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.

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.

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.

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.

The 72-hour deadline for Japan to pay Islamic terror organization ISIS $200 million in exchange for two Japanese hostages has come and passed. The impending fate of the two men is unknown.

The video below was posted Tuesday on militant websites showing a masked man with a knife threatening to execute kneeling freelance journalist Kenji Goto and security contractor Haruna Yukawa, if Japan refused to pay their hefty ransom in time. This hostage situation comes in response to ISIS allegations that the Japanese government is financially supporting U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS installations in Syria and Iraq, even though they have vehemently denied these claims.

While the world waits to see what will happen to the two captives, some experts are questioning the validity of the video itself. Evidence suggests that the ISIS video may have been filmed indoors using a green screen. The video is said to have been filmed in the same location as videos showing American hostages James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and Peter Kassig, and British captives David Haines and Alan Henning.

Veryan Khan, editorial director for the Terrorism Research and Analysis Consortium, told the Associated Press that the light source on the men in the latest videos appears to be coming from two different directions as opposed to one bright sun. If the video was made outdoors in natural light, the shadows behind them should be going in one direction. Instead, they converge. Khan goes on to say that “the hostages are visibly bothered by the bright light.”

So how do we explain the noticeable breeze in the video blowing around both hostages’ orange jumpsuits? According to Khan it’s the result of a fan:

Wind in the desert would be noisy and affect the sound quality of the statements being made by the knife-wielding man. It would also kick up dust, and none seems apparent.

Many are wondering why the captors chose to use the green screen in the video. Some believe it is indicative of ISIS captors being less able to move around the Islamic State than initially believed, the green screen tactic being more for intimidation and concealment purposes than production value.

While the condemnation of two captors is almost certain, Japanese citizens are responding to the video with their own visual manipulation. A mocking hashtag translating loosely to “ISIS Crappy Photoshop Grand Prix” has been mentioned more than 75,000 times on Twitter. It features extravagant yet insensitive memes of the hostages and their masked captor. The memes may come in poor taste due to the likely fate of the hostages, but for some humor is their weapon against terror.

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 ISIS Video Validity Questioned After Ransom Deadline Passes appeared first on Law Street.

The Iranian government executed a woman on Saturday for murdering a man who she said attempted to sexually assault her. After several delays of her execution and despite condemnation from human rights organizations, the Iranian government went forward with hanging Reyhaneh Jabbari.

Jabbari, 26, admitted in 2009 to killing 47-year-old Dr. Morteza Abdolali Sarbandi in self-defense, claiming that he tried to rape her. Sarbandi was killed in 2007, when Jabbari met with him on the pretense that she, an interior designer, would evaluate his office for a renovation, the New York Times reported.

Under Iranian law, Jabbari technically should have been in the clear for killing Sarbandi. As a Slate article explains, the Iranian death penalty doesn’t have to apply in a murder case if the murder was in retaliation to another crime punishable by death, such as rape. Jabbari maintained that she killed Sarbandi after he attempted to rape her. However, the judges are given very broad discretion in interpreting the facts of the case – so broad, in this case, that Jabbari was found guilty.

Beyond the fact that Jabbari’s is technically innocent even if she killed Sarbandi, that shouldn’t even matter considering the circumstances of her admission. Jabbari admitted to the murder “under duress possibly amounting to torture,” U.N. human rights investigator Ahmed Shaheed said in a press release, adding that acts of sexual violence should always be fought, no matter what. Shaheed said that if Jabbari was telling the truth, she was attacked by the Iranian justice system in addition to her assault:

If her allegations are true, Ms. Jabbari may have been doubly victimized; first by her attacker, and then by the judicial system, which is supposed to protect victims of intended and actual sexual and physical assault.

An online petition in March bore more than 240,000 signatures urging Iran not to execute Jabbari. The government then delayed the execution from April until this month. As the new date approached, supporters of Jabbari took to Facebook and Twitter to get attention to stop the execution. The day before the execution,  Amnesty International wrote that Jabbari’s side story wasn’t fairly judged. “Her claims do not appear to have ever been properly investigated,” Amnesty wrote in a blog post.

