Monday was supposed to be the first day in a string of executions in Arkansas, as the state’s supply of the sedative midazolam, which is used in the lethal injection, expires at the end of the month. That is why Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ordered eight executions to take place over 11 days, before the current stash of midazolam expires. But a succession of lawsuits has stopped the executions from happening.

This is the latest development in a messy legal fight as Arkansas is pushing to execute eight prisoners in almost as many days. Last month, the eight prisoners filed a lawsuit in which they called the state’s rush to kill them “reckless and unconstitutional.” They also cited the use of midazolam as a problem, as many other states have stopped using the drug after a couple of botched executions that led to slow and painful deaths.

At the end of last week, pharmaceutical companies Fresenius Kabi USA and West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Corp. filed a friend of the court brief in the prisoners’ lawsuit. Fresenius Kabi said it believes that the state of Arkansas acquired potassium chloride, the second ingredient in the three-drug lethal injection, from the company, and that it did so under false pretenses.

Arkansas fights in multiple courts to carry out two of eight planned executions Monday. https://t.co/ueFxXfktba

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

On Friday, Arkansas Judge Wendell Griffen halted the use of the third of the three execution drugs, vecuronium bromide. The manufacturer of this drug, McKesson Corporation, also claimed that the state bought it under false pretenses, by using the medical license of an Arkansas physician. Although Griffen’s ruling was not based on the executions legality, it made the carrying out of the executions impossible. And then over the weekend, federal Judge Kristine Baker halted all of the executions, citing the prisoners’ lawsuit.

“The threat of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs is significant: If midazolam does not adequately anesthetize plaintiffs, or if their executions are ‘botched,’ they will suffer severe pain before they die,” she wrote. But on Monday, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her ruling, saying the evidence that the executions would “cause severe pain and needless suffering” was insufficient.

To complicate matters, Judge Griffen was barred on Monday from hearing any death penalty cases in the state as it was revealed that he attended an anti-death penalty rally right after issuing the halt of the lethal injection on Friday. Griffen not only attended the demonstration, he also lay down on a cot and bound himself with a rope, making it look like he was a death row inmate on a gurney, awaiting execution. The protest took place outside Gov. Hutchinson’s house. Death penalty advocates were outraged and many Republican lawmakers called it judicial misconduct.

Judge rules against #Arkansas #executions. Judge attends anti-#deathpenalty rally. Judge barred from such cases. https://t.co/SodtMofgaj pic.twitter.com/hDLKFp553A

— AP Central U.S. (@APCentralRegion) April 17, 2017

The hurried pace of carrying out eight executions over 11 days is unprecedented in modern times, and Arkansas hasn’t performed an execution since 2005. But Hutchinson has been eager to get going, citing justice for the families of the victims the inmates have killed. And after all the legal back and forth, it looked like the state could go on with the plans. But then in a last minute development, the Arkansas Supreme Court granted a delay in the execution of one of the prisoners, Don Davis, after his attorney sought a stay on Monday. The court also stayed the execution of Bruce Ward.

Arkansas Attorney General Leslie Rutledge asked the U.S. Supreme Court late Monday evening to overrule that decision. The court declined to hear the case. However, late Monday the Arkansas Supreme Court also overruled the restraining order by Griffen on the use of vecuronium bromide, which means the lethal injections are free to use again. But the state is also facing a different problem: it can’t seem to find enough witnesses for the executions. The law requires at least six civilian witnesses at each execution.

So for now, all the prisoners are still alive. But since Baker’s stay of the executions was overruled, there is nothing that stops the state from going through with the executions, as long as there are enough witnesses. On Thursday, two inmates, Ledell Lee and Stacey Johnson, are scheduled for execution.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Keeps Fighting to Carry Out Planned Executions appeared first on Law Street.

As of April 11, Alabama no longer grants state judges the authority to override jury recommendations in capital cases. As one of her first acts as governor, Kay Ivey signed the SB16 bill into law and put an end to judicial override in capital cases in Alabama. The move was likely a preemptive response to shifting legal tides. Had Alabama not revised its laws, it would likely have faced fierce and ongoing battles in court.

Alabama, Florida, and Delaware are the only states to have ever allowed judicial override in capital cases. In the 2016 case Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida’s sentencing scheme in violation of the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. In response to the high court’s ruling, Delaware’s Supreme Court ruled its state’s sentencing scheme unconstitutional a few months later.

In the wake of Hurst v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court denied an appeal by an Alabama death row inmate who claimed he was sentenced under a scheme similar to Florida’s. Alabama’s Supreme Court upheld judicial override nine months later. In spite of these victories, it seems that Alabama was no longer willing to put resources toward defending judicial override in court.

Following Hurst v. Florida, the Florida legislature amended its sentencing practices to reinstate capital punishment. However, Delaware’s General Assembly has yet to pass any such legislation, meaning there is an effective halt on the death penalty in the state. By amending its sentencing laws, Alabama has put an end to a recurrent legal battle and ensured the perpetuity of capital punishment in the state.

While Alabama has removed judicial override, its new sentencing practices could still face legal challenges. Following the chain of events set in motion by Hurst v. Florida, Alabama is now the only state that allows a jury to non-unanimously recommend the death penalty.

Before the Hurst v. Florida ruling, Alabama, Florida, and Delaware allowed a jury to recommend the death penalty with 10 of 12 votes. In the same ruling that banned judicial override, Delaware’s Supreme Court deemed non-unanimous recommendations unconstitutional. While Florida’s initial legislation preserved the practice, the Florida Supreme Court later found non-unanimous recommendations constitutional.

Alabama’s Supreme Court would almost certainly uphold non-unanimous death penalty recommendations, and the U.S. Supreme Court has not explicitly ruled on the matter. The overwhelming consensus against the practice suggests Alabama could once again find itself in court.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will Banning Judicial Override for Capital Cases Keep Alabama Out of Court? appeared first on Law Street.

Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida used an executive order on Monday to remove the first black elected prosecutor in the state, Orange County State Attorney Aramis Ayala, from 21 murder cases. The conflict between Ayala and Scott started last month after Ayala, a Democrat, announced that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty in a murder case. Scott reacted by taking the case, in which a man is accused of killing a pregnant woman and a police officer, away from Ayala.

Scott called the decision “unacceptable,” and said “that she is not interested in considering every available option in the fight for justice.” According to Ayala’s spokesperson Eryka Washington, she didn’t know about the reassignments until they were reported in the media. Washington said that Ayala believes Scott is abusing his authority and “has compromised the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system.”

The news created a lot of mixed feelings on social media, with a lot of people criticizing the governor for overreach.

does an elected prosecutor have right to decide against seeking death? – ongoing legal battle worth following in FL https://t.co/9pLaX7yYJQ

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 3, 2017

Many also pointed out concerns about the death penalty:

Thank you to Aramis Ayala. The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent, racially discriminatory and morally wrong. https://t.co/LiFtodFqat

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) April 4, 2017

Also on Monday, State Representative Bob Cortes urged Scott to go even further and remove Ayala from office. He argued that she is trying to change the law–he said that “she is elected there to follow it,” and not change it. He claimed that Ayala is neglecting her responsibility to those who elected her by not considering the death penalty. According to the Florida state constitution, a governor can remove any elected official who isn’t fulfilling her duty.

But it’s hard to determine whether or not she is fulfilling her duty, given that prosecutorial discretion allows Ayala to decide how to best pursue her cases. And it’s worth noting that opinions on the death penalty differ in the United States. Research has repeatedly shown that it’s not effective in deterring people from committing crimes. There is also the risk of executing an innocent person, and examples of botched executions where the prisoner doesn’t die right away but has to endure a slow, torturous death. The drugs that are used are increasingly expensive and hard to access, as many medical companies don’t want to contribute to executing people. And the trials where prosecutors seek the death penalty involve an additional phase for sentencing, which makes the whole ordeal more expensive than a regular trial.

Back in March, when Ayala made it clear that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty for the rest of her term, she also mentioned the downside of instilling hope in victims’ families about an execution that might take months or years before being carried out–if ever. “I have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of this community or in the best interests of justice,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Prosecutor Won’t Seek Death Penalty, Governor Yanks Her Cases appeared first on Law Street.

Eight inmates in Arkansas, all men convicted of murder, are scheduled to be executed over 10 days next month. But there’s a big problem: the state can’t find enough witnesses for the executions. State law requires a minimum of six witnesses be present for an execution. In addition to the struggle to procure enough witnesses, the executions, scheduled between April 17 and 27, face another hurdle: the inmates filed a federal complaint on Monday, claiming the 10-day execution spree is “cruel and unusual.”

According to a local newspaper, the state is desperately seeking volunteers to attend the executions. And Wendy Kelly, the director of the Department of Correction, is personally seeking volunteers. In fact, last Tuesday, Kelly reportedly fished for volunteers during a keynote address at the Little Rock Rotary Club.

“You seem to be a group that does not have felony backgrounds and are over 21,” Kelly said, according to The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. “So if you’re interested in serving in that area, in this serious role, just call my office.”

Arkansas law dictates all executions must include “a number of respectable citizens numbering not fewer than six nor more than twelve whose presence is necessary to verify that the execution was conducted in the manner required by law.” But finding enough citizens willing to sit-in on the executions has been a challenge.

Last month, Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson ordered the executions; four of the men are black, four are white. All were convicted of murder. The rationale for squeezing all eight executions in 10 days: Arkansas’s stock of midazolam, a sedative used in the three-drug lethal injection, expires at the end of April. Midazolam is difficult to acquire, and due its precarious legality, replenishing the state’s supply is not a guarantee.

Aside from the witness recruiting effort, the executions could be stalled because of the inmates’ federal complaint. John Williams, a federal public defender who represents three of the inmates, said the complaint “challenges the execution schedule.” He added: “It’s an unprecedented act and we think the pace of the schedule puts our clients at unnecessary risk.” The judge could dismiss the complaint outright, or issue a preliminary injunction, which would likely delay the executions.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Arkansas Can’t Find Enough Witnesses for Upcoming Executions appeared first on Law Street.

The Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence for a man who has been on death row since 1997 because of the racist testimony of a witness called by his own lawyers. On Wednesday, the court decided 6-2 to give Duane Buck another chance. Buck was convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend and her male friend, and wounding his own stepsister, with a shotgun in Texas in 1995.

During the sentencing phase of the trial in 1997, Buck’s own defense lawyers knowingly called an expert witness to the stand who claimed that Buck ran a higher risk of posing a danger in the future because he is black. “It’s a sad commentary that minorities–Hispanics and black people–are over-represented in the criminal justice system,” said former prison psychiatrist Dr. Walter Quijano.

ICYMI: Today #SCOTUS ruled in favor of a new sentencing hearing for our client, #DuaneBuck. Read our statement: https://t.co/xlU5mo1zPP pic.twitter.com/CxEOJPTgil

— Legal Defense Fund (@NAACP_LDF) February 22, 2017

The jury listened to Quijano and sentenced Buck to death. Then began Buck’s long series of appeals. He appealed the original sentence, but didn’t raise the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel. A state court affirmed his sentence. Then Buck’s lawyer filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, but it didn’t mention Quijano or his testimony. But then it was discovered that Quijano had given racist testimony in several other cases. Some of those convicted raised claims in federal court in 2000, and they were granted new sentencing hearings.

Duane Buck’s trial lawyer, who put on testimony that his own client was dangerous for being black, still works in the 208th court every day.

— Franklin Bynum (@bynumlaw) February 22, 2017

Buck’s lawyer filed a second habeas petition, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by the trial lawyers, but it was filed in state court and not in federal. Then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn said that because Buck’s own defense had called Quijano as a witness, there was no mistake made by the state and therefore nothing that needed to be fixed. The fact that Buck didn’t mention Quijano in the first habeas corpus was the final nail in the coffin.

In the new petition, filed in October, Buck’s defense cited “extraordinary circumstances” in order to pursue the ineffective assistance of counsel claims, even though that legally should have been done in the first place. This time SCOTUS listened. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority decision that the testimony in 1997 by Quijano claimed “that the color of Buck’s skin made him more deserving of execution. No competent defense attorney would introduce such evidence about his own client.”

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, saying that the heinousness of Buck’s crime and his lack of remorse justify the death penalty. But, Buck will now be able to have a new hearing on his sentence.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Overturns Death Sentence for Black Man Whose Lawyer Called Racist Witness appeared first on Law Street.

Capital punishment in the United States has long faced public scrutiny. The death penalty is a topic of debate among Americans largely due to concerns about its efficacy in deterring crime, as well as growing rates of botched executions. In 2016, the U.S. saw a record decline in death penalty use and public support. A number of states postponed scheduled executions due to drug shortages and botched executions. While capital punishment remains legal in 32 states, this number could steadily decrease based on the current political climate.

Current Death Penalty Trends

The Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) reported that 30 people were sentenced to death in its 2016 Year End Report–the lowest number of death sentences since states began to re-enact death penalty statutes in 1973. It found that executions also declined more than 25 percent, with only 20 executions carried out in 2016 by just five states.  Public opinion polls show support for the death penalty at a four-decade low. At just 49 percent, support fell below 50 percent for the first time in 45 years, according to a study by the Pew Research Center. This is a seven point drop from the previous year.

The DPIC concluded that the number of people waiting on death row decreased in 2016, as prisoners either passed away in custody, or obtained relief from their convictions. There was also a decline in the number of counties in death penalty states pursuing capital punishment. This past year three states–California, Nebraska, and Oklahoma–overwhelmingly voted to reject propositions that would have eliminated the death penalty. In California there hasn’t been an execution since 2006, and yet residents still seem to be in favor of its use, when deemed appropriate. Geography also played a roll in American death penalty trends. Eighty percent of all executions in 2016 were carried out by only two states–Texas and Georgia.

Mental Health Issues

Historically, executed prisoners tend to be those who are the most vulnerable, with the poorest legal representation. The DPIC’s review found that at least 60 percent of executed prisoners exhibited a combination of mental health issues including: signs of mental illness, brain impairment, and low intellectual functioning.

In Texas, a mentally ill prisoner was executed who exhibited signs of mental illness since infancy and was diagnosed with a variety of mental afflictions by the time he was 18. Georgia also executed an intellectually disabled prisoner, who was black, even though he had an openly racist juror, a trial lawyer who slept through portions of the trial, and significant evidence of an intellectual disability presented in post-conviction proceedings. Additionally, six of the prisoners who were executed in 2016 were 21 or younger at the time of their offenses.

