Death Penalty

Cuba's death penalty is usually carried out by firing squad but Cuba is ceasing the fire. Past Monday, new Cuban President Raul Castro announced that all death sentences had been commuted to prison terms of 30 years to life, with the exception of 3 people charged with terrorism.

Elizardo Sánchez, president of the dissident Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, said that according to his group's estimates, around 30 people on death row will benefit from the decision. Some of them have been awaiting execution for more than 10 years.

"This decision was not undertaken because of pressure, but as a sovereign act in line with the humanitarian and ethical conduct that has characterized the Cuban revolution from the start," said Raul Castro. He also noted that party leader Fidel Castro supports -when favorable conditions exist- the elimination of the death penalty for any type of crime and opposes the extrajudicial methods that some well-known countries shamelessly practice. He clarified that this agreement by the Council of State does not mean the elimination of capital punishment in the Cuban Penal Code, noting that under current circumstances the country dismantle itself before an empire that has not ceased to harass and attack the island.

Just 3 people have been executed since 2000, all of them involved in a failed 2003 boat hijacking. Now 3 men remained in death row: Salvadoran nationals Raúl Ernesto Cruz and Otto René Rodríguez, who were sentenced to death in 1999, and Cuban citizen Humberto Eladio Real. The two Salvadoran citizens were convicted of carrying out a string of terrorist bombings in tourism establishments in Havana in the summer of 1997, one of which resulted in the death of an Italian businessman. While the Cuban citizen, Real, was arrested in 1994 after illegally landing in Cuba and murdering a man in order to steal his car. He was sentenced for crimes against the security of the state, homicide and the illegal use of firearms.

Cuba's penal code establishes the death penalty for crimes against the country's external security, including acts aimed at undermining its independence or territorial integrity, the promotion of armed actions against Cuba, aiding the enemy, and espionage. Capital punishment was also reserved in Cuba for the most serious cases of homicide, rape, sexual abuse of minors involving violence, robbery involving violence and intimidation, and crimes in which corruption serves as an aggravating factor. But the death penalty cannot be applied in the case of people under 20 or women who were pregnant at the time the crime was committed or when the sentence was handed down. In practice, no woman has been executed since the 1959 revolution.

Since taking over from his ailing brother Fidel Castro in February, Raul Castro has lifted a number of restrictions on daily life, from owning cell phones to entering tourist hotels. Cuba in early March signed 2 important United Nations human rights agreements long opposed by Fidel Castro.

While Cuba seems to be moving forward, on the other hand the U.S is failing to comply with international agreements and it is reinstating the death penalty. What would happen if Cuba abolishes the death penalty before the United States? The U.S. criticizes Cuba for all the human rights violations that still persists in the Island but if Cuba abolishes the death penalty it would be one step ahead of the U.S. I am not saying Cuba's problems and human rights violations have suddenly disappear and I know some things are not as they appear; we still need to be on the look out for Cuba's human rights infringements. What I'm saying is that the U.S. proud itself for being a democratic country which protects human rights but a socialist country is doing the right thing, commuting death sentences, while the U.S. is stuck in prehistoric practices like the capital punishment.

~Tania, DPAC intern

The death penalty is arbitrary, unfair, not a deterrence of crime, more costly than life imprisonment and, moreover, it is a human rights violation that is taking away the lives of people who well may be innocent. More than 126 prisoners have been released form U.S. death row since 1976, because they were found innocent after spending years imprisoned. More than 100 countries around the world have abolished the death penalty and if all this wasn't enough, other countries, our allies have denounced the U.S. for the capital punishment. Now, the European Union is asking the United States to halt executions and it is not the first time they have appealed to the U.S. government to abolish the death penalty. What is it going to take for the U.S. to abolish the death penalty?

Friday 25, 2008 the European Union protested the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to allow the use of lethal injection as a means for carrying out the death penalty and it asked Governor Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky to commute the execution of a convicted cop-killer. "The European Union notes with disappointment the U.S. Supreme Court's decision on this case and renews its call on Gov. Ernie Fletcher to commute the sentence" an EU statement said.