Iran has one of the highest execution rates in the world. According to an August United Nations report, the country executed at least 852 people, including at least eight who were under the age of 18 at the time of their crimes, during the period from June 2013 to June 2014. The report says Iranians can face the death penalty for “adultery, recidivist alcohol use, drug possession and trafficking” plus “enmity against God,” which is viewed by the Iranian government as when “a person brandishes or points a weapon at members of the public to kill, frighten and coerce them.”

All this might leave some wondering how hard it is not to get executed in Iran. In the larger scheme of things – for the Iranian justice system, that is – Jabbari is just another number.

—

Zaid Shoorbajee (@ZBajee)

Featured Image courtesy of [The Pondering Moose via Flickr]

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 Reyhaneh Jabbari: Another Victim of Iran’s Harsh Death Penalty appeared first on Law Street.

The world is reeling after the very public slaughter of an American journalist named James Foley.

Although details are still unclear, here’s what we know right now: Foley was taken hostage by members of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) terrorist group. According to ISIS, it also has some other American and British hostages — the exact number is unknown, but American officials believe there are at least three other American hostages. Some demands were made, but the United States obviously does not negotiate with terrorists. An unsuccessful rescue attempt was made earlier this summer. Now the news has surfaced that Foley was guarded by a specific group of ISIS militants, British-born, who call themselves “the Beatles.” According to reports, the British jihadists were especially brutal and worthless. A New Hampshire native, Foley was in Syria reporting for the Agence France-Presse and the GlobalPost. He’s been held since November 2012. Earlier this week, he tragically lost his life.

I want to start by saying how tragic and horrible this was — Foley, an innocent bystander, lost his life because he was used as a powerful political pawn. ISIS is expanding its influence and becoming an incredibly powerful and terrifying group in Iraq and Syria — the Foley execution is just another example of that power it now wields.

But it’s important to remember that the move by ISIS was relatively unsurprising. Hostages have been powerful bargaining tools since the beginning of time. As tragic and horrific as Foley’s death was, and I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt in any way to diminish that, it was unremarkable in a historical sense.

The way it’s been handled, however, has been remarkable in every sense of the word. The video of Foley’s execution was uploaded to YouTube. Since then, it has made the rounds of pretty much every corner of the internet. It’s gory, it’s horrifying, and the fact that anyone with an internet connection can now access it pretty easily is a public travesty. Social networks have started banning users who share the video, and various media publications are under fire for their choices to provide either the video or still shots from it.

The New York Post especially received a lot of ire for its decision to show a still from the video on its front page, in print. Where anyone could see it, even if they didn’t want to. I’m no stranger to blood and gore — I have distinct memories of watching that video of Saddam Hussein being executed when I was a freshman in high school. But that doesn’t mean it’s right to force that kind of stuff on people. I follow the news every day, but that’s my choice. I have friends and family who avoid the news — and until this week I have to be honest that I didn’t fully understand why. But when it’s that easy to accidentally see something that disturbing, I get it. Anyone who published this video or pictures is very close to being over the line.

Then there’s the fact that by sharing this video, the power that groups like ISIS can have has been magnified. ISIS claims that it killed James Foley because its demands were not met, and while that may be true, there’s another motive here. ISIS is an organization that relies heavily on terroristic tactics. The thing about terrorism though is it works really, really well if people know about it. Every time that video is shared or a screengrab is published, ISIS gains more power in the form of fear to wield.

I know I’m in the qualification for a hypocritical lifetime achievement award now that I’ve just spent the last 600-odd words writing about the very people I’m encouraging you not to give attention to, but I’ll leave you with this: my condolences go out to Foley’s loved ones. That’s where our minds should be, not watching the perverse and horrifying circumstances of his death, for so many different reasons.

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 Don’t Watch the Foley Video appeared first on Law Street.

It’s an all too familiar occurrence: violence has broken out between Israelis and Palestinians. This time, the fighting is over the murder of three Israeli boys and the apparent subsequent revenge killing of one Palestinian boy. Read on to learn more about the latest chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

Why is there tension between Israelis and Palestinians?

Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting for nearly a century over the rights to the land known today as Israel. Like many contemporary Middle Eastern conflicts, Britain shoulders some of the blame.

