Death Penalty

Death Penalty Opposer: ...there is always a chance that an innocence person may be executed.  Over 120 people have been exonerated from death row since reinstatement in the USA and there are many cases where there is significant evidence that people who have been executed were actually innocent (see here for at least nine examples).

Death Penalty Supporter: But in this day and age DNA and other technology exist that can prove guilt beyond a doubt so we no longer have to worry about executing the wrong person...

Sure, this is true in many ways, DNA and other forensic scientific advances have played a large role in criminal trials of late.  Yet, DNA evidence, such as blood, semen, and hair, is only available in a small percentage of crime scenes.  Therefore, we do still need to worry about executing the innocent.

And you would think, or at least I would, that due to the strength of DNA evidence and due to the small number of cases involving it, this country would do everything in its power to use the DNA when available. 

But noooo. This is not the case.  We have blogged before about the case of Thomas Arthur , so I will not repeat all the details right here.  Let's just say that he may be guilty of the crime for which he has been on death row for the past 20 years, but there are plenty of reasons to doubt it as well.  And there is plenty of DNA samples to test to prove it either way.  There is a rape kit, blood-stained clothes and hair samples. All of which have never been tested.  Why?  Well, mainly because the tests were not around in the 80's.  But now that they are, why not test them to see if Thomas is innocent as he has always maintained?

Well, apparently he missed a deadline to file a legal challenge, so the courts have all denied his appeals.  Even the US Supreme Court refused to hear the appeal because of this technicality.  But Alabama does not provide lawyers for post-conviction appeals, so how could he have made the date on time?  Thomas is caught in yet another death penalty catch-22 scenario.  What to do, what to do?  Well the governor could order the testing, and considering the importance of ensuring no innocent is executed, you would think, or at least I would, that he would jump right on that, but he hasn't.  Instead, his original response was to deny the need for tests emphatically.  However, Tuscaloosa News has reported that Gov Riley has now asked The Innocence Project for information on DNA testing. Yay, this is a step in the right direction!

My hope echoes the last statement of the Tuscaloosa piece; that "the governor ultimately advocates for mandatory DNA tests in Alabama murder cases." The more immediate hope is that he at least orders the tests for Arthur's case.  But people, let's do more than hope.  Send letters!!!

Although Amnesty International (and me personally) believes that the death penalty should be abolished completely, I think that this is an issue both supporters for the DP and abolitionists can agree upon: if DNA tests can be used, they should be used. We need to eliminate the possibility of executing an innocent life! (Of course the best way to do this is to not have the death penalty at all....)

So, Please contact Governor Riley and other applicable persons and appeal for DNA testing. (Below is information from AI's full Urgent Action for Thomas Arthur. Please visit here to see it.)

FURTHER RECOMMENDED ACTION: Please send appeals to arrive as quickly as possible, in English or your own language, in your own words:

- explaining that you are not seeking to condone the manner of Troy Wicker's death;

- noting that Thomas Arthur was convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the testimony of Judy Wicker, who has committed perjury and was providing testimony in return for assistance with her parole bid;

- expressing concern that Thomas Arthur has not had a judicial hearing on evidence of his innocence, and that the State of Alabama is resisting modern DNA testing of evidence from the crime;

- calling on the governor to allow such testing to take place, noting that a number of errors have been uncovered in capital cases throughout the USA, some as a result of DNA testing;

- expressing concern that Alabama set a new execution date in this case despite moves across the USA to halt executions pending the US Supreme Court's consideration of the lethal injection issue;

- opposing the execution of Thomas Arthur, and noting that in contrast to his death sentence Judy Wicker served 10 years in prison having been convicted of the murder, and that two other people implicated in the murder were apparently not even investigated.

APPEALS TO:

Governor Bob Riley, State Capitol, 600 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, AL 36130, USA

Fax:  +1 334 353 0004

Email, via Governor's website at: http://www.alabamainteractive.org/alabamainteractive_shell/Welcome.do?url=http://governor.alabama.gov

Salutation:       Dear Governor

COPIES TO: diplomatic representatives of the USA accredited to your country.

