the restrictions the state had previously cited in denying Skinner's requests. In the letter, the group of officials said that change was designed with cases like Skinner’s in mind to eliminate procedural barriers to DNA testing that have “gotten in the way of the search for the truth.”
“That legislation passed with overwhelming bipartisan support, not least because polls show that eighty-five percent of Texans agree that prisoners should have broad access to DNA testing,” they wrote.
The slavish adherence to artificial deadlines allows a judge to avoid making a real decision. Judge Emmert had the opportunity to do the right thing. He had the opportunity to say that if the State of Texas is going to mete out the ultimate punishment then the state needs to be damn sure they're killing the right person. Judge Emmert could have done that. But, instead, he passed the buck. All because a deadline was missed.
For all the talk of the need for finality, no one seems to appreciate that death is final. Once the drugs are pumped into Mr. Skinner's veins it's too late to make certain the state murdered the right person. Once the drugs start flowing, there is no exoneration.
See also:
"Next verse, same as the first," Gamso for the Defense (Oct. 6, 2011)
"To test or not to test," The Defense Rests (Mar. 24, 2010)
"Nope, no balm in Gilead. Sorry," Defending People (Mar. 23, 2010)
"Questions arise over DNA in death row case," Texas Tribune (Jan. 28, 2010)
Friday, October 28, 2011
Update: Just another murder
The State of Texas murdered Frank Garcia last night. There was no fanfare. There was no media frenzy. There was no one broadcasting from outside the Walls Unit. It was just another execution. Another murder. The twelfth one this year.
Frank Garcia is dead. He killed his wife and a San Antonio police officer. They're still dead.
Frank Garcia was no media darling. His case didn't lend itself to crusades.
In the end, Frank Garcia will be forgotten. He'll become just another number. Just another nameless man killed by the State of Texas. Just another inmate strapped down to a gurney with an IV in his arm.
Does that make anyone feel any better?
Frank Garcia is dead. He killed his wife and a San Antonio police officer. They're still dead.
Frank Garcia was no media darling. His case didn't lend itself to crusades.
In the end, Frank Garcia will be forgotten. He'll become just another number. Just another nameless man killed by the State of Texas. Just another inmate strapped down to a gurney with an IV in his arm.
Does that make anyone feel any better?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Execution Watch 10/27/2011
Texas plans to murder Frank Garcia on Thursday night for killing his wife and a police officer in San Antonio in 2001. Execution Watch will be there.
TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE:
FRANK GARCIA. Slated to be executed six days after his 39th birthday, Garcia was convicted in the shooting deaths of his wife and a San Antonio police officer in 2001. The officer had responded to a call about a domestic dispute. More background at executionwatch.org.
RADIO PROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast on ...
Oct. 27, 2011, 6-7 PM CT
Houston: KPFT 90.1 FM
Worldwide: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
You can find more information on Execution Watch's Facebook page.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Ten paces at high noon
Republican Florida state representative Brad Drake has an idea on how to resolve the debate about the efficacy of the three drug lethal cocktail used in the state-sponsored killing of inmates. He says to hell with it.
Rep. Drake wants change Florida's method of murdering inmates from lethal injection to firing squad -- and if the condemned man doesn't like it, he can choose the electric chair.
Rep. Drake's proposal would get around states violating federal law by "off label" use of pentobarbital. And, if we're going to continue to allow the states to kill people, let's stop sanitizing it. Let the public see how rapidly we can race to the bottom to see which state can be the most barbaric.
As I have pointed out many times, the death penalty doesn't solve any societal problem - other than the need for politicians and prosecutors to beat their chests about how tough they are on crime. No one has ever been brought back to life as the result of the execution of their killer.
Rep. Drake said he got the idea for his bill after speaking to a constituent at the Waffle House. Now, I don't want to stereotype here, but if I want an intelligent conversation, I'm not so certain I'd be heading over to the local Waffle House. I guess the anecdote shows that Rep. Drake is one of the "people," but his job isn't to be one of the people. His job is to pass legislation necessary for the operation of the state.
Now if you want to do it up right, Mr. Drake, how about a bill that would require executions to be broadcast on television? Let's see this for what it is - bloodsport. Let the public see exactly what goes on. Let's see what the public's comfort level is for the reality of death.
lsxkld-12deathpenalty
Rep. Drake wants change Florida's method of murdering inmates from lethal injection to firing squad -- and if the condemned man doesn't like it, he can choose the electric chair.
Rep. Drake's proposal would get around states violating federal law by "off label" use of pentobarbital. And, if we're going to continue to allow the states to kill people, let's stop sanitizing it. Let the public see how rapidly we can race to the bottom to see which state can be the most barbaric.
