Jan. 24
TEXAS:
Executions under Greg Abbott, Jan. 21, 2015-present----21
Executions in Texas: Dec. 7, 1982----present-----539
Abbott#--------scheduled execution date-----name------------Tx. #
22---------January 26---------------Terry Edwards---------540
23---------February 2---------------John Ramirez----------541
24---------February 7---------------Tilon Carter----------542
25---------March 7------------------Rolando Ruiz----------543
26---------March 14-----------------James Bigby-----------544
27---------April 12-----------------Paul Storey-----------545
28---------June 28------------------Steven Long-----------546
29---------July 19-----------------Kosoul Chanthakoummane---547
(sources: TDCJ & Rick Halperin)
ALABAMA:
Alabama judicial override safe from Supreme Court review
The US Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear a challenge to Alabama's system
of judicial override for the death penalty from several death-row inmates in
the State.
In a list of orders on pending cases released Monday, the Court denied
certiorari in the case of Thomas Arthur v. Alabama. Arthur and 2 other
death-row inmates petitioned the high court in November to review Alabama's
death row laws.
Those laws allow judges in the State impose the death penalty in some capital
murder cases, even when the jury refused to impose the death penalty.
Last year, the Yellowhammer State became the last state in the US to have
judicial override after the US Supreme Court ruled against a similar law in
Florida. Over the next several months, the Florida Supreme Court and the
Delaware Supreme Court killed judicial override in 2 out of the last 3 states
with the provision.
Arthur escaped death for the seventh time in November when the US Supreme Court
Chief Justice issued a stay from the Court on the night of the 74-year-old's
scheduled execution. That night, Arthur's attorneys filed 2 briefs before the
Court.
The petition for writ of certiorari denied Monday asked the Court to review the
death penalty sentencing laws, which Arthur argued were unconstitutional based
on the Supreme Court's January 2016 decision in Hurst v. Florida.
Another petition, which is still before the Court, asks the Court to review
Arthur's request for an alternative form of execution beside Alabama's lethal
injection cocktail. Arthur believes Alabama's 3-drug lethal injection regimen
would be cruel and unusual, violating the Eighth Amendment.
In Hurst v. Florida, the Court ruled Florida's judicial override laws were
unconstitutional. That law, like Alabama's, allowed trial court judges to
overturn a jury's verdict of life.
Attorney General Luther Strange said Monday in a statement that Alabama's
judicial override sentencing law is different from Florida's and that the
Court's decision was a victory.
"The US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari ... is a reaffirmation that
Alabama's death sentencing law is constitutional," Strange said. "Convicted
murders [sic] have repeatedly challenged Alabama's death penalty sentencing
system because it allows for judicial override similar to Florida???s law."
Alabama's law, unlike Florida's, requires that a jury unanimously "find an
aggravating factor at either the guilt or sentencing stage" before determining
a death sentence. In other words, judges can't impose the death penalty without
at least some input from the jury.
In the Hurst decision, the Court applied a 2002 decision that found that a jury
must find the "aggravating factors" necessary for imposing the death penalty.
Florida's laws did not require the jury's input on those factors.
Aggravating factors are often whether the murder occurred during the course of
a robbery, burglary or kidnapping - or whether the defendant was "under
sentence of imprisonment," as was Arthur's case.
That small provision present in Alabama's criminal procedure giving juries the
responsibility to find those "aggravating factors" likely saved the State's
sentencing system, though the Court's exact reason is unknown.
For Alabama, Strange said, it's still a victory.
"It should, therefore, be clear to all that Alabama's death penalty sentencing
system is constitutional," Strange said.
But even with Monday's legal victory, Alabama's system remains the only "hybrid
sentencing system" in the country. Juries give a nonbinding advisory sentence -
either for death or for life - and the judge then makes the final
determination.
In Arthur's case, his trial jury voted 11-1 for an advisory verdict of death,
but the vote wasn't unanimous, as most other states' death-penalty sentences
require.
Since 1976, more than 92 % of 107 overrides have resulted in a judge imposing
the death penalty when a trial jury voted to recommend life in prison,
according to Montgomery's Equal Justice Initiative.
And it's not just the Supreme Court reviewing judicial override in the State.
The Legislature will take it up next month as well. Sen. Dick Brewbaker,
R-Montgomery, has prefiled a bill intended to abolish the practice.