PLEASE SEND APPEALS IMMEDIATELY.

We can change the world!

PADP Intern

The controversy regarding the deterrent effect of capital punishment has gained momentum these days... It seems to have begun this time around with the publication of Adler and Summer's November 2, 2007 commentary in the Wall Street Journal regarding their own findings.  The two compiled the simple yet shocking graph (found at the above link) that compares the number of executions in a year with the number of murders in the same year.  The finding suggests that as executions increase, the number of murders across the USA decrease.  In fact, they state that "each execution carried out is correlated with 74 fewer murders the following year."

Other recent studies have stated similarly, but none so astonishing, that executions save lives. Mocan's 2003 study found each execution reduces murders by 5 and each removal from death row (leaving death row through any cause other than execution or other death, i.e. clemency) results in an average of one additional murder per year.

The danger is, as this article points out, that these findings are taken for granted as true- A scientist/economist/other'ists' did this work so it must be true; a creditable, sometimes peer-reviewed, journal published it, so it must be true; and a reputable newspaper such as the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times, printed the findings so it must be true.  However, while these studies may have a seemingly creditable path and therefore seem to solidify the argument of the death penalty as deterrence, there is madness in the methods used (and perhaps, method to this madness).  Both of these studies are highly controversial because of the statistical methods used and huge gaping holes in their work.

To name a few of the many errors, the Alder and Summers study combines states with the death penalty and those without for both the number of executions and the number of murders. Meaning, the high number of executions of, say, Texas, are being used in this study to explain the low murder rate of Rhode Island, a non-death penalty state. Yet, a simple comparison between states with and states without the death penalty show that states without the death penalty consistently have lower murder rates than those with (In 2006 the comparison is thus: those with DP = 5.1 per 100,000 people and without = 3.1). 

Further, both of these studies (Adler and Summers and Mocan) are essentially accounting the climb in murders to a lack of executions.  When the reader looks at the above-mentioned graph (from Adler and Summers commentary), it seems obvious that, yes, as the number of murders go up the number of executions go down.  However, if we look at these other two graphs, we see that the pattern of ups and downs in the murder rate through the years is the same for states with the death penalty and states without and for the US which has the dp and Canada, which does not, however, as mentioned above, the states without the dp have always had a lower murder rate than those with dp. And the other graph shows Canada has always had a lower rate than the USA.  If the deterrence argument was true, the opposite would be shown in these patterns, where the non-death penalty states would have higher murder rates than the states with, and Canada would have a higher rate than the USA.

Moreover, deterrence studies in general are unreliable because of the small number of executions and even smaller number of clemencies/stays.  Only 9 dp states have an average of more than one execution/year. Any intro to statistics class will tell you the lower the number in your sample, the more likely the event (in this case the increase or decrease in the murder rate) may be due to chance or other factors than by your variable (executions and release). 

Then there are the other factors- I feel like a broken record, but race, poverty and geography play a role in this sentence.  How then can the death penalty be a true deterrent if the vast majority of those executed are poor people who killed a white person in Texas? If I am rich and I want to kill a non-white person (continuing the assumption that potential killers are rationally thinking all of this through and therefore has the potential to be deterred), will I be deterred?

Neither of these studies looks at the effects of other sentencing either.  Does life without parole have higher or lower or equally deterrent effect? What about more reconciliatory sentences?

Clearly there is, as always, more than meets the eyes in this continuing saga of deterrence.

A HUGE congratulations to everyone around the world who worked so hard for passage of this resolution!  Amnesty International released this statement just moments ago ...

Amnesty International Welcomes UN's Landmark Decision on Global Moratorium on Executions

(New York) -- Today's call for a global moratorium on executions by the U.N. General Assembly's Third Committee is an "historic resolution and major step towards the abolition of the death penalty worldwide," Amnesty International said.

The landmark decision had cross-regional support and was co-sponsored by 87 states from around the world.

The resolution was adopted by 99 countries in favor, 52 against and 33 abstentions. The General Assembly is expected to endorse the decision in a plenary session in December.

