Death Penalty

Yesterday a federal jury in New York sentenced 24-year-old Ronell Wilson to death for the March 2003 murder of detectives James Nemorin and Rodney Andrews.  This marks the first time a federal jury in New York has handed down a death sentence in over 50 years.  The last federal inmate executed in New York was Gerhard Puff in 1954.  An article in The New York Times describes both the criminal case and some of the death penalty history.

The federal death penalty has had something of a re-birth during the presidency of George W. Bush.  The execution of Timothy McVeigh in 2001 was the first execution of a federal inmate since 1963.  There have since been two additional executions.  The Death Penalty Information Center has a page dedicated to information about the federal death penalty, including a current list of inmates and various facts and statistics.  A September 2000 survey of the federal death penalty by the Department of Justice can be found here.  

While the movement to abolish the death penalty appears to be gaining steam in several states, such as through the new legislative efforts in Maryland and North Carolina, in other quarters politicians are seeking to expand its reach in various ways.  These efforts often take the form of bills that either expand the application of the death penalty to new crimes or eliminate existing restrictions on its use.

In the Utah House of Representatives, several expansion bills introduced or sponsored by Representative Carl Wimmer have been making their way through the legislative process over the past month.  House Bill 93 would make certain offenses against a child (particularly sexual offenses) committed in the course of a murder sufficient to make that murder "aggravated," whether the offenses were intentionally or knowingly committed.  House Bill 228 would add the intentional murder of child under 14 to the list of conditions that constitute aggravated murder punishable by death.  House Bill 86 would take the death penalty beyond the confines of murder, and allow it to be imposed for repeat sexual offenses against a child.  Representative Wimmer has promoted all three bills as being for the protection of children.

In Virginia, the General Assembly is toying with expansion along different lines.  Senate Bill 1116 would extend the death penalty to the murder of judges in the same way it now applies to the murder of police officers.  Senate Bill 1288 would eliminate the "triggerman rule," which has limited the death penalty to only those who actually commit a murder, in certain cases involving murder for hire or terrorism.

The removal of restrictions such as the requirements of intentionality and direct action, and the restriction of the death penalty to murder, would only serve to make an inequitable and random system more inbalanced and arbitrary.  Such expansions also run directly counter to any argument that the death penalty constitutes "retribution" in the sense of balancing the scales (thus, death as penalty only for murder) or that the penalty is exclusively reserved for the "worst of the worst."

Contact information for legislators in both Utah and Virginia can be found on the links provided above.   

     The North Carolina Council of State is set to meet next Tuesday, February 6th, to discuss the state's lethal injection procedures in the wake of Judge Stephens' stay of all executions pending further approval.  A article in yesterday's News & Observer reported comments by many of the members of the Council of State regarding the upcoming decision on lethal injection protocol.  People of Faith Against the Death Penalty has set up an urgent action for those who would like to contact members of the Council of State and urge them not to approve the current lethal injection protocol.

   As a result of Judge Stephens' decision, the executions of Marcus Robinson, James Thomas, and James Campbell have all been indefinitely stayed, and no further executions may take place unless the Council of State or NC General Assembly takes action.

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

if i recall the details from the report A Broken System: Error Rates in Capital Cases, 1973-1995 the number one reason that death sentences are overturned on appeal is ineffective assistance of counsel...

and as you may realize the more things change the more they stay the same...hence when the mcclatchey papers published a report examining the quality of counsel in four death penalty states the results were consistent with past findings...the series,.."No Defense: Shortcut to Death Row," explores capital representation in mississippi, alabama, georgia and virginia...the research revealed that those states have extensive problems with adequate counsel, a fact underscored in the series through case examples that illustrate the systems' inadequacies...the series found:

• In 73 of 80 cases reviewed, lawyers did little or nothing to defend their clients at the critical stage where juries are weighing life and death. The attorneys often missed unspeakable abuse, abject poverty, and profound mental disabilities in their clients' backgrounds. All of these can be factors that juries cite as the basis for a life sentence.
• Appeals courts in the four states routinely refused to cite bad lawyering as a reason to overturn death sentences, despite several U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting standards for representation.
• In one of four states reviewed, Georgia, a new office of new but well-trained lawyers is now handling all the state's death penalty cases. These lawyers, with adequate resources and training, have had far different results. So far, none of their 46 clients has been sentenced to death.

