Hundreds of people showed up at the Supreme Court today to protest the death penalty. The National Coalition Against the Death Penalty (NCADP) reports in its press release,

Hundreds gathered in front of the U.S. Supreme Court Monday for a noon rally protesting the 859 executions in the country since death penalty statutes were upheld in 1976.

The rally came in the midst of a 96-hour fast and vigil, which has drawn activists from 16 states, plus Canada, Great Britain and Puerto Rico. The fast and vigil commemorates the anniversary of both the 1972 Furman v. Georgia ruling, striking down capital punishment, and the 1976 Gregg v. Georgia ruling reinstating it.

"I am a prime example that the death penalty system is broken, that it is not fair and that it is not accurate," said Juan Melendez, who spent 17 years, eight months and one day on death row in Florida before being fully exonerated. "The death penalty must be abolished.

Among the arguments against the death penalty:

Abe Bonowitz, organizer of the annual event, said, "We are gathered today to educate the public that the death penalty continues to be arbitrary and capricious. It is a violation of human rights. It is a political tool for politicians to mislead the public about how best to address crime. It is biased and it is a colossal waste of tax dollars."

Kentucky law students are tranforming the justice system with their Innocence Project.

Here is some well deserved praise for Ohio Governor Taft who commuted the death sentence of Jerome Campbell last week. Campbell was a juvenile offender who was scheduled for execution this past Friday.

This commutation - the first that Taft has granted, for that matter the first any Ohio governor has granted since 1991 - provides a compelling case for keeping such powers in the hands of the state's chief executive.

....The Ohio Parole Board recommended in May that Taft commute Campbell's sentence. And after studying the facts, Taft correctly concluded that the state should not carry out the execution in view of powerful and troubling questions about the prosecution's conduct. Taft's ruling upholds the central purpose of commutation: Whenever nagging doubt exists, the state should always err on the side of life.

Noah Leavitt argues in Counterpunch that the US should allow foreign law students to represent foreigners on America's Death Row.

Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich has introduced a bill to abolish the federal death penalty. It is H. R. 2574, and you can read the text of it on Thomas, the Federal Legislation Server, by typing its number in the search box. Here's the gist:

PROHIBITION ON IMPOSITION OF DEATH SENTENCE.

(a) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may be sentenced to death or put to death on or after the date of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law.(b) PERSONS SENTENCED BEFORE DATE OF ENACTMENT- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person sentenced to death before the date of enactment of this Act for any violation of Federal law shall serve a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.

Co-sponsors of the bill include:

We wrote about Bush fave Albert Gonzales and his Texas Clemency Memos here. Just a reminder they are online here.

As the legal counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales — now the White House counsel, and widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee—prepared 57 confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush's review. Never before discussed publicly, the memoranda suggest that Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of some of the most salient issues in the cases at hand.

....During Bush's 6 years as governor 150 men and 2 women were executed in Texas—a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history. Each time a person was sentenced to death, Bush received from his legal counsel a document summarizing the facts of the case, usually on the morning of the day scheduled for the execution, and was then briefed on those facts by his counsel; based on this information Bush allowed the execution to proceed in all cases but one. The first 57 of these summaries were prepared by Gonzales...

Author Alan Berlow obtained the never before published memos, which is permitted under the Texas Public Information Act.

The Abolitionist Action Committee is holdingit's 10th Annual Fast & Vigil, Starvin' For Justice, on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court in Washington from June 29 to July 2, 2003. You don't have to fast to attend.

The purpose of this event is to maintain a presence at SCOTUS between the dates of the anniversaries of when the death penalty was ruled unconstitutional in practice in 1972, and when new laws were upheld in 1976. Much of the time is spent talking to individuals and educating people about the death penalty. Several larger events are held at key times during the event to highlight specific concerns.

The Fast & Vigil takes place on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, considered by many to be the heart of the legalized killing machines in this country. In addition to the strong public witness, this is an excellent opportunity to meet other abolitionists and to "recharge your batteries" while engaging in public outreach and maintaining a physical presence at the Court.

Spread the Word.

Count us among those who have been skeptical that Howard Dean is really a liberal. We've always been concerned about his support for the death penalty. Now, according to the Times-Argus, Dean is expanding his support for the death penalty and aligning himself closer to Bush on the issue.

In his 11 years as Vermont’s governor, his position on capital punishment “evolved” from staunch opposition to limited support, Dean acknowledges. Now, on the stump for the Democratic nomination for president, Dean has extended his endorsement of a death sentence for those who kill children or police officers to include those who commit terrorist acts.