A case argued before the Supreme Court in late 2016 attempted to dispute the constitutionality of executing prisoners with intellectual disabilities. Moore v. Texas questions the “standards that may be used to determine whether a defendant convicted of murder is mentally deficient.” Lawyers for the defendant argued that Texas utilizes outdated methods of determining mental capacity, rather than the standards mandated by the Supreme Court. The defendant, Bobby J. Moore, has an average IQ of 70 based on multiple tests. Texas argued that there is no national standard for determining mental capacity; the ruling from the Supreme Court, while still currently unknown, will certainly have a profound effect on other states’ death penalty procedures.

Botched Executions and Experimental Drugs

The overall decline in the use of the death penalty may also be attributed to recent botched executions. Lethal injection, the most utilized form of execution, has a botched execution rate of 7.12 percent. All manufacturers of FDA-approved drugs that could potentially be used for lethal injections have enforced a strict ban on selling their drugs for that purpose; companies are no longer keen on associating any of their products with capital punishment proceedings.

Problematic lethal injection procedures have been of great concern for the past few years and have occurred all over the country. In Ohio, the prisons’ agency is attempting to obtain a drug that could reverse the lethal injection process if needed. If executioners were not confident the first three drugs rendered a prisoner unconscious, they would be able to use the drug to reverse the effects. This request comes after executions have been on hold in the state since January 2014, when a prisoner gasped and snorted during the 26 minutes it took him to die. Arizona’s last execution was also in 2014, when a prisoner took two hours to die after receiving an injection of the drug midazolam.

As recently as December 2016, a man executed in Alabama struggled for air, coughed, heaved, and clenched his left fist during the 13 minutes of his execution. Two consciousness checks were performed during the execution. The inmate moved his arm both times after the tests. The first drug used in the three-drug cocktail was midazolam. The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision in 2015 that the use of midazolam is constitutional, in spite of reports that the drug does not reliably render an inmate unconscious.

Despite its death row population remaining in limbo after the Supreme Court struck down the state’s capital sentencing system in January 2016, Florida is poised to start utilizing a new experimental lethal injection drug. Such a move is likely to cause more litigation in the coming future, as anti-death penalty advocates are troubled by the use of experimental procedures in lethal injections.

Efficacy in Deterring Crime and Racial Bias

Though capital punishment is employed to deter violent crime, there is little evidence that it actually does so. In a 2008 Death Penalty Information Survey, 88 percent of polled criminologists said they do not believe that capital punishment is an effective deterrent for crime. As recently as 2015, non-death penalty states had a murder rate of 4.13, while death penalty states had a murder rate of  5.15—a 25 percent difference. In every year since 1990, non-death penalty states had a lower murder rate than death penalty states. And in a 2008 poll of 500 police chiefs, the death penalty ranked last in their priorities for reducing crime.

Moreover, the racial bias in the criminal justice system is astounding. Over half of the current death row population since 1976 is non-white. Interracial murders also disproportionately target blacks. Since 1976, 283 black defendants have been executed for the murder of a white victim; this is in stark contrast to the 20 white defendants executed for murdering a black victim. A 2014 study performed by Professor Katherine Beckett of the University of Washington, found that jurors in Washington from 1981-2014 were four and a half times more likely to sentence a black defendant to death than a non-black defendant.

Conclusion

The decline in the number of prisoners executed in 2016, as well as the decrease in the number of people sentenced to death, seem to signify a move away from capital punishment in the U.S. Such a drop in executions may be attributed to states putting their executions on hold after extremely troublesome lethal injection proceedings over the past few years, rather than a general shift toward other sentencing alternatives. Regardless of waning numbers, citizens voted in large margins to retain the death penalty in multiple states this year, indicating that support for the death penalty in particular cases is still acceptable to many. Whether any state protocols and procedures will change, however, depends heavily on Supreme Court decisions in the future.

Nicole Zub

Nicole is a third-year law student at the University of Kentucky College of Law. She graduated in 2011 from Northeastern University with Bachelor’s in Environmental Science. When she isn’t imbibing copious amounts of caffeine, you can find her with her nose in a book or experimenting in the kitchen. Contact Nicole at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the U.S. Slowly Phasing Out Capital Punishment? appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone! If you feel a little down because of all the celebrity deaths at the end of 2016, take a much-needed break and enjoy today’s RantCrush. Read through our rants of the day and end on a funny note with a fantastic parody video featuring a singing Barack Obama. Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Police Officers Believe Alexa Could Solve This Murder Case

A November 2015 case that involved a dead man found floating in a hot tub could possibly be resolved with the help of Amazon’s Alexa. At least that’s what the police in Bentonville, Arkansas believe.

Victor Collins was found dead in James Bates’ backyard hot tub–the two worked together. Broken bottles, a black eye, and bloodstains around the tub made it seem like a clear murder case, but there was no hard evidence. But Bates had an Amazon Echo, an electronic device that reacts to the activation word “Alexa,” like Apple’s Siri. When you activate it, it starts recording and streams what you say to an online server. Police seized the device and asked Amazon to hand them the recorded information from its server. But Amazon said “no way.”

Police want to interrogate Amazon Alexa re: murder suspect. Someone..thing..is always listening now.https://t.co/9zDrx6Z56n

— Ira Flatow (@iraflatow) December 28, 2016

“Amazon will not release customer information without a valid and binding legal demand properly served on us,” a company spokeswoman said to the LA Times. The Echo only starts recording if someone says the activation word, so the chances that it would contain something of value in a murder investigation are very slim. But hey, who knows? Maybe it’s worth a try.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: December 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

After five teenagers were found guilty of raping a jogger in Central Park in April 1989, Donald Trump called for the death penalty: “Bring Back the Death Penalty! Bring Back Our Police!” was the headline of full-page advertisements that ran in four New York newspapers, including the New York Times after the group, known as the Central Park 5, were convicted. All five were exonerated in 2002 after another man, Matias Reyes, confessed to the crime (and his DNA was found on the victim).

Trump, 27 years after the crime and 14 years after the wrongly convicted men were exonerated, won’t concede defeat. “They admitted they were guilty,” Trump said recently in a statement to CNN’s Miguel Marquez. “The police doing the original investigation say they were guilty. The fact that that case was settled with so much evidence against them is outrageous. And the woman, so badly injured, will never be the same.”

Aside from the fact that the Central Park 5 were coerced and under extreme duress, according to their accounts, when they confessed to the attack in 1989, Trump is incorrect. There was hardly any actual evidence against them. No witnesses. No DNA evidence, since forensic technology was nascent at the time. But Trump still cannot let the case go. Perhaps his denial is aimed at fueling those in his base who support his “law and order” stance. Perhaps its a personal vendetta he can’t seem to cut loose. But for those in the Central Park 5, Trump’s recent remarks have reopened old wounds.

Would the GOP ever place FULLPAGE newspaper Ads against #Trump as he did against the Innocent Vindicated #CentralParkFive? #CP5 @yusefsalaam pic.twitter.com/ZvPitolLKw

— Tech Art Diva (@TechArtDiva) September 30, 2016

In an editorial in the Washington Post on Wednesday, Yusef Salaam, one of the Central Park 5, describes the fresh fear he feels now that Trump is bringing the case back to the public’s attention.

“When we hear that he is going to be a ‘law and order president,’ a collective chill goes down the spine of those of us who have been the victims of this ‘law and order,'” Salaam writes. Later in the op-ed, he says: “It’s further proof of his bias, racism and inability to admit that he’s wrong,” adding, “I am overwhelmed with a nagging fear that an overzealous Trump supporter might take matters into his or her hands.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump vs. Central Park 5: The Long Saga Trump Can’t Let Go appeared first on Law Street.

Every day, people all over the world are executed for a wide variety of crimes. Though in the west it is mostly used to punish serious crimes like murder, in some places you can be executed for who you sleep with, how you dress, or if you have a different opinion from your government. Some countries execute people who were underage at the time of committing a crime and some do it to the mentally ill. Monday, October 10 marks the World Day Against Death Penalty.

Some countries still use the death penalty for homosexuality.

Let’s stand with our LGBTQI friends on the 10th October for World Day Against the Death Penalty #NoDeathPenalty #LGBTQI pic.twitter.com/ZOabAGG9Iz

— Rainbow Amnesty (@AI_LGBTQI_NSW) October 6, 2016

Amnesty International is committed to abolishing the death penalty worldwide and presents some of the main arguments for why. The fact is that by sentencing someone to death, you are denying the person’s right to life–which was established in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Additionally, because mistakes do happen, there have been several cases when an innocent person has been executed. There is also no proof that the use of the death penalty reduces the crime rate in a country. It is a discriminatory practice; death sentences are more likely to to be given to someone from a religious or racial minority as well as the poor and those who cannot afford an expensive lawyer for a lengthy trial.

Lastly, the risk that it is used as a political tool to quiet dissent in countries with a deeply corrupt justice system is too big.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement on Monday:

Let us be clear: participation in peaceful protests and criticism of a government–whether in private, on the Internet, or in the media–are neither crimes nor terrorist acts. The threat or use of the death penalty in such cases is an egregious violation of human rights.

World Day Against the Death Penalty – AI calls on Indon authorities to end DP and review all DP cases https://t.co/MppoXbz5et pic.twitter.com/0Y5Otj7jc3

— Amnesty Int’l (@AIIndoTimor) October 10, 2016

The U.N. Secretary-General also pointed out that although many countries seem to believe the death penalty is an effective way to handle terrorism, by scaring off future assailants, it actually has the opposite effect. He said:

This is not true. Experience has shown that putting terrorists to death serves as propaganda for their movements by creating perceived martyrs and making their macabre recruiting campaigns more effective.

Many Twitter users expressed their opposition to the practice.

On the World Day Against Death Penalty,I hail all those who were executed by #Iran‘s regime in the battle for freedom #NoDeathPenalty

— Maryam Rajavi (@Maryam_Rajavi) October 10, 2016

Places like China and Iran frequently execute people who dare to stand up against the government or reveal unflattering depictions of what life is like there. According to the most recent numbers from Amnesty International, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia account for almost 90 percent of all recorded executions in 2015. But this percentage does not include China, where thousands of people are believed to be executed each year, though data on executions is considered a state secret and is highly classified. The data also shows that last year saw the highest number of executions worldwide in 25 years.

Killing in the name of justice? Mapping death penalty https://t.co/z7eN42lrJk #NoDeathPenalty #WorldDayAgainstDeathPenalty @WCADP @amnesty pic.twitter.com/G9kP9IIQCG

— Benjamin Hennig (@geoviews) October 10, 2016

Salil Shetty, Amnesty International’s Secretary General said in a statement:

The rise in executions last year is profoundly disturbing. Not for the last 25 years have so many people been put to death by states around the world. In 2015 governments continued relentlessly to deprive people of their lives on the false premise that the death penalty would make us safer.

California has a particularly high number of prisoners on death row–prisoners who have been sentenced to death but not yet executed. Only 13 people have been executed since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, and nearly 750 remain on death row. In November, Californians will vote on two ballot initiatives that will change the state’s death penalty practice. Proposition 62 would repeal the death penalty entirely, and Proposition 66 would change the current system to speed up the appeals process to reduce the number of prisoners on death row. If both pass ,the initiative with the most “yes” votes will become law.

California, we’ve fallen far behind the times. It’s time to end the death penalty for good. RT if you agree. https://t.co/F3ZjwbrgfM pic.twitter.com/l5qpQ0CBXk

— Yes On 62 (@yeson62) October 9, 2016

According to Amnesty International, the United States has the fifth highest number of executions worldwide, following China, Iran, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. Last year, it was also the only country in the Americas to actually perform an execution. We share a place on a list of countries that are infamous for violating human rights, while our neighboring countries and Europe got rid of this practice many years ago. It makes you wonder, does the death penalty really have a place in the United States in the 21st century?

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World Day Against Death Penalty: Do Executions Belong In the 21st Century? appeared first on Law Street.

The serial killer known as the “Grim Sleeper” was sentenced to death by the Los Angeles County Superior Court on Wednesday. His real name is Lonnie David Franklin Jr, now 63. His story plays like a horror movie.

Franklin used to work as a garbage collector in Los Angeles, where he killed at least 10 young women in the span of 22 years, from 1985 to 2007. He got his nickname because he seemed to be inactive between 1988 and 2002. But detectives believe he might have killed many more women within those years, and maybe wasn’t inactive at all.

Franklin faced the court on Wednesday morning with many family members of his victims present. He was convicted earlier this year of killing ten women. Investigators said he repeatedly denied killing anyone, and he didn’t utter a word at the trial. His defense lawyers suggested the real killer was someone else, and asked for his life to be spared.

The "Grim Sleeper" Lonnie David Franklin Jr. is sentenced to death after killing 10 women in South LA from 1985-2007 pic.twitter.com/8RfDRIEYrG

— AJ+ (@ajplus) August 10, 2016

Some people in the community say the “Grim Sleeper” was probably able to carry on his horrible killings for so long because he targeted poor, black women who were either drug addicts or prostitutes. Such women were not always reported missing, and were not high priorities for police.

In most of the murders, Franklin shot them and then left them in the trash or along the road. But one of his shooting victims managed to get away, and her statement, combined with DNA and ballistic evidence, led to Franklin’s conviction.

Deputy District Attorney Beth Silverman described Franklin in her brief as “a psychopathic, sadistic serial killer who takes joy in inflicting pain on women and killing them.”

The mother of one victim said in court that he took her daughter’s life and put her in a trash bag. She hoped life in jail would become his trash bag, she said. But Judge Kathleen Kennedy gave him the death penalty, saying, “This is not a sentence of vengeance.” She added: “It’s justice.”

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post “Grim Sleeper” Serial Killer Receives Death Sentence for LA Murders appeared first on Law Street.

Dylann Roof is accused of killing nine people at a Charleston, South Carolina church last summer, and was charged with 33 federal offenses and received the death penalty. On Monday, Roof’s defense attorneys filed a legal challenge to the capital punishment, arguing that the death penalty is unconstitutional.

#DylannRoof’s federal attorneys try to throw out death penalty as ‘unconstitutional’: https://t.co/zNPsJJp1Hy pic.twitter.com/rkFDTu95r7

— The Root (@TheRoot) August 2, 2016

In a 30-plus page motion, his defense team wrote, “this Court should rule that the federal death penalty constitutes a legally prohibited, arbitrary, cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by both the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.” The motion went on to say, “The facts of this case are indisputably grave. But if, as we contend here, the FDPA [Federal Death Penalty Act] is unconstitutional, no one can be lawfully sentenced to death or executed under it, no matter what his crimes.”

