Death Penalty

The Birmingham News is reporting that the Alabama Supreme Court has "indefinitely delayed" the execution of Thomas Arthur, who was scheduled to be put to death tonight.

Earlier this week, someone else has confessed to the crime for which Thomas Arthur was sentenced to death.  The jailhouse confession of Bobby Ray Gilbert, already serving life without parole for another murder, was vehemently denied by state officials, led by Attorney General Troy King.  The state filed its own affidavit from Judy Wicker, who reiterated her claim that she hired Arthur, not Gilbert, to kill her husband.  (Of course, she did not make this claim against Arthur until the state offered her a deal to get out of prison after ten years, where she had been sent for her own part in the killing.)

While all of this last minute maneuvering was met with an appropriate amount of skepticism, it added significant weight to the argument that Thomas Arthur should get that DNA test he has been requesting.

Then came the news, in a filing by the state, that they had LOST the rape kit containing DNA evidence in the Arthur case. This seems to have been the last straw; the Alabama Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the execution will be delayed indefinitely.

Brian

DPAC

Today, the Dallas Morning News, urging Texas Governor Rick Perry to halt the execution of Jose Medellin, made an extremely important point: 

"The State Department calculated that 4,456 Americans were arrested abroad in 2006, up from 3,614 in 2005. The bulk of those arrests occurred in Mexico. For an American sitting in a filthy, dark jail cell in a foreign land, it's easy to be overwhelmed by hopelessness. One thing makes the nightmare bearable: the guaranteed visit from an American consular official."

This visit is guaranteed by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.  Medellin, a Mexican national, was not guaranteed, or even notified of his right to a visit from Mexican consular officials when he was arrested in Texas.  This violation of his rights has not been remedied, despite rulings from the World Court and efforts from the US Departments of State and Justice.  Executing Medellin could have profound implications and could undermine the one treaty that most directly protects Americans traveling abroad. 

So far, Texas officials have given little indication that they care about such things, but they should know that YOU care.  Take action now to prevent this execution! 

Brian

DPAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brian

DPAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emily

DPAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Martina Correia

Sister of Troy Anthony Davis

Georgia's Death Row

~ Jessie, DPAC

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

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

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

As Amnesty International noted in its report on March 27: "The Supreme Court has effectively passed the buck to the other branches of government to act to ensure that the USA meets its international obligations."

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

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

Brian

DPAC

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

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

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

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

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

Emily

DPAC

 Not everyone wants to abolish the death penalty, but some states do want to change the efficacy of it. While some see the lack of reverence for human life alone as reason enough, states such as Ohio and Texas are searching for fairer ways to administer the death penalty and make it cost effective. Hopefully, they will come to the realization that there is no fair, effective, reliable and humane death penalty.

A 2005 law in Ohio has allowed for prosecutors to seek the second "toughest" sentence of life without parole. Before the passing of this law, the option of life without parole was only an option for jurors looking for alternatives to the death penalty. Prosecutors have realized that seeking life in prison without parole saves the complications and exorbitant price tag of a capital case. The number of death penalty indictments sought throughout the state has dropped 32% from 2004 to 2007, while the number of life without parole sentences has risen by 66%, according to figures analyzed by the Ohio Public Defender's Office.

Increasingly, juries shy away from the death sentence when there is no other available option, and the costs associated with the pre-conviction phase of a capital case can drain a prosecutor's budget, notwithstanding the money that will go into the post appeals process.

Texas has established a West Texas Regional Public Defenders for Capital Murders, in which 85 counties pay into a pool of money each year that will be allocated for a capital case. It costs nothing to join, but could potentially save the county thousands of dollars. This insurance policy is for indigent defense for defendants in capital crimes who cannot afford their own lawyers (which for the most part is everyone). With the aid that would be provided via the fund, defendants could receive a qualified lawyer to represent them. Public defenders are often limited by state law as to the amount of money that they can receive for a capital case, which is an obvious deterrent beyond the complexities of representing someone. In addition, the state hopes that by establishing a sort of parameter on quality representation, fewer cases will be overturned.