As I have pointed out many times, the death penalty doesn't solve any societal problem - other than the need for politicians and prosecutors to beat their chests about how tough they are on crime. No one has ever been brought back to life as the result of the execution of their killer.
Rep. Drake said he got the idea for his bill after speaking to a constituent at the Waffle House. Now, I don't want to stereotype here, but if I want an intelligent conversation, I'm not so certain I'd be heading over to the local Waffle House. I guess the anecdote shows that Rep. Drake is one of the "people," but his job isn't to be one of the people. His job is to pass legislation necessary for the operation of the state.
Now if you want to do it up right, Mr. Drake, how about a bill that would require executions to be broadcast on television? Let's see this for what it is - bloodsport. Let the public see exactly what goes on. Let's see what the public's comfort level is for the reality of death.
lsxkld-12deathpenalty
Wednesday, September 28, 2011
And that train keeps a-rolling...
The State of Florida is set to murder Manuel Valle this afternoon using pentobarbital as part of its lethal drug cocktail. This despite calls from the manufacturer of the drug that its use in executions could subject the inmate to extreme pain and suffering.
Staffen Schuberg is the president of Lundbeck who makes pentobarbital under the name Nembutal. He has written two letters to Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, protesting the use of the drug.
It might be that the best way to put an end to the death penalty is for drug manufacturers and suppliers who don't want to be associated with the state's killing machine to require purchasers of the drugs to sign end-user license agreements that the drug will not be used in executions and that the drug will not be sold to any other entity to use in executions.
The ball is now in your court, Mr. Schuberg. What are you going to do now?
Staffen Schuberg is the president of Lundbeck who makes pentobarbital under the name Nembutal. He has written two letters to Rick Scott, the governor of Florida, protesting the use of the drug.
"The use of pentobarbital outside of the approved labelling has not been established. As such Lundbeck cannot assure the safety and efficacy profiles in such instances." -- Staffen SchubergWhat could be more damning that the manufacturer of a drug telling someone not to use it because it hasn't been approved for that use? States have been scrambling to find new ways to kill inmates ever since the US supplier of sodium thiopental, Hospira, quit supplying states with the drug as a way of protesting its use in the murder of inmates.
Deborah Denno, an expert in the death penalty at Fordham university law school, said the intervention by the manufacturer itself of Nembutal in writing to the Florida governor took opposition to use of the drug to a whole new level. "I don't know how you could cast more doubt on the use of a drug than when you have the condemnation of it by its own maker."Pentobarbital is used to put family pets to sleep but its use as a component in a lethal drug cocktail has never been tested.
It might be that the best way to put an end to the death penalty is for drug manufacturers and suppliers who don't want to be associated with the state's killing machine to require purchasers of the drugs to sign end-user license agreements that the drug will not be used in executions and that the drug will not be sold to any other entity to use in executions.
The ball is now in your court, Mr. Schuberg. What are you going to do now?
Hold the pickles, hold the lettuce...
"I think it's sad that our elected and appointed leaders are wasting their time talking about menus on death row when we have important issues like potential innocence and the validity of the entire death-penalty system that desperately need to be looked at." -- Elizabeth Stein, producer of KPFT-FM's Execution Watch.Texas State Senator John Whitmire (D-Houston), always looking for some good press, has decided that death row inmates in Texas should no longer get to request a special final meal. What got Mr. Whitmire's panties in a wad, you might ask.
Well, it seems that Mr. Lawrence Brewer, whom the State of Texas murdered the same night that Georgia executed an innocent man, made an unusual request for his final meal and then didn't finish it.
In addition to the steaks, the omelet and fried okra, Brewer asked for a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, three fajitas, one pound of barbecue and a half loaf of white bread, pizza meat lover's special, one pint of "homemade vanilla" Blue Bell ice cream, one slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts and three root beers.That was the last straw for Mr. Whitmire who then declared that if the head of the prison system didn't end the practice immediately that he would introduce legislation in the next session to eliminate the practice. Brad Livingston, having no backbone, only asked "how high?"
Was he upset about the cost? About the items chosen? Who knows. Brian Price, a former inmate who prepared many a last meal, has offered to provide the condemned man his final meal at no cost to the state. For some reason Mr. Whitmire doesn't think allowing a man to choose his final meal is the least the state can do if they intend to kill him.
And if it's the cost that's got Mr. Whitmire jumping up and down like a lunatic, what about the $2.3 million average price tag for a death penalty case in Texas (three times the cost of locking someone up for life)? Where's the outrage over that bill? If he's interested in saving the state some money - why not abolish the death penalty?
Nope. Not going to happen. To abolish capital punishment would mean taking a principled stand on an unpopular issue because it's the right thing to do. Cancelling the last meal request for a condemned man is a public relations gesture he can use to whip up the masses.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A tale of two executions
Two men were murdered last night.
