March 19
TEXAS:
Prosecutor accused of misconduct in disputed Texas execution case
In a major turn in one of the country's most-noted death penalty cases, the
State Bar of Texas has filed a formal accusation of misconduct against the
county prosecutor who convicted Cameron Todd Willingham, a Texas man executed
in 2004 for the arson murder of his 3 young daughters.
Following a preliminary inquiry that began last summer, the bar this month
filed a disciplinary petition in Navarro County District Court accusing the
former prosecutor, John H. Jackson, of obstruction of justice, making false
statements and concealing evidence favorable to Willingham's defense.
"Before, during, and after the 1992 trial, [Jackson] knew of the existence of
evidence that tended to negate the guilt of Willingham and failed to disclose
that evidence to defense counsel," the bar investigators charged.
The bar action was filed March 5 without any public announcement. It accuses
Jackson of having intervened repeatedly to help a jailhouse informant, Johnny
E. Webb, in return for his testimony that Willingham confessed the murders to
him while they were both jailed in Corsicana, the Navarro County seat.
Webb has since recanted that testimony. In a series of recent interviews, he
told the Marshall Project that Jackson coerced him to lie, threatening a long
prison term for a robbery to which Webb ultimately pleaded guilty, but
promising to reduce his sentence if he testified against Willingham.
Jackson has repeatedly denied that he made any pre-trial agreement with Webb in
exchange for his testimony. The former prosecutor acknowledged that he and
others made extraordinary efforts to help Webb, but said they were motivated
only by concern for a witness who had been threatened by other prisoners
because of his testimony.
A lawyer for Jackson, Joseph E. Byrne, on Wednesday urged that people withhold
judgment about the case until all the evidence was presented and took issue
with the grievance filed against his client by the Innocence Project, a legal
advocacy group.
"I disagree with much of the information that was put together by the Innocence
Project and do not find it to be objective," Byrne said.
From the time of the house fire that killed his children on Dec. 23, 1991,
Willingham maintained his innocence. He said he awoke from a nap to find his
home engulfed in smoke and flames, and that he could not locate the three
toddlers before stumbling outside to seek help. Texas fire examiners concluded
that the blaze was an arson, and Jackson later said it was "very likely" that
Willingham had poured some accelerant on the floor in the shape of a pentagram,
apparently as a symbol of Satanic worship.
Willingham was executed on Feb. 17, 2004, after Gov. Rick Perry refused to
grant a stay requested by Willingham's lawyers on the basis of a report by an
independent arson expert who concluded there was no evidence the fire was
intentionally set. Perry later called Willingham "a monster."
Relatives and supporters of Willingham have long sought his vindication but
have been frustrated by both the courts and the state government. The Innocence
Project, which has investigated the case for a decade, sought a posthumous
pardon for Willingham and to have his case re-heard by a court of inquiry. Both
efforts were unsuccessful.
In July, the group filed a grievance with the Texas bar accusing Jackson of
conduct that "violated his professional, ethical and constitutional
obligations" in his handling of the case. That complaint was the basis for the
disciplinary petition filed on March 5.
Told of the state bar's action, Willingham's stepmother, Eugenia, said, "John
Jackson committed a crime, and I want him punished. If the appeals court had
known the truth, Todd would probably be alive today."
A staff attorney for the Innocence Project, Bryce Benjet, said the group was
encouraged by the bar's disciplinary action. "Withholding exculpatory evidence
and the presentation of false testimony in a death penalty case is quite
possibly the most serious ethical breach for a lawyer you can imagine," he
said.
The disciplinary petition contends that "Jackson failed to make timely
disclosure to the defense details for favorable treatment for Webb, an inmate,
in exchange for Webb's testimony at trial for the State.
"During a pre-trial hearing on July 24, 1992, (Jackson) told the trial court
that he had no evidence favorable to Willingham," the complaint continues.
"That statement was false."
The Marshall Project disclosed earlier this month the existence of a letter
sent by Webb to Jackson in 1996 asking Jackson to comply with what he called
their "agreement" to reduce his judgment from aggravated robbery to robbery.
Within a few weeks, Jackson obtained a court order that reduced the charge.
The petition accuses Jackson of obtaining favorable treatment for Webb that
included telling the Navarro County Clerk's Office to inform the Texas
Department of Corrections that Webb was convicted of robbery instead of
aggravated robbery even though Webb had pled guilty to aggravated robbery. In
addition, Jackson obtained the court order in 1996 that officially changed the
judgment to robbery and requested early parole for Webb with the Texas Board of
Pardons and Paroles.