"Amnesty International calls on all countries to establish a moratorium on executions as soon as the General Assembly endorses the resolution later this year," said Irene Khan, Amnesty International's Secretary General.

In 1971 and 1977 the General Assembly adopted two resolutions on capital punishment, saying that it was "desirable" for states to abolish the death penalty.

Today's resolution goes further, calling on states that still maintain the death penalty "to establish a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty". It urges these states "to respect international standards that provide safeguards guaranteeing the protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty" and "progressively restrict the use of the death penalty and reduce the number of offences for which it may be imposed."

The resolution also requests the U.N. Secretary-General to report to the General Assembly in 2008 on the implementation of the resolution.

"Today's decision -- adopted by the UN's highest political body with universal membership -- is a clear recognition of the growing international trend towards worldwide abolition of the death penalty, endorsed by the UN Secretary-General," said Irene Khan. "It is a crucial step forward in creating a death penalty free-world -- as envisaged by the General Assembly three decades ago."

Although the resolution is not legally binding on states, it carries considerable moral and political weight, as it was adopted by the UN's principal organ in which all UN members participate.

"Establishing a moratorium on executions is an important tool to convince states still using the death penalty to engage in a nationwide debate and to review their laws on capital punishment. If death penalty laws are under review, it is only fair to stop executing people in the meantime," said Irene Khan.

The cross-regional initiative for a global moratorium on executions was led by ten countries: Albania, Angola, Brazil, Croatia, Gabon, Mexico, New Zealand, the Philippines, Portugal (for the EU) and Timor Leste.

Background information

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases, without exception. The death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights -- the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life as proclaimed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.

So far, 133 countries have abolished the death penalty in law or practice. Only 25 countries actually carried out executions in 2006. In 2006, 91 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan and the United States. Amnesty International's statistics also show an overall decline in the number of executions in 2006 -- a recorded 1,591 executions, compared to 2,148 in 2005.

# # #

For more information, please visit: www.amnestyusa.org/abolish

Looks like New Jersey will be the next State to abolish the death penalty.  NJ legislators will vote in December on whether or not to get rid of this ultimate and irreversible punishment. (Associated Press.)

Here is a little history: New Jersey has had the death penalty option since 1982, a few years after the US Supreme Court reinstated it in the Gregg v Georgia case (1976).  Currently, there are 8 men on NJ's death row; however, no one has been executed in NJ since reinstatement (the last execution in NJ took place in 1963) (See here for more information).

In January 2006, NJ imposed a state-wide moratorium to allow a commission to examine the state's death penalty policy. The commission's findings, delivered on January 2, 2007, include the following:

(1) There is no compelling evidence that the New Jersey death penalty rationally serves a legitimate penological intent.

(2) There is increasing evidence that the death penalty is inconsistent with evolving standards of decency.

(3) The penological interest in executing a small number of persons guilty of murder is not sufficiently compelling to justify the risk of making an irreversible mistake.

(4) The alternative of life imprisonment in a maximum security institution without the possibility of parole would sufficiently ensure public safety and address other legitimate social and penological interests, including the interests of the families of murder victims.

(For the Commission's full report, go here.) 

With this in mind, NJ's legislators have moved to reduce NJ's ultimate punishment to life without parole.  If this legislation passes, New Jersey will be the first state to revoke the death penalty.

The first of many to come.

PADP Intern

Today, November 13, 2007, as this entry is being written, Troy Anthony Davis' appeal is being herd by the Georgia Supreme Court.  Many of you may remember that Troy came within 24 hours of execution this summer, despite strong evidence that he is innocent of the murder of police officer Mark MacPhail.  A good discussion took place on our blog then, and you can view it here.   Need a refresher on the facts of this case?  You can view them here. 

On August 3^rd, the Georgia Supreme Court agreed to hear Troy Davis' discretionary appeal from the denial of his extraordinary motion for a new trial, and you can see oral arguments here.  For all you non lawyers out there, this means that today's hearing is only about the lower court's denial of a new trial - it is not a new trial itself.  Amnesty International cannot say for sure that Troy is innocent, but we do believe that all evidence must have a chance to be heard in court.  Fairness must matter for Troy Davis - please be sure to sign the petition!

