Death Penalty

Dr. Alan Doerhoff first came to the attention of the world as "John Doe 1", an anonymous physician who testified in 2006 in a federal court that during his participation in executions in Missouri, he had improvised drug dosages, had no set protocol and kept no records.  Dr. Doe supervised 54 executions in Missouri.

As a result of this testimony, Missouri's execution protocol was ruled unconstitutional due to an unnecessary risk of pain and suffering.  "John Doe 1" was specifically barred from participating in Missouri executions.  The St. Louis Post-Dispatch did some sleuthing and revealed that "John Doe 1" was in fact Dr. Alan Doerhoff, and that Dr. Doerhoff had been sued for malpractice 20 times and had been banned from some hospitals. 

So at least the system was able to remove this bad apple from the execution process, right?  Wrong. 

Briefs in a federal death penalty case in 2007 revealed that a "Protected person number 2" had devised the federal execution procedure and had participated in federal executions.  This "Protected person number 2", the L.A. Times eventually uncovered, was in fact Dr. Doerhoff, causing one attorney to opine that "[t]he federal government chose to rely upon the only person in the country who has been explicitly barred by a federal court from participating in lethal injection executions."

Now it has been revealed by the Arizona Republic that Dr. Doerhoff spent some time in 2007 in Arizona, participating in the execution of Robert Comer, who was put to death in May of last year.  Thursday's story points out that:

"The doctor's techniques appear to have influenced new Arizona procedures for execution by lethal injection, specifically a practice of administering the killing chemicals through a catheter in the groin instead of through an arm. It's a method that some critics say is too complex and contributes to higher risks of error that could lead to undue suffering."

Arizona is the only jurisdiction, other than Missouri and the federal government, where this particular practice occurs.

Arizona is citing "statutes that protect the identity of Arizona executioners" in order to avoid commenting.  A similar law was passed in Missouri after Dr. Doerhoff's identity was revealed, though the "Show-Me State" law goes even further, subjecting anyone, including journalists, who names a member of the execution team to potential legal action.

Where will Dr. Doerhoff wind up next?  Or, with secrecy increasing around executions, will we ever know?

Brian

DPAC

If California is going to insist on the death penalty, it must at least be humane.

Last month's scathing California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice revealed just how much the hidden death tax is costing residents of California, whose state budget is already stretched too thin. California's death row is in the abysmal state of being the largest death row in the country, despite having only executed thirteen people since 1976.

The Commission, which was called for by the state's legislature, advocated for massive reform and implicitly suggested that, with death row inmates being more likely to die of natural causes than of lethal injection or gas, abolishment would be the most feasible fiscal solution. Expansion on California's death row to include its massive population will cost $400 million, when initial estimates were at $220 million. Overhauling the system and building a new death row illuminates another debate, with both death penalty advocates and abolitionists fiercely divided over the appropriate solution. California's death row will either be expanded at San Quentin, about 20 miles north of San Francisco, or, if politicians have their way, isolated in a new desert location and hours away from any major city.

Should death row be relocated in California, several inmates would no longer have access to attorneys or relatives. Lack of attorney access may dissuade both inmates and attorneys to not pursue appeals and cases. This would be seriously detrimental to the relationship between an inmate and their representation. Attorney representation and lack of adequate counsel is one of the major indicators in the arbitrariness of the death penalty, with those who die being the ones who were not the "worst of the worst" but the ones with the worst representation.

 Executions would no longer have the same sort of public impact that they currently have in Marin County, which is one of the most liberal and progressive county in the country. The despair that inmates may feel at being so isolated may lead more prisoners to give up appeals and "volunteer" for execution, says Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty Information Center. All of Nevada's executions since its reinstatement have been from volunteers, which may be explained by its desert location 250 miles away from Las Vegas.  

Of course, security risks need to be a huge factor in the decision, as it is the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. However, this is possible even in light of renovation. With so many elderly and infirm inmates on death row, it would be viable that inmates could be housed with different levels of security, with a high regard for both the prisoner's and the public's safety.

Often, death row inmate's personal histories, family lives, and childhoods are extremely complex webs of abuse, addiction, poverty, and mental illness. The death penalty provides a simplistic solution to both the criminal and their own histories. With 95% of death row inmates unable to afford their own lawyer, it is no wonder that the majority of death row inmates are those who were marginalized in life to begin with. The emotional impact that this could bring to both the inmate AND those who love them would not be as positive if relatives didn't have access to each other. Rehabilitation in transforming individuals should be a primary goal in undertaking this project, rather than simply assessing the politics of it.

