[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEW HAMPSHIRE
April 26 NEW HAMPSHIRE: Death penalty repeal passes House; faces Sununu veto The House of Representatives has joined the Senate in voting to repeal the death penalty in New Hampshire, but not by the margin needed to override an anticipated veto by Gov. Chris Sununu. The 223-to-116 vote on Thursday came after a debate in which representatives restated many of the arguments made in hearings before House and Senate committees. The state Senate voted 14-10 on March 16 to pass the death penalty repeal bill, SB 593. Much of the debate has centered on whether such a move would affect the planned execution of the only convict on death row in the state. The House has voted in the past to repeal the death penalty in New Hampshire, the only New England state with capital punishment still on the books. The Senate deadlocked on the issue 12-12 in 2016 and 2014. Gov. Chris Sununu has already said he supports the current death penalty law and will veto the repeal effort if it gets to his desk. A two-thirds majority will be needed to override the veto. The Senate was two votes short of the 16 votes needed to override. The House will need around 255 votes to override a Sununu veto, depending on how many representatives are present when the vote is taken. The state's death penalty has not been used since 1939, and no one was on death row for decades until Michael Addison was convicted in the murder of Manchester police officer Michael Briggs in 2008. The prospect of Addison's sentence being reduced to life in prison without the possibility of parole dominated much of the debate, with opponents of repeal calling for justice on behalf of the officer's surviving family. The bill states that repeal can only be applied moving forward, suggesting that Addison's death sentence remains in place even if the bill passes. But opponents of repeal cited an advisory memo from Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, who said Addison's sentence would “probably not” remain in place if the death penalty is repealed. MacDonald cited court rulings in other states where the death penalty has been repealed, and noted that no convict on death row has ever been executed in a state once it repeals the death penalty. (source: Union Leader) ___ A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu DeathPenalty mailing list DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
April 26 INDIA: India's Criminal Justice System Cannot Be Trusted With the Death PenaltyIndian criminal justice system is plagued with an antiquated and untrained structure, and reinforced with laws that are over 2-centuries old. The Central government recently announced the promulgation of an ordinance on sexual assaults to act as a temporary fix until laws can be amended. The ordinance prescribes the death penalty for those guilty of raping children under the age of 12. It has further asked for fast-tracking sexual assault investigations - to be completed within 2 months, the trial within 2 months thereafter and any appeals disposed of 6 months thereafter. This is incredibly ambitious, at best, or foolishly naive, at worst. Sexual assault is a horrific experience for the victim. Society may choose to categorise some as worse than others and attach a death sentence to them accordingly, but we cannot compare experiences. It is for the authorities to diligently, impartially and scientifically investigate the crime. How any of these criteria is met in India is a mystery. Investigation IPS officers cannot investigate crimes, investigating officers (IO) are from the state cadres (on average, an IO has 450 cases at any given time) and none - I repeat, none - are formally or systematically trained to be specialist investigators in any type of crime. IPS officers receive disjointed training, including being sent abroad for courses, but none are trained in specific crimes. As a result, there are no specialist departments. Not for terrorism, not for robbery, not for rape. Numerous attempts at completely overhauling our policing apparatus and rewriting the colonial-era CrPC and IPC have failed. Police impartiality, as cold as it may seem, is key to any investigation. The impartiality must be holistic - to the victim, their own command structures and political interference. Cressida Dick, commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service (Scotland Yard) in London, recently reminded their sexual offences investigators to maintain professionalism and impartiality after a number of high-profile prosecutions failed when the prosecution's case was shredded in court by the defence, which found loopholes in the victims' statements and evidence - what we know in India as a 'false case'. National Criminal Records Bureau data from 2015 show that 95% of perpetrators in rape cases are known to their victims; if the yoke of death penalty was hung around a member of the victim's family, would India's notoriously conservative society support a victim, with death looming on the horizon for one of their own? Running parallel to the police investigation should be the forensic investigation - which, quite often, can throw up evidence that is both irrefutable and contrary to statements collected by the police. No prosecution can stand a chance of being successful if both sets of evidence don't line up. Once again, our police authorities fall far below international standards - almost all police departments completely lack forensic evidence collection officers and processing facilities. The Human DNA Profiling Bill, passed by the UPA-II, has stalled and failed. In 2014, Delhi police allowed 1,500 DNA samples to expire - leading to prosecutorial failures. Prosecution The next step in the process is launching a prosecution. In an ideal scenario, a highly-trained specialist prosecutor will work alongside an investigation team, ensuring high standards, adherence to the law and sufficient evidence collection to seek a conviction. Prosecutors need to know how to translate the straightforward criminal laws into a courtroom environment which goes by previous rulings, precedents and open to being demolished by the