If federal prosecutors drop the pursuit of the death penalty, Roof’s lawyers say they will drop the challenge. Why the complication? The challenge comes from the prosecution’s unwillingness to accept Roof’s guilty pleas and multiple life sentences without parole.

Roof, a white male who is now 22-years-old, was indicted on 33 counts of federal hate crimes and firearm charges last summer. He is accused of killing nine black worshippers at a Bible study in the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Justice Department is strongly pursuing the death penalty because Roof targeted his victims on the basis of race and religion.

“The nature of the alleged crime and the resulting harm compelled this decision,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in May about the decision to pursue the death penalty. A month after the shooting in July 2015, she said, “To carry out these twin goals of fanning racial flames and exacting revenge, Roof further decided to seek out and murder African Americans because of their race.” She went on to say, “An essential element of his plan, however, was to find his victims inside of a church, specifically an African-American church, to ensure the greatest notoriety and attention to his actions.”

The judge who is presiding over the case, Richard Gergel, did not immediately rule out the filing to challenge the death penalty. However, Twitter users immediately reacted.

#DylannRoof should absolutely be given the death penalty when found guilty. If you MURDER people, you have sacrificed your own right to live

— Josh Nelson (@RoarFromIA) August 2, 2016

 

Foreign terrorists don’t get to challenge a death penalty, why should domestic terrorists? #DylannRoof #KillDylannRoof

— TW: White female. (@karmapolitical) August 2, 2016

#KorrynGaines & #DylannRoof news this AM. IF you’re going to kill the woman who might have shot someone, then kill the man who murdered 9.

— Austin Saunders (@Widlcat77) August 2, 2016

Yeah, #DylannRoof doesn’t deserve the death penalty. They should randomly go into his cell & violently murder him. That would be “fair”.

— Faustslaughter (@Faustslaughter) August 2, 2016

Roof’s federal trial is set for November 7 in U.S. District Court. A murder trial in South Carolina state court is scheduled for January.

Inez Nicholson

Inez is an editorial intern at Law Street from Raleigh, NC. She will be a junior at North Carolina State University and is studying political science and communication media. When she’s not in the newsroom, you can find her in the weight room. Contact Inez at INicholson@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dylann Roof’s Lawyers Seek Life Sentence Over Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

According to a long line of Supreme Court cases, death is different. Because it is the ultimate penalty, every aspect of a trial and sentencing are subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny when the death penalty is involved. As a society, we fall short of the high standard of care that we hope to achieve in these cases but we instinctively feel that cases involving execution are special.

Much attention is paid to the process of trying, convicting, and sentencing for capital offenses, but recently, attention has also been paid to the execution process itself. In May, Pfizer, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the United States, announced that it would be taking steps to block states from purchasing its drugs for use in executions. Some states feel that only lethal injection is an appropriately humane method. Some allow the use of the electric chair as well. In Utah, the use of a firing squad is once again an option. For states that do not allow methods other than lethal injection, these restrictions are creating a shortage of the cocktail of drugs involved, impacting the state’s ability to execute those they have sentenced.

Blocking states’ ability to purchase these drugs limits their ability to execute those convicted of capital crimes by that method but it merely delays these executions until other methods can be approved or the drugs are acquired some other way. It isn’t an effective method for changing capital punishment as a policy. But companies in the United States, and all over the world, have used their power to refuse to sell these drugs to protest the death penalty with mixed consequences.

The Process

Lethal injection as a method of execution is surprisingly complicated. One would think that the process of killing a prisoner would be simple, but in most states that is not the case. Executions typically involve a cocktail of three different drugs. First a sedative, typically some kind of barbiturate, to render the condemned unconscious. Then a paralytic, which affects one’s ability to breathe. Finally, potassium chloride to stop the heart.

This Forbes article goes into detail regarding the specific drugs and their effects on the human body, but essentially, the potential to cause suffering through misapplication of this method is very high. In the video below from CNN, Dr. Sanjay Gupta also gives a brief explanation of the process here, specifically in regard to the “botched” execution of Clayton Lockett.

As explained in the video, the execution process failed to go as planned even though Oklahoma was following a protocol that had been approved and is not considered to be inhumane. In fact, the Supreme Court recently upheld the protocol–specifically the use of the drug midazolam as the sedative–finding that it is not in violation of the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Oklahoma increased the amount of that drug used in its executions since the Lockett execution, but the essential three-step drug protocol is the same.

This is the central problem that Pfizer is trying to address with its sales ban. Like other companies and the European Union, which also bans the sale of drugs used in executions to state facilities, Pfizer does not want its products used to carry out executions. These products, Pfizer argues, were meant to promote health for its clients and using them in an execution is antithetical to its purpose as a company.

But these efforts, although they may assuage the consciences of the companies and nations that employ them, are not without cost. They make it just difficult enough for states to acquire these drugs that the process becomes less transparent and more dangerous, but not difficult enough to stop executions altogether. States have come up with various methods to circumvent these restrictions. For example, reviving the firing squad as an option in Utah is in part a response to the difficulty getting lethal injection drugs.

States also now turn to “compounding pharmacies” to get the necessary drug cocktail. These companies purchase the drugs by themselves, since the state cannot buy them due to company restrictions, and combine them for use in an execution. They aren’t regulated to the same degree as a traditional pharmaceutical company, which means figuring out how effective the drugs will be in making execution as humane as possible is more difficult. States also may try to use straw men purchasers in order to get the needed drugs.

In order to facilitate these executions by lethal injection, as opposed to another method such as the electric chair, Virginia and a few other states have proposed allowing pharmacists who assist the state to remain secret. This video provides some of the arguments against this proposal and a look at some of the legal issues surrounding it.

Allowing pharmaceutical companies who assist the state in executions to remain secret or to hide the sources of the drugs creates a host of concerns. Firstly, it prevents lawyers from getting the necessary information to challenge an execution that they feel was cruel and unusual. They won’t be able to get evidence about the protocol used in that particular execution, making it harder to stop a protocol from being repeated the future. Secondly, it prevents lawyers from finding out where the drugs are coming from before the execution as well, so they would be unable to challenge the use of drugs from a company that had a history of errors in other medical contexts.

It also eliminates the fear of being sued or criminally charged for mistakes made in the preparations of the drugs, which is one of the most powerful incentives for pharmaceutical companies to behave properly. In the absence of adequate regulation, the power to be economically damaged by a lawsuit is one of the ways that consumers can ensure product safety. Getting rid of that tool for death penalty drugs could allow the negligent behavior to go unchecked. While there are lobbying groups who oppose the death penalty that put pressure on pharmaceutical companies, there is not the same widespread social concern for this issue that would give companies an incentive to be responsible, for fear of a boycott, as there would be for a product like aspirin. The heinous nature of the crimes that these prisoners have committed means that many people aren’t concerned about whether they are executed humanely. Even in cases where the execution was extremely painful, so-called “botched” executions, it isn’t a top priority for most to change how we execute criminals.

Humane For Whom? 

Moves by pharmaceutical companies to prevent their drugs from being used in executions has sparked an interesting debate. Most would argue that they should have the right to restrict these sales, but in doing so they are actually increasing the likelihood that states will botch executions. Several executions have been delayed but a state is more likely to turn to a compounding pharmacy or get the drugs from another state than it is to revert to an alternate method of execution. So far only Utah and Oklahoma have gone outside the box–with firing squad and gas chamber respectively–that our interest in “humane” executions has placed us in. We tend to think of lethal injection as the best method because it is the most medically supervised and modern practice used. But 7 percent of executions by lethal injections are “botched,” meaning 7 percent of the time someone made a mistake that could have left the prisoner sensible to pain or prolonged their death for many minutes or hours. Although it is less often used, the percentage of botched firing squad executions is zero.

Despite its cheapness and efficiency as a method of execution, the guillotine has not seen a resurgence of popularity either, although it was originally invented as a more humane alternative to hanging as a means of execution. If the condemned were acting rationally they would choose the guillotine rather than lethal injection as their method of choice because, like a firing squad, a prolonged execution is less likely. From that viewpoint, it is a more humane method. Yet we continue to employ lethal injection because it is considered a more humane method by the observers.

There is a case to be made for pharmaceutical companies to work together with states. If these companies want to improve humane executions, while keeping the death penalty intact, working with states rather than against them might be the best option. Pharmaceutical companies have access to the best research available and thousands of drugs that are used in life-saving therapies that might be helpful in executions as well. When companies decide to restrict the use of their drugs for executions, advocacy groups generally applaud them, but they may want to work together to improve the current system first. If lethal injection is really the best method, then these companies and advocacy groups might be able to better serve the people they wish to protect by advocating for better lethal injections, even if they are continuing to advocate for an outright ban at the same time.

Conclusion 

Pfizer’s announcement has been ridiculed by many as simply a PR move to appeal to a constituency that opposes the death penalty. Especially since those who support the death penalty don’t typically care enough about it to protest a company that opposes it. It is impossible to know if Pfizer’s concerns are genuine but they aren’t alone in their attempts to ban the use of these medications in a practice they find unethical. Companies commonly take moral stands on issues and either grant or refuse their support based on those values. But Pfizer and companies like it may be doing more harm to their cause than good. Rather than forcing states to make an end-run around their restrictions, thereby making executions less transparent and less humane, pharmaceutical companies should work with states to ensure that their products are being used as humanely as possible.

Resources 

NPR: Utah Brings Back Firing Squad Executions

Death Penalty Info: State Lethal Injection

Forbes: The Pharmacology and Toxicology of Execution by Lethal Injection

CNN: Clayton Lockett Oklahoma Execution

NPR: Supreme Court Says Oklahoma’s Use of Midazolam in Lethal Injection Is Legal

Wall Street Journal: Pfizer Tightens Controls to Block Use of Its Drugs In Executions

New York Times: Pfizer Blocks the Use of Its Drugs in Executions

Death Penalty Info: Some Examples Post-Furman Botched Executions 

Atlantic.com: The Case For Bringing Back the Guillotine

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Death Is Different: Restricting the Sale of Lethal Injection Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

Pfizer’s announcement on Friday that it will enforce the distribution restriction of its drugs that are used in lethal cocktails makes it the last FDA-approved pharmaceutical company to do so. Which means states that still carry out executions are forced to go underground to find drugs, or go back to very outdated options.

Pfizer stated:

Pfizer makes its products solely to enhance and save the lives of the patients we serve. We strongly object to the use of any of our products in the lethal injection process for capital punishment.

We are committed to ensuring that our products remain available and accessible to the medical professionals and patients who rely upon them every day. We have implemented a comprehensive strategy and enhanced restricted distribution protocols for a select group of products to help combat their unauthorized use for capital punishment.

Pfizer is the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world, and its stance on the issue is important. However, it’s hard to know exactly how big of an impact it will have on the actual business of executions because of the secrecy surrounding the process. There are 32 states still using death penalty, and of those, a majority are not open about their drug sources because of fear of  violent actions from execution opponents.

As Law Street has reported earlier, the lethal injection crisis has been going on for a few years. This is due to drug manufacturers’ refusal to provide drugs for this purpose, and export restrictions from European nations, where capital punishment is no longer in use. This has led to the use of drugs that could cause unnecessary suffering, or drugs from compounding pharmacies, resulting in some drawn-out and seemingly painful deaths. To not have to break the law to carry out executions, some states have actually turned to old-fashioned options such as the firing squad, electric chairs, or even gas chamber as possible solutions. Others have just delayed executions again and again, waiting to find the right drugs.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Pfizer Prohibits Use of its Drugs for Executions appeared first on Law Street.

In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that part of the process used to confer death sentences in the State of Florida violates the Sixth Amendment on Tuesday. The ruling focuses on the state’s use of a judge, rather than a jury, to make the final determination of a death sentence and does not weigh in on the constitutionality of death sentences in general.

“The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death. A jury’s mere recommendation is not enough,” wrote Justice Sotomayor in her majority opinion. The case, Hurst v. Florida, involves Timothy Lee Hurst’s conviction for the murder of his co-worker Cynthia Harrison in 1998. The state of Florida has a unique sentencing procedure for death penalty cases, which Sotomayor argues is in violation of the Sixth Amendment.

In Florida, the maximum sentence for someone convicted of just a capital felony is life in prison. But, a death sentence may be given to a capital felon only after an additional sentencing proceeding. This process, which the Supreme Court refers to as “hybrid” sentencing, puts the final decision in the hands of the judge after a jury gives an “advisory verdict.” Although the jury provides the verdict, it does not give the factual basis for its sentencing recommendation, instead, the judge is tasked with providing the legal justification for a death sentence. Justice Sotomayor argues that under the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury,” the Florida system is unconstitutional.

Much of the reasoning in the Hurst v. Florida case comes from the court’s ruling in Ring v. Arizona back in 2002. The previous Arizona sentencing system is very similar to the structure that the court stuck down in Florida, making Sotomayor’s opinion a pretty straightforward interpretation of court precedent. The Arizona sentencing process ultimately put the burden on a judge to determine whether the presence of aggravating factors justify the death penalty. The court ruled that doing so violated the Sixth Amendment and largely applied the same justification to the ruling in Hurst v. Florida.

So what does this mean going forward? In light of the ruling, two primary questions remain. First, what does this mean for all of the inmates currently on death row? And second, what changes will the state need to make to issue death sentences in the future? As Think Progress points out, the Ring V. Arizona decision did not retroactively affect prisoners who received death sentences prior to the Ring ruling. In a subsequent decision, Schriro v. Summerlin, the Supreme Court ruled that the precedent set by Ring does not apply retroactively to other Arizona inmates because it amounted to a procedural change in the law, not a substantive one. Based on that precedent, the court’s recent ruling in Hurst will likely not affect previous cases.

However, there is some evidence to suggest that the ruling may, in fact, be retroactive. As NPR notes, retroactivity is also a matter of state law and the Florida Supreme Court uses a more generous application of retroactivity than most states. It is important to note that Florida has the second highest number of inmates currently on death row, making the question of retroactivity particularly important for the state.

In the wake of the ruling, Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi issued the following statement:

In light of today’s United States Supreme Court decision holding Florida’s capital sentencing procedure unconstitutional, the state will need to make changes to its death-sentencing statutes. I will work with state lawmakers this legislative session to ensure that those changes comply with the Court’s latest decision. The impact of the Court’s ruling on existing death sentences will need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

Based on Bondi’s statement, there is some possibility that the ruling could apply retroactively, but it seems clear that Florida will need to amend or pass a new law in order to issue future death sentences.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Deems Florida Death Penalty Sentencing Unconstitutional appeared first on Law Street.