If viable alternatives and cost-effective ways of administering the death penalty are to be evaluated, it would make sense that reform and abolition would have to center around the sustainability of all of the options involved. The recent California Commission on California's death row found that the staggering amount of money necessary for reform was simply not a viable option for taxpayers. States should begin to realize for their own self-interest that it is not advantageous, or even responsible to have a death penalty, and that capital punishment may be a luxury that they cannot afford.

Emily

DPAC

"If you don't follow my orders, I will sanction you. I will not hesitate to put you in jail."

That's what a judge (William R. Pounders) told a victim's family member.  Why?  Because, according to the Los Angeles Times, he was worried she might tell jurors "that she had forgiven" her husband's accused killer "or that she believed he should be spared the death penalty."

Lien Wiley was forced to testify about her husband by Los Angeles County prosecutors in their pursuit of a death sentence against Juan Manuel Alvarez, who is accused of causing a Metrolink train derailment that killed her husband, Don Wiley, and ten others.

According to the June 9 L.A. Times story, "Wiley sobbed as she told Pounders that she did not want to testify as a prosecution witness in the trial of Alvarez.  ‘I don't want to relive it,' Wiley said."

But she had no choice.  She testified about her husband "shaking and weeping", but refused to look at family photos of her husband.

Other victims' loved ones testified less reluctantly, and, according to the judge quoted in another LA Times story, the jurors were "having a hard time."

"Almost all are crying," Pounders said. He later advised the panel of nine women and three men that "if you start to lose it, and you can't take it anymore for a while, let me know and we'll take an extra break."

Quite a contrast with the threats the judge directed at Lien Wiley.

And what was the point of all this emotional testimony?  One clue might be that it came right after Deputy District Attorney Cathryn Brougham told the jury that anything less than a death sentence "is not justice."

But is the emotional manipulation of victims' family members (and jurors) really the best way to ensure that justice is done?

Brian

DPAC

The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board voted 4-1 yesterday to grant clemency to Kevin Young, who is scheduled to be executed on July 22^nd. The Board's action to recommend commutation of his sentence is encouraging, but the final decision of whether Young lives or dies now belongs to Governor Brad Henry. Three jurors from the original trial have also played a crucial role in appealing for clemency, stating that they regret the role they played in sentencing Kevin Young to death. This clip from an Oklahoma news channel shows footage of the Pardon and Parole Board hearing, as well as Kevin Young and the three jurors speaking.

Executive clemency exists to address mistakes that the courts cannot address in trials. In Kevin Young's case, there is no doubt that his culpability was magnified in the absence of evidence and to guarantee a conviction. Kevin Young was sentenced to death for the 1996 murder of Joseph Sutton. Kevin Young and Antwuan Jackson entered an Oklahoma City restaurant with the intention of robbery, where Sutton ran a gambling operation in a back room. One of the two men fired his gun in the air, and Sutton proceeded to pull out his own gun. Young stated in his appeal to the Board that he never meant to hurt anyone, and only fired after being shot by Sutton. Young was not sure himself if he or Jackson had killed Sutton. He was identified at the hospital by a crumpled shirt that a witness said was a similar red to the one that the gunman had been wearing.

Oklahoma's own Court of Criminal Appeals characterized the crime as a robbery where "things went amiss" and in which there was no evidence to conclude who had fired the fatal shot. Antwuan Jackson was acquitted on all counts. Young's defense lawyer at his trial argued that capital punishment should be reserved for the "worst of the worst", something which is clearly not consistent with Young's death sentence conviction and the circumstances of the case.

