Death Penalty

From our partners at the NCADP:

March 29, 2007 

Alberto Gonzales and the death penalty:
A time for candor. A time for fairness.

Two years ago, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced confirmation hearings, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty stressed that the nation's chief law enforcement officer "must demonstrate the highest commitment to fairness, due process and equal protection under the law."

We based our opposition to Gonzales' confirmation on our belief that his track record on death penalty cases in Texas failed to meet this challenge. Time and again the legal analysis he provided to then-Gov. George W. Bush on the eve of executions failed to include any discussion of the most salient issues, including severe mental retardation and mental illness, abysmally poor legal representation and, in more than a handful of cases, even credible claims of innocence.

With the recent revelations that differences regarding the death penalty played a role in the dismissal of at least three U.S. attorneys, our fears, sadly, have been justified.

Then, as now, Mr. Gonzales placed Bush's political agenda above honesty, integrity , and commitment to fairness. In Texas this took the form of cursory review - and then denial in every single case but one - of clemency applications as President Bush parlayed his "tough-on-crime" persona into a successful run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Today, Mr. Gonzales' failed priorities have contributed to a politicized federal death penalty system instead of one based on fairness and integrity. Consider:

*At least three U.S. attorneys - Paul Charlton of Arizona, Margaret Chiara of Michigan, and Kevin Ryan of California - were dismissed after clashing with the Justice Department over death penalty policy. Although the final decision has always rested with the U.S. Attorney General, a U.S. attorney's recommendation that death should not be sought has traditionally been given great deference - until recently.

*During the six years that President Bush has been in office (a span of time marked by Mr. Gonzales and his predecessor, former Attorney General John Ashcroft) the federal death penalty was sought 95 times, or about 16 times a year. That's twice as often as the 55 times it was sought during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, roughly seven times a year.

*Ominously, the Bush Department of Justice has sought the federal death penalty in states where voters, through their elected representatives, have rejected capital punishment. These jurisdictions include Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, and Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (New York, a state without a functioning state death penalty, has a stunning 51 potential federal death penalty cases in the works.)

Perhaps the most telling statistic: The size of federal death row has tripled since Bush took office, while state death sentences and executions are down sharply from their historic highs in the late 1990s. Three federal death row inmates already have been executed under the Bush administration; another four federal death row inmates are nearing the end of their appeals.

What does it say that the federal death penalty under Gonzales is inconsistent with state trends, which show capital punishment is on the wane? It says, simply, that the Bush Administration has chosen to politicize the death penalty. That is wrong.

Both death penalty proponents and opponents agree on this: Fairness and integrity must be present at the highest levels of our criminal justice system, especially when a person's life is in the balance. That is why, increasingly, groups such as murder victims' family members, religious groups, and leaders in the law enforcement community are calling for fairness.

Mr. Gonzales promised fairness in 2005 when he faced confirmation hearings. He was not candid about his record on the death penalty then and he is not candid today. It is past time for General Gonzales to tender his resignation, for the President to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm an Attorney General who will "demonstrate the highest commitment to fairness, due process and equal protection under the law."

Diann Rust-Tierney is executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Source: The National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

"Whether you agree with it or not, it is an absolute requirement to maintain the integrity of the system and ensure justice is served. Removing the death penalty variable from the justice equation should reduce the overall cost."

hell, i've been saying that or years but when it comes to being the right messenger carrying a good message to key legislators well, let's face facts, the tennessee dude ain't it...so it would be nice if we could find some of them, er, what we call unusual suspects to be messengers so as to get the attention of people who can give us what we're after...

hmmm, lessee here, who might that be???

i don't know, sat, law enforcement officers and officials maybe???

someone like jim davidsaver, a 20-year veteran with the lincoln police department maybe???

oh yeah, we got him right here laying out his rationale for feeling that getting rid of the death penalty might be the thing to do...

so check out davidsayer's logic and as you organize don't be shy about seeking out law enforcement officers and officials to partner with you as you seek to bring sanity deeper and deeper into our criminal justice public policy discussions...

thanks to the death penalty information center and oh yeah...

peace out <3

from the abolition intern...