Capital punishment has long been a controversial practice in the United States. Some feel that society needs to rid the country of America’s most heinous criminals in order to make room for new prisoners or to save taxpayer money, while others point out that the U.S. has executed more than 150 innocent people and this punishment cannot be undone. But why do people feel so strongly about the death penalty, how have their feelings changed over time, and what does this mean for capital punishment moving forward?

The Death Penalty Today

Demographics of the Death Penalty

In 2013, of the 2,979 inmates on death row, roughly half of them were held in four states: California, Texas, Florida, and Pennsylvania. Divided by race, inmates were 56 percent white and 42 percent black. Along gender lines, men outnumbered women one to 49, with men comprising 98 percent of death-row inmates and women only two percent.

Which states still use the death penalty?

The following states still use capital punishment:

The federal government and military also use capital punishment.

Each state determines which crimes are punishable by death. Crimes other than murder that can end in a death row sentence include rape of a child, weapons of mass destruction resulting in death, aggravated kidnapping, assault by an escaped capital felon, and aircraft hijacking.

The U.S. Federal Government uses the death penalty for 41 capital offenses including murder for hire, treason, terrorism, espionage, genocide, large-scale drug trafficking, and attempting to kill a witness, juror, or court officer in certain cases.

The following states abolished or no longer use capital punishment:

When the death penalty was removed or abolished in some states, lawmakers were faced with the question of what to do with those already on death row. Should those sentenced to death before the new law be allowed to live? In New Mexico and Connecticut, the answer was no. In 2009 when New Mexico eliminated the penalty, the law was not retroactive, which meant the two people on the state’s death row would still face execution. As of 2015, those two are still on death row. Also those who committed crimes worthy of the death penalty before 2009 could still face execution. The same ruling occurred in Connecticut, which had 11 people still on the state’s death row.

Arguments For and Against the Death Penalty

According to a 2014 Gallup poll, the most common justification for the death penalty is that the punishment fits the crime: an eye for an eye. This reasoning has dramatically decreased in the last 13 years, with 48 percent support in 2001, to 35 percent in 2014. Other reasons include a belief that the convicted person deserves it, that the death penalty can be used to set an example, and that it saves taxpayer money.

According to the same poll, the most popular reasons why people do not support capital punishment include a belief that it’s wrong to take a life at (40 percent), the fear of wrongful execution (17 percent), and religious purposes (17 percent). The fact that it costs more to keep prisoners on death row is very far down the list, polling at only two percent.

These are the various ways in which Americans perceive the death penalty, but are they correct?

The Cost of the Death Penalty

Despite 14 percent of Americans supporting the death penalty in order to save taxpayer dollars, it is actually more expensive to kill an inmate than to incarcerate him for the rest of his life. This revelation complicates the argument over whether or not it makes sense to employ the punishment.

A Los Angeles Times study found that the state of California spent more than $250 million per execution. California has executed 11 people over the course of 27 years and spends an average of $114 million per year on death row inmates. The state spends an additional $114 million per year on security and legal representation. The study also found that housing a death row inmate costs $90,000 more than non-death row inmates. Since reinstating the death penalty in 1978, California has spent more than $4 billion on executions. The reason why death row inmates are so costly is due to the complex and drawn out judicial process. Appeals cost the state and federal government time and money, and the concrete evidence needed, such as DNA testing, is costly. 

Other states have also found that the cost of the death penalty is higher than life sentence cases as well. A Seattle University study that examined death penalty cases in Washington state since 1997 concluded that on average capital punishment cases cost $1 million more than cases that did not seek the death penalty, with costs of $3.07 million and $2.01 million, respectively. Defense and prosecution costs were more than triple in death penalty cases. Since Washington reinstated the death penalty in 1981, the state has spent $120 million on five executions with an average of $24 million per execution.

In Nevada the cost of a capital punishment case is between $1.03 million and $1.3 million while a non-capital punishment case costs about $775,000. The reason for this difference is because death penalty cases are more lengthy and costly to make certain that the sentence is correct.

The average time a convict sits on death row has been increasing since the 1980s. In 1984 the average time between sentencing and execution was 74 months, or a little over six years. In 2012 it was 190 months, or nearly 16 years. That means the average inmate executed in 2015 was convicted in 1999.

In order to prove a fair sentence for execution all doubts must be erased. That is why death row inmates are given due process and appeals after their original sentences.

Concerns Over Wrongful Executions

Even today death row inmates are exonerated due to new evidence and doubts. As of May 2015 there have been 152 people exonerated from death row in United States history, leading to the concern that the justice system is far from infallible.

For example, in 2015 accused murderer Anthony Ray Hilton was freed after 30 years on death row in Alabama. His case made it to the Supreme Court and his defense attorney during his 1985 trial was found “constitutionally deficient” and ballistic evidence proved that he was not the murderer. The case was dropped by the Jefferson County district attorney’s office on April 1, 2015 and two days later his conviction was overturned. Because of his wrongful incarceration, Hilton missed the birth of his grandchild and the death of his mother.

So, is public opinion on the death penalty changing?

Since the 1930s, statistics show that a majority of the U.S. population supports the death penalty. The public’s opinion has fluctuated slowly over time with approval increasing from 47 percent in 1967 to 80 percent in 1995 and decreasing to 63 percent in 2014.

One thing is clear: Americans are losing confidence in the death penalty. According to Gallup, since the late 1990s, support for the death penalty for a convicted killer has fall by 17 percent and opposition has increased by 17 percent.

Conclusion

Capital punishment is legally complicated in many states. Some have the death penalty but do not use it. Others have abolished it but can still sentence people to death. Americans have a lot of things to take into account when deciding what side of the debate they fall into–whether its ethics, costs, or the time it takes to enact capital punishment. The more than 150 confirmed wrongful executions in the United States show that trials and law are not infallible. While approval of the death penalty continues to decrease every year, it’s doubtful that the U.S. will be making a big change any time soon.

Resources

Primary

Bureau of Justice Statistics: Prisoners in 2013

U.S. Department of Justice: Capital Punishment

Additional

Gallup: Death Penalty

Death Penalty: The High Cost of the Death Penalty

Death Penalty: Cost of the Death Penalty

Guardian: Alabama Man Off Death Row After 28 Years

Death Penalty Info: States With and Without the Death Penalty

Mike Stankiewicz

Mike Stankiewicz came to Washington to follow his dream of becoming a journalist. The native New Yorker studied Broadcast Journalism and Law and Society at American University. In his leisure time he enjoys baseball, hiking, and classic American literature. Contact Mike at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Capital Punishment: Is American Opinion Changing? appeared first on Law Street.

The jury tasked with determining the fate of Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev decided on the death penalty last Friday, May 15, 2015. The jury found Tsarnaev guilty earlier this spring. Last week, the jurors determined that for six of the 17 counts for which he was found guilty, the death penalty should apply. That being said, how long it will take for the death penalty to actually be enacted remains unknown. Given the lengthy appeals process that is sure to follow, it may be many years.

Tsarnaev, along with his older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was responsible for making the bombs that went off at the finish line of the Boston Marathon in 2013. The bombs killed three people and injured hundreds more, and sparked a lockdown while the two perpetrators were found. While during the manhunt that followed other significant crimes were committed, including the death of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology police officer, those six counts all related to the planting of the pressure-cooker bombs.

One of the most compelling grounds for appeal would appear to be the location of the trial–it was in Boston, where the atrocious events happened in the first place. The trial moved forward in this location despite the fact that the defense attempted to have the trial moved before it even began. The defense, led by notoriously anti-death penalty attorney Judy Clarke, argued that the case should not have been tried in Boston because it would be too difficult to find an unbiased jury there–after all, the events of the bombing were seriously disruptive and traumatizing to a city where the marathon is tantamount to a holiday. But the judge in the case, U.S. District Judge George A. O’Toole Jr., denied the move. That decision will most likely be one of the ones that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys asks a higher court to examine.  Another likely avenue for appeal indicated by Tsarnaev’s defense team will be that they did not have sufficient time to present an argument against the death penalty.

Besides just the particularities of Tsarnaev’s case, such as the location and the timeline, there could be other grounds for appeal, including arguments over the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Any appeal arguments will be reviewed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, also located in Boston. Depending on that decision, the case could end up being appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Given that the appeals process is such a long road, Tsarnaev most likely won’t receive the sentence he’s been given–to die by lethal injection–for many years. As the Guardian summed it up:

Though the Justice Department could attempt to fast-track executions in the name of public interest, death penalty experts expect the very quickest timeframe from Friday’s sentence to Tsarnaev actually being put on a gurney and injected with lethal chemicals would be at least ten years.

So, while Friday’s decision may have seemed to have an air of finality, it’s far from over. Tsarnaev’s legal battle will probably be in the works for years to come, whether he’ll ever actually be put to death is certainly questionable.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Process May Stop the Government From Executing Dzhokhar Tsarnaev appeared first on Law Street.

The United States is running out of lethal injection drugs. European pharmacies have refused to sell any more of their pentobarbital or other such supplies to America after they received information that the drugs were being used to kill inmates. Most of the E.U. has abandoned the use of capital punishment; the U.S. is the only Western country that still carries out executions.

As followers of the American penal system and/or fans of Gone Girl know, the rules regarding capital punishment vary from state to state. At present, 32 states in the U.S. enforce the death penalty, including Utah and Texas.

Lawmakers are seeking “back ups” to lethal injection. Utah Governor Gary Herbert signed a bill on Monday that allows death row prisoners to be killed by firing squad when execution by lethal injection is not available.

Read More: Lethal Injection Crisis: How States Are Solving the Problem

What are the procedures for a firing squad execution, you may ask? Officers volunteer to be part of a three-person shooting team. The anonymous trio shoots at a target over the inmate’s heart. One of the three guns that is used is loaded with a blank round, so nobody knows exactly which officer killed the inmate.

Read More: It’s Time to Bring Back the Firing Squad

If you are part of the 55 percent of Americans who support the death penalty for convicted murderers, you might agree with Fordham Law Professor Deborah Denno’s evaluation of death by firing squad:

It’s the only method we have in this country for which people are trained to kill. It appears the death is the quickest.

Other methods of capital punishment have also been discussed. The electric chair, death by hanging, and gas chambers were ruled out. Judge Alex Kozinski expressed his views on the use of another controversial killing method:

The guillotine is probably best, but seems inconsistent with our national ethos.

If you are an American who is not in favor of the death penalty, you might support exploring the other alternative—eliminating capital punishment altogether. Organizations such as Amnesty International are looking to get rid of the death penalty in America and educate people about the politics of its capital punishment system.

The change of policy in Utah has brought national attention to issues of justice and morality within the U.S. prison system. Will this issue incite a push for reform? Perhaps it is necessary to re-evaluate our country’s “national ethos,” to borrow a phrase from Judge Kozinski.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Death by Firing Squad Now Legal in Utah appeared first on Law Street.

One of the biggest deterrents for people not to commit murder–besides of course, moral reasons—is knowing that they could potentially get the death penalty. However, a recent review of capital punishment figures by the Department of Justice (DOJ) shows that if you’re convicted of capital murder, the odds are in your favor that you will never be executed.

The DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) found that of the 8,466 prisoners who were sentenced to death between 1973 and 2013, only 1,359 (16 percent) of them were executed. So what’s happening to the other 84 percent of death row inmates? Well, for most, their sentences are being overturned on appeal and amended to lesser penalties.

Here’s a more detailed look into some of the findings:

• Between 1973 and 2013, 8,466 prisoners were sentenced to death.
• However, 3,194 prisoners had their death penalty sentences overturned on appeal. Of those, 523 convictions no longer stood because the law they were based on was declared unconstitutional, 890 had their conviction overturned, and 1,781 were still declared guilty but no longer sentenced to death.
• During those years, 509 died on death row from other causes.
• An additional 392 had their sentences commuted to life in prison by a governor.
• There were 33 who weren’t put to death for other miscellaneous reasons.
• As of December 31, 2013, 2,979 still remain on death row.

According to the Washington Post,

But by far the most likely outcome of a U.S. death sentence is that it will eventually be reversed and the inmate will remain in prison with a different form of death sentence: life without the possibility of parole.

Opinions on capital punishment have long been a divider between people weighing its moral ramifications against the old “eye for an eye” argument. Many find themselves picking a side based on stereotypical party lines: Republicans tend to be in favor of the death penalty and Democrats trend against. However, party allegiance doesn’t seem to be a factor in who is overturning these cases. According to the Washington Post:

Both Republican and Democratic appointees have voted to overturn these convictions because they so often involve such issues as evidence withheld from the defense, improper instructions to the jury, or other serious flaws in the original trials.

As a whole, these findings are good news for anyone in trouble with the law, but slightly unnerving when examining how our justice system works. The BJS review could end up being fuel for death penalty opposers to show its ineffectiveness, as death row inmates are actually three times more likely to see their sentences overturned or lessened on appeal. Regardless, a debate over the death penalty, particularly as states like Utah weigh new methods of execution, certainly needs to take into account the infrequency with which it is actually implemented.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post DOJ Study: Death Penalty Not a Guaranteed Death Sentence appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I’m a Texas girl and you know we love our death penalty down here, but this week it was interesting to discover that Utah is in discussions to bring back the firing squad as one of its execution methods.

Learn more about the death penalty debate.

Last Friday, Utah’s House of Representatives voted 39-34 to approve the firing squad idea. Both houses of the state legislature are controlled by Republicans, and Republican Gary Herbert sits in the Governor’s office. Herbert has kept a tight lip about whether or not he would sign the bill in question.

Apparently the firing squad has not been a very distant memory in the Beehive State. Naturally the state offers the typical lethal injection, but it also allowed the authorization of firing squads to inmates who selected that form of execution over lethal injection prior to May 3, 2004. While death-row prisoners still have the right to choose that option, the state might bring it back on a wider scale because of new concerns about lethal injection not working correctly. Advocates of this bill cited cases from Arizona and Colorado where the lethal injection was botched and led to Supreme Court challenges of that method of execution.

Read more about America’s lethal injection crisis.

Of course, in addition to these advocates there are also those who oppose the bill, namely the 34 representatives who voted against it. Many of those believe that the death penalty should be abolished altogether.

Rep. Paul Ray, a Republican from Clearfield who is sponsoring this measure, claims that a team of trained marksmen is more humane and provide much faster death than the drawn-out process of a possibly botched lethal injection. Now the bill in question would simply call for a firing squad if the state can not get the drugs needed for the lethal injection 30 days in advance of the execution. What is interesting is that there are several different kinds of lethal injection. Some states, including Utah, use a three-drug cocktail, whereas other states like Texas use a single drug.