The Pardon and Parole Board's decision is a huge victory for Young, and we appreciate their decision and hope that it gives Kevin Young some peace of mind. However, in the three times that the Parole Board has recommended commutation to Governor Brad Henry, he has only granted clemency once. Governor Henry spared Osbaldo Torres' life, a foreign national, while under pressure from international groups. With the Board's new recommendation, it is immensely important that we continue sending clemency letters to Governor Henry, and hopefully we will make Kevin Young's case the second commutation out of four! Please take the time to take action for Young's life, and let Governor Henry know that speaking out for Kevin Young matters.

Emily

DPAC

On Thursday, Texas is set to execute Carlton Akee Turner.  He murdered his parents.  He has said he killed his father in self defense (Carlton Turner Sr. had been a very abusive, including breaking his son's leg when he was 7 years old); he has also said he doesn't know why he killed his mother. 

The thing is, as Bob Ray Sanders reports in today's Fort Worth Star Telegram, members of the Turner family don't want this execution to happen (the "vast majority" of family members, according to Turner's clemency petition).  These include the brother and first cousin of Turner's mother Tonya, both of whom have submitted signed affidavits calling for mercy. 

"Kelly Johnson of Philadelphia, Tonya's brother, wrote: ‘I do not wish to see my sister's only child executed. I believe in my heart that my sister would only have wanted Akee to receive the help that he needed to restore his mind to a sound state.'"

"Tonya Turner's first cousin and close friend, Krishell Coleman of Lawrenceville, Ga., said, ‘I don't think Carlton should be executed. I don't want him to be executed. Now that I know more of the details that led to the murders, I realize that he needs help. Killing him is just another murder.  Nothing is going to bring my cousin back. Killing him will just hurt our family again, the way Tonya and Carlton's murders did.'"

Will the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles and Texas Governor Rick Perry respect the wishes of this family?  We will know by Thursday.

Brian

DPAC

After years of allowing his case to drag on, Tennessee released Paul House into the custody of his mother Joyce, where he will remain till October. House's story represents another strong claim of innocence on death row, and his treatment exemplifies the depravity of the system, and the state's negligence to treat prisoners with respect.

House suffers from multiple sclerosis, a degenerative disease that attacks the nervous system. House must use a wheelchair, has difficulty speaking, and cannot change or bathe himself. Still, the state has kept him in their custody as a flight risk and threat to society, despite compelling evidence of his innocence and his obvious declining health.

Paul House has been on death row for 22 years. Sentenced to die at 23 for the rape and murder of Carolyn Muncey in 1985, he has lived much of his mature life behind bars and awaiting execution. Throughout his time on death row, Paul House has maintained his innocence. DNA evidence that emerged years after his trial showed that semen from the crime scene actually belonged to the victim's husband, not House, and that blood found on House's jeans was likely the result of a spilled vial of blood in the forensics laboratory.

In subsequent years, Muncey's husband confessed to killing Muncey in a drunken rage to two other people. The case went all the way up to the Supreme Court, which declared in 2006 that House was not given a fair trial, and that no "reasonable juror" would have voted to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. The case was sent back to the federal courts, who ruled in House's favor and, on December 20th, ordered Tennessee to drop the charges or retry him in 180 days.

Despite all this, Tennessee appealed the order, stalling while House remained locked up and in declining health. It appeared that the state had every intention of waiting until House passed away in prison, or dropped his appeals and "volunteered" for execution. On June 17th, they suddenly announced their intention to retry House, and his bail was set at $500,000, until another judge reduced it to $100,000. An anonymous donor posted the $10,000 that House's mother, Joyce, needed after she had placed a property bond on her house. Yesterday, July 2^nd, Joyce was finally able to pick up her son from a special needs facility in Tennessee. House was met by members of the Tennessee Coalition against State Killing and by his lawyer, Stephen Kissinger.