During his career as Governor of Texas, George W. Bush presided over the executions of 152 people.  Today, with the scheduled execution of Vincent Gutierrez, Rick Perry plans to reach his 150th, with more than enough executions planned (including that of Roy Pippin tomorrow) to put Perry past Bush's revolting record.  Bush, of course, may still claim to have more of a margin based on the federal executions that have occurred during his presidency.  Regardless of when Perry takes Bush's crown, the two Texas governors have now collectively presided over more than 300 executions.  To be precise, they have presided over 301 (and probably 303 by the end of the week) out of a current total of 388 executions for Texas, and 1067 for the United States since 1976.  That means that an incredible 28% of all state killings in the United States in the modern were committed with either Bush or Perry's approval.  That includes cases where there were issues of mental illness, mental retardation, possible innocence, poor legal  representation, and even recommendations of clemency from the Board of Pardons and Paroles.

I recently had the misfortune to see the film "300," which tells the story of Leonidas and his Spartan soldiers at the battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC.  I've come across some interpretations of the film that cast Bush as either Leonidas (standing for freedom against the Persian, read Iranian, hoard) or as the Persian King Xerxes (leading a disasterous invasion of a foreign country, read Iraq).  Personally, I don't think the movie was able to sustain its own plot, let along sub-textual comments about current events.  There was one moment, however, when either Bush or Perry might have been appropriately cast as Leonidas.  After an extensive on-scene slaughter, Leonidas orders his men to "pile those Persians higher" into wall of dead bodies.  These two Texas governors do indeed seem intent on leaving a monument of corpses in their wake, and have built that monument with such enthusiasm that the carnage seems to be an end in itself, or maybe just a forum for competition.  Tragically, there is nothing comic-book-like about the killing committed under these two governors, and the pile of 300+ is all too real.  And they keep giving orders to pile it higher.      

less than 2 weeks ago nebraska's unicameral leguislative body failed to end the public policy of state sanctioned killing by a single vote...this is a follow-up op-ed piece that appeared in the new york times written by nebraska senator greg adams...

A tough decision

 By Sen. Greg Adams
This last week the legislature was presented with one of the toughest decisions we may deal with during this session, the decision to continue death by execution. When I realized that capital punishment was coming up on the agenda I cringed because of the difficulty of the topic for me personally and yet I must also confess to a kind of enthusiasm because the topic is too important to be ignored and not discussed and I was hoping that the debate would help me further develop my position.

The last time that death by execution was debated by the legislature was 1988. The debate on the floor this week was well structured. Senator Chambers presented the argument for repeal along with others, particularly many of the senators who practice law. Speaker Flood and others developed the pro-capital punishment arguments. There were a total of six hours of debate on the floor, plenty of discussion amongst senators in the hallways and in their offices, and for me extra hours of reading, discussion, and considerable private contemplation.

When I campaigned for the legislature, I indicated my cautioned support for capital punishment and a move to lethal injection. There is a part of me that still senses the need for capital punishment and lethal injection. However, I believe that any punishment, to be effective, must be administered swiftly and fairly. If you are punishing the child for disrespecting a parent or punishing the first degree murderer for taking the life of another, the punishment must be swift and it must be fair. Our judicial system or our sense of justice properly won't allow the swift use of capital punishment. Presently, the average stay on death row in Nebraska is 15.8 years. I have concerns about the fair imposition of the punishment when between 1973 and 1999 there were 691 homicides in Nebraska, 175 were death penalty eligible and yet only 24 of those were sentenced to death and three actually executed. Though I still sense a need for capital punishment, I believe that there are problems that are cause for debate and caution.

I was one of the twenty-four senators who voted to advance the bill to the second round of debate. I did so because I believed that the subject did deserve more debate and I believed that amendments were forthcoming to further define when capital punishment can be used. The bill did not advance. It is important to remember that this was the first of three votes necessary in order to pass the bill through the legislature. Nebraska still has capital punishment, but it not an easy decision for me and I'm confident the subject will be back before us next year.