The past 16 years that Troy has spent on death row have been a most difficult and painful ordeal, both for Troy's family and for the family of Officer MacPhail - check out the recent stories in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and listen here to Troy, in his own words, speak about his experience:

You should never be able to convict a man or even indict a person...without any physical evidence,'

And listen to him thank Amnesty members and his supports worldwide for all their hard work and support:

I want to thank everyone all over  the world who has been praying for me, supporting me, writing letters, and signing petitions...I want to encourage people to continue to sign the Amnesty petitions, and continue to write letters and look into my situation because this situation could have happened to anyone... 

We don't know when the court will rule, but it may not be until early next year.  Keep checking our website for updates, and, please, be sure to sign the petition. 

This weekend, on November 3, Saudi Arabia executed a man, Mustafa Ibrahim, an Egyptian national, for "witchcraft".  This is not unheard of, though it is rare and most executions in Saudi Arabia are for violent crimes like rape or murder, or for drug trafficking crimes.  Charges of witchcraft (sometimes translated as "sorcery") in Saudi Arabia usually in reality involve other, less supernatural, transgressions.  According to an Agence France Presse report in Qatar's daily The Peninsula, citing the government-run Saudi Press Agency, Mr. Ibrahim was executed after confessing (in Saudi Arabia there is almost always a confession) to:

"[A]dultery with a woman" and to "insulting the Holy Quran," by "putting it in a toilet."

AFP further explains that Mr. Ibrahim:

[W]as exposed after a foreign resident sued him for practicing sorcery aimed at causing him to split with his wife, and authorities found suspicious books and artifacts in his home.

This appears to have more to do with a sordid love-triangle than anything involving magic spells or conjuring.  Sadly, the Saudi Arabian criminal justice system is so malleable and easily manipulated, that one can be beheaded for behavior that does not warrant execution even under Saudi Arabia's expansive death penalty laws.

This year, executions in Saudi Arabia are proceeding at a record pace, with over 140 beheadings so far, in stark contrast to last year when there were only 39 documented executions (14 less than in the United States).  For reasons about which there can be endless speculation, the number of executions in Saudi Arabia has skyrocketed, though, as always, foreign nationals from Africa and Asia bear the disproportionate brunt.

Perhaps the reason is related to severe regional instability, for the same sharp increase in executions can be seen in Iraq (where a moratorium imposed by Paul Bremer has been lifted and the number of executions has mounted, despite President Jalal Talabani's personal opposition to the death penalty), and in Iran, where almost 250 people have been killed by the state so far in 2007.  Iran is also distinguishing itself as the world's leader, and practically the world's only, executioner of juvenile offenders - those who were under age 18 at the time of the crime.  (Saudi Arabia did execute one juvenile offender, Dhahian Rakan al-Sibai'i, earlier this year and another, Rizana Nafeek, is still at risk).  When this practice was banished from the U.S. by the Supreme Court in 2005 it looked like, globally, executions of juvenile offenders were on the way out (the U.S. was one of the few countries in the world still doing it at the time).  But Iran has brought the practice back, and there are currently over 70 - that's Seventy - juvenile offenders on Iran's death row.  

Three of them are subjects of current Amnesty International Urgent Actions: Ali Mahin Torabi, Soghra Najafpour, and Makwan Moloudzadeh.

The death penalty is just one of the many sources of violence and human rights violations currently endured by residents of the Middle East, but its use, and its abuse, appears to be growing. 

Brian - PADP

As a Canadian interning to abolish the death penalty in the USA and worldwide, I was shocked today to read that Canada's government has said it will not seek clemency for Canadians who face the death penalty outside of Canada.

Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day announced in the House of Commons on Thursday that "his government will not plead for the life of Alberta-born Ronald Allen Smith, who faces lethal injection in Montana", nor for any Canadians tried for murder in a democratic country: "It would send a wrong message. We want to preserve public safety here in Canada."