Now that this has passed in the Utah House it is in the hands of the Senate and no one really knows which way it will go.

If you are curious, this website has a very interesting list of what all the states allow or did allow as a form of execution.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Utah May Bring Back the Firing Squad appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am an avid social media user. I love all things social media but I have yet to cross the line into obsessively taking selfies and sending them off to anyone, let alone posting them all over the Internet. In today’s world it is almost impossible to find someone who has not taken one selfie and sent it to at least one other person. But one teen not only crossed the line in selfie etiquette, he showed how much he doesn’t value life.

Maxwell Morton, 16, faces first-degree murder charges, in addition to charges of criminal homicide and possession of a weapon by a minor, after shooting Ryan Mangan, who was also 16, last Wednesday.

A funeral was held for Mangan on Monday in a small town just outside of Pittsburgh.

Morton was dumb enough to photograph what he had done and then used the popular social media app SnapChat to send it to another boy. SnapChat allows the user to send a multi-media message that disappears within a few seconds once the recipient opens it. Thankfully the young man that Morton sent the image to was smart enough to save the image, show his mom, and then contact the police.

Morton also had taken a photo of himself with the 9 mm pistol that was used in the shooting, which was later found on the camera roll on his phone.

The amount of disregard for human life that Morton has is just sickening, and the fact that more and more social media is used for this kind of thing makes me want to delete all my apps and go back to an old school flip phone that would only allow you to make calls or send text messages..

Morton is being charged as an adult and could face up to life in prison. Life in prison. I think he deserves the death penalty. Something that the state of Pennsylvania does in fact still have in effect. Pennsylvania ranks 26 in executions for the past five years.

I have to wonder where this kids parents were, why he wanted to kill Mangan and where did he get the gun? Only time will tell.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Teen Murder Suspect Takes Selfie With Victim appeared first on Law Street.

A judge, a few attorneys, and more than a thousand potential jurors are facing a tricky situation in a Boston court. How do you select jury members to try a crime that caught the whole nation off guard and drew international attention for days on end? Starting Monday, lawyers began to screen 1,200 Bostonians to serve on the jury of the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial.

Tsarnaev is the 21-year-old suspect in the 2013 Boston Marathon Bombing that killed three people and injured more than 260. Despite the fact that the death penalty was declared unconstitutional in Massachusetts in 1982, Tsarnaev faces capital punishment if he is convicted, given that the charges against him are federal.

That is what makes the selection process so tricky. Tsarnaev is almost definitely going to be convicted, considering the amount of incriminating evidence authorities have—including footage of him dropping what looks like a bag filled with explosives near the race’s finish line, an inscription he supposedly wrote inside the boat where he was captured, and bomb-making instructions that he allegedly downloaded. His defense is expected to focus on trying to save him from the death penalty by picking the right jury members. For the prosecution, it’s the opposite.

The Associated Press explains that the prosecution will want to look for jurors who see things in black and white (or guilty or not guilty) and are likely to favor the death penalty. Meanwhile, the defense will want to look for people who, despite knowing that Tsarnaev is responsible, want to understand what forces pushed him to kill.

CNN reported that Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys have suggested that his older brother, Tamerlan, who was killed in a police chase that ended in a firefight a few days after the marathon, was the mastermind behind the bombing. Dzhokhar, they’ll argue, was influenced and coerced by Tamerlan.

The defense is even trying to bring in the Tsarnaev family history as evidence, citing the psychological impact that Tsarnaev’s father, a refugee from Chechnya, had on him and his brother. The defense has said that the brothers grew up in an environment of “suspicion and fear.” On the other hand, the prosecutors are expected to use the evidence they have to show that Tsarnaev carried out the attack knowingly and willingly.

Tsarnaev is facing 30 federal charges, 17 of which are punishable by death or life in prison. If convicted of any of those, he’ll have a second trial with the same jury to determine sentencing. In the jury selection process, this presents another criterion for which the jurors need to be screened: they have to be willing to impose capital punishment if that is the way that justice is to be legally served.

This is all happening in a state that did away with the death penalty more than three decades ago. In a 2013 Boston Globe poll, 57 percent of respondents said they favored life without parole for Tsarnaev over capital punishment. In contrast, 33 percent said they favored death, and the rest said they didn’t know. Experts told the Globe the results reinforce the notion that most Massachusetts citizens oppose the death penalty. In Boston, a relatively liberal city, the court will have to choose jurors who don’t harbor any strong feelings about it. Anyone who does cannot be a member of the jury. The defense actually tried to move the trial away from Boston several times because of the obvious emotional toll the attacks had on the city, but U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. refused.

The jury selection process is expected to take about three weeks. The trial is set to start in late January and take three to four months.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Jury Selection Begins in Boston Marathon Bomber Trial appeared first on Law Street.

The death penalty has long been a topic of contention in the United States. Some states, like Texas, make heavy use of the ability to enact capital punishment against its worst offenders. Others have banned the practice altogether. Read on to find out about the arguments for and against the death penalty in the United States.

What does the death penalty look like in the US?

The death penalty is legal in the United States–although it is up to the state’s discretion to determine whether or not to make it permissible within its borders. Currently 32 states have capital punishment laws on the books. The death penalty was, briefly, rendered essentially illegal in the United States by the 1972 Supreme Court case Furman v. Georgia but was reinstated in 1976 with the case Gregg v. Georgia. Between when the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, and the end of 2014, almost 1,400 prisoners have been executed.

The United States’ perspective on the death penalty is unique among many of its allies and peer nations. Japan is often described as the only other industrialized nation to use the death penalty. A full 140 other nations have abolished the practice. In 2013, the United States killed the fifth most people in the world, ranking only behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. Pakistan, Yemen, North Korea, Vietnam, and Libya round out the rest of the top ten.

What does the legal argument surrounding the death penalty look like?

The debate over the death penalty in America typically rests on the Fifth and Eighth Amendments.  The Fifth Amendment established due process in the American legal system, stating that a person shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”  On the other hand, the Eighth Amendment prevents the use of “cruel and unusual punishment.” Judges have interpreted these two amendments to mean that the death penalty is constitutional as long as it is carried out as humanely as possible and only after due process.

The juxtaposition of those arguments is actually what led to the de facto four-year stoppage of the death penalty between 1972 and 1976. In Furman v. Georgia, it was decided that particular death penalty statues were unconstitutional, not the act of capital punishment itself. The focus of Furman was on the arbitrariness of the statutes, rendering them unconstitutional. States rewrote the laws, a new suit called Gregg v. Georgia made it to the Supreme Court, and was ruled constitutional. Currently, the death penalty is viewed as constitutional, if states decide to use it.

What are the arguments against the death penalty?

Opponents of the death penalty claim that such punishment is immoral and violates the sanctity of life, while others argue that those claims are based on faith and religion, which should not be the basis of American law. Although there has been a trend in opposition to capital punishment, the majority of Americans are still in favor of such a penalty.  Deterrence statistics generally promote the effect of the death penalty, but a lot of doubt still remains. Certain organizations, like the European Union, have taken strong stances in opposition to the penalty citing issues of human rights.

Those who don’t believe in the death penalty also bring up concerns about the history of racism within American capital punishment. Forty-two percent of inmates on death row are black, despite the fact that black people are only around 14 percent of the American population. Particularly there’s concern that black defendants are sentenced to death at a disproportionate rate when their alleged victims were white. As Amnesty International points out:

A 2007 study of death sentences in Connecticut conducted by Yale University School of Law revealed that African-American defendants receive the death penalty at three times the rate of white defendants in cases where the victims are white. In addition, killers of white victims are treated more severely than people who kill minorities, when it comes to deciding what charges to bring.

In addition, arguments against the death penalty point out that sometimes those executed are exonerated after the fact, after new evidence, re-tested evidence, or changing testimony is made clear. While exact numbers are almost impossible to quantify, a study in 2014 estimated that more than 4 percent of prisoners on death row were probably innocent.

What are the arguments for the death penalty?

Those who believe in the death penalty argue that it’s a fair sentence, reserved for those who commit only the most heinous crimes. It prevents them from ever committing a horrible crime again with a finality that no other method of punishment could possibly guarantee. It can also act as a deterrent to others who would consider committing such crimes. In addition, it provides a level of closure for the family and loved ones of the victim. Many Americans do believe that some people deserve the death penalty. As Rick Perry put it in the lead-up to the 2012 elections:

No, sir. I’ve never struggled with that at all. The state of Texas has a very thoughtful, a very clear process in place of which — when someone commits the most heinous of crimes against our citizens, they get a fair hearing, they go through an appellate process, they go up to the Supreme Court of the United States, if that’s required.

But in the state of Texas, if you come into our state and you kill one of our children, you kill a police officer, you’re involved with another crime and you kill one of our citizens, you will face the ultimate justice in the state of Texas, and that is, you will be executed.

Conclusion

The arguments for and against the death penalty in the United States are far from over. Politicians will still be asked their opinions on the controversial practice, passionate appeals will continue to be made, and states will still be free to make their own laws regarding the punishment. While the legality may no longer be as strong a point of contention as it used to be, the arguments over the death penalty are sure to continue.

Resources

Primary

Constitution: Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Constitution: Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution

European Union: EU Policy on Death Penalty

Additional

Boston: Execution Saves Innocents 

Heritage Foundation: The Death Penalty Deters Crime and Saves Lives 

LA Times: The Death Penalty: Valid Yet Targeted 

Washington Post: Md. Judge Advocates for Death Penalty, Says Convict May be Greeted by Devil 

Washington Post: Do We Need the Death Penalty?

DeathPenalty.org: California’s Death Penalty: All Cost and No Benefit

ACLU: The Case Against the Death Penalty

The New York Times: More Evidence Against the Death Penalty

US News: Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty

Columbia Law: Capital Punishment: Deterrent Effects & Capital Costs

Penal Reform: Key Facts

PBS: Is the Death Penalty Unjust? 

Gallup: Death Penalty

ProCon: Should the Death Penalty be Allowed?

Economist: Democracy and the Death Penalty: an Evolving Debate

Santa Clara University: Capital Punishment: Our Duty or Our Doom?

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Death Penalty in the United States: Why We Still Have It appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I am a huge fan of going to the movies. I was one of those people who would go to the midnight showing of “Harry Potter” or “Transformers” and all the big blockbusters. Although I never had a real passion for the Batman franchise, it sticks with me to this day with these two thoughts: 1. Heath Ledger died too soon, and 2. The “Dark Knight Rises” movie theater massacre in Colorado.

It’s hard to believe that it has been two years since movie theater shooter James Holmes walked into that movie and killed 12 people, injuring 70, on July 20, 2012. It’s even harder to believe that he still hasn’t stood trial for his crimes. The new date for jury selection is January 20 — this will be his FIFTH trial date.

Why do they keep postponing a trial that seems so cut and dry? Because they keep wanting to evaluate him and find out if he is sane enough to stand trial and get the death penalty that he so rightly deserves!

There have been 22 hours of interviews to determine if this guy is sane. I would say that all signs point to yes! Not because of my personal belief in the death penalty, but because he knew what he was going to do long before he did it. There was a serious plan in motion. The guy even signed up for dating websites and put in his profile, “Will you visit me in prison?” He knew what he was doing and the prosecutors are planning to use that bit of information to prove he was sane. Holmes’ attorneys acknowledge that he was in fact the shooter but that he was having a psychotic episode at the time.

It is time to realize that James Holmes knew what he was doing and get through the trial.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Matt P. via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Stop Delaying Movie Theater Shooter’s Trial Date appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Just the other day I was standing in line at local grocery store, waiting patiently for the people in front of me to finish purchasing their groceries, when I glanced over to the magazine rack and was startled by the image on one of the covers. People Magazine is best known for its celebrity trash, something I’ve outgrown for the most part, but the cover was something I would never have expected. It was a full on, black-and-white picture that took up most of the space and the face looked so familiar but I couldn’t remember who it was until I saw the tagline: “Chilling New Details, Murdered By Manson.” The black-and-white photograph was of a beautiful Sharon Tate,and it turns out this is the 45-year anniversary of the slayings. Sadly, on the left side of her gorgeous picture was a hideous picture of Charles Manson and to the right the usual celebrity gossip photos. Way to bring tragedy and gossip together, People!

Most of us are too young to recall or even know about the Manson Family murders, but it was a subject that had always intrigued me since I saw an interview with Charles Manson and Barbara Walters in the early 90s.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with these iconic slayings, here is a quick run down of the events. On August 8 and 9, 1969 at the command of Charles Manson, a small group of his followers brutally murder five people at the Benedict Canyon home of director Roman Polanski. The victims were actress Sharon Tate (Polanski’s pregnant wife), coffee heiress Abigail Folger, celebrity hairstylist Jay Sebring, writer Wojciech Frykowski, and Steven Parent, who was a friend of the family’s gardener. These murders were committed by Manson followers Tex Watson, Susan Atkins, and Patricia Krenwinkel, with Linda Kasabian accompanying them as lookout. Unsatisfied with the murders, Manson and his group — this time including Leslie van Houten and Steve “Clem” Grogan — went out in search of more victims. On August 9 and 10, 1969, the group murdered supermarket executive Leno LaBianca and his wife, Rosemary.

Eventually all of the murderers were caught and convicted. In 1971 Manson, Krenwinkel, Atkins, and Van Houten received the death penalty, and Charles “Tex” Watson was found guilty of the murders of seven people and sentenced to death. In 1972, the state of California abolished the death penalty and all sentences were converted to life imprisonment; however, the state reestablished the death penalty five years later, only reverting 68 of the original 107 sentences back to the death penalty.
The Manson Family murderers were not among those whose sentences were reverted to the death penalty, and they have all been eligible for parole at some point. April 12, 2012 marked the twelfth time Charles Manson was up for parole, as well as the twelfth time it was denied. Just last month one of his associates, Bruce Davis, who murdered the owner of the ranch the Manson Family was living on as well as a stuntman, was denied parole by the Governor of California despite his third recommendation for release by the parole board.

It’s a scary thought that these people are still alive and going through the processes of even being considered for release on parole and it bothers me. I am a true Texan, I believe in the death penalty. Sometimes it’s a joke how much Texans love our death penalty, but I think that sometimes the world needs to be rid of evil. Manson is the epitome of evil. I have to wonder what California was thinking when it selected those 68 people to be put back on death row in 1977 and decided to exclude Manson and his followers? Wouldn’t the most heinous of people be at the top of your list?