Jackson is accused of violating rules that prohibit making false statements to
a judge as well as obstructing justice. The petition also accuses Jackson of
concealing evidence that "a lawyer would reasonably believe has potential or
actual evidentiary value."
When early parole was denied, Jackson signed court orders for Webb so that he
could be transferred from prison to the Navarro County jail.
The petition accuses Jackson of violating several sections of the Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and seeks that he "be disciplined as
the facts shall warrant." Such discipline could range from no discipline to
disbarment.
Byrne, Jackson's lawyer, said last week that his client would ask to have a
jury hear any accusations of misconduct against him, as state bar rules allow.
Webb's testimony will likely be a key part of the state bar's case against
Jackson, as well as letters between Webb and Charles Pearce, a now-deceased
Corsicana rancher who funneled several thousand dollars to Webb after the
Willingham trial. Webb has said the money was promised to him as part of his
agreement with Jackson.
No date for any hearing on the petition has been scheduled.
(source: Washington Post)
******************
Texas state bar asks court to punish prosecutor for handling of 1992 death
penalty arson case
A prosecutor who handled the case of a Texas man executed for the fire deaths
of his 3 daughters has been formally accused of misconduct over allegations
that he concealed evidence during the 1992 murder trial.
John Jackson was the lead prosecutor against Cameron Todd Willingham. He
declined comment Wednesday on the accusations against him and referred
questions to an attorney.
The State Bar of Texas has asked a Navarro County court to discipline Jackson
over his handling of the case that has become a flashpoint for death penalty
opponents. A spokeswoman for the bar said the punishment could range from a
reprimand to revoking his law license.
Willingham maintained his innocence until being executed in 2004.
The complaint was first reported by The Marshall Project, a nonprofit
journalism group.
(source: Associated Press)
*********************
Lawyers are furious with Texas for suspending an effective death penalty
defense attorney.
Last week I wrote about the suspension of David Dow, one of the country's most
prominent capital defense attorneys. He was benched for an entire year by
Texas' Court of Criminal Appeals - the state's highest criminal appeals court -
for allegedly filing a late petition in a death penalty case. The sanction was
doubly bonkers, I argued, because other death penalty lawyers never seem to be
sanctioned for sleeping, drinking, or otherwise rendering themselves
incompetent at trial. In any event, Dow was barred from appearing before the
CCA for 12 months. Which means that his death row clients - whom he represents
pro bono, and who may not find other lawyers to do so - literally have their
lives on the line because a motion may or may not have been filed a few hours
late. Or, as 1 lawyer quipped after the piece was posted: "Apparently Texas
finally found one lawyer to be incompetent: the one who is actually good at his
job."
On Wednesday an extraordinary petition was filed in the Texas Supreme Court by
some 300 lawyers seeking a declaratory judgment or, in the alternative, a writ
of mandamus, overturning Dow's suspension. The document is 263 pages long, of
which many are signature pages. In effect, the petition asks Texas' Supreme
Court to declare that the CCA exceeded its authority when it suspended Dow, or
that the CCA exceeded its authority and violated Dow's constitutional rights
when it suspended Dow absent fraudulent or dishonorable conduct or malpractice,
and also failed to give Dow his due course and process of law. This is fancy
Latin for asking the court to set aside the suspension.
The gist of the petition has to do with the case Dow was handling on appeal.
His supporters say that if the original trial counsel had done the things he
was supposed to do at the original trial (like, say, put on mitigating
evidence; explain to the jury that his client was mentally ill; call even a
single witness at punishment phase), Dow would not have needed to step in at
the last minute to try to stay the execution. In our topsy-turvy capital
defense universe, Dow is being sanctioned for trying to (quickly and with an
execution date looming) do what defense counsel should have done in the first
place.
Readers suggested that I had to be making things up.
The petition contends that Dow filed within the timeframe mandated by the CCA's
rules (which are ambiguous, because the rule says you have seven days to file,
but an example laid out after the rule says you have 8 days), and notes the
chilling effect this sanction will have on the rest of the capital defense bar:
"The CCA's extraordinary construction of the rule, and decision that the
penalty for the filing would be a one year suspension will undoubtedly cause
other attorneys in Dow's position to decide not to file documents for inmates
facing execution." The petition notes, simply, "As a result, people may die,
some of them innocent, with valid claims their court appointed and publicly
paid lawyers failed to develop out of fear of sanction by the CCA."