(North Carolina News & Observer, January 20, 2007). Read the series.

special thanks to the death penalty information center for his heads-up... 

peace out <3

     Texas intends to execute Christopher Swift tomorrow for the 2003 killing of his wife and mother-in-law.  After the initial trial, in which his attorneys argued that he should be found not guilty by reason of insanity, Christopher Swift has declined counsel, waived his appeals, and written letters requesting to hasten his own execution.  This article from the Denton Record-Chronicle quotes some of the letters.  Mr. Swift claimed at one point that his five-year-old son encouraged the murder, and cites the continuing voices in his head as a reason he wants to be executed.  The NCADP has set up an on-line form for contacting Governor Rick Perry concerning Christopher Swift.  

Martin O'Malley, the Governor of Maryland, has come out in favor of abolishing the death penalty in the state.  The Governor has stated that he would be willing to sign a bill to repeal the death penalty such as the one recently introduced in the MD legislature.  An article in the Baltimore Sun reports:

Gov. Martin O'Malley said yesterday that he would sign a repeal of the death penalty if a bill reaches his desk, weighing in on the contentious issue hours after a coalition of legislators and activists renewed their push to strike Maryland's execution law from the books.

"Now that it's salient, and we have to deal with it, I'm certainly not going to try to duck or hide. I would like to see us repeal the death penalty," O'Malley said during an interview in his State House office. "I think the dollars could go to better use and could be invested in things that actually save lives. I don't believe the death penalty saves lives."

Thomas Execution Also Stayed

     It appears that Judge Stephens' ruling that he cannot approve an execution until new lethal injection procedures have been approve will stay the executions of both Marcus Robinson and James Thomas.  An article on the stay of James Thomas' case from the Winston-Salem Journal can be found here.  It is unclear at this point how long the stay would last or whether it would stop the execution of James Campbell, scheduled for February 9th.

Charlotte Observer Editorial Backs Moratorium

    An editorial published in the Charlotte Observer today backs the moratorium proposal put forth by 30 North Carolina legislators.  The editorial notes that, despite surveys showing support for the death penalty in North Carolina, the state's citizens "also expect their criminal justice system to operate in an equitable and legally defensible way when it exercises the state's power to take a person's life."

Photos from Hearing

Scott Langley of Langley Creations has posted photographs from the hearing here.  (Some of the photos were posted in the prior version of this entry, but had to be removed because of technical problems).

The doctor participation dilemma in North Carolina has now led to the stay of at least one execution, with the possibility of more to follow.  From the Fayetteville Observer:

A Wake County judge this morning ordered a halt to the execution of Fayetteville's Marcus Reymond Robinson, who was scheduled to die at 2 a.m. Friday.

Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens said he has seen no proof that changes made to execution protocol have been approved, as is called for in state law.

On Wednesday, Stephens heard arguments about North Carolina's execution practices from Robinson's lawyers, the lawyers for condemned inmate James Edward Thomas and the state Attorney General's Office.

Stephens' ruling also included halting Thomas' execution.

The lawsuit before Stephens contends that North Carolina's execution procedure has the potential to cause severe pain in violation of the U.S. Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment.

The suit says that a law requiring a doctor to be present for executions conflicts with a N.C. Medical Board ethics decision that says doctors may observe, but not take part in, executions.

On Wednesday, Stephens questioned whether the prison system follow state law this week when it adjusted the physician's role in the execution process.

State law says that execution procedures and equipment must be approved by the governor and the Council of State.