The EU also restated its opposition to capital punishment and encouraged the United States to reinstate the de-facto moratorium to allow a thorough nationwide debate. None of the 27 members of the EU has the death penalty.

~Tania, DPAC intern

The Dallas Morning News reported yesterday that prosecutors in Dallas, Texas have decided to take a second look at convictions in which DNA evidence CANNOT exclusively prove guilt or innocence.  This is a welcome extension to a decision a year ago by Dallas District Attorney Craig Watkins and The Innocence Project of Texas to review convictions in the state amid a wave of DNA exonerations.

An expansion of this review is certainly good news.  DNA is an important, and relatively new, tool that can often prove guilt or innocence in one single test and The Innocence Project has done great work expaning the use of DNA testing when it is available.  But, there are many cases in which DNA does not exist - or, if it does, cannot prove guilt.  The increased availability of DNA testing has proven what some have been arguing, unsuccessfully, for quite some time - that wrongful convictions happen, and that they happen way too often.  So with this information, we must also assume that there are many cases of wrongful convictions out there that cannot be proven by DNA testing or in which DNA testing does not exist.  We owe it to these men and women to not only change the laws and procedures that allowed them to be wrongfully incarcerated, but to take a step back and review their cases as well.

According to The Innocence Project of Texas, 31 individuals in Texas alone have been exonerated by DNA testing, and several more on other grounds - more than any other state in the U.S.  Nationally, 216 individuals have been exonerated thanks to DNA testing - some of whom also faced the death penalty! 

These numbers show us that we must take a serious look back at cases where DNA doesn't necessarily provide a quick answer.  Cases such as Troy Anthony Davis in Georgia prove that the system does not always work, and we have to find ways to correct mistakes that will inevitably occur.  Can we as a nation morally accept this incredible injustice?  Yes, most who are convicted are in fact guilty and should be in prison, but if 1 in 500 is incarcerated for a crime that they did not commit, then that is 1 too many!

~ Jessie Cohn, AIUSA-DPAC

Amnesty International's Annual General Meeting (AGM) will be held this week-end (April 25-28th, 2008) in Washington, DC.

It will be the occasion for activists from all over the world to gather, share their vision of a fairer world and above all go on seeking solutions together. The meeting will feature talented speakers (such as AIUSA Secretary General Irene Khan) who will share their experiences and speak out against human rights violations.

The AGM this year will feature not one, not two, but THREE exciting Death Penalty events!

On Friday the 25^th, campaign team staff will lead a workshop titled "messages that connect with death penalty supporters" (from 2:00 to 3:30 pm).  This workshop will challenge activists to move beyond their comfort zone and engage in more emotionally-charged arguments waged by our traditional opposition.

Immediately following the workshop (from 3:45 to 5:00 pm), a screening of the film "At the Death House door" will be followed by a panel discussion with specialists: the two filmmakers Peter Gilbert and Steve James, former Texas prison chaplain Rev. Carroll Pickett (who is featured in the film), and former Texas prosecutor Sam Millsap. Death Penalty Abolition Campaign Director Sue Gunawardena-Vaughn will moderate.

Saturday's panel session, titled "Preaching beyond the choir: engaging ‘unusual suspects' in the Death Penalty Debate" will focus on new campaigning strategies to help activists reach out to new constituencies. Panelists, including moderator Virginia Sloan, President of the Constitution Project, Laura Porter, Director of Organizing at Equal Justice USA, Ronald Hampton, Executive Director of National Black Police Association, and Sam Millsap, former Texas District Attorney, participants will build on their knowledge of death penalty issues while developing communication, messaging and organizing skills to put to use in their respective states.

For a detailed program click here.

We're looking forward to seeing you!

Mathilde

DPAC intern

In my previous post on the Baze v. Rees decision, I noted that Justice Alito, in a separate concurring opinion, raised the question of doctor participation in executions, and argued that an alternative to a current execution protocol can't be considered "feasible" or "readily available" if that alternative requires "participation - either in carrying out the execution or in training those who carry out the execution - by persons whose professional ethics rules or traditions impede their participation."