The petition further argues that the Texas Supreme Court has the sole authority
to regulate the practice of law, and that Dow was sanctioned in this
extraordinary fashion without due process of law. Finally the petition argues
that what the CCA did - in sanctioning Dow as severely as it did - was purely
punitive:
There is no question that Dow is a respected and effective advocated against
the death penalty. He has appeared numerous times before the CCA and as
mentioned, his criticism of its work has not always been kind. Yet, the ability
to proffer and advocate differing opinions and for change is the essence of our
judicial system. Lawyers are not only permitted to zealously and passionately
represent their clients, but this is what the Bar strives towards. The fact
that a court may find certain methods distasteful is of no consequence. Rather,
only when an advocate crosses the line and acts fraudulently, dishonestly, or
commits malpractice can he be punished for his actions. As detailed above,
Dow's conduct did not reach such a threshold.
I asked Laura Arnold, co-chair of the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and a
former member of the national board of directors of the Innocence Project,
about the new petition. She says the Texas Supreme Court, urged by literally
hundreds of lawyers from across Texas, has the opportunity to do the right
thing: "There is no question that the punishment imposed on David Dow by the
TCCA was unprecedented, disproportionate and excessive. There is strong reason
to believe that the magnitude of Dow's sanction was rooted in nothing more than
sheer political retribution. The Texas Supreme Court, as the highest court in
the state, has the opportunity - and, I would argue, the obligation - to right
this wrong. Only then can we hope to restore credibility and fairness to our
criminal appeals process."
Casie Gotro, 1 of the 2 attorneys who authored the brief, puts it more
succinctly: "Suspension for a late filing? If every court in Texas followed in
the CCA's footsteps, I promise you there would quickly be a shortage of
practicing lawyers. It is so disproportionate, it can only be personal."
It doesn't happen often, but when I wrote about the Dow case last week, readers
suggested that I had to be making things up because no court would possibly
sideline a prominent lawyer for an entire year for narrowly missing a filing
deadline. Except of course I wasn't making it up, it did happen, and 300 Texas
lawyers are as astonished by that fact as the rest of us. Here???s hoping the
Texas Supreme Court does the right thing.
(source: slate.com)
DELAWARE:
Sen. Peterson: Top Dem blocking death penalty repeal
State Sen. Karen Peterson said that the top House Democrat, Pete Schwartzkopf,
a retired state trooper, is blocking efforts to repeal Delaware's death
penalty.
"This is supposed to be a democracy. The chamber should decide whether or not
the bill comes to the floor," she said. "It's the equivalent of a desk drawer
veto."
"I can tell you that in the Senate if the majority members of our caucus wanted
a bill out of committee, it would be out of committee," she said. "Leaders are
supposed to facilitate, not dictate."
Her comments came after a Wednesday press conference that announced the latest
effort to repeal Delaware's death penalty.
The proposed legislation, which is also supported by some Republican lawmakers,
would repeal capital punishment, while adding an exception for 15 inmates
currently on Delaware's death row, who would still face execution, according to
a draft of the bill.
The draft mirrors 2013 repeal legislation that cleared the Delaware Senate by
an 11-10 vote before languishing in the House Judiciary Committee.
Peterson, a Stanton Democrat, and Schwartzkopf, a Rehoboth Beach Democrat and
speaker of the House, have long sparred over the legislation.
Schwartzkopf said Wednesday evening said he has not blocked the bill now, or in
the past.
"They can say whatever they want, and when most people can't get something done
in this building they tend to blame other people," he said. "The bottom line is
this, I have not done anything to stop the bill."
"I'm not stopping anyone from doing this," he added. "I don't agree with the
bill. I was a cop for 25 years, I don't know why anyone thinks I would agree
with the bill."
Schwartzkopf has said that he would oppose any repeal legislation that did not
include exemptions for those inmates convicted of killing members of law
enforcement, including correctional officers.
Not including those exemptions would endanger every correctional officer
working in the state's prisons, he said. He added that he offered amendments to
repeal legislation last year, but those requests "fell on deaf ears."
He said that compromise is needed on the bill. Peterson, he said, is not
willing to compromise.
"This building is bigger than one bill," Schwartzkopf said.
Delaware is one of 32 states in the United States that has the death penalty.
It ranks 5th nationwide in the number of death sentences per capita, according
to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
The state's death row houses 15 male inmates, with the most recent execution
being in April 2012.
Several of Delaware's neighboring states have considered or have taken action
on the death penalty. Earlier this year, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf issued a
moratorium on the death penalty until it could be reviewed more thoroughly.
Maryland repealed its death penalty in 2013.
(source: delawareonline.com)
*********************
Delaware lawmakers revive effort to abolish death penalty
Death penalty opponents in the General Assembly say they plan to reintroduce
legislation to abolish capital punishment in Delaware.