Our coalition partners over at Virginians for Alternatives to the Death Penalty have included some talking points and links to Senator/Delegate contact information in a recent entry on their blog.  We encourage those readers of the PADP blog who reside in Virginia to call, email or write their Senators and Delegates urging them to support Kaine's veto of the five death penalty expansion bills.  The legislature re-convenes on April 4th (next Wednesday!) to consider the vetoed bills, so the need for action is imminent.

Resources:

• VADP Blog Entry with talking points
• AIUSA Elected Officials Search Page
• Richmond Times-Dispatch Article on Veto
• Governor Kaine's News Release on Veto

VIRGINIA

Governor Tim Kaine used his veto power today to block five bills that would have expanded the death penalty in the Virginia.  The bills are HB 2347, HB 2348, HB 2750, SB 1116 and SB 1288.  Collectively, the bills would have limited the triggerman rule and extended the death penalty to the murder of judges and witnesses under subpoena.  The Governor made the following statement regarding his veto:

Virginia is already second in the nation in the number of executions we carry out.  While the nature of the offenses targeted by this legislation are very serious, I do not believe that further expansion of the death penalty is necessary to protect human life or provide for public safety needs.

The Virginia legislature will re-convene on April 4th to react to Kaine's decision on these and other bills.  All five bill passed with sufficient votes to support a veto override if legislators who originally voted for the bills all vote for an override.

ILLINOIS

In an editorial published yesterday, the Chicago Tribune came out in favor of abolishing the death penalty in Illinois.  Prior to Sunday's statement, the paper had consistently supported the death penalty since 1869, although its reporting in recent years on death row exonerations and other issues influenced Illinois' move to a moratorium.  The full editorial can be found here.  The editorial concludes as follows:

When it acknowledged widespread problems in its system of capital punishment, Illinois prompted a nationwide soul-searching. Illinois can now lead the country by recognizing those errors will not be sufficiently addressed, that the state cannot have moral certainty that new injustices won't be heaped atop old ones.

Research on the deterrent effect of capital punishment has produced conflicting results over the years. But with the small number of instances--less than one-half of one percent of all murderers are executed--it seems that if capital punishment ever did serve to stop violence, it does not do so now.

Illinois already has the necessary alternative to death: life without possibility of parole. It is not a comfortable existence. It can mean life in a Supermax prison, where inmates spend 23 hours a day alone in 7-by-12-foot cells.

The evidence of mistakes, the evidence of arbitrary decisions, the sobering knowledge that government can't provide certainty that the innocent will not be put to death--all that prompts this call for an end to capital punishment. It is time to stop killing in the people's name.  

from the abolition intern....

On March 1st, I blogged about an ongoing death penalty trial in Washington, D.C., despite the District's opposition to the death penalty.  As the U.S. Attorney firing scandal continues to unfold, it has become apparent that the pursuit of the death penalty in non-death penalty jurisdictions has been part of an intentional push to expand federal capital punishment under the current administration, and that some of the fired U.S. Attorneys may have been casualties of this campaign.  An article in today's Los Angeles Times describes how three of the fired attorneys had resisted the push for the death penalty.  Here is an excerpt from the article regarding the top federal prosecutor in Michigan, which abolished capital punishment in 1847:

As a U.S. attorney in Grand Rapids, Mich., Margaret Chiara, who once studied to become a nun, appealed several times to the Justice Department against having to seek the death penalty. In hindsight, for her it was a risky business.

No prisoner has been executed in a Michigan case since 1938, but the Bush administration seemed determined to change that. Under Attys. Gen. John Ashcroft and Alberto R. Gonzales, far more federal defendants have been dispatched to death row than under the Clinton administration. And any prosecutors wishing to seek other punishment often find themselves overruled.

...

When Chiara was appointed to be the top prosecutor in Grand Rapids in November 2001, she told reporters she was opposed to the death penalty. But, she added, her personal views would not affect her performance.

Nevertheless, said her predecessor, Mike Dettmer: "She did not pass the Bush loyalty test on her concerns over the death penalty" and "she caught a lot of flak for it."

Two years into her term, she filed capital charges against Michael and Robert Ostrander - brothers from Cadillac, Mich. - in the slaying and robbery of an alleged fellow drug dealer. The decision to pursue the death penalty was made by Ashcroft after Chiara and a deputy, Phil Green, flew to Washington and tried to persuade him otherwise, Dettmer said.