It all started in 1916 when Britain convinced the Arab people to turn against the Ottoman Empire during World War I by promising them an independent Arab state, including Palestine. One year later, however, British Foreign Minister Lord Arthur Balfour declared that Britain supported a Jewish state in the land of Palestine. These contradictory promises laid the groundwork for the current fighting. The two have fought violent battles ever since the United Nations gave Israel the majority of land in 1947, and Israel has gradually gained more land through these wars.

For a full recap and explanation of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, click here, or watch the video below.

Today, Israelis and Palestinians fight over a variety of issues. Palestinians argue that the Israeli occupation of Gaza and the West Bank are a violation of human rights, and that Jewish settlements in these lands are illegal acts by Israel to gain more land from the Palestinian people. Israelis argue that they live under constant fear from Hamas rocket strikes and terrorist attacks from Gaza and the West Bank, and that these occupations are meant to protect themselves.

Who are the major players in this conflict?

There are three major organizations interacting with each other in this story.

First is the Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has control over the Jewish portions of Israel.

Second is Fatah, also known as the Palestinian Liberation Organization. This is the largest political party in the Palestinian regions of Israel, mainly the West Bank. The West Bank is land east of Israel that belongs to the Palestinian people. Jewish people have routinely settled in the West Bank. The legality of these settlements often come under question and are a major sticking point in peace negotiations

Third is Hamas, which took large control over the Gaza Strip after intense fighting with Fatah. Gaza is a small strip of land on the Western border of Israel. Hamas is labeled a terrorist organization by many governments across the globe and is responsible for rockets fired from the Gaza border into Israel.

Recently, Fatah and Hamas created a unity government to more effectively branch the West Bank and Gaza together. This has infuriated Netanyahu, who was previously working with Fatah to try to maintain peace.

What happened to these three Israeli boys?

On June 12, 2014, Eyal Yifrah, Gilad Shaar, and Naftali Frenkel went missing in the West Bank. A massive search ensued to find the boys. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), which led the search, detained 400 Palestinians suspected of terror activities in the process.

The boys were found buried in shallow graves on June 30 in the West Bank city of Hebron, apparent victims of an execution.

One of the teenagers made an emergency phone call shortly before he was killed. You can listen to parts of that call here:

Who kidnapped and killed them?

Israel has identified Marwan Qawasmeh and Amer Abu Eisheh, two members of Hamas, as primary suspects. The two have since fled and are being searched for by Israeli and Palestinian forces. For a good profile on the family deemed responsible for this tragedy, click here.

Hamas has denied responsibility for the attacks and is claiming that the two men acted alone, not as representatives of the organization.

How has Israel’s government responded?

The Israeli government does not believe Hamas’ claim distancing itself from the killing. Netanyahu has said that Hamas will pay and referred to the killers as “beasts.” Watch his full statement below:

Hours after the boys’ bodies were found, Israel launched air strikes on the Gaza Strip. Israel says that these are retaliation for both the murder of the three Israeli boys and for the resumption of rocket fire from Gaza into Israel. The homes of the suspects were also destroyed.

Israel has moved ground troops to the Gaza border, but claims it is not seeking escalation, but rather that this is a defensive tactic.

How have the Israeli people responded?

The majority of Israelis and Palestinians have not reacted to this tragedy with racism and violence; however, those who have reacted this way are threatening to ratchet up tension and violence in a country that already has high levels of both.

On July 2, 2014, 16-year-old Palestinian boy Mohammad Abu Khieder was found murdered and badly burned in a forest section of Jerusalem. Authorities in the area have concluded that Kheider was most likely killed by Jews in an act of revenge.

Many Israelis have come out strongly against the killing, including family members of the Israeli victims. The Frenkel family released a statement that said, in part, “There is no differentiating between blood and blood, murder is murder, whatever the nationality or age.”

Shelly Yachimovich, an Israeli politician, referred to the killing as “a barbaric challenge to the sovereignty of the state, to the army, the police, the courts, and the government.”

This revenge killing is not the only example of a visceral reaction from Israeli citizens. Watch this rally of mourners turn into an angry protest. The protesters are screaming “death to Arabs.”

Thousands of Israelis have posted on a Facebook group calling for vengeance over the death of Israelis. The moderators of the group claim that they are not calling for the murder of innocents, but for the murderers of the three boys to be brought to justice. Some comments, however, appear to support the revenge killing of Khieder.