Although he has not been acquitted, House's return to his mother's custody signifies a great victory for Paul House. He will no longer be confined to death row and will be in the comfort and care of his mother's home. The state D.A. has promised to not seek the death penalty, while Kissinger vows to try and bar the state from retrying House and to move the case to a federal court. House must stay within his mother's house, wear a monitoring bracelet, and register as a sex offender.  But House has regained some of the dignity and respect that he and his family were denied for so long, so let's trust that the state will begin to treat him with the same compassion that the anonymous donor showed.

Emily

DPAC

"No right way to do the wrong thing" is an old saying; a Google search doesn't shed much light on its origins, although one website suggests that "no right way to do a wrong thing" is an old Turkish proverb.  One of its most recent incarnations is in a Toby Keith song, entitled "Ain't No Right Way".  The "wrong things" in this case are single motherhood, child abuse and banning school prayer. 

Now, while this set of "wrong things" (or at least some of them) may be controversial, what is not, or should not be controversial, is that executing someone after a blatantly unfair trial is a "wrong thing."  That's why, following the chaotic arraignment in Guantanamo of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the 4 others charged with involvement in the 9/11 attacks, the chief of US military defense lawyers for the military commissions told a press conference that there "ain't no right way to do a wrong thing." 

He may have been quoting Toby Keith slightly out of context, but he is absolutely correct.  Bringing anyone to trial, and seeking the death penalty, in a system as fundamentally flawed as the current military commissions is simply, extremely wrong.   As Amnesty International, which had an observer at the June 5 proceedings, concluded in its June 6 report "The Show Trial Begins":

"The military commissions are designed to facilitate the conviction and even execution of foreign nationals designated as ‘enemy combatants' by the US military, as well as their continued detention in the event of acquittal, while keeping secret the intelligence methods used by the USA. Torture, enforced disappearances, and secret detention have been among these methods. Crimes by non-state actors have been met with crimes by state officials in the ‘war on terror', and the government has developed a detention and trial system that may whitewash the abuses from its side of the ledger. For justice read injustice."

On Monday, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary and Arbitrary Executions issued a statement in which (in addition to talking about the death penalty in Alabama and Texas) he stated flatly of the military commissions that:  "these trials utterly fail to meet the basic due process standards required for a fair trial under international humanitarian and human rights law".   He also called the commissions a "gross violation of the right to a fair trial." And he added that, "It would violate international law to execute someone following this kind of proceeding."

Undeterred, that same day the US Department of Defense announced it was filing capital charges against another Guantanamo prisoner, ‘Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, a Saudi Arabian national who was held incommunicado in secret prisons for almost 4 years, and who, according to a CIA admission in February, was "waterboarded" during the course of his interrogation.  He is charged with organizing the bombing of the USS Cole in Yemen in October 2000.  (Two other men have been indicted for involvement in this attack, but in a regular Federal court.  So, why not proceed the same way with al-Nashiri?)

According to Amnesty's July 2 report on the al-Nashiri charges:

"Detainees held by the USA in the name of counter-terrorism have had their right to the presumption of innocence systematically undermined by a pattern of official commentary on their presumed guilt. They have been subjected to enforced disappearance, secret detention and torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, including in terms of the interrogation methods and detention conditions employed against them. Such abuses heighten the need for any trials to take place before courts independent of the executive and legislative branches which have authorized or condoned these human rights violations. Instead, trials are looming before military commissions lacking such independence and specifically tailored to tolerate government abuses, including by allowing the admission into evidence of information coerced under ill-treatment."

The Military Commissions set up to try Guantanamo prisoners are wrong, and there is simply no right way to conduct trials under a system so fundamentally unfair.   Carrying out executions after such unfair proceedings compounds, or multiplies the wrong.  But as the new Amnesty report also makes clear, there is a "right thing" (or several "right things") that can be done. 

The US government can abandon the military commissions.

The government can close Guantanamo as a first step to ending illegal detention.

The government can conduct these trials in the Federal courts, with the full fair trial protections required by US and international human rights law.

And the US can drop its pursuit of the death penalty once and for all.