“As governor, I came to believe that the death penalty would be a just punishment for certain, especially heinous crimes, such as the murder of a child or the murder of a police officer. The events of September 11 convinced me that terrorists also deserve the ultimate punishment,” Dean said in a statement released by his campaign last week.

Compare that to his stance when he first became Governor of Vermont:

In the infancy of his governorship, Dean was an outspoken opponent of the death penalty.

“I don’t support the death penalty for two reasons. One, you might have the wrong guy, and two, the state is like a parent. Parents who smoke cigarettes can’t really tell their children not to smoke and be taken seriously. If a state tells you not to murder people, a state shouldn’t be in the business of taking people’s lives,” he said in 1992.

His weakening began in 1997.

In defending his switch, Dean attributed some of the impetus to a weak judicial system that allowed murderers to go free, and in some cases kill again. “Until life without parole means life without parole, the public is not safe without a death penalty,” Dean said in 1997. “Until we have a judicial system that can adequately protect us, the only thing that will is the death penalty.”

Ron Weich, whom we admire tremendously, is Dean's policy advisor but is utterly unconvincing in his attempt to spin the change of heart by attributing it to the difference in cases facing a Governor and a President--and in this comment:

“But (Dean) would not apply the death penalty in the kind of wanton and reckless manner Attorney General Ashcroft has used.”

What does that mean? That Dean would still seek the death penalty for say, the juvenile sniper suspect, he just wouldn't forum shop for the venue most likely to return the death verdict? Or that Dean would only have sought the death penalty for the older sniper suspect?

Dean needs to be questioned in much more depth on this issue. While we don't hold out much hope that any of the major presidential candidates will oppose the death penalty, we at least want one that will consider a moratorium until reforms are instituted that would reduce the possibility of sending an innocent person to death and eliminate the arbitrariness and racial disparity inherent in the current system.

Dean is no liberal in our book if he can't jump on board. Ron, have another talk with him.

Update: On January 19, 2003, The New York Times reported:

Four of the seven Democrats who have already joined the presidential race or are likely to do so have longstanding views supporting the death penalty and have not changed their positions because of the circumstances in Illinois. Along with Mr. Lieberman, the group includes Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, Senator Bob Graham of Florida and Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri. Of the seven, only the Rev. Al Sharpton opposes the death penalty, as he has done for years. Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts supports it in the case of convicted terrorists, and Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, supports it for murderers of children or police officers.

Update: Governor Dean denies the newspaper's charge that he is aligned with Bush on the death penalty. At the suggestion of Patrick of Electrolite, we edited the title of this post. Fair is fair.

With broad death penalty reform legislation having passed both houses of the Illinois state legislature and virtually no opposition from law enforcment, Governor Rod Blagojevich is likely to sign the reform bill into law. Once passed in Illiniois, it is expected to be a model for similar legislation introduced in other states.

The legislation seeks to reshape every aspect of the legal process, from police lineups to reviews of death penalty cases by the Illinois Supreme Court. It also is viewed as a model for other states seeking to reform their capital punishment systems.

Lineups, both in person and photo arrays, would be ''blind'' and no longer be conducted in groups. Beginning with a pilot project, the cops conducting the lineups would not know who the suspect is, and they would have to tell the witness that the real suspect may not be in the lineup. Also, instead of a group of potential suspects being paraded into a lineup, reviews would be conducted individually, giving a witness time to to study each person.

Another provision would require a hearing on jailhouse informers to verify their credibility at special hearings before they are allowed to testify at trial. And a jailhouse informer could no longer be the only witness in a capital case.
Police would be required to turn over their field notes, allowing defense attorneys an oppportunity to check whether evidence discovered early in the investigation may point toward a suspect's innocence.

There would be greater access to DNA testing, an IQ of 75 would be set for establishing who is mentally retarded and thus ineligible for the death penalty, and the number of crimes subject to the death penalty would be limited.

Also, the state's Supreme Court would no longer be required to find fundamental errors in a case to overturn a death sentence, and police found to have lied at trial would face decertification, a move opposed by police unions.

After a pilot project, police and prosecutors would have two years to put in place the necessary equipment and safeguards to videotape or audiotape virtually every murder confession.

The legislation is a start and does not include all necessary reforms, but those included are most welcome and long overdue. But for former Illinois Governor George Ryan taking the bull by the horns and declaring a moratorium on the death penalty while a Commission he created studied the state's broken death penalty system, ultimately concluding that 85 reforms were necessary, this legislation would not have become a reality this soon.