Paul Mitchell, who represented one brother, said the state law against execution in Michigan was bypassed when Washington made it a federal case based on the fact that a firearm was used in a drug-related offense.

Police said the brothers met another alleged drug dealer, Hansle Andrews, and invited him to go with them to purchase drugs in Grand Rapids. Instead they drove to a remote area outside Cadillac, shot Andrews, robbed him and buried the body in a pre-dug grave.

They were convicted of murder but were spared death, receiving life sentences instead.

An article highlighting the same issues has also appeared in The Nation.  The Nation article notes that the death penalty issue has not yet come to the fore in the Senate inquiry into the firings, and argues that a "hard look" at the Bush administration's death penalty push is "long overdue" and should occur whether or not Gonzales survives the scandal.  I have to agree.  Whether or not it led to the improper firing of U.S. Attorneys, the effort to expand the death penalty to locales where it is illegal and opposed by the public violates the notion of prosecutors as public servants and representatives of the people.  It also removes from the democratic process the decision of whether or not a people will allow the state to kill in their name.

from the diaries of the tennesse dude...

holy canoli senator lasee, did you get time-warped on the set of the wild, wild,west or what???

somehow it's appropriate that he approximates the look of a 19th century gunslinger because senator lasee is spearheading the effort in wisconsin to reinstate the death penalty...the problem is senator lasee is old-school using outdated and patently untrue arguments to support his tired old position...

like, "We owe it to the victim's families of horrific murders to have the death penalty to fully institute justice towards criminals of the worst caliber,"...

so if you have something (rational, reasonable, civil, an cogent) to say to senator lasee his e-mail address is Sen.Lasee@legis.wisconsin.gov or you can call his madison office at (608) 266-3512...but remember, you're representing our side, our movement when you contact the senator so be civil and make your case based on facts and reason...

peace out <3

NOTE:  Amnesty International USA's usual system for setting up online actions is currently unavailable.  Instead, the contact information for Texas officials and the text of a sample letter will be placed in comments to this blog entry, and have been distributed by email through the Urgent Action network.  Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible.

URGENT ACTION - Vincent Gutierrez

Vincent Gutierrez, Hispanic, is scheduled to be executed in Texas on March 28th. He was sentenced to death in 1998 for the murder of Jose Cobo in 1997.

Forty-year-old US Air Force Captain Jose Cobo was shot during a carjacking in San Antonio on March 11, 1997. Three people were convicted in connection with the crime: Christopher Suaste pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of aggravated robbery in return for a sentence of 35 years in prison. He testified against his co-defendants, Vincent Gutierrez and Randy Arroyo. These two were tried jointly after the trial judge refused their request to be tried separately. Both were sentenced to death.

Vincent Gutierrez was 18 years old at the time of the murder. Randy Arroyo was aged 17. Randy Arroyo's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment in June 2005 following the US Supreme Court's Roper v. Simmons ruling three months earlier, which brought the USA into line with international law prohibiting the use of the death penalty against people who were under 18 at the time of the crime. Amnesty International had long campaigned for this outcome, and welcomed the Roper ruling.

At the 1998 trial, the jurors found the two defendants equally culpable and handed down death sentences. Today, at least six of the jurors have signed affidavits supporting the argument presented in Vincent Gutierrez's clemency petition that it is unfair that he is facing execution while Randy Arroyo is not. Amnesty International emphasizes that the power of executive clemency exists to compensate for the rigidity of the law. While Texas was following the law when it commuted the death sentence of Randy Arroyo, it would no less be serving the interest of justice and the perception of justice and fairness to commute the death sentence of Vincent Gutierrez, due to his age at the time of the same crime for which Arroyo was convicted.

At the trial, Vincent Gutierrez's lawyers presented evidence that he was a "follower" who was easily influenced by others, and that he had been a polite, quiet and non-violent child. However, their investigation appears to have been limited, and they did not discover, for example, available evidence of mental illness and sexual abuse within his family that they might have used to develop mitigating evidence on behalf of their client. For example, Vincent Gutierrez's older brother had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, and there is evidence that his father and younger brother also suffered from this serious mental illness.