Forty-five years ago people lived in fear because of the Manson Family, but most of us seem to have either forgotten about it or never knew about it in the first place. Every now and then some news outlet has to remind us all of a moment in time that knocked the socks off of the entire country. When I picked up the People Magazine to read the startling new details of this 45-year-old case I was curious to see what new information had been brought to light. Unsurprisingly, People lied. There was no new information, it was a puff piece in which someone interviewed Sharon Tate’s sister and she gave her recollection of that day and then promoted a new book that is all photographs of the late actress.

I may be disappointed about the article in People and will not encourage anyone to waste five dollars buying it, but it is an interesting way to remind everyone that there are horrible people out there in the world doing unthinkable things to innocent people.

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post 45 Years Later, a Reflection on the Manson Family Murders appeared first on Law Street.

It is getting harder and harder for states to kill people.

Four executions by lethal injection have been botched in the past calendar year. In July, it took two hours for an Arizona inmate to die after he was given 15 times the dose of drugs usually used. And, with the supply of those drugs running out fast, it looks like America is in store for even more of these gruesome mishaps. Cries are growing louder and louder for an end to the death penalty as more and more executions are botched.

Yep, neither the number of innocent people on death row nor the inhuman delays that keep prisoners guessing if and when they will be killed are responsible for the most recent national conversation about the death penalty. Instead, it’s a lack of efficiency in our execution tactics that has Americans up in arms.

Don’t fret, death penalty supporters! There is a simple solution to this problem. It just isn’t as pretty or as comforting as lethal injection.

A federal judge recently called for replacing lethal injection with the firing squad, and his argument is pretty sound:

Lethal injection uses medication to make an execution look peaceful. Since one of the drugs used paralyzes the inmate, all anyone sees is a person slowly falling asleep. U.S. 9th Circuit Court Chief Judge Alex Kozinski has a problem with that:

Executions are, in fact, brutal, savage events, and nothing the state tries to do can mask that reality. Nor should we. If we as a society want to carry out executions, we should be willing to face the fact that the state is committing a horrendous brutality on our behalf.

Kozinski’s argument against lethal injection is a moral one. He believes that America needs to look at the ugliness of executions and reckon with what they have wrought upon their fellow man.

I agree that the firing squad should be used, but I would like to go one step further in arguing why. The firing squad isn’t just a moral solution to our death penalty crisis. It’s also a much more practical way to end the lives of our most degenerate citizens. It is time for this nation to abandon its experiment with lethal injection and join Somalia in the practice of shooting its citizens.

Lethal injections have become a crapshoot, where people who aren’t even medical officials mix untested drugs to try their best to kill someone. There is a lot of room for error.

Firing squads, on the other hand, are almost impossible to screw up. Five marksmen shoot the sitting and sedated inmate in the heart with rifles. One of the marksmen is firing a blank so none of them know who fired a kill shot, but the odds of four trained shooters missing their target is highly unlikely. A guaranteed quick, albeit bloody, death is the primary benefit of the firing squad.

But wait, there’s more! Death by firing squad is one of the only execution tactics that preserves the organs for donation (except for the heart, obviously). There are tangible benefits!

Sure, like all good things, there are some downsides to the firing squad. For one, shooting people is surprisingly expensive. The salaries of the five shooters and the cost of the rifles, chair, hood, and sedative all add up to the hefty price of $165,000. But, can we as a society really put a price on justice?

Well, yes. The current price of justice is $1,286.86. That is how much it costs to kill someone with the newest drug cocktail. You know, the one that isn’t even working the way it is supposed to. I’m willing to pay a little more in taxes if it means fewer criminals gasping and wheezing for two hours on a prison gurney.

There’s also the slight problem that being shot in the heart by four bullets is a gruesome way to die. That is why we as a society decided on lethal injection in the first place. All we see is a bad person falling asleep. It’s a sanitary and supposedly peaceful end.

But, as Kozinski reminds us, executions are not supposed to be pretty. The state is murdering one of its own citizens. It is supposed to be gruesome. We shouldn’t hide from this reality. If we are going to allow states to continue killing the people they are supposed to protect, we should accept the barbaric nature of this policy. There are few forms of death that embrace this philosophy more than exploding a man’s heart with four small pieces of lead.

America needs to change its course if lethal injections continue to be botched. The firing squad is the most effective way of killing criminals quickly and humanely.

Or, we could just repeal the death penalty, save billions of dollars, and bring our criminal justice system up to the ethical standard of the rest of the developed world.

But that would be silly. Open fire!

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [T Woodward via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post It’s Time To Bring Back The Firing Squad appeared first on Law Street.

A federal judge ruled last week that California’s death penalty system is unconstitutional because it violates the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This decision is notable, but not in the way you might think. U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney did not rule the death penalty itself to be unconstitutional, but rather the conditions that accompany it–namely the long wait for California’s death row prisoners.

California has not executed an inmate since a different federal court put a hold on executions in 2006. U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled that the use of the death penalty was cruel and unusual because the technicians administering the drugs were mostly untrained and had little experience with the drugs they were using. As a result, California had to stop executing inmates until they came up with new protocols for humane executions. This has not happened yet, so the ban has remained.

Yet California has not stopped giving felons death sentences. They currently have 748 inmates on death row, the most of any state.

Carney argues that leaving the fate of these prisoners uncertain is more cruel and unusual than killing them. In his eyes, prisoners have the right to know if they are going to die or not. Here’s a notable excerpt of his ruling:

“California juries have imposed the death sentence on more than 900 individuals since 1978. Yet only 13 of those 900 have been executed by the State. Of the remainder, 94 have died of causes other than execution by the State.”

Carney’s problem with California’s death penalty is not the pain it causes but the arbitrariness of it all. More death row inmates in California have died in their jail cells than have been executed. None of these inmates knew how their end would come. There is no way to tell which death row inmates will ever actually be killed. In fact, the death of an inmate is often not based on legitimate factors, such as severity of crime, but on unpredictable factors like length of appeal.

Carney argues that a death penalty must be administered fairly, and not just based on who can appeal their case the longest. Inmates with a shorter appeals process have a greater chance of being killed once California sorts out its implementation problems.

This decision is notable because it is the first time that a federal judge has ever ruled that delays in death row proceedings are a form of cruel and unusual punishment. This is especially interesting because the Supreme Court has previously ruled that delays are not a form of cruel and unusual punishment. Carney seems to be bucking a precedent set by the highest court.

Granted, there will be an appeal. It is possible, even likely, that an appeals court will side with the Supreme Court and rule that delays are not cruel and unusual but merely a normal part of the death penalty process. Still, the fact that a court ruled that a prisoner has the right to know if or when he or she will be killed is significant.

California could potentially get the death penalty back if they sped up the process with which they kill their criminals. But now that a new precedent has been set, states with a large backlog of death row inmates should prepare for some legal challenges.

The list of states with many inmates on death row may have new additions soon–states are running out of the drugs necessary for lethal injection, and experiments with other drug cocktails have not gone well. Some states are continuing with experimentation. Some are trying out new and untested drugs. However, it is likely that many will have to wait for a more viable option to present itself. It is possible that this waiting could be found to be cruel and unusual punishment for those on death row. Only time will tell, but this ruling has the chance to change the nature of capital punishment in the United States.

—

Eric Essagof (@ericmessagof) is a student at The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Michael Coghlan via Flickr]

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: California Death Penalty Delays appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

Due to lethal injection crisis in America — dwindling access to typical lethal injection drugs — states across the nation now either have to come up with new ways to execute their death row inmates or abandon capital punishment. So far, they have all chosen to continue executing death row inmates. Here is everything you need to know about botched lethal injections, new drugs, and the return of some antiquated methods of execution.

How does lethal injection work?

This video from NextMedia Animation gives a quick overview of how the process works. Do not worry, it is safe for the squeamish:

There are three drugs at play in a traditional lethal injection scenario. The first is Sodium Thiopental, a barbiturate which acts as an anesthetic to make the prisoner unconscious. Second is pancuronium, a muscle relaxant that paralysis the prisoner, which stops his or her lungs from working. The paralyzing effect of this drug is also used so that the viewing audience of the execution does not have to see some of the body movements that might take place during the execution. Finally, potassium chloride is injected into the prisoner. This drug stops the heart from beating. If all goes right, the process should be over in eight and a half minutes, and the prisoner should be too unconscious to feel any pain.

What problems has lethal injection run into recently?

States are having trouble accessing the three drugs necessary to complete a lethal injection. While there is no shortage of the drug, pharmacies and drug manufacturers have stopped selling the drugs to states for the use of lethal injection. Unsurprisingly, companies do not like their products being linked to death. Drug companies want people to connect their brand with saving lives, not ending them. European nations, where most of the pharmacies that make these drugs are located, have banned the export of these drugs as part of an effort to ban capital punishment worldwide.

European nations no longer use the death penalty, and most likely will not return to it in the near future. Watch this British discussion about the death penalty to see how they feel about not having capital punishment. Notice that only one panelist wants to bring the death penalty back, and that the rest of the panel, made up of British politicians and public figures, speaks loudly against her:

Should we continue using lethal injection?

Drug Replacements

It is possible for states to continue using lethal injections, with a few changes. For one, they have to get new drugs from a compound pharmacy. These are pharmacies that, instead of mass-producing drugs, make drugs specifically for one patient. They are expensive, but they are also the only option for states that still want to still use lethal injection.

However, even these small pharmacies do not want to be publicly associated with the death penalty. To sidestep this problem, states have just decided to keep the source of the drugs secret. This has outraged critics of the death penalty, who say that death row inmates deserve to know how they will be killed. A few convicted felons have even sued to try and stay their executions by arguing that this secrecy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Their claim is that, since these drugs have potentially never been tested before, there is no guarantee that their death will be painless.

Questions of Humaneness

Even prior to this access problem, lethal injection was not always painless. While 3 percent of all executions go wrong, lethal injections have the highest rate for error.

According to Professor Robert Johnson, an expert on prisons and the death penalty at American University’s Department of Justice, Law, and Criminology, the new drugs and the pharmacies supplying them might be the cause of even more failed executions.

“The compounding pharmacies are not closely regulated by the FDA,” Johnson said, and continued with, “there are concerns that the drugs they produce might vary in strength. Some of the more recent executions involving these compounding drugs have had more complications.”

Apparently, more people being killed by these compounding drugs are seen gasping for air as a result of the paralyzation of their lungs. They are not supposed to be awake for this.

“It’s likely that if the execution goes wrong that the person will asphyxiate which, without anesthesia, will be very painful,” Johnson said.  “A certain number of these cases are quite likely intensely painful but the person cannot show it because they are paralyzed.”

What’s worse is that the people administering these drugs are not doctors. The American Medical Association (AMA) highly discourages doctors from participating in lethal injections, so the people executing these prisoners are often not medically trained, which makes errors much more likely.

“It’s a pretty risky ordeal,” Johnson said.

The results of a botched lethal injection are not pretty. Let’s take, for example, the case of Clayton D. Lockett’s execution in Oklahoma on April 28, 2014. After the first injection, which is meant to protect the prisoner from feeling any pain, the executioners started injecting the next two drugs. It was at this point that Lockett woke up.

The second and third drugs in lethal injection are incredibly painful without an anesthetic. Imagine your entire body going into paralysis and your heartbeat stopping while you are still awake. This is what Lockett experienced. He tried to sit up and then actually spoke. It took nearly 45 minutes for Lockett to eventually die of a heart attack.

Lockett did not receive the drugs commonly used in a lethal injection. The execution still used potassium chloride to stop the heart, but the sedative and muscle relaxant were replaced with midazolam and vecuronium bromide from a compound pharmacy. Oklahoma refused to disclose why these drugs had been chosen and where they had bought them. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma ordered a stay of his execution, but quickly removed the stay after a state legislator threatened the justices with impeachment.

There is definitely a case to be made that lethal injection is the most humane way for the state to kill someone when done correctly– the operative words. That is why the overwhelming majority of executions today are done this way. However, there are too many disturbing stories about botched injections to argue that it is always humane, and the access issue has made these stories too common.

Watch Dr. Joel Zivot, and anesthesiologist, explain why he does not think that lethal injection is humane on Dr. Sanjay Gupta’s CNN show, “SG|MD”:

Are there options besides lethal injection?

Since Lockett’s execution was botched so badly, other states might be wary to continue using lethal injection, even though multiple state Supreme Courts have ruled that keeping the drugs secret is constitutional. That might be why some states are reverting to older forms of execution.

Return to Electrocutions

Since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976, there have been 1,379 executions. Only 158 of them have been electrocutions. Yet, Tennessee has, in the wake of a lack of access to lethal injection drugs, recently decided that the electric chair will be their primary form of execution. This is significant for one reason: while there are states that have the option of the electric chair, Tennessee is now the only state that does not give death row inmates an option of another form of execution. While electric chair is a secondary option for prisoners to choose in some states, death row inmates in Tennessee will now be forced to use the electric chair.

This clip from Aileen: Life and Death of a Serial Killer explains how the electric chair works.

Death penalty opponents and death row inmates are expected to challenge this new law in courts. The Supreme Court upheld the electric chair in 1890, but it is possible that they might find it cruel and unusual in a modern setting. To make your own judgement, read this article on Vice.com explaining how the electric chair kills someone.

As you can see, it is not nearly as pleasant as lethal injection. The chair basically cooks whoever is sitting in it. And that is when it goes right. In Florida on July 8, 1999, Allen Davis screamed and bled profusely from his nose during his execution.The chair killed him but he ended up covered in blood and burns. His case led Florida to abandon the electric chair as a method of execution. There are pictures of his body after the execution, but they are VERY graphic.

It is hard to argue that this is the most humane way of killing someone, but that does not mean that states are not allowed to use it as a primary execution form. Because the Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair is not cruel and unusual punishment, states can continue to use it. That is, until somebody challenges them in court. Since the case deeming the chair constitutional was so long ago, there is a chance that the Supreme Court might overturn the ruling. It is not an unrealistic scenario. Nebraska’s Supreme Court ruled that the electric chair was cruel and unusual punishment in 2008.

Return to Firing Squads

A number of states, including Oklahoma, have contemplated returning to the firing squad as their primary form of execution. Oklahoma is currently the only state that allows for death by firing squad, and only as a secondary option.

This news report about the execution of Ronnie Lee Gardner in 2010 by firing squad provides an animation that shows how a firing squad works:

As old-fashioned as it sounds, the firing squad actually has some benefits. For example, it is the only form of execution that preserves most of the body’s organs so that they can be donated. Also, when the marksmen are good, it is a quick form of death.