defence, let alone numerous avenues of appeal, each of which can hinge on a technicality. What is the Indian outlook? No specialist public prosecutors (even though, ironically, their designation is 'special public prosecutor'). In light of the recent fugitive economic offenders, or the Jyoti Singh gangrape case, or even the frequent political scams, it is surprising that India has not yet felt the need for cadres of specialist public prosecutors. Our public prosecutors remain beyond the purview of even the public - they do not answer to anybody. If, for example, they answered to the local district magistrate (IAS) or superintendent of police (IPS), some degree of partnership may exist, ensuring a close working relationship - leading to stronger and more successful prosecutions. Here, however, senior lawyers are randomly appointed and work at their own discretion, with the bill being picked up by the public. Juxtaposed with the US system, where prosecutors are elected by the public and therefore easily accountable and just as easily disposed of - or legendary success stories, such as 'Mob buster' Rudy Giuliani, who became the mayor of New York
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
April 26 LEBANON: Beirut judge calls for death penalty for man who murdered ex-wife Beirut's First Investigative Judge Ghassan Oueidat issued an indictment Wednesday for a man who allegedly killed his ex-wife, fled to Syria, and later came back and handed himself in, the state-run National News Agency reported. Ouiedat issued the indictment for the murder of Nada Bahlawan, "at the hands of her ex-husband," NNA said. Bahlawan, born in 1975, was shot and killed on Jan. 22 on the street in Beirut's Ras al-Nabeh by a man identified by eyewitnesses and via CCTV as her husband, Fadi Ghazi Askar, born in 1967, a security source told The Daily Star at the time. In his decision, Oueidat called for the death penalty for Askar, on the grounds that he committed a felony under Article 549 of the Penal Code, as well as an offense under Article 73 of the Weapons Act for the transfer of an unauthorized hunting gun. The NNA report revealed new details about the crime, saying the defendant fled the scene after committing it, leaving his car parked at the roadside in Baabda's Falougha, with the murder weapon inside. He then took a series of buses to Syria, where he stayed for some time, before returning in February to hand himself in to Lebanon's General Security, NNA reported. (source: The Daily Star) SAUDI ARABIA: Executions for Drug CrimesCrown Prince Signals Possible Limit on Non-Murder Executions Saudi Arabia has executed 48 people since the beginning of 2018, 1/2 of them for nonviolent drug crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. Many more people convicted of drug crimes remain on death row following convictions by Saudi Arabia's notoriously unfair criminal justice system. Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman said in an interview with Time magazine on April 5, that the Saudi authorities have a plan to decrease the number of executions, but that they would not limit executions to people convicted of murder. Nearly all executions in Saudi Arabia that are not for murder are for non-violent drug crimes. The prince said the country would consider changing the penalty from death to life in prison in some cases, but not in murder cases. It's bad enough that Saudi Arabia executes so many people, but many of them have not committed a violent crime," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "Any plan to limit drug executions needs to include improvements to a justice system that doesn't provide for fair trials." Saudi Arabia has carried out nearly 600 executions since the beginning of 2014, over 200 of them in drug cases. The vast majority of the remainder were for murder, but other offenses included rape, incest, terrorism, and "sorcery." In Saudi Arabia, death sentences for murder are usually based on the Islamic law principle qisas, or eye-for-an-eye retributive punishment, while judges hand down death sentences for drugs at their own discretion (the Islamic law principle ta'zir). Judges rely on a 1987 fatwa by the country's Council of Senior Religious Scholars prescribing the death penalty for any "drug smuggler" who brings drugs into the country, as well as provisions of the 2005 Law on Combatting Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, which prescribes the death penalty for drug smuggling. The law allows for mitigated sentences in limited circumstances. International standards, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Saudi Arabia, require countries that retain the death penalty to use it only for the "most serious crimes," and in exceptional circumstances. In 2012, the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary, or arbitrary executions stated that where used, the death penalty should be limited to cases in which a person is intentionally killed and not used to punish drug-related offenses. Human Rights Watch has documented numerous cases in which Saudi courts sentenced defendants to death following unfair trials. In one such case, a Saudi court sentenced a Jordanian man, Waleed al-Saqqar, to death in December 2014 for smuggling drugs across the Saudi border from Jordan in his truck. The judgment following al-Saqqar's trial reveals that the trial lasted only 1 day, and a source with direct knowledge of the case told Human Rights Watch that the entire trial lasted about 5 minutes. The source said that a judge asked al-Saqqar to confirm his identity and state whether the truck belonged to him, then issued the death sentence. Al-Saqqar did not have a defense lawyer. The source said that the judge did not allow al-Saqqar a chance to explain the circumstances, which he viewed as a mitigating factor. The source said that in April 2013 al-Saqqar met a Saudi man at the Jordanian Free Zone near Zarqa city who offered to pay him 300,000 Saudi Riyals (US$80,000) to smuggle several bags of agricultural hormones to Saudi Arabia. The Saudi man said that his workers were
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, PENN., FLA., MO., NEB., CALIF.