Many expected the Court to take up the challenge based on the previous
successful challenge in Hurst. In the Hurst case, Alabama's own solicitor
general submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Court urging them not to strike
down Florida's system because it would likely strike Alabama???s down as well.
And in Harris v. Alabama, a 1995 Supreme Court decision upholding Alabama's
death penalty, the Court noted that Alabama's system was "based on Florida's
sentencing scheme."
Despite the similarities, Chief Justice Roberts hinted in November that the
Court would likely refuse Arthur's request for certiorari in the case, noting
that he agreed to issue the stay as a ":courtesy" to the other justices who
wanted time to review the case.
"The claims set out in the application are purely fact-specific, dependent on
contested interpretations of state law, insulated from our review by
alternative holdings below, or some combination of the three," Roberts said at
the time.
2 other justices, Associate Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, voted
against a stay in November, foreshadowing Monday's decision.
The Court has not yet issued a decision on whether they will grant Arthur's
other petition for certiorari, which originated from a denied appeal to an
Alabama US District Court and then another appeal to the US 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals.
In his appeal in the US District Court, Arthur suggested a firing squad or
another lethal execution drug, Pentobarbital, as alternatives to the State's
controversial 3-drug lethal injection regimen.
Arthur's attorneys argued that Midazolam, the 1st of 3 drugs in Alabama's
cocktail, would fail to do its job of sedating the inmate to prevent pain
during the induction of the 2 other live-taking drugs, violating the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
In 2014, the US Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the use of Midazolam as a sedative
was not unconstitutional, allowing its use to continue, but Arthur argues that
he has a preexisting heart condition that would render Midazolam ineffective.
The federal judge hearing Arthur's case in US District Court rejected Arthur's
argument because he said Arthur had not identified an alternative drug regimen
and a firing squad isn't a prescribed form of execution under current Alabama
law.
Arthur will now wait as the US Supreme Court looks over the submitted briefs in
the pending case and decides whether they will grant review.
Last year, 2 death-row inmates - Christopher Brooks in January and Ronald Smith
in December - were executed in Alabama after a near-3-year lull in executions,
which began out of the rising scarcity of Midazolam and pending court
litigation.
After the Court affirmed Midazolam, executions resumed, and Arthur was supposed
to be the 2nd on the list.
The Alabama Supreme Court has set 7 different execution dates since Arthur was
first convicted of the 1982 murder-for-hire of Muscle Shoals businessman Troy
Wicker, and Arthur outlived them all.
If the justices of the US Supreme Court choose not to review the case, the stay
delaying Arthur's execution will expire and the Alabama Supreme Court will be
able to reschedule Arthur's execution.
(source: Alabama Political Reporter)
MISSISSIPPI:
Judge weighs whether to give death penalty in girl's slaying
A Mississippi judge has begun examining evidence and hearing testimony into
whether a man should receive the death penalty after he admitted to sexually
assaulting a 5-year-old girl and hanging her by using her socks.
News outlets report that Harrison County Circuit Court Judge Lisa Dodson
reviewed crime scene photos and autopsy photos of the child Monday as she
decides whether to sentence Alberto Garcia to death or life without parole for
the 2014 killing of Ja'Naya Thompson. Testimony resumes Tuesday.
The 32-year-old Garcia pleaded guilty Jan. 18 to capital murder.
The child's body was found in an abandoned trailer in July 2014.
Garcia had implicated Julian Gray, a neighbor. A grand jury found insufficient
evidence to indict Gray.
(source: WRAL news)
USA:
Donald Trump has a strong stance on capital punishment
On many issues, President Donald Trump's opinions are murky at best. He's
offered a number of different positions on issues like abortion rights, foreign
policy and even his favorite issue, immigration. There's 1 issue, though, where
Trump has remained unambiguous throughout his campaign, even dating back to his
days as a real estate mogul: capital punishment.
Trump is undeniably in favor of the death penalty and has made it clear
whenever he can that he supports the state using death as a punishment.
Trump has a long history of death penalty support
Evidence of Trump's zeal for the death penalty goes back to the late 1980s. In
1989, 5 young men, all black or Hispanic, were arrested for the rape of a woman
in Central Park. This case, known as the "Central Park 5" case, made national
news. Trump decided to spend upwards of $85,000 on a full-page ad in the New
York Times with a call to "Bring Back the Death Penalty. Bring Back Our
Police!"
The 5 young men were eventually convicted but later released when DNA evidence
pointed to another suspect committing the crime. Still, during his campaign,
Trump reiterated his belief that they were guilty.