On Wednesday, Stephens said that until the governor and Council of State approve the change in the physician's role, "this court cannot approve an execution."  ...

Judge Stephens said that in a federal lawsuit last year, state officials "represented that a licensed physician will professionally participate in the execution ... and that presence and participation would minimize the potential that the inmate would suffer great pain and suffering and would be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment."

Court documents say the doctor was to stay in a room adjacent to the death chamber and watch equipment displaying the condemned person's heart beat and brain waves as he died.

The brain monitor is to show whether the inmate needs an extra dose of one of the execution drugs to ensure that he is unconscious when he dies.

Now, the medical board says that it is unethical for a doctor to do anything more than observe an execution. In response, the Attorney General's Office says that doctors will no longer take part as medical professionals, Stephens said.

Special Deputy Attorney General Tom Pitman told Stephens that the doctor's only role will be to sign the death certificate.

In addition to adjusting the physician's role in executions, prison officials last year added the brain monitor to the execution procedure to gauge whether an inmate is unconscious. This followed claims that inmates woke up during the process and suffered pain from the drug that stops their heart.

For the full article, click here. 

To follow up on the previous blog entry, 30 North Carolina legislators have sent a letter to Governor Easley asking him to immediately halt executions in North Carolina pending a study of the lethal injection procedure.  A press release from the office of NC State Senator Ellie Kinnaird describes the legislators' intentions:

A bill establishing a legislative study commission on lethal injection will be introduced in the North Carolina Legislature. The bill is in response to the mounting evidence that the procedure used to execute prisoners in North Carolina has the potential to cause undue and excruciating pain, a violation of the 8^th Amendment to the Constitution against cruel and unusual punishment. The risk is heightened by the policy issued by the North Carolina Medical Board on January 18^th prohibiting doctors from taking part in executions.   ...

The purpose of the legislative commission will be to determine if the lethal injection protocols are medically sound. The commission will consider the protocol regarding who administers the drugs, how much of each chemical should be used, how prison officials should proceed if an inmate has a medical condition preventing intravenous administration and other relevant subjects.  ...

Until the Commission has completed its study, executions will be halted in North Carolina.

The National Coaltion to Abolish the Death Penalty is calling for action to encourage Governor Easley to impose a moratorium.  AIUSA's urgent action for Marcus Robinson can be found here. 

    The North Carolina Medical Board has now adopted the ethics opinion on capital punishment discussed on this blog on January 18th.  As a result, doctors in North Carolina are now prohibited from participating in executions in any way other than by being present as required by the NC statutes.

    The new rule is already leading to new challenges to lethal injection by current death row inmates, who cite the lack of doctor participation as another reason why the process is likely to be painful and cruel.  The conflict between medical ethics and the laws that attempt to make lethal injection "safe" or "painless" continues to lead to new questions about the execution method most commonly used throughout the United States. 

   The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has granted Larry Swearingen a reprieve from his execution, which was scheduled for today, so that the court can consider new evidence.  Larry Swearingen's defense attorneys claim that the new evidence shows that Mr. Swearingen is innocent of the 1998 murder of Melissa Trotter.

   A Washington Post article on the reprieve can be found here.

Ronald Chambers (Texas)

On Monday, January 22nd, 2007, the United States Supreme Court granted an indefinite stay of execution to Ronald Chambers. Mr. Chambers, who been on Texas' death row for over 31 years, was scheduled to be executed on January 25th. The stay came in the form of a one-line order written by Justice Scalia; the order did not specify the reason for or duration of the stay. It appears likely that the Supreme Court has stayed the execution in order to give itself time to render a decision in three death penalty cases heard the previous week, and then to apply the impact of those decisions to Mr. Chambers' case. Thanks to the many Amnesty International members who took action on behalf of Ronald Chambers. We will continue to provide updates on his case as they become available.