So, according to Alito, you can't argue that participation of medical professionals would reduce the risk of pain, because they can't participate due to their ethical commitments. 

But this argument is questionable at best, given that health professionals do participate in executions, including in Kentucky.

As Justice Roberts describes the Kentucky protocol in the plurality opinion, "[a] physician is present to assist in any effort to revive the prisoner in the event of a last-minute stay of execution."  Yet, AMA Guidelines cited by Justice Alito, which prohibit physician participation, state that "[p]hysician participation in an execution includes ... attending or observing an execution as a physician."  That's precisely what doctors are asked to do in Kentucky, so, clearly, a doctor would be in violation of these AMA Guidelines if he did as the Kentucky protocol requires.

In addition, as is repeatedly mentioned in the Supreme Court's Baze opinions, Emergency Medical Technicians (EMTs) are an integral part of the execution process in Kentucky, inserting the IV catheters that deliver the poisonous drugs into the prisoner's veins.  Yet, again, as Justice Alito himself notes, citing the NAEMT position statement, "[t]he National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians (NAEMT) holds that ‘[p]articipation in capital punishment is inconsistent with the ethical precepts and goals of the [Emergency Medical Services] profession.'" 

So, two health professionals must violate their ethical commitments for Kentucky's lethal injection protocol to be implemented.  Does this make the Kentucky protocol, which the Supreme Court just upheld, somehow not "feasible" or not "readily available", as Justice Alito suggests? 

Beyond this question is the larger dilemma: if they participate in executions, health professionals violate their ethics; but if they don't, executions with a greater risk of severe pain are likely to be allowed.  It is shameful to put the practitioners of one of our most important and respected professions in such an impossible situation, and another example of how the death penalty degrades everything it touches.

Brian

DPAC

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments yesterday in the case of Kennedy v. Louisiana regarding the constitutionality of imposing the death penalty for the rape of a child, when no murder has taken place.  It has been 44 years since the last execution in the U.S. for rape or any other crime except murder.

The need for justice and healing for the victims of such horrific crimes is great, but is punishment by death really the solution?  Multiple editorials, in the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times and Denver Post, all agree that the death penalty for child rape would be wrong and excessive.

Whether for or against the death penalty generally, we must all ask whether this is in fact in the best interest of children...

According to a friend-of-the-court brief filed by a coalition of social workers and groups that work on behalf of victims of sexual assault, the answer is no. 

First, imposing the death penalty for child rape will reduce the likelihood that abuse will be reported and stopped, thus increasing the amount of abuse the victim suffers as well as the number of children who each abuser can victimize. Second, by equalizing the penalties for child rape and murder, Louisiana's statute encourages abusers to kill their victims. Finally, when a case does go to trial under Louisiana's law, the trauma caused by the extensive trial process itself and the prolonged notoriety the case will generate will be even more severe and long-lasting.

It has been over 30 years since the Supreme Court considered imposing the death penalty in nonmurder cases.  In last case, Coker v. Georgia, the Court ruled 7-2 that the death penalty was a "grossly disproportionate" punishment for the crime of rape of an adult (although the "adult" in this case was only 16 years old).  Is there a now national consensus (i.e. "evolving standard of decency") that the death penalty is in fact appropriate when the rape involves a child?  Let's take a look ...

In Coker, the court based their decision in part on the fact that Georgia was the only state that allowed the death penalty for adult rape.  Right now, Louisiana is one of only 5 states that permit the death penalty for the rape of a child - and only 2 people, out of almost 3400, are on death row for such a crime.  Both are in Louisiana. 

While demanding the harshest sentence for heinous crimes against children may make sense politically, or even seem like the right thing to do in the interests of justice, it is not what child victims actually need.

Today, the Supreme Court, in the case of Baze v. Rees, ruled 7-2 that lethal injection is constitutional, in Kentucky and elsewhere, as long as there is no "substantial risk of severe pain", and as long as there is no alternative procedure which is "feasible, readily implemented, and in fact significantly reduces a substantial risk of severe pain." (The opinion is available here.)