One was killed under the watchful eye of people around the country and around the world. The other was killed with nary a soul watching.
The State of Georgia murdered an innocent man. The State of Texas killed a guilty man.
By now we all know the tragic story of Troy Davis. Last night we watched as the killing hour drew near and gasped when the execution was put on hold. We were hopeful that justice would prevail and that new questions would be raised about who killed Mark MacPhail in Savannah back in 1989. We sat in stunned silence as word came down that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Davis' request for a stay of execution and we watched in horror as Mr. Davis was murdered.
But in the Piney Woods of Texas, Lawrence Brewer was also a victim of the death machine. Mr. Brewer wasn't a nice person. He was a convicted felon. He was a member of a KKK-like group. He participated in the beating and murder of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas - a crime that sickened the public. He had exhausted his appeals and went to his death with a tear in his eye.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the cause of Troy Davis. There is nothing that betrays our sense of justice more than the state-sponsored murder of an innocent man. But let's face it, the vast majority of inmates on death row across this country are guilty. It's harder t mobilize the masses to fight to save the life of a murderer.
The State of Georgia wasn't justified in killing Troy Davis. Yes, a jury convicted him of Mr. MacPhail's murder. But there was no physical evidence linking Mr. Davis to the murder. The murder weapon was never recovered. Seven of the nine non-law enforcement witnesses recanted their trial testimony. Yet neither the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole nor the Georgia Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court thought that was enough to raise enough doubt to halt the execution.
We accept a legal system in which the Nine Wearing Robes can change the established law of the land with just five votes, precedence and stare decisis be damned. But we can't accept that juries might get it wrong or that witnesses might reconsider their testimony.
Those of us who stand beside criminal defendants also know that few of our clients are innocent. For most of our clients, it's more a question of whether the prosecutor can prove the allegations. We fight just as hard for the person who admits guilt as we do for the person who proclaims his innocence. That's what the Constitution requires. It's through fighting for the most unworthy and unloved clients that we fortify the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It's in fighting to save the life of Lawrence Russell that our fight to abolish the death penalty will succeed. It's when we convince the public that state-sponsored murder is the most tyrannical act a government can carry out.
I'm saddened by the deaths of Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell. I'm angry about it. I will take that anger and channel it. I will channel it the next time I stand in front of a jury asking them to find my client not guilty. I will channel it the next time I reject a plea offer from the state. I will channel it the next time I go before a judge and demand that a case be dismissed.
It's time to get back to work.
One was killed under the watchful eye of people around the country and around the world. The other was killed with nary a soul watching.
The State of Georgia murdered an innocent man. The State of Texas killed a guilty man.
By now we all know the tragic story of Troy Davis. Last night we watched as the killing hour drew near and gasped when the execution was put on hold. We were hopeful that justice would prevail and that new questions would be raised about who killed Mark MacPhail in Savannah back in 1989. We sat in stunned silence as word came down that the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Davis' request for a stay of execution and we watched in horror as Mr. Davis was murdered.
But in the Piney Woods of Texas, Lawrence Brewer was also a victim of the death machine. Mr. Brewer wasn't a nice person. He was a convicted felon. He was a member of a KKK-like group. He participated in the beating and murder of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas - a crime that sickened the public. He had exhausted his appeals and went to his death with a tear in his eye.
It's easy to be sympathetic to the cause of Troy Davis. There is nothing that betrays our sense of justice more than the state-sponsored murder of an innocent man. But let's face it, the vast majority of inmates on death row across this country are guilty. It's harder t mobilize the masses to fight to save the life of a murderer.
The State of Georgia wasn't justified in killing Troy Davis. Yes, a jury convicted him of Mr. MacPhail's murder. But there was no physical evidence linking Mr. Davis to the murder. The murder weapon was never recovered. Seven of the nine non-law enforcement witnesses recanted their trial testimony. Yet neither the Georgia Board of Pardons and Parole nor the Georgia Supreme Court nor the U.S. Supreme Court thought that was enough to raise enough doubt to halt the execution.
We accept a legal system in which the Nine Wearing Robes can change the established law of the land with just five votes, precedence and stare decisis be damned. But we can't accept that juries might get it wrong or that witnesses might reconsider their testimony.
Those of us who stand beside criminal defendants also know that few of our clients are innocent. For most of our clients, it's more a question of whether the prosecutor can prove the allegations. We fight just as hard for the person who admits guilt as we do for the person who proclaims his innocence. That's what the Constitution requires. It's through fighting for the most unworthy and unloved clients that we fortify the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights.