Kenneth Biros, James Filiaggi, Christopher Newton (Ohio)

Ohio's new Governor, Ted Strickland, has decided to stay the first three scheduled executions of his term in order to give the cases full consideration.  Each of the stays is temporary and includes a new execution date.  The new dates are March 20, 2007 for Kenneth Biros (previously scheduled for today), April 24, 2007 for James Filiaggi (previously February 13), and May 24, 2007 for Christopher Newton (previously February 27).    

from the thoughts of an abolition intern...

I just read an editorial entitled "A Matter of Life and Death" that was published in the Birmingham News this past Saturday.  The editorial criticizes an unbelievable feature of death penalty sentencing in Alabama: that the trial judge has the ability to overrule the jury's determination and impose a death sentence.  The editorial focuses on the case Brandon Deon Mitchell.  By a 10-2 vote, the jury voted not to sentence Bradon Mitchell to death.  County Circuit Judge Bill Cole disagreed, and imposed a death sentence anyway.  The editorial estimated that nearly of fifth of Alabama's death row received their death sentences by such judicial decrees.

It is mind-boggling that such a procedure could exist within a death penalty process touted as providing defendants with "super" due process.  True, sometimes the life or death decision could be swayed one way or another by the vote of a single judge sitting on a appellate court, but that is a backstop mechanism after the original trial and sentencing have been completed.  The imposition of the death sentence by the trial judge against the jury's vote is something else entirely.  It gives the judge the solitary power to decide whether someone should live or die, with complete discretion.  It removes every protection that the jury process is supposed to provide, and does so in the context where that protection is most needed.

The editorial also notes another important point: Alabama judges are directly elected!  Thus, the Alabama process takes out the middleman and displays what is already apparent in death penalty legislation around the country--namely, that those in (or seeking) elected office have an incentive to use the death penalty as a way of showing that they are "tough on crime."  This is bad enough in legislation, but it is revolting if applied to the decision to sentence a single individual.  Of course, political considerations may have had no part in this particular judge's decision, but the risk of it is too strong to ignore.  Elected criminal court judges often have to be aware of their conviction rates when facing re-election, as a low conviction rate provides ammunition to a political opponent who claims to be tougher on crime, a better protector of the people, et cetera.  I certainly hope that no opponent would emphasize a judge's low "death rate" in a campaign, but linking individual death sentences decisions so closely with the political process creates the potential for exactly that kind of dynamic, whether it operates openly or by implication.  This state of affairs is simply intolerable.  Let's hope Alabama takes the recent editorial to heart and reforms its judicial process.  

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

in general youth are a dynamic part of the human rights movement and increasingly they are interested and involved in the justice issue of the death penalty...this message finds its way around the net from hooman hedayati, himself a student involved with texas students against the death penalty..

hooman says, "I hope everybody is doing great. I just wanted to let you know about the 2007 Anti-Death Penalty Alternative Spring Break that Students Against the Death Penalty is organizing. This year's spring break will be featured on "The Amazing Break," a MTV show featuring alternatives to beer and beaches. Last year's spring break was featured on the mtvU (MTV's University channel), NPR and etc."

so it's an annual thing where students choose an alternative to the daytona beach scene and do something powerful, energizing, and communal during their spring break...check out the whole thing right here ...

although the majority of the participants will be students, it is also a good opportunity for young people who are not students to become active...there are after all lots of young people who for various reasons don't go to college, but who may want to do something against the death penalty...the events and workshops are also open to the general public of any age, although the housing is reserved for young people...

check out alternative spring break today!

peace out <3

     The North Carolina Board of Medical Examiners is considering adopting a new ethical rule that would prevent physicians from participating in state executions in any capacity other than as observers.  The board's policy committe today voted to send a trimmed-down version of AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.06 before the full board at its next regular meeting.  The proposed rule, which can be found here, attempts to limit physician participation without running afoul of NC General Statute § 15-190, which requires the presence of a penitentiary's surgeon or physician during an execution (and protects the identities of those physicians from disclosure).  The NC Medical Board thus places the following statement at the beginning of the rule:

The North Carolina Medical Board takes the position that physician participation in capital punishment is a departure from the ethics of the medical profession within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 90-14(a)(6).  The North Carolina Medical Board adopts and endorses the provisions of AMA Code of Medical Ethics Opinion 2.06 printed below except to the extent that it is inconsistent with North Carolina state law.