What this means in practice, outside of Kentucky, is way less than clear.  It is a fractured 97-page ruling featuring 7 separate opinions which debate not only lethal injection but the death penalty itself.  Only two other justices joined Chief Justice Roberts in his plurality opinion.  Three other justices, who concurred with the result, argued in separate opinions that this decision will not end the debate. 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Stevens writes: "The question whether a similar three drug protocol may be used in other States remains open, and may well be answered differently in a future case on the basis of a more complete record."

And in their concurring opinion, Justices Thomas and Scalia worry that the plurality's opinion "casts constitutional doubt on long-accepted methods of execution."  They go on to warn that:

... today's decision is sure to engender more litigation. At what point does a risk become "substantial"? Which alternative procedures are "feasible" and "readily implemented"? When is a reduction in risk "significant"? What penological justifications are "legitimate"? Such are the questions the lower courts will have to grapple with in the wake of today's decision. Needless to say, we have left the States with nothing resembling a bright-line rule.

Justice Alito, in his concurrence defending the plurality, argues back that this won't happen if the decision is "properly understood."  He also addressed the issue of health professional participation in executions, arguing that:

... a suggested modification of a lethal injection protocol cannot be regarded as "feasible" or "readily" available if the modification would require participation - either in carrying out the execution or in training those who carry out the execution - by persons whose professional ethics rules or traditions impede their participation.

In other words, according to Justice Alito, a lethal injection protocol is constitutional unless there is a "substantial risk" of pain that can be readily reduced by an alternative that doesn't involve health professionals.

Then there is the second part of Justice Stevens' concurrence, where he argues against the constitutionality of the death penalty itself; another concurrence, by Scalia and Thomas, responds to Stevens' arguments about the death penalty without really talking about lethal injection at all.

Here is Amnesty International's statement that this "preoccupation with lethal injection" is a "distraction from myriad problems currently plaguing the death penalty system."

Brian

DPAC

There is good news and bad news in Amnesty International's 2007 Death Penalty Statistics.  The good news is that the world, slowly but surely, continues to move away from the death penalty.   With Uzbekistan's abolition of capital punishment in January of this year, there are now 135 countries which have rejected the death penalty in law or practice.  That's two-thirds of the countries of the world.

Executions here in the U.S. were down (42 in 2007, down from 53 in 2006), though this is partly attributable to the de facto moratorium imposed by the Supreme Court's decision to hear the Baze v. Rees lethal injection case.  Death sentences in the U.S. in 2007 were at the same low levels as in 2006, lower in fact that at any time since the 1970s.  Along with this significant drop in death sentences, we have seen the abolition of capital punishment in New Jersey, three exonerations from U.S. death rows in 2007 (and two already this year), and public opinion polls which show a growing preference for alternatives to the death penalty.  All of this indicates that the trend in the U.S. has begun to mirror the global trend - away from the death penalty.

Even executions in China are down - at least the ones we know about.  And the government has announced some potentially important reforms involving judicial oversight of death sentences.  Unfortunately, there is extreme secrecy surrounding capital punishment in China; most information on the death penalty in China is classified as a "state secret" and those who reveal such "state secrets" can be and are punished severely.  So we don't really know how many executions there are in China.  Amnesty International documented 470 in 2007, but there could have been as many as 6,000.  And we don't really know if or to what extent any of the announced reforms have been implemented.

Aside from China's secretive practices, more bad news emerged from Iran and Saudi Arabia, where the number of known executions increased sharply (Iran: 317 in 2007, 177 in 2006; Saudi Arabia: 143 in 2007, 39 in 2006).  In both these countries juvenile offenders were also put to death - 7 in Iran and 2 in Saudi Arabia - despite the clear international prohibition on such executions.

But even with such disturbing developments the long-term trend around the world is clear - and in recent years hints of this trend have become apparent in the U.S. as well.  Only 24 countries carried out executions in 2007, and only 10 states in the U.S.  Use of the death penalty is dwindling.  Support for it is fading.