Yet, Canada has had a firm anti-death penalty stance since it completely abolished capital punishment in 1976 (the last state-sanctioned execution was in 1962).  It has long fought against attempts by other countries to execute its citizens and has a treaty with the USA specifically stating Canada will not extradite any American suspect who might face the death penalty once returned to the US. Canada has also been a leading voice in the worldwide abolition movement, and is one of the 72 countries advocating for the UN Resolution for an International Moratorium on the Death Penalty. 

What I would like to know is how following Canada's laws and traditions on the death penalty would only now, after decades of this clear abolitionist history, send the ‘wrong message' and how public safety suddenly be endangered by seeking clemency for its citizens.  Did chaos ensue after each, or any, of the previous individuals were returned to Canada? The ‘logic' astounds me. No, it outright escapes me.

No one ever said that Canada had to ask for Smith or future convicted murderers to be returned to Canada so the prisoner could be released immediately back onto the streets.  Instead, Canada merely seeks a commutation to a life sentence.  So, what is the ‘wrong message' if this were done?  That Canada respects human rights as it has for the past 31 years and that it demands that its citizens be treated according to Canadian law and standards?  And how is public safety affected by this? Smith would still be in prison, not running haphazardly around Canada or the USA killing people. Nor would it send the message to anyone planning to go to the USA to kill someone that they will get away scot-free.

Instead, the messages this Canadian government is sending out are plenty and none are positive:

1^st this decision says, as Liberal MP Dan McTeague accused, that this government is "trying to do indirectly that which they cannot do directly - which is capital punishment by proxy." 

2^nd, this decision implies that human rights for some are less important than for others, and when this happens we are always faced with that slippery slope: first we allow other countries to torture for us in the name of national security (yes Canada has been accused of this as well as the US), now we are allowing them to kill our criminals, what is next?

3^rd the message I received loud and clear is that this government feels it can do as it pleases without consulting its citizenship.  Was there a poll of Canadians asking if they agreed with this, or a referendum? Did Prime Minister Harper or MP Day even debate this decision with the opposition, or do anything that would resemble having support from Canadians  for this? (FYI, a Gallop Poll in December 2005 found that only 44% of Canadians support the death penalty.)  I, for one Canadian, do not remember being asked.

Instead, this decision to not seek clemency for Canadian citizens facing the death penalty abroad was so out of the blue that the government employees at Foreign Affairs " assumed that Canada's policy would continue, [and] indicated last week that they would seek to have Smith's sentence commuted (Canadian Press).

As a Canadian citizen, I can only hope my government realizes its decision does not reflect the ideology of respect for human rights, nor the principles that we Canadians pride ourselves for.  Further, I stand beside Amnesty International and "[call] on the Canadian government to immediately reverse this dangerous and inhumane policy decision, which conflicts with Canada's human rights treaty commitments, with the clemency policies of all other abolitionist countries and with the worldwide trend toward the complete elimination of the death penalty."  (To read Amnesty International Canada's statement, click here.)

To all concerned individuals, whether Canadian or not, we do have a voice. Use yours by calling, faxing, emailing or writing your MP, newspapers, Stockwell Day and/or Prime Minister Harper.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper

Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2Fax: 613-941-6900

pm@pm.gc.ca

Federal Minister of Public Safety Stockwell Day

In Ottawa:
House of Commons
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A6
Phone: 613.995.1702
Fax: 613.995.1154
Email: javascript:%20expCustomLink('mailto:day.s@parl.gc.ca');

In the Riding:
Suite 202, 301 Main Street
Penticton, BC V2A 5B7
Phone: 250.770.4480
Fax: 250.770.4484
Email: javascript:%20expCustomLink('mailto:days1@parl.gc.ca');

Members of Parliament (to discover who your MP is, visit here)

Mail may be sent postage-free to any Member at the following address:

House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A6

We can change this.

PADP Intern

The community of Sant'egidio and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, have amassed 5 million signatures calling for a moratorium on executions which they are to present to the President of the UN General Assembly.

WORLD COALITION AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY

PRESS RELEASE

PRESIDENT OF UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY TO RECEIVE 5 MILLION SIGNATURES CALLING FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS COLLECTED WORLDWIDE BY THE COMMUNITY OF SANT'EGIDIO AND THE WORLD COALITION AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY.