Trump wants people executed who didn't commit homicide
Then there's the case of Bowe Bergdahl. Bergdahl was the army private captured
in Afghanistan after allegedly deserting his unit. Obama traded a number of
Taliban prisoners for the release of Bergdahl. At a rally during the campaign
Trump commented that he "should have been executed."
In 2012, Trump called for the death penalty for child molesters. In 2010, he
said the death penalty should be on the table for Wikileaks members in
connection to the materials leaked by Chelsea Manning. Wikileaks, of course,
would go on to being perceived as helping Trump in 2016 by releasing Democratic
Party emails.
A big part of Trump's campaign appeal was his hardline stance on law and order
issues - his support for cops, his opposition to groups like Black Lives Matter
and his stance that America had turned into "medieval times." His strong
support for the death penalty only underscores that stance.
(source: Ben Geier, mic.com)
****************
Is capital punishment necessary in North American Society?
For those who aren't aware, 21-year-old Dylann Roof is the person responsible
for killing 9 people in the Charleston Church shooting. This horrible event
occurred in June of 2015, yet Roof only received his sentence in December 2016.
The court ultimately issued him the death penalty.
The decision to invoke capital punishment has been one of a lot of controversy,
and for good reason. Roof is the 1st person in America to face execution for a
federal hate crime according to a report by CNN.
The death penalty has a history of being an overwhelmingly divisive practice,
at least since 1845, when Michigan became the 1st state to ban executions.
Since then, individual states have been faced with the choice of whether or not
to issue capital punishment. In researching the various arguments for and
against the death penalty, I've seen greatly differing opinions.
Let's look at the case of the Charleston shooter for example. During his trial,
Roof pleaded guilty, showed no remorse for his actions and was deemed
psychologically stable enough to be taken at his word, according to the same
CNN report. It is virtually undeniable that he shouldn???t be allowed to remain
a part of society, since he threatens the freedom and safety of other members
in it.
So that leads to the big question: should capital punishment be a viable option
for criminals who are a threat to our society?
Roof himself said the Internet greatly influenced his actions according to the
Southern Poverty Law Center, since it gave him access to radical, hate-filled
websites that shaped his views. There's no doubt he was fully aware of his
action, and we should certainly hold him accountable. However, if he was
influenced by people online, then isn't it reasonable to punish them as well?
My point is that Roof is the product of an entire community of hate - killing 1
of its members doesn't stop the community. In fact, it probably even fuels
their hate.
So what should we do to prevent future hate acts? It would likely be more
productive for society to rehabilitate Roof, and try to make him see the wrong
in his actions. He is a manifestation of the very real problem of racism in the
West. By killing him, we are in effect sweeping this problem under the rug. If
we view racism as a disease, then what we need is to develop a cure or
treatment to address the problem head on, rather than killing those who have
it.
Legal punishment should deter other people from committing the same crime in
the future. Deterrence theory - created by American political scientist John J.
Dilulio - claims a punishment is effective when it is 1) certain to happen, 2)
is issued immediately after the crime and 3) is severe. Capital punishment is
definitely severe, but it doesn't meet the other 2 criteria so its
effectiveness is definitely questionable and debatable.
There is a point when no punishment is capable of deterring someone from
committing a crime. In my opinion, the argument that death is a more effective
deterrent than the alternatives, and will result in less crime is false; since
death is something that we have no concrete knowledge about, it exceeds the
fear a person is capable of feeling.The difference between life in an American
prison, and death, isn't one that is going to make a difference to anyone,
because they're both so unimaginably undesirable.
One side argues that killing Roof will make it easier for the victims' families
- and the American society - to cope. But isn't that only teaching people that
revenge is an appropriate way to deal with grief? It seems no more logical to
fight murder with murder than it is to fight fire with fire.
Capital punishment only perpetuates the cycle of hate, which doesn't fix the
problem. If we truly want things to change, we need to respond with the desire
to understand one's situation and help them. As hard as this may be, I believe
it is the only way to grow and eventually overcome the horrible problem of
racism.
The death sentence is an emotionally-driven decision, and I don't believe
emotion belongs in the judicial system. We can't confuse justice with revenge.
With hate crimes being a prominent problem, we need to dissect and attempt to
fix - rather than eliminate it, so we can progress and learn how to prevent
similar cases in the future.
(source: Tyson Burger; theconcordian.com)
_______________________________________________
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