Brian

DPAC

Overblown claims about security threats to justify government secrecy are an all too common feature of our current political landscape.  But executions are a government function and the public has a right to know how, and by whom, they are carried out.  So when the state of Kentucky finally made public its execution protocols, after being ordered to do so by the Supreme Court in connection with the pending Baze v. Rees lethal injection case, it was disturbing not only to read a detailed clinical description of how the state intends to kill someone, but to see that portions have been redacted.

The times of inmate visits and the start time for executions are redacted, which the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet justifies because "[t]his information could potentially be used by inmates or the public to disrupt an execution or to breach institutional security."

When has this ever happened? 

And job titles for personnel involved in pre-execution monitoring of the prisoner are redacted.  Most of these appear to be medical positions, judging by the tasks they are called on to perform.  Again, the Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet justifies redacting these positions by arguing that "identification [of] the position title is paramount [I think they mean tantamount] to disclosure of the individuals holding these positions" and that redaction is need to "protect the employees holding these positions." 

Protect employees from what?  This document does not say.

In fact, this kind of secrecy has more to do with shame than with any security concerns, real or imagined.  Most people (particularly medical professionals) don't want to be widely known for participating in executions, and for good reason; killing people is generally considered to be a bad thing. 

Nonetheless, the public has a right to know who is involved in perhaps the most serious act a government can carry out on their behalf.  Secrecy enables the covering up of incompetence.  The ACLU and the Rutherford Institute illustrate this point in their amicus brief in the Baze case:

"However, when this secrecy has on occasion been pierced, the results have sometimes been profoundly unsettling.  In Missouri, for example, when the press uncovered the identity of the state's lethal injection supervisor, it also learned that he had confused dosages during executions, had a number of malpractice actions filed against him, and had lost his privileges to practice at two hospitals."

(None of these revelations, by the way, prevented this doctor - Alan Doerhoff - from later being appointed to a Federal execution team in Indiana.)

Missouri's reaction to this debacle was to take secrecy up a notch, passing a "hooded executioner" law that, in a rather flagrant assault on the First Amendment, allows the state's executioners to sue anyone, including a journalist, who reveals their secret identity.  Dubious claims about the need for security were made in support of that new law, and the same kind of security/secrecy argument is apparent in the Kentucky documents. 

But secrecy never makes for good government; shielding government actions and actors from public scrutiny also shields them from accountability. The death penalty is the ultimate expression of Big Government power - all the more reason it should never be cloaked in secrecy.  States that intend to use the death penalty should not be afraid, or ashamed, to reveal to the public who is killing in their name.

Brian

DPAC

It has been two weeks since the Nebraska Unicameral rejected LB 1063, the legislative bill to repeal the death penalty in the state of Nebraska.  Time away from the event has been beneficial, giving me pause to reflect and gain some clarity on abolition in Nebraska. 

I think the morning of March 25^th (the day of the legislative debate) was a day of hope and empowerment.  That morning I met fellow abolitionists on the steps of the State Capitol to rally support.  Although many are still strangers to me, I felt the camaraderie of those sharing an element of my worldview.  One woman I spoke to in the crowd attended one of our sponsored death penalty events in Omaha.  In her own words, she was so moved by the passion and excitement of the members of Amnesty International, she took off work driving an hour to Lincoln to take part in the rally.  Despite moments of feeling disenfranchised with our eventual defeat in the legislature, I cannot help but feel invigorated by our capacity to make positive change and influence others to take social action.  It truly is a celebration when people come together to creatively practice democracy.  I feel the supporters in attendance on that day are in it for the duration.