The call for a moratorium on executions will be presented to the President of the General Assembly of the United Nations, Mr. Srgian Kerim, on Friday, Nov. 2, at 10.30 am. A delegation of the Community of Sant'Egidio and the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty will deliver more than five million signatures collected worldwide on a petition to the General Assembly calling for a global moratorium on executions.

The delegation led by Mario Marazziti, Spokesperson for the Community of Sant'Egidio, will include, among others, Sister Helen Prejean, leading American advocate of  the abolition of the death penalty and the woman behind the movie Dead Man Walking, Yvonne Terlingen, Head of Amnesty International's UN Office in New York, Renny Cushing, Marie Verzulli and Bill Babbitt from Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, an international organization of victims' family members and family members of the executed, Speedy Rice, lawyer, representative of the National Association of Criminal Defence Lawyers, Elizabeth Zitrin, member of the executive board of Death Penalty Focus.

The delegation will meet the President of the General Assembly. The General Assembly will consider a draft resolution calling for a global moratorium on executions. Angola, Albania, Brazil, Croatia, Gabon, New Zealand, Mexico, the Philippines, Portugal (for the EU) and New Zealand are presenting the text as a cross-regional initiative.

A press conference will be held at 11 am at UNCA CLUB, UN, Room 326, at the Third Floor of UN Headquarters.

In videos released on the eve of the presentation of the Resolution to the Community of Sant'Egidio, Rev. Rowan Williams, Primate of the Church of England (London), Adolfo Perez Esquivel, Nobel Peace Prize laureate (Buenos Aires), Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, President of the Pontifical Council Justice and Peace (Vatican City) and Siti Musdah Muliva, Moslem theologian at the University of Jakarta, will give statements on the death penalty and the campaign for a Moratorium.

Abolish Intern DC

The Alabama Supreme Court has scheduled Thomas Arthur to be executed on December 6.  The Court also scheduled James Harvey Callahan for execution on January 31.  DNA tests that could remove serious doubts about Arthur's guilt have still not taken place, despite ample time, and absolutely no good reason not to.   As the Birmingham news said on September 25:

[Governor Bob] Riley's refusal is beyond disappointing, and it's beyond logic. ... Before inflicting a punishment that can't be undone, the state of Alabama should be eager to order DNA testing in cases where any biological evidence is available. Indeed, such testing in old cases should be available by law, as it is already in 42 states. Unfortunately, in Alabama, the test rests in the hands of the governor. Once again, Riley has failed that test.

Alabama's execution protocol, however, has been upgraded.  On September 27, Governor Riley granted a temporary reprieve to Thomas Arthur (to tinker with the state's lethal injection procedure, not to order DNA tests).  Almost a month later, it was revealed that the State had devised a new Consciousness Test:

...a prison guard will call the inmate by name, brush his eyelashes with a finger and pinch his arm ... 

This new procedure is designed to ensure that the condemned prisoner is out cold and will not feel the potentially excruciating pain of the drugs that will kill him.  Unlike DNA tests, however, the accuracy of the arm-pinch test has yet to be determined, and there are, as far as I can tell, no guidelines for how hard the pinch should be, for what duration, and on what part of the arm, etc. etc.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Alabama officials attacked the October 29 ABA report that called for a moratorium on executions in Alabama and several other states.  (The death penalty in Alabama has lots of problems in addition to disregarding readily available DNA evidence.)  The attack Alabama officials launched on the ABA report came with one small caveat: they had not actually read the report ... The Governor's spokesman, Jeff Emerson, told the Tuscaloosa News:

We haven't read the report, but I can say the governor supports the death penalty and opposes a moratorium.

Alabama's leaders apparently don't want to read reports, or test evidence, that might disrupt their view that the death penalty in their state is perfectly fine and all is well ... We are going to have to pinch pretty hard, and for a pretty long time, to wake these guys up ...

We can start by taking action here to demand that DNA tests be carried out in the case of Thomas Arthur.

Brian - PADP