Vincent Gutierrez's current lawyer has raised a claim of possible prosecutorial misconduct evidence of which has only recently emerged, in relation to the state's use of witnesses at the 1998 trial. Christopher Suaste's testimony alone was legally insufficient under Texas law, which prohibits a conviction from being based upon the testimony of an accomplice in the absence of corroborating evidence. The prosecution also presented the testimony of Sean Lowe, a friend of Suaste and an acquaintance of Gutierrez and Arroyo. Lowe was apparently present during the planning of the car theft, and had assisted in transporting Gutierrez and Arroyo before and after the crime. Although the trial court ruled that Sean Lowe was not an accomplice as a matter of law, his credibility was nevertheless in question, including because at the time he was facing proceedings in relation to a burglary offence.

However, the prosecution presented another witness, Antonio Pina, who was not associated with the defendants, and who had no apparent incentive to adjust his testimony in favor of the state. Antonio Pina was subsequently convicted of theft in another case and sentenced to imprisonment. In August 2005, he wrote to the lead prosecutor in the Gutierrez/Arroyo trial (now a state court judge) asking for his assistance in reducing his sentence. In his letter, Antonio Pina referred back to the meeting that he and the prosecutor had on that case, and stated: "You mention[ed] to me if I ever needed a favor you would help me". Vincent Gutierrez's lawyer is arguing that this statement suggests that the prosecutor had made some kind of offer to Pina in return for his testimony at the 1998 trial. Any such offer was not disclosed to the defense and the evidence of it was not revealed until October 2005: However, the prosecution presented another witness, Antonio Pina, who was not associated with the defendants, and who had no apparent incentive to adjust his testimony in favor of the state. Antonio Pina was subsequently convicted of theft in another case and sentenced to imprisonment. In August 2005, he wrote to the lead prosecutor in the Gutierrez/Arroyo trial (now a state court judge) asking for his assistance in reducing his sentence. In his letter, Antonio Pina referred back to the meeting that he and the prosecutor had on that case, and stated: "You mention[ed] to me if I ever needed a favor you would help me". Vincent Gutierrez's lawyer is arguing that this statement suggests that the prosecutor had made some kind of offer to Pina in return for his testimony at the 1998 trial. Any such offer was not disclosed to the defense and the evidence of it was not revealed until October 2005: too late for Gutierrez's appeals in the federal courts.

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

you don't hear a whle lot about john unless you're in the trenches of the movement here in the united states but insofar as he argued a case before the u.s. supreme court yesterday we wanted to give him a yell -

S.A.L.U.T.E.

john is the director of cornell's death penalty project, which conducts research on the death penalty, provides resources to other lawyers trying death penalty cases and represents individuals on death row or defendants charged with capital crimes...he was the executive director of the south carolina death penalty project, where he remained until 1996..

but john is multifaceted, a guitar player as a matter of fact...keir weyble and blume decided to form a rock band fittingly called the reprieves...their music has an energetic rock, folk sound, reminiscent of john mellencamp (sans cougar)...

it was the 6th time john has argued before scotus and those back in south carolina sure wish he was still there...

peace out <3

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

shortly after his bill (LB476) to repeal the death penalty lost by one vote today, the omaha senator said he would bring it back next year, his final year in the legislature...chambers says -- quote -- "i'm disappointed in the sense that what i wanted to happen didn't happen...but I don't consider a setback defeat."

one freakin' vote - now that's a razor thin margin... 

the bill would have replaced the death penalty with a life sentence without the chance for parole...

it was the first time senators had debated the issue in almost 20 years...senator mike flood of norfolk, who supports the death penalty, said the close vote is a sign -- quote -- "that there's a lot of thinking going on in the Legislature" about the death penalty...

question worth asking is what kind of coalition worked in advance on this legislation??? was it an effort like we have seen in new jersey, new york, north carolina, maryland, even in tennessee?

one vote - OUCH! ... we said a few blogs back how every vote counts and what you have to do to ensure every opportunity to get every last vote..

once we know we'll report back..let's lose with a final quote...