As I made my way through the crowd and into the visitor's gallery, I distributed our Amnesty International buttons to roughly 85 people that Tuesday morning, more than the 50 to 60 people reported by the press.  It was impressive when our group of abolitionists, the majority wearing white, moved into the legislative quarters.  The visitors' gallery was a sheer wall of white, causing many senators to stop what they were doing.  They just looked upwards at us, and I believe the symbolism was not lost on them.  This silent demonstration of solidarity had its impact, and I could see and feel the power play taking place on the floor below.  One senator mentioned that the State Attorney General had been busy calling senators that particular morning offering a veiled threat; if they voted for LB 1063 , they would not get re-elected.  I believe this maneuver had roots in the fact that the Governor and the State Attorney General knew that LB 1063 had the public's support.  In their concern to kill the bill, they resorted to drastic measures.  In fact, some senators communicated to those in our movement that they "got the message already."  They had been inundated with letters and postcards from constituents asking for repeal.

Our efforts for abolition over the past few months have not been in vain.  In fact, I feel strongly that Amnesty International made huge strides in spreading and expanding the dialogue of abolition, if not by just targeting Omaha for events on the death penalty.  I believe the movement of abolition will not only sustain itself in Nebraska, but also expand with the increasing grass roots spirit we are building.

Susan F Mitchell

OUTfront Coordinator NE

Amnesty International Chapter 13

Omaha, NE

We often say that those who end up on death row are usually not the "worst of the worst" but those with the worst lawyers.  Yesterday Senator Russell Feingold held a hearing on The Adequacy of Representation in Capital Cases; the witnesses suggested that bad lawyering was a central problem with the death penalty in the US.  Innocent people can be convicted when their lawyers are bad (that should go without saying), but bad lawyers also sabotage their client's chances during the appeals process: by failing to raise important issues early, good lawyers cannot raise them later. 

Among the examples of bad lawyering testimony from Bryan Stevenson of the Equal Justice Initiative in Alabama at this hearing revealed:

• A lawyer who called no witnesses and waived opening and closing statements in the sentencing phase of a death penalty trial
• A lawyer abusing alcohol and addicted to drugs who went into rehab 3 weeks after the trial and was so hostile to his client that, at one point, he asked guards to remove his client's handcuffs so he could "kick his ass"
• A lawyer who moved his office without notifying the court or his client and thus missed a deadline for filing an appeal

There are of course many other examples; the legacy of sleeping lawyers, overworked lawyers, and lawyers more interested in pleasing the court than in defending their client is well known.

Death penalty cases are inherently complicated, and the stakes are life and death, so it would seem natural that we should endeavor to ensure that the best lawyers take these cases.  In fact, few lawyers want these cases, because they are difficult both technically and emotionally, and because funding is almost always inadequate to do the job required (most capital case defendants are indigent, and many states limit the amount a public defender can get to represent someone in a capital case, limits that are usually way too low). 

There is also no right to counsel during the appeals process, and there are time limits for death row prisoners to find a lawyer and for lawyers to file appeals.  Failing to object or raise issues early, or missing deadlines, are the kinds of technicalities that appeals courts cite all the time to deny hearings on questions of bias, misconduct or even innocence.  And the deference to state courts that is enshrined in the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) has often shielded bad lawyering and other problems at the state level from meaningful review at the federal level.

What is to be done?  The hearing was short on suggested solutions, beyond the obvious needs for more money and better training, but many of these problems are particular to the capital punishment.  The death penalty is the only punishment we have that is implemented AFTER the appeals process has run its course, and this has created a natural incentive to speed things up, to set up time-limits and procedural bars that allow the courts to gloss over errors caused by bad lawyering (among other things) so we can get to the finality of an execution.  Without the death penalty, we wouldn't have this rush to finality; the quality of representation could get the review it deserves.  And we wouldn't end up killing somebody because his lawyer was one of the "worst of the worst".

Brian

DPAC

What do Glen Chapman, Jonathan Hoffman and Alan Gell have in common? They are all innocent men released from death row after spending years in prison; in all three cases, issues of serious prosecutorial misconduct led to their wrongful convictions, and all three cases took place in North Carolina.   