However, a firing squad is expensive. For example, it costed 165,000 to execute Gardner. The majority of this money went to the salaries of the marksmen, but some also went toward the guns and ammunition used, the chair Gardner sat in, and the sedative given to Gardner before the execution began. The cost would probably go down slightly if Utah ever had to do this again, because they now have all of the equipment, but it would still be expensive. It is certainly a far cry from the $1,286.86 spent by Texas to kill Keith Thurmond with a lethal injection in 2012.

Of course, the biggest problem with both the firing squad and the electric chair is that they are violent forms of execution that the American people are potentially not ready to stomach.

“With lethal injection, you could lull yourself into a sense of security that this was a painless procedure,” Johnson said, and continued with, “you could live with that.”

It costs that much to kill someone?

Yes, executions are expensive. It is even more expensive to keep someone on death row. This is because capital punishment cases take significantly longer to resolve and result in more appeals than a life-without-parole case.

“Because someone’s life is at stake, the cases are more contested and likely to have more experts involved,” Johnson said.

Many states also keep death row inmates in expensive high-security confinement. According to a report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, America spent $1.6 billion on capital punishment from the years of 1982-1997.

Should the death penalty be abolished altogether?

That is a complex question, and there is not enough space in this article to answer it. To get an idea of the moral arguments for and against the death penalty, watch this debate between The Nation and National Review Magazine:

In the absence of a new drug discovery, states will either have to prepare for more botched lethal injections or switch to a more violent form of execution. Support for the death penalty has consistently declined in the past two decades, and incidents like the Lockett death might be too much for those that still approve of it.

Resources

Primary

SCOTUS: Majority Opinion in Baze v. Rees

Additional

Hospira: Position on Use of Our Products in Lethal Injections

Death Penalty Information Center: Everything You Need to Know About Compounding Pharmacies

Guardian: Clayton Lockett Writhes on Gurney in Botched Procedure

Slate: Gov. Mary Fallin is Responsible for Clayton Lockett’s Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Teva to Block Drug for U.S. Executions

Bloomberg: Europe Pushes to Keep Lethal Injection Drugs From U.S. Prisons

The New York Times: Outrage Across Ideological Spectrum in Europe Over Botched Execution

Bloomberg: Slow Death in Oklahoma Was Europe’s Doing

Death Penalty Information Center: Descriptions of the Different Execution Methods Used in America

Deseret News: Inmate Threatens to Sue if State Won’t Let Him Die by Firing Squad

Washington Post: The Recent History of States Contemplating Firing Squads and Other Execution Methods

Tennessean: Methodists Want Tennessee to Reconsider Electric Chair Law

MSNBC: Without Lethal Injection, Americans Back Electric Chair, Hanging

Salon: GOP’s Firing Squad Idiocy: The Hypocrisy of ‘Humane Executions’

Eric Essagof

Eric Essagof attended The George Washington University majoring in Political Science. He writes about how decisions made in DC impact the rest of the country. He is a Twitter addict, hip-hop fan, and intramural sports referee in his spare time. Contact Eric at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Lethal Injection Crisis in America: How States Are Solving the Problem appeared first on Law Street.

After a botched execution in Oklahoma rose questions about the cruelty of the death penalty last month, capital punishment is in the news again this week. The Supreme Court has ruled a Florida law unconstitutional that barred the execution of any prisoner with an IQ less than 70, after the case was heard in March. The law was intended to prevent inhumane treatment of those prisoners, but the Justices who voted to strike down the law stated that a strict IQ cut off did not take into account inherent issues with IQ tests. The ruling was 5-4, with the more liberal side of the court voting to overturn Florida’s law. The perennial swing vote, Justice Anthony Kennedy swung to their side.

The problem with such an inflexible law is that it allowed some prisoners, who fell just above the 70 point threshold, to be executed. IQ tests are not even close to absolute–there is a margin of error that needs to be taken into account. Someone with an IQ of 71 could have the same mental capacities as someone who receives an IQ test of 69. Florida’s law doesn’t recognize that. There is also the fact that IQ can vary over time. When you reach your 50s or 60s, your score will usually go down by a point or two. There’s also the problem that our IQ scores, as a society, have changed over time. Every decade, our average IQ scores go up by about 3 points. Finally, there’s the matter of education–people who had more access to education may score higher on an IQ test, even if their mental abilities are the same as another with less education. The benchmark of “70” means little to nothing, other than an arbitrary number used to decide the future of some prisoners.

Many US states that still allow capital punishment have some sort of IQ or capability requirement in order to sentence a prisoner to death. However, most of those states take a holistic look at prisoners, incorporating psychological assessments and recognizing the margin of error that is present in an IQ test. Florida was one of the few with a purely numerical cutoff, but the others with similar laws will also be forced to reevaluate their policies. The other states are Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington. Although Kansas’s death penalty hasn’t actually been used in half a century, and Washington may be moving towards abolishing theirs.

The case that made it to the Supreme Court involved a man named Freddie L. Hall. He has been in prison since 1978, when he was convicted of murdering a 21-year-old woman who was pregnant. His execution has been hanging in the balance due to his borderline IQ scores. He has taken nine IQ tests over roughly the last 50 years. On those tests, he has scored anywhere from low 60s to 80. His most recent tests have hovered right around that 70 benchmark–a few over and a few under. However, not all of his tests have been deemed admissible in court and the one that was used in his most recent hearing had a score of 71. That means that Hall was just one point about the 70 cutoff, even though there’s no evidence to suggest that he consistently could score above 70. Throughout Hall’s entire life, his doctors had classified him as mentally disabled based not just on IQ scores but on other tests and on their analysis.

As a result of the rule regarding Hall, and the changes that the nine aforementioned states will have to make, there are a few prisoners who may get another chance at appealing the ruling that put them on death row.

This is a great step towards a recognition that IQ tests have not, for a long time, been conclusive, and that something as serious as the death penalty needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whenever possible.

[New Republic]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Biologycorner via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post IQ Requirements for Death Penalty to Change Due to SCOTUS Ruling appeared first on Law Street.

On Monday, March 3, 2014 the Supreme Court heard oral arguments that charged Florida with failing to properly establish an inmate’s IQ before ordering the death penalty. In determining the level at which inmates are ineligible for capital punishment, Florida has drawn a strict line at an IQ of 70 or below. However, experts in the medical field as well as several justices feel that this policy does not take into account the five point margin of error in IQ testing in establishing whether or not someone is intellectually disabled. The five point error margin could be crucial in sentencing capital punishment; whether or not you agree with the death penalty at all, it is essential that the decision for a death sentence is justly made.

Here’s the breakdown of the case:

Freddie Lee Hall, a 68 year old, is facing the death penalty for the crimes of raping and killing a 21 year old pregnant woman as well as a police officer. Hall was given several IQ tests throughout his incarceration and received scores of 71, 72, 73, 74, and 80, all of which are above Florida’s 70’s point marker. However, studies have shown the five point margin of error is necessary, concluding that scores as high as 75 considered indications of intellectual disability. Even if you take the average of all Hall’s scores, a 74, he falls within the margin and could be deemed ineligible for the death penalty. Seth Waxman, a lawyer for the defense, stated that this matter “can only be properly diagnosed by professionals.” It seems that other justices shared Waxman’s concerns. Justice Kennedy questioned why states like Florida drew such a hard cutoff, when professionals acknowledged that the IQ test design includes a margin of error.

Looking back at prior verdicts:

The 2002 case Atkins v. Virginia established a precedent for establishing the eligibility for the death penalty based on an inmate’s IQ. The decision gave states a general guideline to follow in establishing proof of intellectual disability in inmates. It stated that in order to declare someone as intellectually disabled, it must be proven that the individual lacks practical and social abilities as well as possesses a low IQ score. The decision stated that low IQ scores are “typically under 70.” In discussing the Atkins ruling, Justice Scalia explained that the court did not make their decision primarily on the studies done by the American Psychiatric Association’s assessment of intellectual disability, but on the adopted policies of the states. But shouldn’t the opinions of experts in a particular field factor in significantly to justice’s decisions, especially in an area they personally are unfamiliar with?

It’s useful to take the precedent into account when determining how to rule in a case with a similar principle; however, the court’s previous decision only vaguely answers the question of whether establishing a hard line at an IQ of 70 is appropriate. The court should, therefore turn to experts on IQ measurements in order to make an appropriate judgement on the state a man’s life.

Furthermore, the case brings attention to the lack of focus on rehabilitation in Florida prisons and the United States in general. In this specific situation, Hall has spent over half of his life on death row, and the man is almost 70 years old! This situation is unfortunately not unique in Florida; as Justice Kennedy mentioned in oral argument, the last ten Florida inmates who received the death penalty spent on average 24.9 years on death row. Florida is not alone in keeping prisoners waiting on death row for longer periods of time, but the amount of years prisoners have spent in this status is concerning. Maintaining someone’s uncertainty over whether he or she will live or die for this long can cause anxiety and the general deterioration of his or her mental state. It is true that a factor involved in the lengthening of the time spent on death row is a more thorough appeals process, which is important in determining guilt and fair sentencing. Nevertheless, an average of 24.9 years is way too long to keep someone waiting on a question of life or death.

Indeed, Hall v. Florida’s significance will reach far beyond the determination of a man’s mental abilities. The case exposes that Florida’s justice system has failed to take into consideration an error margin and other factors in determining whether the death penalty is appropriate. Additionally, it allows inmates to wait extraordinary amounts of time on death row before a final decision. Capital punishment is serious, and the Florida justice system must change to treat those on death row appropriately.

[New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [Washington Post] [Death Penalty Info]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Jeff Kubina via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Hall v. Florida: What Will the Ruling Be? appeared first on Law Street.

So, apparently Dexter might be a real thing.

This week, 19-year-old Miranda Barbour confessed to killing at least 22 people in Alaska, California, Texas, and North Carolina, all as a result of her involvement in an Alaskan satanic cult.

She was arrested in Sunbury, Pa., for the November homicide of a man she met through Craigslist. Allegedly, Miranda lured 42-year-old Troy LaFerrera into her Honda CR-V through a “companionship” ad on Craigslist. She agreed to have sex with him for $100, but wound up stabbing him 20 times instead.

Barbour’s described herself as akin to Dexter — a fictional, vigilante serial killer who murdered other criminals — because she only killed “bad” people, who “didn’t deserve to be here anymore.”

Folks, this story is crazy pants. If you thought the Amanda Knox or Jodie Arias cases were big, just wait for this one to gain some more traction. True insanity is about to descend upon the news-reading American population. And that’s because we’re fascinated with all that’s fucked up. We love a good serial killer. It’s literally the first thing you learn in journalism school — if it bleeds, it leads.

And this Miranda Barbour story is fucking hemorrhaging.

Here’s the inside scoop on her background. If you can, try to refrain from imagining the accompanying Lifetime movie that’s most definitely in pre-production as we speak. According to her own accounts, Miranda Barbour grew up in Alaska — the coldest, darkest, most mysterious state in this gigantic nation. AKA, the perfect setting for a truly fucked up story.

At age four, Miranda was molested by a family member. (Presumably, we’re supposed to consider this the root cause of all her later transgressions.) By age 13, she’d gotten her first taste of murder. Accompanying the leader of the satanic cult she would subsequently join, Miranda went to a dark alley to meet a man who owed the cult leader money.

Then, according to Miranda, “[H]e said to me that it was my turn to shoot him. I hate guns. I don’t use guns. I couldn’t do it, so he came behind me and he took his hands and put them on top of mine and we pulled the trigger. And then from there I just continued to kill.”

During her years in the cult, Miranda climbed to the top of the ranks, and even married another cult official, who was later murdered. At one point, she became pregnant, and the group drugged her, tied her to a bed, and performed an “in-house” abortion.

When she got pregnant for the second time, she decided to leave the cult — and Alaska — behind, moving to North Carolina.

“I wanted to start over and forget everything I did,” said Miranda.

Apparently, though, that didn’t really work out for her, seeing as she claims her killing streak continued after she left Alaska, dropping bodies across several states.

Her daughter is now a year and a half old, and is currently being held in protective custody. Miranda is allowed to visit.

Now, the details about the Satanic cult are interesting, for sure. This story reads like the juiciest of true crime novels. But, what’s really interesting about this story, is how completely batshit crazy it has the potential to get.

Here’s why: there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of Miranda’s involvement in a Satanic cult, or in any previous killings.

“Thorough investigation will likely demonstrate that this cult story is fiction,” said Peter Gilmore, the New York-based head of the Church of Satan, who confirmed that his church does not condone murder. Likewise, Monica Caison, the founder of a missing persons center in North Carolina, is skeptical about Miranda’s serial killer claims.

“That’s a lot of people to kill in such a short time, and being so young and never making a mistake, I’m hard pressed to believe that amount,” said Caison, referring to Miranda’s claim that she’d killed somewhere between 22 and 100 people over the last six years.

Not to mention, she doesn’t fit the profile. Women serial killers are typically older and don’t use knives, and serial killers in general are exponentially better at stashing bodies. Miranda’s latest Craigslist victim? Dumped in a backyard, with intact cell phone and identification, right in the same town that the murder took place.

That doesn’t look like the work of a pro.

But, despite the doubtful nature of her claims, Miranda’s story didn’t sound rehearsed. According to Francis Scarcella, the reporter who broke this story, she never hesitated once as she recounted her dark life into his audio recorder. Scarcella described her as meek, mild, and generally unintimidating.

But of course, “Looks can be deceiving,” as Barbour quickly pointed out, destroying the sexist assumptions that paint women — even serial killer women — as harmless victims or benign liars.

But what shocked Scarcella the most? When asked if she felt any remorse for her killings, Miranda replied with, “None.” And further, she unequivocally stated that if she was ever released from prison, she would kill again.

And therein lies the crazy. While Miranda’s story is perhaps implausible, her delivery is incredibly convincing. Whether or not her claims are true, she seems to believe them wholeheartedly, and she’s got the rest of us scratching our heads, trying to make sense of the nonsensical web she’s spun with her words.

That’s the hallmark of a true, psychopathic manipulator, and she’s got every one of us on the hook.

What do you think of the developing Miranda Barbour story?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [The Bay Harbor Butcher via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BREAKING: Real Life Lady Dexter Confesses to Between 22 & 100 Murders appeared first on Law Street.

Mexican citizen Edgar Tamayo Arias was executed last Wednesday night in Texas for the fatal shooting of a police officer, despite pressure from the Mexican government and U.S. State Department to reconsider.

Tamayo’s execution by lethal injection marks the first of 2014 for Texas, a state that carried out 16 executions last year, according to The Bureau of Justice preliminary statistics. In fact, since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976, Texas has been the most active death penalty state with 509 executions – roughly 37 percent of the 1,360 total executions that have taken place nationwide.