"the atmosphere has really changed since the mid-1990s," sen. dianna schimek of lincoln, who voted for repeal, said after the vote...she had thought the bill had a 50-50 chance of passing..."i used to fear for my political life because I oppose the death penalty."

okay, a setback yes but the winds are sooooooooo shifting on this issue...

peace out <3

Today is Nowruz, New Year's Day on the Iranian calendar.  The word translates literally as "new day."  In the hope that a new day without the death penalty will soon dawn, it seems appropriate today to take note of few Iranian death penalty cases that Amnesty International has designated as Urgent Actions.

Mohabbet Mahmoudi, a 45-year-old Kurdish woman from Oroumiye, was convicted of murder in 2004 and is at imminent risk of execution afte the Supreme Court upheld her death sentence.  Mohebbat Mahmoudi's lawyer reportedly did not represent her adequately at the trial.

Under Iranian law, the family of a murder victim may accept compensation (diyeh, or "blood money") in lieu of execution. The family in this case have reportedly rejected this option. However, the judiciary's Council for the
Resolution of Differences (in Persian, the Shoura-ye Hal-e Ekhtelaf) is empowered to mediate between the families of the victim and of the prisoner, with a view to having the victim's family come to an agreement to forgo their
right to retribution and accept the payment of blood money. This body appears to have not been called, though they are known to have intervened in a number of other high-profile cases.  Similarly, the judiciary's Amnesty and Clemency Commission (Komisyon-e ‘Afv va Bakhshoudegi), which  is empowered to examine cases in order to recommend a pardon or the reduction of a given sentence, appears not to have been consulted in this case.

Mohebbat Mahmoudi is married and has several children.  You can view her Urgent Action here.

Reza Alinejad, who was 17 years old at the time of his offense, is also at risk of imminent execution.  Iran is a state party to international treaties which prohibit the execution of child offenders- those who were under the age of 18
at the time of their alleged offence.

On December 26, 2002, Reza Alinejad and his friend Hadi Abedini were walking along a street in Fasa, a city near the city of Shiraz in central Iran.  According to Reza Alinejad's lawyer, the two had purchased some food, when two
men- Esmail Daroudi and Mohammad Firouzi- approached them and began to insult them and swear at them. Esmail Daroudi and Mohammad Firouzi then pulled out a nunchaku (or nun-chuks, a martial arts weapon) and began to beat Reza Alinejad and Hadi Abedini with it.

To protect himself and his friend from the attack, Reza Alinejad pulled out from his pocket a knife that he sometimes carried with him. He has said that he held out the knife in front of him with his right hand, and with his left hand
he protected his head and face from being hit by the nunchaku. In the course of the struggle, Reza Alinejad is said to have accidentally stabbed and killed Esmail Daroudi with the knife.  Despite Reza Alinejad's claim that he stabbed the man in self-defence, and two witness testimonies supporting his story, Reza Alinejad was sentenced to qesas- retribution- for murder by Section 6 of the Provincial Court in Fasa on October 4, 2003.

When the case went to the Supreme Court for approval in December 2004, this death sentence was rejected by the judge, who accepted that Reza Alinejad had acted in self-defence. In announcing his verdict, the judge acknowledged that the instigators of the dispute were the dead man and his friend, that they had attacked Reza Alinejad and Hadi Abedini with the nunchaku and had injured them, and that the stabbing by Reza Alinejad had not been intentional.

The Supreme Court sent the case back to another lower court for investigation.  The case was heard by branch 101 of Fasa Provincial Criminal Court, who on June 15, 2005 sentenced Reza Alinejad to death again, concluding that Reza could have fled the scene and had therefore acted unreasonably. On 9 May 2006, the Supreme Court upheld the death sentence.

Reza Alinejad has been detained in Adelabad prison in Shiraz since his arrest.  His death sentence could be carried out at any time.  You can view Reza Alinejad's Urgent Action here.