Most police investigators and prosecutors are honest in their pursuit of justice, but as The Innocence Project explains, prosecutorial misconduct is a serious and common problem evident in many cases of wrongful conviction.  With these three recent exonerations, not far behind the ugly disaster of the Duke rape case, clearly North Carolina needs to enact better regulations and reforms to safeguard against such negligent behavior, especially in capital cases when the result equals death!   

Since 1976, there have been 128 people exonerated from death row in the United States, 7 in North Carolina.  Glen Chapman and Jonathan Hoffman were exonerated months apart from each other while Alan Gell was absolved in 2004. Chapman left death row this month (April 2008), after spending almost 14 years awaiting execution while Hoffman was released last December (2007) after 12 years imprisoned. Alan Gell spent nine years behind bars, half of it on death row.

These three men were almost executed because of prosecutorial negligence. In the case of Chapman, prosecutors Thomas Portwood and Robert Adams, failed to interview several critical witnesses. Hoffman's prosecutors, Ken Honeycutt and Scott Brewe, withheld information of a deal cut with the only person linking Hoffman to the murder weapon. . Gell's prosecutors, Hoke and Graves, also withheld valuable evidence that might have cleared Gell in the initial trial, including an audio tape of one of the girls who accused him saying that she had to "make up a story" about the murder.

Hoffman and Gell have tried to prove prosecutorial misconduct but their efforts have been in vain. The North Carolina State Bar dropped the charges against Hoffman's prosecutors in January 2006, not because the charges were without merit, but because Hoffman's defense attorneys didn't file their complaint in time. At the same time, Alan Gell has argued that "to this day, no one from the state has apologized or made any amends for what was done to me; right now everyone is standing in a circle and pointing their fingers at each other".

It seems to be almost impossible to prove prosecutorial misconduct because courts usually protect prosecutors so they cannot be sued for bringing a weak case or simply making a mistake. To take away their "immunity" attorneys have to demonstrate that the prosecutors acted with malice or intent to harm, which is really hard to get around. But, how do you prove intent and malice? Since withholding information and extreme negligence it is not enough, then it seems that one would need to have a note or a statement of the prosecutors literally saying " I am withholding evidence so this person is declared guilty"; which it is extremely unlikely. Anyone can make mistakes but the innocent people mentioned above were almost executed because of prosecutorial misconduct, not because of simple mistakes.

There has been just one recent case, the famous Duke case, where prosecutorial misconduct was proven. The prosecutor in this case, Michael Nifong, made improper comments to the press which had a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. The North Carolina State Bar took the latter into consideration and the prosecutor was disbarred.

What circumstances made this case different from the cases mentioned before? Why did the Duke prosecutor get disbarred and the other district attorneys did not? One of the reasons is the media and public attention this case got which pressured the State Bar to act. The other reason is that, contrary to most of the cases, the people accused in the Duke case had the monetary resources which ensure them excellent legal representation through out the whole ordeal. Therefore it was a combination of media and public pressure and monetary resources.

Most of us do not have the money to pay for great lawyers. At the same time, justice is supposed to be free and for all. But when the justice system fails, it is on us as a society to step in and ensure that it is corrected.  The lesson to be learned from these cases is the need to take action, raise awareness, go to the media, defend your beliefs and express your concerns. And consider this - how can the use of the death penalty, the most extreme and irreversible punishment, be justified within a system so obviously broken? Take action today, abolish the death penalty once and for all.

~Tania, DP Intern

On Tuesday (3/1/2008), the Governor of Virginia, Tim Kaine, announced a stay of excecution for Edward Bell, who was scheduled to be executed on April 8, and declared a moratorium on every execution in the state until the United States Supreme Court reaches a verdict in the case of Baze v. Rees (on the constitutionality of lethal injection). He defends this decision by arguing that since there is a national legal consensus that no execution using lethal injection can go forward until the Supreme Court's ruling, there is no reason to set a date for an execution which is going to be stayed by the Courts, either way. Kaine also stated that setting a date for execution and then halting the execution just hours before it is going to take place puts those who must prepare for the execution, including the family members of the victims and of the accused, in extreme agony for nothing.