This, along with reports of random attacks against Palestinians by Israelis, has created a very tense environment.

How are Palestinians responding?

Palestinians are outraged over the revenge killing of Khieder, and the protests are already getting violent. Some have responded by clashing with Israeli security forces. Protesters have been throwing molotov cocktails and stones at security, who have been responding in kind with tear gas and stun grenades.

Watch this Associated Press report about the clashes:

There are also reports that hundreds of Palestinians lit train stations on fire in east Jerusalem.

Hamas has stated that they are also uninterested in escalating the conflict, but are having trouble convincing rogue militants to hold their fire.

Conclusion

The execution of three Israeli children, the revenge killing of a Palestinian boy, and the return of Gaza rockets are all dangerous developments for Israelis and Palestinians. Both sides need to exercise caution and restraint in order to spare more lives.

UPDATE: July 9, 2014

On July 8, Israel began Operation Protective Edge, a military offensive that has attacked more than 450 targets in Gaza. Different sources report different casualty numbers, but according to public health officials in Gaza, 35 people have been killed by these attacks, including 16 children.

This operation is a response to a massive number of rocket attacks on Israel coming from Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has fired more than 160 rockets at Israel in the past week. These rockets are reaching further into Israeli land than they ever have before. Warning sirens have sent Israelis running for bomb shelters, and many schools have canceled classes.

All observers agree that this is the worst violence the region has seen since 2012. The Israeli military has called up 40,000 reserve troops, 10,000 more than were called up in 2012. With Netanyahu’s supporters pressuring him to use ground troops and Hamas trying to prove they can stand up to Israel, the death toll and number of rocket strikes are likely to rise.

Resources

Primary

Jewish Virtual Library: The British Palestine Mandate

Additional

Global Issues: The Middle East Conflict: a Brief Background

Guardian: Air Strikes Hit Gaza as Israel Blames Hamas

Breaking Israel News: Bodies of Three Kidnapped Teens Found by IDF

Buzzfeed: Who Are the Kidnappers?

The New York Times: Deeply Divided Israel Unites in Grief

The New York Times: Israel Mobilizing Forces Around Gaza

Jerusalem Post: US Says Hamas Involved in Death of Three Boys

Yahoo: Hamas Member Killed After Death of Three Boys

The New York Times: US Envoy Blames Distrust for Problems

The New York Times: Arab Boy’s Death Escalates Clashes

Buzzfeed: Revenge Attack on a Palestinian

Fox News: Palestinians Clash With Israeli Police

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 Kidnapping and Revenge: The Latest Chapter in the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict appeared first on Law Street.

In a last minute stay, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the immediate halt to a Missouri man’s execution. Russell Bucklew, who was convicted of murder, kidnapping, and rape in 1996, was scheduled to be executed Wednesday evening, but his attorneys had successfully appealed to delay the execution on the grounds that the intended drug cocktail can create the same complications as the one used on an Oklahoma death row inmate earlier this month. That execution caused massive controversy after the inmate ended up seizing and having a heart attack instead of the usual quick death.

The Supreme Court usually keeps its nose out of execution cases, which makes Alito’s action very rare. Opponents of the drug mixtures that are currently used on death row inmates may herald this as a victory. Traditional drugs that used to execute inmates are in short supply, forcing prisons to resort to mixing drugs together from companies that are not very anxious to reveal their sources. In a Georgia, the state Supreme Court ruled against a death row inmate suing to find out where his killer drugs were coming from. With that information, the inmate’s lawyers argued, they can then proceed with investigations into whether the drugs being supplied would constitute cruel and unusual punishment; however, the Georgia Supreme Court decided 5-2 that protection from harassment for the pharmaceutical company was more important than the right to know where drugs came from.

With Alito’s stay, capital punishment is set to become the next legal debate on the national stage. As capital punishment continues, there is greater outcry as to why it is acceptable to use shady drugs supplied by anonymous pharmaceutical companies. After all, isn’t it cruel and unusual that inmates are not being told where their killer drugs are coming from? Maybe the Supreme Court can decide.

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Ken Piorkowski via Wiipedia].

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Steps Up Amid Execution Controversy 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.