April 26 TEXASexecution Texas executes Erick Davila, who killed 2 people including a 5-year-old girlErick Davila was executed Wednesday evening for a 2008 shooting at a child's birthday party that left his rival gang member's mother and 5-year-old daughter dead. His case was heard and ultimately rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court last year. A year ago, his death penalty case was being argued before the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday evening, he was put to death by the state of Texas. Erick Davila, 31, was executed after a relatively short 9 years on Texas' death row. He was convicted in 2009 for repeatedly shooting at a Fort Worth house hosting a child's birthday party, killing the mother and 5-year-old daughter of Jerry Stevenson, whom Davila claims was a rival gang member. In his last appeal, Davila asked the high court to stop his execution based on new claims of drug use during the murders and a conflict of interest with the Tarrant County District Attorney's Office. Minutes before his scheduled 6 p.m. death, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected his final appeal, and he was strapped to a gurney in a mint green room, where he spoke his final words as Stevenson and other family members of the victim watched through a glass pane. "Yes, I would like to say nephew, it burns, huh," he said. "You know, I might have lost the fight, but I'm still a soldier. I still love you all. To my supporters and family, y'all hold it down. Ten Toes down right. That's all." He was then injected with a lethal dose of pentobarbital and was pronounced dead at 6:31 p.m. Davila fought his sentence to the end, maintaining to the courts that he only intended to kill his rival, Jerry Stevenson, not the man's daughter, Queshawn, or her grandmother, 47-year-old Annette. It was an important distinction because the jury had to find that Davila intended to kill multiple people to be eligible for the death penalty. Prosecutors argued Davila always intended to kill more than his rival, pointing to his statement to police that he was trying to get "the guys on the porch" and "the fat dude." "I wasn't aiming at the kids or the woman and don't know where the woman came from," Davila said in a written statement to police, according to court documents. "I don't know the fat dudes name, but I know what he looks like, so I recognized his face." It was the question of intent that eventually led Davila's case to the nation's high court last April on a legal technicality. His current lawyer, Seth Kretzer, argued that when jurors at his trial questioned if they needed to decide whether Davila intended to kill his 2 victims or if he intended to kill someone and in the process fatally shot 2 others, the judge - who is now the Tarrant County criminal district attorney - erred in her answer. The judge responded that Davila would be responsible for a crime if the only difference between what happened and what he wanted was that a different person was hurt - without affirming to them that Davila must have intended to kill more than 1 person. The jury found him guilty. Though his lawyer at trial objected to the judge's instructions, the objection was overruled, and the issue wasn't brought up again in Davila's state appeals, which Kretzer said was bad lawyering. The question that landed in front of the U.S. Supreme Court was whether Kretzer could raise the jury instruction in federal courts because of ineffective appellate lawyers. Generally, federal courts can't take up issues that could have been raised in state courts, but there is an exception when the trial lawyer is found to have been ineffective. But in Davila's case, it was the appellate lawyers, not the trial lawyer, who were being accused of dropping the ball. In June, the justices decided in a split ruling that the 2 types of attorneys can't be treated equally, and Davila became eligible for execution. He didn't stop fighting. After Tarrant County set an execution date, Davila filed new appeals. In his last petition, Kretzer asked the U.S. Supreme Court to delay the execution because he recently discovered that Davila's original co-defendant told the judge that Davila was "heavily intoxicated" during the shooting - a fact that was apparently unknown by defense attorneys. Kretzer wanted time to further develop claims that the prosecution may have failed to disclose information about Davila being on drugs at the time of the murders. "While intoxication is not a defense to murder, it would have been an issue that would have been relevant to mitigation and sentencing," Kretzer said Tuesday, indicating a jury could have been persuaded to hand down the lesser sentence of life in prison without parole if it was brought up at trial. The Texas Attorney General's office argued against the appeal in its court filing, saying that Davila himself would obviously be aware of his own intoxication, so it was