Virginia law provides the death row prisoner with the option of choosing their execution method, lethal injection or the electric chair.  Only lethal injection cases are at issue in the Baze case which is why death penalty supporters are arguing that " a moratorium may unnecessarily delay justice in other Virginia cases"..

Death penalty supporters, you got it all wrong. First of all, any death row prisoner who wants to preserve its life for a while longer and is given this option by their State is obviously going to choose lethal injection over the electric chair because their case would be stayed until the Supreme Court reaches a verdict. Therefore Kaine's moratorium would not really affect Virginia's "justice".

Second of all, how and when did killing became justice? It is ironic that they think that a moratorium delays justice which means that they equalize the death penalty to justice. But real justice never kills. The death penalty is revenge not justice; it does not bring closure to the victims' families and it can kill innocent people, which is really not justice. It is arbitrary, unfair and more costly than life imprisonment. It prolongs the suffering of the victim's family, increases the pain of the family of the accused, destroys the conscience of the executioners and because of it, everyone has "blood on their hands". And what is really not justice is the fact that by accepting the death penalty we are indirectly teaching kids that sometimes and for some reasons killing is acceptable. Since it has been proven that the death penalty is not a deterrence of crime then, why are we doing this to our children? The big question is, what are we doing to our society by accepting the death penalty? When trying to answer these questions, keep in mind that criminals are a product of our society.

I know that when we hear of atrocious crimes done to innocent victims, our first response is to think that "they should kill that person; that is what he/she deserves". I have that reaction sometimes. I also end up thinking, "what is justice? How can things like this happen? This person needs to pay for what he/she has done."  But, moreover, I know that the death penalty is an easy answer to the very complicated situation we are currently living and whenever we look for easy answers to complicated issues we end up making the wrong decisions. Let's stop this trend now by abolishing the death penalty. Hopefully this temporary moratorium in Virginia will transcend into a permanent halt of executions.

~Tania, DP Intern

The Hidden Death Tax and Death by Geography are the new reports release on March 27, 2008 by the ACLU of Northern California. These reports demonstrated that California's death penalty is arbitrary, unnecessary and a waste of critical resources.

The Hidden Death Tax details the high cost of California's death penalty, based on records of actual trial expenses and state budgets. The report reveals that:

• California taxpayers pay at least $117 million each year post-trial seeking execution of the people currently on death row;
• Executing all of the people currently on death row, or waitingfor them to die there of other causes,will cost California an estimated $4 billion more than if they had been sentenced to die in prison of disease, injury, or old age;
• California death penalty trials have cost as much as $10.9 million.Death penalty trials have substantial impacts on local prosecutors and law enforcement. Records reveal that in the Scott Peterson case, prosecution staff spent more than 20,000 hours on the case.
• Trial records reveal questionable costs, like more than $900 in dry cleaning charged to the county by prosecutors in one case.
www.aclunc.org/hidden_death_penalty_costs

On the other hand, Death by Geography details county-by-county disparities in death sentencing. The report shows that:

• Counties that sentence people to death do not experience lower homicide rates or higher rates of solving homicides, but resources devoted to pursuing executions detract from other important programs.
• A resident of Alameda iseight times more likely to be sentenced to death than a resident of nearby Santa Clara.
• The $22 million dollars wasted on 20 death sentences in Riverside County since 2000 could have paid the salaries of 49 experienced teachers or 46 new homicide investigators for that same period of time. Riverside County ranks 23 out of 24 counties on per pupil expenditures on education, and solved only 50 percent of homicides in 2005.
www.aclunc.org/hidden_death_penalty_costs

These reports keep confirming that the death penalty is the wrong punishment, from every side you see it. The high cost of the death penalty is not the only or the main reason to repulse the capital punishment. The death penalty is arbitrary, unfair and does not deter crime. It is a human rights violation that is taking away the lives of people who well may be innocent and, moreover, it is a misuse of our money. When one accepts the death penalty it feels like one is paying millions of dollars to the State to convert the whole society into killers. I want my money to be spent on a better cause. What about you?

~Tania, DP Intern