The Board recognized that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15-190 requires the presence of "the surgeon or physician of the penitentiary" during the execution of condemned inmates.  Therefore, the Board will not discipline licensees for merely being "present" during an execution in conformity with [the statute].  However, any physician who engages in any verbal or physical activity, beyond the requirements of [the statute], that facilitates the execution may be subject to disciplinary action by the Board.

The AMA Rule, which was issued in 1980, has wide acceptance in the profession and has created conflicts with state laws in the past.  A similar controversy came to a head in California last year after a judge ruled that a physician must participate in an execution by lethal injection in order to ensure that the patient is unconscious.  Assembly Bill 1954, which would have reversed this decision and prohibited physician participation in executions, essentially died in the appropriations committe.  California's entire lethal injection process has since been suspended and is under review.

     North Carolina has scheduled executions for three death row inmates--Marcus Robinson, James Thomas, and James Campbell--on the next three consecutive Fridays (1/26, 2/2, 2/9).   

Amnesty International UK, Reprieve and Scottish anti-death penalty campaigner Karen Torley today (17 January) issued fresh calls for justice for a Scottish man on death row in the USA, as the US marks a 30-year 'anniversary' of the death penalty.

Thirty years ago today the US state of Utah executed Gary Gilmore by firing squad, thus ushering in the 'modern' era of judicial killing in the USA. For half a decade before Gilmore's execution, US courts had banned all executions, but since January 1977 the US has gone on to execute over 1,000 people, one of the largest numbers anywhere in the world.

On the 17 January 'anniversary' of the modern era of executions, the US state of Texas - by far the biggest executing state in the USA - is also set to execute another prisoner despite concerns that the condemned man (Johnathan Moore) was not competent to stand trial as a result of mental illness.

Amnesty International UK Director Kate Allen said:

'Today marks a shameful 'anniversary' of 30 years of judicial killing in the USA and for 20 of those Kenny Richey has endured the living hell of death row.

'The death penalty is a human rights outrage, achieving nothing but suffering and injustice.

'It's high time for the USA to abandon this cruel punishment, just as it's high time for Kenny to receive justice in his case.'

Clive Stafford-Smith, the leading death penalty lawyer and founder of UK anti-death penalty organisation Reprieve, said:

'Think about what you were doing 20 years ago. Imagine having spent 23 hours a day since, locked in your tiny cell with the courts refusing to even consider compelling evidence of your innocence. When will Tony Blair use his special relationship to bring this innocent Scot home?'

Mr Richey has also been the subject of a longstanding campaign from Scottish anti-death penalty campaigner Karen Torley. Ms Torley said:

'I have been campaigning for justice for Kenny for over a decade and I remain as convinced as ever of the need to push for a full hearing of evidence that will show Kenny's innocence.'

Mr Richey, who has a Scottish mother and grew up in Edinburgh, has fought a long campaign to clear his name. He was convicted of arson and murder in the state of Ohio in 1986 and sentenced to death on 27 January 1987. He has been on death row since then, but has always protested his innocence. Evidence has since emerged casting serious doubt on Mr Richey's guilt.

Meanwhile, Johnathan Moore, 32, is set to be executed later today (17 January) for the murder of a police officer in San Antonio in Texas in 1995.

There are serious concerns about the mental health of Mr Moore at his 1995 trial. However, despite evidence of Moore's mental incompetence to stand trial, his lawyers did not ask for a competency hearing. It has been claimed that Moore's mental state deteriorated during his trial and that Moore had even begun to suspect his own lawyers of being part of a larger conspiracy to kill him.