Emily

DPAC

One year ago today - July 17, 2007 - was the original execution date set for Troy Anthony Davis, a man with a strong innocence case who still sits on Georgia's death row.  Yesterday, July 16^th, was the one-year anniversary of that infamous hearing in front of the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.  The Board voted to stay Davis' execution for up to 90-days, notifying Davis and his family less than 24 hours before he was scheduled to die.  This was a day that many of us will never forget - a memory that will forever inspire us to keep up the fight.

Martina Correia, the sister of Troy Anthony Davis, remembers that moment when she found out that her brother had received a stay.  She found out before he did.  "Upon telling Troy he had only a few words, beautiful words, ‘Thank you God, Thank you God,' then he began to pray and cry."  She continues, "Upon telling the warden and once verified he was immediately moved back to his cell [from the death cell next to the execution chamber] and walking back on death row the inmates were in tears and applauding, saying, 'Maybe one of us will get justice.' Curtis Osborne was one of those death row inmates and he was executed a few weeks ago."

The fight for life and justice continues, but we cannot give up hope.  Troy Anthony Davis remains on death row in Georgia, and will likely face a new execution date in the very near future.  You can read more about his case here, and then please go here to take action.

I'll finish this blog with a few more words from Martina, as I could not possibly say it better than her:

A time had come [one year ago] that I had no control over, but through it all I felt the warmth of Human Rights, love and prayers from all over the world... I realize that because of you all, human rights activists, advocates, and just people who believe in human dignity and fairness, that my family and my brother Troy we are all so much richer, blessed, stronger and thankful to you all.

I have said it once and I will say it again, "We Still have Fight in Us and we Will Never Give up!"

Sincerely,

Martina Correia

Sister of Troy Anthony Davis

Georgia's Death Row

~ Jessie, DPAC

Today, the International Court of Justice (aka the World Court) issued an order calling for the US to take "all measures necessary" to stay the execution of Jose Medellin and four other Mexican nationals in danger of being put to death in the near future.  In its 2004 judgment, the World Court had held that these cases must receive meaningful and effective review on the question of the right to consular assistance.  To date, no such reviews have taken place.  Jose Medellin is scheduled for execution in Texas on August 5.

This call for execution stays stems from a long-running dispute between Mexico and the US over the fact that Mexican nationals have often been sentenced to death in the US despite not having been informed of their right to seek assistance from Mexican consular officials.  The US is obligated by Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) to inform foreign nationals of this right. 

Jose Medellin was not informed of this right when he was arrested. (Few Mexican nationals on death row have been.) Texas officials acknowledge as much, but appeals courts have ruled that this treaty right cannot be invoked because Medellin never raised the issue during his original trial or sentencing. On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this procedural bar trumped US obligations under the Vienna Convention, arguing that Congress had to pass implementing legislation before the VCCR could be enforceable domestically. 

As Amnesty International noted in its report on March 27: "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."

So what happens next?  Will Texas respect the World Court's decision and stay the execution of Jose Medellin?  Will Congress eventually pass legislation implementing the VCCR so that the US can honor a treaty it has already signed?

Well, on July 14, Congress introduced the "Avena Case Implementation Act of 2008" which would allow Federal courts to hear the Vienna Convention claims of foreign nationals who were not advised of their consular rights.  This legislation has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee. 

Brian

DPAC

On July 15th, Governor Brad Henry of Oklahoma granted a 30-day stay of execution to Kevin Young, who was originally scheduled to be executed on July 22nd. His new execution date is August 21st. Governor Henry announced the stay in order to have more time to review Kevin Young's case.

This action came following the clemency recommendation made by the state's Pardon and Parole Board on July 8th. In a statement made announcing his decision to issue a stay, Governor Henry stated that

"This is a life and death matter, and a deliberate review process cannot be completed by the scheduled execution date. I take all clemency recommendations very seriously and will do my best to render a fair and just decision".

The Governor can approve or deny the Board's recommendation for clemency. The statement issued by his office yesterday was quick to emphasize that while Governor Henry carefully reviews each application, he has approved only one clemency recommendation from the Pardon and Parole Board since taking office in 2003.

We are very excited about his decision to take the recommendation seriously, and hope that he grants clemency. Please take a moment to send AI's Urgent Action on Kevin Young and appeal to Governor Henry to approve commutation for Kevin Young!

Emily

DPAC