Brian

DPAC

While the death penalty is inherently irrevocable and unjust to those sentenced to death, the variables that lend themselves to determining death sentences all become complex indicators in deciding who will live and who will die.

Even though one person  executed would be one too many, the actual number of people sentenced to death and the number of those that are actually executed make up a minority of those who commit capital crimes. This makes the death penalty a sort of lottery, with race, legal representation, and prosecutorial misconduct being key indicators.

Two professors in criminology and computer science developed a software program that can predict which prisoners will be executed. To do this, they developed a neural network, capable of scanning data for patterns. They gave the program 1,000 cases in the U.S., tracked from 1973-2000, and focused on characteristics of the inmate--race, age, marital status, location, and the type of offense. No actual details about the case or legal representation were included.

After the program was given these statistics, the researchers then gave the program an additional 300 cases, in which they did not give the outcome of the case. As the program's neural networks had been trained to replicate what would bring about an actual execution, they were able to predict which prisoners had been killed with a 90% success rate.

Since the death penalty's reinstatement, states have continued to erratically apply the death sentence. Although it is supposed to be reserved for the "worst of the worst", the most unlucky are the first to die. In 1994, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun declared that

 "Twenty years have passed since this Court declared that the death penalty must be imposed fairly, and with reasonable consistency, or not at all, and, despite the effort of the states and courts to devise legal formulas and procedural rules to meet this daunting challenge, the death penalty remains fraught with arbitrariness, discrimination, caprice, and mistake."

Blackmun's words still seem to be evident today in the way that the death penalty is applied in America. The computer program was still able to accurately predict a death sentence, despite knowing no facts about the case and outcomes, which only helps to illuminate why the application of the death penalty in the United States is so unfair.

The researchers are still experimenting with the system by trying different combinations of variables to account for which are the most influential. You can read the full article here.

Emily

DPAC

The California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice issued a 117-page report yesterday on the administration of the death penalty in California. They have agreed unanimously that capital punishment in California is broken and that implementing reforms will cost a fortune. Through four years of extensive research into those on death row, the crimes eligible for capital punishment, and the duration of time between convictions and executions, the Commission called for a major overhaul of the California Criminal Justice system. California currently has the largest death row in the nation, with 670 prisoners. However, since the reinstallation of the death penalty in 1976, California has only executed 13 people.

The commission's examination of the criminal justice system, wrongful convictions, and the quality of life on death row all reveal a process that is "dysfunctional" and severely flawed. The state's death penalty system is close to collapse, and many death row prisoners are effectively sentenced to life incarceration, though at death penalty prices, which are 10 times more expensive. As this report makes plain, the cost of the death penalty in California is staggering.  California without the death penalty would cost taxpayers just $11.5 million a year.  The current system costs more than 10 times as much - $137 million annually -  and reforming the death penalty as recommended would cost almost a quarter of a billion dollars a year.   And even reforming the system will not eliminate the risk that errors will lead to the execution of an innocent man.

Overhauling the system would likely bankrupt the already destitute state budget. Meanwhile, California has also been proposing to move their death row to San Quentin, and to build a new unit in the prison already there. Beginning estimates have already multiplied in size, with each prison cell costing an average of 800,000 dollars per inmate. California's current lethal injection gurney is housed in their former gas chamber.

Recent cost studies in other states have all shown that the death penalty is a money pit.  In Kansas a 2003 study showed that death penalty cases cost 70% more than non-death penalty case.  A 2004 Tennessee study showed that death penalty trials cost 48% more than non-death penalty trials.  And in Maryland earlier this year a study determined that death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases.

In California, as in other states, the death penalty takes up resources that could be used for more effective crime prevention measures and meaningful victims' services.  Education, drug treatment, mental health care, or more police on the streets are far better investments that can have a real impact on reducing crime.  Surely the people of California deserve more for their $100 or $200 million a year.   

Brian

DPAC