Though the trial heard that during his adolescence Moore had been committed to a mental hospital and had suffered from increasing paranoia as a young adult, the trial jury found him guilty. At his subsequent sentencing hearing, his lawyers did seek a competency hearing but without recalling mental health experts who therefore never testified at any stage on the question of Moore's competence to stand trial.

Notes:

 

Next week (24 January) the case of Kenny Richey, who will have been on death row in Ohio, USA for exactly 20 years on 27 January, will be re-heard by the 6th Circuit Federal Court of Appeal in Cincinnati.

 

A panel of three judges will be re-considering Mr Richey's case, including the question of whether evidence that came to light after his 1986 trial should be fully re-examined.

     As reported yesterday in this blog, Norman Timberlake was scheduled to be executed this Friday, January 19, 2007.  Yesteday, the Indiana State Parole Board recommended that Governor Mitch Daniels deny clemency.  Today, however, the Indiana Supreme Court has granted a stay in the case pending the outcome of Panetti v. Quarterman (a case concerning the execution of a mentally ill inmate), which will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Indiana Supreme Court wrote:

Timberlake's situation is sufficiently similar to Panetti's that a stay of Timberlake's impending execution is appropriate.  As noted above, Timberlake has an understanding that he is being executed for killing Trooper Greene.  His is in many respects a more blameworthy case than Panetti's.  Nonetheless, Dr. Parker reports that Timberlake suffers from a severe mental disease.  If the Supreme Court interprets the Eighth Amendment in a manner significantly different from Justice Powell's concurrence in Ford [v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 300 (1986)], Timberlake's execution may prove to be prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.  We grant a stay to prevent learning the answer to that question after it is too late.

Mr. Timberlake's prior attempt to obtain a stay from the federal courts was denied, but the Indiana State Supreme Court's decision will govern.

from the thoughts of an abolition intern.....

     The Fayetteville Observer has picked up on an aspect of the Marcus Robinson case that illustrates some of the problems with the death penalty in the US.  Marcus Robinson is facing the death penalty on January 26th for the 1991 murder of Erik Tornblum.  On April 26th of this year, Curits Lamar Green, Robinson's brother, was beaten to death.  Brant Sherwood Hunter and two other men have been charged with the crime.  Since the charge was first-degree murder, there was a possibility that NC prosecutors would seek the death penalty for Hunter.

    As reported in a January 5th article in the Observer, Shirley Burns, mother of both Robinson and Green, spoke out against the death penalty before the North Carolina legislature:

The mother of both a death-row prisoner and the victim of a recent murder urged state House members Thursday to acknowledge problems in North Carolina's capital punishment system and make changes.

Shirley Burns of Hope Mills was among 15 people who spoke during a 90-minute public hearing before the House Select Committee on Capital Punishment. Most witnesses asked panel members to urge the General Assembly to either abolish executions in North Carolina or impose a temporary moratorium.

"How many have had to sit on both sides of the table?" Burns told committee members. "I had to come to grips with myself. Where do I stand on the death penalty?"

Burns is the mother of both Marcus Robinson, who is scheduled to be executed at Central Prison on Jan. 26, and Curtis Lamar Green, who was found dead on a Cumberland County road in April. Three people have been charged in Green's death, including one accused of first-degree murder, which can carry a death sentence.

Robinson's lawyers have asked Gov. Mike Easley to stop Robinson's execution so the method of lethal injection can be studied after a botched execution in Florida last year.

Burns said she realized she needed to be consistent in her view on capital punishment: "Here I am pleading and begging for my son's life. How can I, as a Christian, ask for another person's life?"

In an article published yesterday, the Observer reported that prosecutors had decided not to pursue the death penalty against Hunter, accused of beating Curtis Lamar Green to death, because of a lack of "aggravating factors."