Six Iranian Arab men - Ali Bouazar, Kamal Nawaseri, Afnan Yousuf Azizi Bani Toruf, Salahuddin Hilali Majd Sawari, Ahmad Assadi, and Jaber Obeyat - most of them students at the University of Damascus, were arrested in the Syrian capital Damascus on March 5th.  It is believed that two of them, Ali Bouazar, who reportedly faces a death sentence in Iran, and Kamal Nawaseri, may have been forcibly returned to Iran on the day of their arrest. The remaining four men are reportedly held incommunicado at an unknown location, where they are at risk of torture and of being forcibly returned to Iran. If returned, they would face persecution and, in at least one
case, the death penalty.

According to reports, five of the six men are UN-recognized refugees and the sixth man is an asylum seeker. The Syrian authorities reportedly denied personnel from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) access to the men and have not yet confirmed whether any forcible return took place.  You can view their Urgent Action here.

I have placed the Urgent Action contact information for Iran in a comment to this entry, so as to keep it from running any longer.

from the diaries of the tennessee dude... 

a bill to revoke the death penalty and require life without parole in capital cases survived its first day of legislative debate...

is it good news or do we go ahead and say "ruh roh"...as the governor has pledged to veto the bill should it find its way to his desk???

speaker mike flood (nebraska has a unicameral legislature) offered a motion to bracket the bill until may 31st, a move designed to kill the bill for another year...lawmakers spent the entire day debating the merits of the bill with impassioned arguments on both sides...

senator steve lathrop of omaha told colleagues using retribution as an argument for the death penalty has been an illusion for victim's families...

"you have hoped for retribution...we only deliver it in 7% of the cases," says lathrop. "seven percent of the people we put on death row ultimately are killed there...to 93% of the families we say 'i'm sorry.'"...

well - it's a starting point for a cogent argument anyways...

this could be the first time the issue has advanced to the floor of the legislature in nearly 30 years...the speaker withdrew the bracket motion and a vote could come on the bill in the next couple of days...

in the meantime has anyone researched the governor thoroughly to know specifically why he'd take such a hard ass, er, i mean hard line stance??? we should at least know that so we can craft a strategic response doncha' think???

peace out <3

from the diaries of the tennessee dude... 

why it's the heart of abolition of course - the heart of nebraska's repeal movement that is...

i'm talking about longtime senator ernie chambers of omaha nebraska who is pushing a measure (LB476) that would repeal the death penalty and replace it with a life sentence without parole...the bill is second on the agenda for monday may 19th and his fellow senators say they expect the debate to take a while...

while it has been nearly 20 years since lawmakers debated on the nebraska floor whether to repeal the death penalty chambers has introduced bills to repeal it every legislative term for more than 30 years...

the closest senator chambers came to having the law changed was in 1979, when his bill passed on a 26-22 vote but was vetoed by then-governor charles thone...

for a quick new story click here...

so here's our shout out to the moral center of nebraska's legislature - woot woot!

peace out <3

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

"Abolishing the capital punishment has been a global trend, and we will eventually work toward that direction," ...

 as a long time amnesty international activist and now organizer i know that abolition of the death penalty is a statistically significant trend - in fact about 2 countries a year have abolished the death penalty since 1976...

and i also know that as a citizen of the united states that my country has been in the top five countries in the world in number of annual executions for some time (in no small measure thanks to the state of texas all by its lonesome)...so it was interesting for me to identify from which country the above quote came from yesterday...want to venture a guess???

well i'm pretty sure you'll never guess without googling first so let's cut to the chase...CHINA!!!

whoooooooooooooooa nellie - i mean china is consistently and with out challenge the number one state sponsored killer via public policy in the world, sort of like texas on steroids (in fact let's comb through the balco records a little more thoroughly)...that's amazing, really!

so yesterday, ni shouming, a spokesman for the highest court, said china has no timetable for abolishing the death penalty although it may eventually do so in line with international practice...so i repeat this is the word coming out of china yesterday, of all places...