It's in fighting to save the life of Lawrence Russell that our fight to abolish the death penalty will succeed. It's when we convince the public that state-sponsored murder is the most tyrannical act a government can carry out.
I'm saddened by the deaths of Mr. Davis and Mr. Russell. I'm angry about it. I will take that anger and channel it. I will channel it the next time I stand in front of a jury asking them to find my client not guilty. I will channel it the next time I reject a plea offer from the state. I will channel it the next time I go before a judge and demand that a case be dismissed.
It's time to get back to work.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Democracy Now! live coverage of the murder of Troy Davis
Davis was convicted in 1989 of killing of off-duty white police officer, Mark MacPhail. Since then, seven of the nine non-police witnesses who fingered Davis have recanted their testimony, and there is no physical evidence that ties Davis to the crime scene.
Video of the special broadcast will be live-streamed from 6pm to 8pmEDT at http://www.democracynow.org.
The special can also be watched on Free Speech TV (Channel 9415, onDISH Network and Channel 348 on DirectTV), and on Link TV (Ch. 375 on DirecTV).
Audio of the special broadcast will be carried by Pacifica radio. Check your local sister station or affiliate to see if they plan to carry it.
Please encourage your local radio and TV station to air the program. It is free for any radio or TV station to air. (Email Denis@democracynow.org for more information.)
If you would like to embed the Democracy Now! Livestream player to post on your website, please visit http://www.livestream.com/democracynow/share
Visit the Democracy Now! archive for all of these video reports, which include the complete transcripts:http://www.democracynow.org/tags/troy_davis
Execution Watch: 9/21/11
Texas plans to put to death Lawrence Russell Brewer Wednesday for his role in the murder of James Byrd in Jasper, Texas. Execution Watch will be there.
TEXAS PLANS TO EXECUTE:
LAWRENCE RUSSELL BREWER. One of three mean convicted in the infamous East Texas slaying in which three white men chained James Byrd, a 49-year-old black man, to the back of a pickup truck and dragged him to death on a country road near Jasper. The 1998 case shocked the nation for its brutality. Fall partner John William King is on death row, awaiting an appeal. Another co-defendant, Shawn Berry, received life in prison. The trials of the three men cost Jasper County $1.02 million, leading to a 6.7 percent increase in property taxes. More background at executionwatch.org.
RADIO PROGRAM PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, we'll broadcast on ...
Sept. 21, 2011, 6-7 PM CT
Houston: KPFT 90.1 FM
Worldwide: www.executionwatch.org > Listen
Update: High court stays Foster execution
The State of Texas was once again foiled in its attempts to murder Cleve "Sarge" Foster when the U.S. Supreme Court issued a last minute stay -- the third time the court has stayed his execution this year.
While the Court did not give a reason for the stay, Mr. Foster's appeal involved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is the second time in the past week the Supremes granted stay of execution in a Texas case.In both cases, the target of the state's ire was an accomplice convicted of murder via the law of parties.
Should a state be permitted to execute a person convicted of murder who didn't commit the crime?Is that the question the high court is asking in these two cases? If we're going to allow states to continue to murder people in the name of law and order, shouldn't we make certain that those who face the death penalty are the actual killers?
I have no problem with a person being convicted of murder through the law of parties. But I have a big problem with using the law of parties to condemn a man for a murder committed by someone else. If the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a person for any other crime than murder, it should also prohibit the killing of a person who didn't actually commit the murder.
CORRECTION: My mistake as to the facts behind to two stays of execution granted to Texas inmates in the past week. The other stay was granted to Duane Buck whose case was tainted by the testimony of an expert called by Mr. Buck's attorney who testified that black men are more likely to commit future crimes than white men.
Please forgive me, it was my birthday, I was excited and got carried away. I still stand by my argument that there is no justification for the state to take the life of a person whose conviction was obtained through the law of parties.
While the Court did not give a reason for the stay, Mr. Foster's appeal involved claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
This is the second time in the past week the Supremes granted stay of execution in a Texas case.
Should a state be permitted to execute a person convicted of murder who didn't commit the crime?
I have no problem with a person being convicted of murder through the law of parties. But I have a big problem with using the law of parties to condemn a man for a murder committed by someone else. If the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of a person for any other crime than murder, it should also prohibit the killing of a person who didn't actually commit the murder.
CORRECTION: My mistake as to the facts behind to two stays of execution granted to Texas inmates in the past week. The other stay was granted to Duane Buck whose case was tainted by the testimony of an expert called by Mr. Buck's attorney who testified that black men are more likely to commit future crimes than white men.
Please forgive me, it was my birthday, I was excited and got carried away. I still stand by my argument that there is no justification for the state to take the life of a person whose conviction was obtained through the law of parties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)