     Both the NC prosecutor's decision and Ms. Burns' dilemma vividly illustrate two major problems with the death penalty--the problem of fairness in administration and the inevitability of pain for the family of the executed.  Even with a system of "aggravating factors" and the elusive yardstick of "heinousness," how can it ever fairly be determined which loss of life ought to be addressed by the execution of the killer?  If the pain of the murder victim's family is any part of the equation, then surely the pain of the murderer's family must be as well.  Ms. Burns has had the incredible misfortune of experiencing the murder of one son, and now faces the possibility of the execution of another.  

     A note here: Some of the comments on this blog, and in death penalty discourse generally, have suggested (or overtly argued) that only those who have experienced the loss of a loved one through violent crime can really judge the value of the death penalty.  One response to that argument might be that only those who have experienced the loss of a loved one through execution should judge its ill effects, and perhaps that only those who have experienced both (such as Ms. Burns and some of the members of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights) should make the decisions for our society.  Let me be clear that I am not making that argument.  As with many of society's weighty questions, experience is not a straightforward predictor of position.  Two soldiers can fight in the same war and come back with diametrically opposed views of its worth.  The same person can be (and has been) both the victorious plaintiff in the most famous abortion case in America and an activist against the case's holding.  The same is true here: while we should listen to and respect the opinions of those who have most closely experienced and suffered from both violent crime and the death penalty, in a democratic society we each have to measure that testimony against our own compass, consider it, debate it openly, and try to reach a reasonable and just resolution of the problem.  What Shirley Burns and her sons show is that the pain of loss reaches the families of both murder victims and executed killers (sometimes the same people), and that even in the life of a single family the death penalty can bring apparent injustice and inequality to both victims and perpetrators of crime.      

on monday the 15th when we were variously acknowledging and celebrating the life of the late reverend martin luther king, jr. the dayton (ohio) daily news published a story entitled ex-prisons boss 'not opposed' to ending death penalty ...

in that story former department of corrections director reggie wilkinson who worked in ohio's prisons for almost 33 years, including a stint as warden of the dayton correctional institute stated, "I would not oppose the abolition of the death penalty statute," ...

wilkinson witnessed 19 executions and successfully advocated for the retirement of the state's electric chair as a method of execution and now wilkinson would like to see executions done away with entirely...

for ohio death penalty politics this is another piece of the death penalty challenge puzzle coming together and reminded me of the peabody award winning radio soundscape witness to an execution recorded in october 2000 narrated by then warden jim willett, who oversaw all texas executions...it also features the insights of major kenneth dean, a member of the "tie-down" team and jim brazzil, a death house chaplain who witnessed some 120 executions...

listen to the entire story archived here...

for other vocies of significance, for both personal and organizing reasons, visit the death penalty information center's new voices page...

as ohioans slowly do the grassroots work necessary to mount a serious challenge to capital punishment some of the other peices of their puzzle are beginning to fall into place...keep your eye on the buckeye state...

peace out <3

The State of Indiana intends to execute Norman Timberlake this Friday, January 19, 2007 for the 1993 murder of Indiana State Master Trooper Michael Greene.  The Indiana State Parole Board heard testimony on Mr. Timberlake's clemency petition this morning, and has issued a recommendation to Governor Mitch Daniels that he deny clemency for Mr. Timberlake.  

Mr. Timberlake's attorneys have also challenged his execution on the grounds that Indiana's lethal injection procedures are flawed and cause unnecessary pain.  That argument will be heard tomorrow in federal court by the same district judge who last Wednesday rejected Mr. Timberlake's appeal based on evidence of mental illness. 

News articles describing the case and course of the appeals can be found here.  To see Amnesty International's 2006 report on the execution of mentally ill offenders in the United States, click here (full report) or here (summary).

If it proceeds, Norman Timberlake's execution would be Indiana's first since the execution of Marvin Bieghler on January 27, 2006.   

From the International Secretariat of Amnesty International, January 16, 2007 

     If the USA's capital justice system was a private company it would have been shut down long ago.  After three decades, this is an enterprise showing no measurable benefit for society despite an investment of billions of dollars. On the cost side have been multiple errors and inconsistencies, racism, cruelty and damage to the national image ab