"abolishing the capital punishment has been a global trend, and we will eventually work toward that direction," ni shouming told china daily...

for the full article click here...and for an op-ed piece pubolished in the china daily click here...

peace out <3

The Washington Post reported this afternoon that a bill to repeal capital punishment in Maryland failed in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee by one vote.  Attempts were made at compromise, but failed in the end when senator Brian E. Frosh (D-Montgomery) demanded an up-or-down vote on the full repeal.  Today's failure likely puts an end to efforts to repeal capital punishment during this legislative session.

from the diaries of the tennessee dude... 

as organizers and as human beings we are fallible, our performance can be inconsistent, we may battle fatigue (of many types), and yet many of us push ourselves to the limit because, in the end, we know that its a cumulative process and each and every relationship, the tiniest detail, the seemingly flimsiest opportunity may make THE difference...

what the h, e, double heck am in talking about???

uh, maryland...and the effort to repeal the death penalty in that state...you see after years of organizing, coalition building, and relationship developing that state is on the verge of something momentous, maybe tomorrow, arguably messianic to the movement...you see we are expecting a senate committee vote tomorrow march 15th (yeah, i know, beware the ides of march yadda yadda) that in the end may hinge on the decision of one person - senator alex x. mooney of frederick, maryland...

senator mooney is a republican and a catholic and he is undecided on what to do when that vote comes up tomorrow...and he sat through part of a news conference hosted by maryland citizens against state executions at which many former prison and law enforcement officials spoke as their opposition to the death penalty...and you better believe that part of the lesson for organizers coming out of new york, new jersey, maryland, and north carolina is that you need law enforcement figures publicly supporting your challenge to this public policy...

but back to mooney...like former governor ryan in illinois it's not hard to believe that senator mooney is conflicted and struggling over what to do, but i'll bet my bottom dollar (or just my bottom) that organizers like jane henderson and shari silberstein (and i mention them specifically out of hundreds of people who have been working tirelessly to get to this point because i know them personally) have faced their fallibility, battled fatigue late at night and early in the morning, and literally pushed themselves to the very limits of their capacity because they know that every angle has to be considered, every ramification must be included in their calculations, every possible outcome needs to be thought through in order to get to this point so that when and if it does come down to one person they know that every thing within their grasp to bring about the outcome they seek has been done...

so regardless of how senator mooney votes tomorrow and whether or not the bill goes to the senate and whether or not maryland abolishes its death penalty statute i know that these organizers have given their all and i am both proud and reduced to humility just to know and be motivated by them...

and i'm betting that if senator mooney has the conscious and wisdom to do what's best for the people of maryland in this instance the smart, savvy, and stout-hearted coalition organizers and volunteers in maryland had everything to do with his finding and embracing the better angel of his nature...

peace out <3

from the diaries of the tennessee dude...

down in georgia the republican leadership is pushing a bill that wouild make it much easier for prosecutors to get a death sentence from a jury...and it has a good chance of passing...

hb 185 would allow for death sentences even if the jury votes as low as 9-3...and that spells trouble in a state where people in atlanta are still referred to as yankees...in other words a defendant in georgia could be sentenced to die even if up to three members of the jury in the case voted against the death penalty, under a bill that cleared a hurdle in the lawmaking process at the state capitol on monday...

about 3 weeks ago republican majority whip barry fleming - ironically from a town called harlem - testified before a house subcommittee in favor of his bill and, well, he lied...did he do it intentionaly or simply out of ignorance - who knows...in spite of energetic opposition the comittee voted 7-1 to send the bill to the full judiciary committee...

here's the problem technically speaking...georgia's death penalty system is already one of the most inaccurate in the country (in broken system I the error rate of reversal was 80%)...and what liebman et. al. revealed in broken system II is that the higher the rate at which a state or county imposes death verdicts, the greater the probability that each death verdict will have to be reversed because of serious error..the lower the rate at which a state imposes death sentences-and the more it confines those verdicts to the worst of the worst-the less likely it is that serious error will be found...the fewer death verdicts a state imposes, the less overburdened its capital appeal system is, and the more likely it is to carry out the verdicts it imposes...

so if hb 185 passes a state with a terrible track record will see a rise in its error rate...meaning an ever increasing waste of taxpayer dollars...

question is, when did the republican leadership in georgia decide its party should become a tax and spend party throwing unlimited $$$ at a problem in hopes that it will diminish it or go away??? hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

peace out <3