While capital punishment has been a divisive issue for years, Tamayo’s case was especially controversial.  In January 1994, Officer Guy Gaddis was transporting Tamayo and another suspect from a robbery scene. Tamayo, who was carrying a concealed pistol, reached for the weapon and shot Gaddis three times in the back of the head. Tamayo fled on foot and was arrested a few blocks away. Despite the heinous nature of his crime, the Mexican government claimed Tamayo’s trial was tainted because he had not been properly informed of his right to diplomatic assistance following his arrest.

This right, granted by a 1963 international agreement known as the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, “requires all countries who signed it to provide foreign nationals accused of a crime with notice and an opportunity to seek assistance from their consulate.” The Mexican government called Tamayo’s case “a clear violation by the United States of its international obligations.”

According to Diann Rust-Tierney, executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, “assistance would likely have been critical. Language barriers and intellectual disabilities hampered his [Tamayo’s] ability to receive a fair trial. It might have made the difference between an execution and a more appropriate means of holding him accountable.”

Tamayo’s case is not the first in which allegations of a violation of consular rights have been raised. Within the past five years, the state of Texas has executed two other Mexican citizens amid disputes regarding international rights. Jose Ernesto Medellin and Humberto Leal Garcia Jr., both convicted of rape and murder, were executed in 2008 and 2011 respectively.

Tamayo’s lawyers and supporters were not the only ones questioning Texas’ legal procedures. In 2004, the International Court of Justice – the primary judicial body of the United Nations – ruled that the United States had violated its obligations under the Vienna Convention. According to the ICJ, the U.S. had failed to inform Mexican consulates immediately after the arrests of nearly 50 Mexican citizens, Tamayo included. In what became known as the “Avena decision,” the ICJ ordered the U.S. to reconsider the convictions and sentences of the Mexican nationals. In 2005, then-president George W. Bush backed the ICJ, calling for states to abide by the court’s ruling. In the end however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2008 Medellín v Texas case that “although the ‘Avena decision’ is a binding obligation under international law, without a statute from Congress the president does not have the power to force states to comply with ICJ rulings.” Without the proper legislation, Texas was essentially free to circumvent international law.

While Texas is not bound by the Vienna Convention, Rust-Tierney points out that Texas’ decision may challenge the U.S. Constitution. She states, “the Constitution places the authority to define and engage in foreign policy with the federal government [and also] some argue that by refusing to follow the dictates of the Vienna Convention, Texas is setting international law and policy.”

Even more troublesome, the legal ramifications from the Tamayo case could have an impact for Americans who find themselves in legal trouble overseas. In a letter written to Texas Governor Rick Perry last month, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged him to grant Tamayo a new hearing, calling the decision to set an execution date “extremely detrimental to the interests of the United States.”

Kerry wrote “I want to be clear: I have no reason to doubt the facts of Mr. Tamayo’s conviction, and as a former prosecutor, I have no sympathy for anyone who would murder a police officer [but] this is a process issue I am raising because it could impact the way American citizens are treated in other countries.”

In the end, despite appeals and diplomatic pressure, Texas would not back down. According to Lucy Nashed, spokeswoman for Gov. Perry, the state was simply enforcing its laws. “It doesn’t matter where you’re from – if you commit a despicable crime like this in Texas, you are subject to our state laws, including a fair trial by jury and the ultimate penalty.”

Twenty other foreign citizens, including 11 Mexicans, remain on death row in Texas.

[CNN] [Fox News Latino] [The Guardian] [LA Times]

—

Matt DiCenso (@MattDiCenso24)

Featured image courtesy of [Zaldylmg via Flickr]

Matt DiCenso

Matt DiCenso is a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Matt at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Mexican National Executed Despite Pressure from Mexican and U.S. Governments appeared first on Law Street.

It should first be stated that I personally don’t condone the practice of the death penalty at all; to me, the idea begs the notion of “an eye for an eye,” a facet of the ancient Hammurabi’s code. Nevertheless, regardless of one’s position on the issue, the fact remains that when the death penalty is used, efforts must be made to ensure that the method of capital punishment limits unreasonable pain and suffering.

The Constitution protects against unnecessarily harsh treatment in the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. In United States history, many methods of capital punishment have been swept out of use for being considered inhumane methods of execution. Practices used in the American colonies such as burning at the stake, crushing, and beheading are now determined cruel and unusual. In most states, methods such as hanging, electrocution, death by firing squad and gassing are also considered cruel and unusual, and the most accepted form of execution in recent years has been lethal injection.

However, in the case of Dennis McGuire, the lethal injection that caused his death should also be considered cruel and unusual. McGuire was given a combination of two drugs: midazolam, a sedative, and hydromorphone, a painkiller. McGuire’s lawyer argued that the combination of the drugs could produce the effect of air hunger, an uncomfortable experience that causes a sufferer to gasp for air. Additionally, since McGuire has shown several symptoms of the condition, sleep apnea, the drugs were even more likely to lead to suffocation. David Wasiel, a Harvard Medical School professor, testified to the apparent terror McGuire would be subjected to under the effects of the two drugs. Nevertheless, District Judge Gregory Frost claimed that there was not enough compelling evidence to prove there would be a risk of extreme discomfort and pain.

What is further striking about the decision to allow the injection is the fact that the specific combination of drugs had never been used. Even if the amount of evidence pointing to the likelihood of air hunger was lacking, surely it would seem reasonable to allow for a period of experimenting and testing, since the injection’s exact effects remained unknown.

Despite all warnings and uncertainty about the drugs’ effects, on Thursday, January 16th, Dennis McGuire was administered injections of both midazolam and hydromorphone. After the first five minutes following the injections’ entrance into the blood stream, McGuire’s breath grew irregular and he began to gasp and utter strange noises for about ten minutes. His family members, who were permitted to witness the guilty man’s final moments, grew shocked and horrified as they watched McGuire’s clear discomfort and agony prior to his death. In total, the execution took over twenty minutes, one of the longest in Ohio’s history since it reinstated the death penalty.

Of course, McGuire’s actions that led to his execution certainly offer little cause for sympathy. In 1989, he raped and subsequently killed twenty-two year old Joy Stewart, a pregnant woman, by stabbing her to death. McGuire deserved to be brought to justice for his heinous crime. However, when a state pursues a method of capital punishment that also causes unnecessary suffering, how then is a state’s law above the actions of the perpetrator?

The use of an untested injection to put Dennis McGuire to death is despicable. Why, it must be asked, was the injection involving the combination of drugs allowed to be administered? Other than the judge’s poorly made decision that the lack of evidence to prove there was a great risk of pain and discomfort involved in the use of the injection. Another reason may exist; Ohio was all out of its usual lethal injection cocktail and simply, needed something to fill the void.

Previously, Ohio had been using a sedative called pentobarbital for capital punishment, which typically had caused a shorter and less painful death. However, pentobarbital’s manufacturer recently cut off Ohio’s  access to the drug, barring its use for the death penalty. Without supplies of its usual drug of choice, the state turned to its untried back up method, the combination of midazolam and hydromorphone.

Desiring to carry out the execution of McGuire on schedule, Ohio would not wait for possible testing of the drugs’ effects or research into potential alternatives. Lacking regard for the human dignity of prisoners, Ohio decided to administer the injection despite its uncertain consequences, giving the execution an air of experimentation. The state must now answer to the McGuire family’s cries for legal action and has earned a place in the nation’s spotlight for its blunder. In the situation’s aftermath, other states should learn from Ohio’s misjudgment to prevent similar occurrences from taking place in the future.

 [Cornell Law] [The Guardian] [DailyMail] [National Journal]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorskowski via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Cruel and Unusual: Never Before Used Injection Prolongs Dennis McGuire’s Execution appeared first on Law Street.

The United States will be able to report a lower number of executions in 2013. Thirty-nine people were executed in nine different states, a 10% reduction from 2012. Twenty-three of those executions took place in just two states–Florida and Texas. To put this in context, in 1999, there were 98 people executed for their crimes. In addition, eighty new death sentences were handed out, which is a dramatic shift from 315 just 19 years ago.

There has also been a slow but perceptible trend of death penalty abolition on the state level. There are now 18 states and the District of Columbia that have abolished the death penalty. Six of these states have done so since 2007.

So, why? Why are we seeing a reduction in executions?

There a few different viable answers. The first is a declining availability of the drugs used in lethal injection. The vast majority of executions in the United States are done by lethal injection, although there are occasionally exceptions, and some states still allow methods such as firing squads or hanging.

But the states that intend to carry out death penalty sentences by lethal injection have run into a problem. Most of the drugs used come from European-based companies, and in 2011, the European Commission put extremely tight regulations on the import of those drugs. Some European drug companies, such as Danish-based Lundbeck which produces one of the most efficient and popular drugs for use during a lethal injection, flat out banned its use during executions. The death penalty has been abolished in all European states with the exception of Belarus.

As a result, states are scrambling to find a way to carry out lethal injections. Some states have experienced with drug cocktails, and others use untested drugs. According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, “the states are scrambling to find the drugs. They want to carry out these executions that they have scheduled, but they don’t have the drugs and they’re changing and trying new procedures never used before in the history of executions”. Some lawsuits have alleged that this experimentation could be considered cruel and unusual punishment and has led to stays on executions in the state of California, among others.

Another proposed reason for the drop in executions is the discovery of evidence that proves the innocence of many people who had been previously executed. Improved forensic technology and DNA testing show that trials do not always result in justice. Groups such as the Innocence Project attempt to exonerate people who have been convicted of crimes, and since 1989, there have been 311 post-conviction exonerations based on DNA evidence alone. Eighteen of those people were awaiting their executions on death row.

Finally, the trend may be attributed to a number of other reasons. Part of it may be moral–the US stands essentially alone among its allies in its use of the death penalty. Another reason may be that most violent offenders die in prison anyways, which makes prosecutors and judges less likely to push for it.

Whatever the reason for the diminished use of the death penalty over the last few years, it will be interesting to see if it sticks. If those who attribute the shift to the inability to get the appropriate medications are correct, we should see an uptick in executions as that issue is resolved. If it’s more about the moral constraints, maybe executions will continue to lessen. Either way, capital punishment in the US will change.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [CACorrections via Wikipedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is the US Done With the Death Penalty? appeared first on Law Street.

The 10^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied a petition of habeas corpus last Wednesday to Oklahoma death row inmate, Benjamin Cole—saying that the circumstances of his trial were fair and perfectly constitutional.

48-year-old Cole was convicted of first-degree murder after a 2002 incident in which he inflicted a fatal injury to his infant daughter while trying to get her to stop crying. Nine-month-old Brianna was lying on her stomach when her father lifted her ankles up over her head—a move so unnatural it broke her spine in half and shredded her aorta, according to the subsequent autopsy report. As she lay dead on the floor, Cole returned to his video games until his wife walked into the room.

During the 2003-04 trial, Cole denounced his government-appointed defense counsel for not sharing his conviction in the Christian faith. Court documents described him as staring blankly at the Bible while the proceedings took place. Cole then made a request for a new team of Pentecostal lawyers to represent him, but the request was denied. That denial formed the bulk of his recent habeas corpus petition where he claims that it violated his 6th, 8th, and 14th Amendment rights.

In his petition, Cole argued that the Supreme Court case, U.S v. Cronic, set precedent for what he called a “breakdown of communication” between him and his lawyers. In the Cronic case, the defendant accused of mail-fraud was sentenced to 25 years in prison after his newly assigned lawyer failed to present a defense equal to that of the prosecution’s 4-year preparation. But in the case of Benjamin Cole, both the presiding district court, and most recently, the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals have decided that Cole’s born-again trial behavior was of his own doing and, as a result, didn’t incur the same constitutional blunder as U.S v. Cronic.

The final opinion reads, “Having reviewed all of the state court records in this case, we conclude that, notwithstanding the constitutional errors alleged by Cole in these federal habeas proceedings, Cole received a fundamentally fair trial. In other words, even aggregating the constitutional errors alleged by Cole, we conclude that those errors did not have a substantial and injurious effect or influence on either the jury’s determination of Cole’s guilt or its decision to sentence Cole to death.”

There are 32 states that still use the death penalty.  According to the Death Penalty Information Center, the number of inmates on death row in 1970 versus today has gone from 631 to 3,108. Cole’s more-than-decade-long saga of appeals is a familiar tale in the United States, whereupon sentencing, death row inmates wait an average of nearly 200 months before execution. Even the Supreme Court has characterized these long periods of time waiting to be killed as causing “immense mental anxiety amounting to a great increase in the offender’s punishment (Foster v. Florida, 2002).”

In an exhaustive cycle of ineffective legal assistance petitions to prosecutorial misconduct claims, the state wastes hundreds of thousands of dollars in court costs when a sentence of death is handed down. While Cole’s actions were horrific and unspeakable to the moral human being, by sentencing him to death, the court sentenced the taxpayers to the gallows of a slow and painful financial burden. So, if not for reasons humane or anti-hypocritical (like, you know, not murdering murderers,) then in the Cole case one can find a monetary incentive in avoiding the death penalty.

[Tenth Circuit Blog]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Theodore Scott via Flickr]

Jimmy Hoover

Jimmy Hoover is a graduate of the University of Maryland College Park and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Jimmy at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Petition Denied to Death Row Inmate Convicted of Killing Daughter appeared first on Law Street.

On Jun. 26, 2013 the Capital Collateral Regional Counsel, a state agency that represents post-convicted death row inmates, filled a lawsuit in Florida against the 2013 Timely Justice Act, set to take effect July 3rd, which could accelerate executions by requiring Gov. Rick Scott to sign a death warrant within 30 days of a Supreme Court review.

Once the governor determines that the clemency process is complete and signs the death warrant, execution must follow within 180 days. The group claims that his new law is unconstitutional because it takes away from the courts powers and violates death penalty defendant’s rights to equal protection and due process. The suit stated, “The Act creates a rushed process for issuance of a likely flood of death warrants that will inundate the courts and abruptly cut off this Court’s exercise of judicial review in capital cases.

If not addressed prior to its operation in practice, the process will have the unconstitutional and irreversible result of individuals being executed under a legislatively-determined judicial procedure in which violations of their constitutional rights go unresolved. Further, Florida history shows that diminished process can have tragic and irreversible consequences.” Florida has the highest exoneration rate of any state with 24 inmates being released from death row since 1973.

[Full Article]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Victor via Flickr]

Davis Truslow

Davis Truslow is a founding member of Law Street Media and a graduate of The George Washington University. Contact Davis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida Lawyers Challenge 2013 Timely Justice Act appeared first on Law Street.