A big thanks are due to former Governor Ryan and the Illinois Commission of Capital Punishment --you can access their report here.

[comments now closed]

A new study shows juries reject the death penalty in most federal cases.

Legal experts say the trend might have a number of explanations, like overreaching by prosecutors and some jurors' growing unease with the death penalty.

Update: We just notice two quotes in the article worth repeating as they come from former federal prosecutors. Jamie Orenstein was one of the prosecutors in the McVeigh and Nichols trials:

Alan Vinegrad, a former United States attorney in Brooklyn, said the recent statistics represented something larger. "It reflects that the tide is turning in this country with regard to attitudes about the death penalty," Mr. Vinegrad said. "There has been so much publicity about wrongfully convicted defendants on death row that people sitting on juries are reluctant to impose the ultimate sanction."

Mr. Orenstein, the former Justice Department official, said federal prosecutors should be more cautious. "It's a dangerous game the Department of Justice is playing here," he said, adding that the failed capital prosecutions were a poor use of resources and damaged prosecutors' credibility.

"We've got to assume," he said, "that if some juries are balking at death in overcharged cases, others are balking at conviction."

Great news from Binghamton. Jury votes life in death penalty case.

This case--US v MATTHEWS--is one in which the local US ATTY recommended against the death penalty and John Ashcroft overruled him and directed a capital prosecution. Jury selection commenced on February 2, 2003. Along the way--after 6 weeks of jury selection--the government conceded that one of the three co-D's was mentally retarded and withdrew the death notice. Today, after 4 1/2 difficult and expensive months in trial the jury returned life verdicts in the cases of the 2 capital defendants.

Big time congratulations to lawyers Carl Herman of New Jersey and Gaspar Castillo, Albany, New York, on a job magnificently done. Raspberries to Ashcroft who foolishly wasted a zillion dollars of Tom DeLay's money and the valuable time of a truly fine federal district court judge (Thomas A. McAvoy).

Terry Kindlon, Albany Criminal Defense Attorney

The 16th Texas exceution of 2003 took place today. Another 9 are scheduled before August 20. Here is the list from the Texas Department of Corrections.

There will be a Race to Execution Symposium October 23-25 at DePaul University Law School in Chicgo. It is free and open to the public but advance registration is advised.

In the last 25 years, the number of people on Death Row in the United States has risen sevenfold. More than half of those individuals are minorities. Racial disparities among inmates on Death Row raise serious questions about the fairness of the American system of capital punishment.

The Race to Execution Symposium at DePaul University College of Law will examine the role that race plays in the administration of the death penalty. This symposium will bring together an influential and diverse group of lawyers, educators, public officials and authors to explore-both pragmatically and academically-the impact of race on the American system of capital punishment and how it ought to be addressed.

The speaker roster is top notch. If you are a member of the media or a professional in the criminal justice system, we hightly recommend the program.

The July/August issue of Atlantic Monthly , due to hit the stands June 24, reports:

As the legal counsel to Texas Governor George W. Bush, Alberto R. Gonzales — now the White House counsel, and widely regarded as a likely future Supreme Court nominee—prepared 57 confidential death-penalty memoranda for Bush's review. Never before discussed publicly, the memoranda suggest that Gonzales repeatedly failed to apprise Bush of some of the most salient issues in the cases at hand.

....During Bush's 6 years as governor 150 men and 2 women were executed in Texas—a record unmatched by any other governor in modern American history. Each time a person was sentenced to death, Bush received from his legal counsel a document summarizing the facts of the case, usually on the morning of the day scheduled for the execution, and was then briefed on those facts by his counsel; based on this information Bush allowed the execution to proceed in all cases but one. The first 57 of these summaries were prepared by Gonzales...

Author Alan Berlow obtained the never before published memos, which is permitted under the Texas Public Information Act. He says,

Although the summaries rarely make a recommendation for or against execution, many have a clear prosecutorial bias, and all seem to assume that if an appeals court rejected one or another of a defendant's claims, there is no conceivable rationale for the governor to revisit that claim. This assumption ignores one of the most basic reasons for clemency: the fact that the justice system makes mistakes.

[Edit: The link above now goes directly to the article. This is an excellent piece of reporting. [Thanks to Rev. Mr. George W. Brooks, Director of Advocacy for Kolbe House in Chicago for sending it to us.]