The legislation, which was discussed at a news conference Wednesday, mirrors a
bill that passed the Senate in 2013 by only 1 vote before dying in a House
committee.
The legislation would remove execution as a possible punishment for 1st-degree
murder, leaving life in prison without the possibility of parole as the only
sentence for that crime.
The 15 inmates currently on Delaware's death row would still be subject to
execution.
Attorney General Matt Denn said through a spokesman that he is not opposed to
capital punishment in appropriate cases, but that state law should be changed
to require a unanimous jury recommendation before a judge can impose a death
sentence.
(source: Associated Press)
VIRGINIA:
Shining a Light on VA's Death Row
This week civic groups and nonprofits are taking a closer look at the
importance of open government and freedom of information for Sunshine week.
To that end, reporter Michael Pope is looking deeper into Virginia's death row.
Sunshine is absent in the death chambers of Virginia, where the public has no
access to basic information about how inmates are killed. Policies and
procedures outlining the process are concealed from view. Training manuals are
closely guarded. Even specific details about how executions are carried out are
kept secret.
"I'm not clear what there is to hide here."
That's Delegate Scott Surovell, a Democrat from Fairfax County, who filed a
lawsuit to force the Department of Corrections to hand over documents and
information.
"I just don't understand why killing a person -- why the processes and the
drugs and the methods used to kill a person ought to be so secret. There's no
really good public policy justification for it."
Secretary of Public Safety Brian Moran says the need for transparency should be
tempered by a need for security.
"We want to ensure the safety of the individuals at corrections who perform
this function, their identities, the procedures with respect to the details of
how an execution is performed -- all of that has a legitimate public safety
risk."
Surovell is not interested in the names of those carrying out the executions,
but he does question what kind of security risks would be created by sharing
the policy manuals.
"I've never really completely understood what the safety concern is."
Moran says critics don't understand the safety concerns for a reason.
"Well you wouldn't because we are not going to tell people what the security
risks are. That's sort of the balancing that we are attempting to achieve."
During the last General Assembly session, lawmakers considered a bill to keep
the drugs used in lethal injection secret. That effort failed, playing out
against a backdrop of a political debate about the merits of capital
punishment.
"There are many activists out there who think that capital punishment should be
abolished."
That's Senator Tommy Norment, a Republican from Williamsburg. He says opening
up information about the drugs used in the process could give ammunition to
critics of capital punishment.
"It would further enhance potential arguments, spurious as they may be, that
the specific mixture of that cocktail somehow constituted a cruel and unusual
punishment."
Even though legislation to shield information about the drugs failed in the
General Assembly, Surovell says the process is still shrouded in secrecy.
"There is no disclosure as to how the drugs are going to be administered, what
process is going to be used, what type of person is going to be used, the
qualifications and training and licensing of those people, which veins are
going to be used to inject them."
Details about the electric chair are just as secretive, leading Surovell to
wonder how a death row inmate could possibly make a rational decision about
which method of execution to choose.
"I think these people deserve maximum information as to how they are going to
be killed before they make that choice."
Advocates for open government say the lack of transparency for documents
outlining the death penalty shows a larger problem in the commonwealth.
"Virginia has a reputation for having one of the weakest public access to
documents and information laws out there."
That's Bill Allison, senior fellow at the Sunlight Foundation.
"In this day an age, when transparency is one of the metrics on which citizens
judge their governments, Virginia should be doing a lot more to make
information available."
One judge in Fairfax County has already ruled that the Department of
Corrections should turn over the information, although state leaders have
managed to keep it secret as the case is appealed. The Virginia Supreme Court
will hear oral arguments in April, and a decision is expected by June.
(source: WVTF news)
NORTH CAROLINA:
Newlywed faces death sentence or life in prison for wife's slaying
Shelton Van Lilly, 38, who faces an open count of murder after investigators
say he shot and killed his wife Monday, may face the death penalty or life in
prison.
A sullen-looking Lilly faced District Court Judge Walter Mills for his 1st
appearance Wednesday morning. Judge Mills explained that if convicted, Lilly's
charge could lead to either capital punishment or life without parole. Lilly
expressed his intention to consult a lawyer and said he understood the charges
against him.
Lilly is at the Craven County jail with no bond allowed. Judge Mills agreed for
that to continue until his next court date scheduled for April 1.
He is charged with felony premeditated murder, according to the warrant for his
arrest.
Lilly, of 805 Campbell Road, which was formerly known as Old Landfill Road, had
been arguing with his newlywed wife, Jennifer Lilly, at their manufactured home
southwest of Vanceboro before using a long gun to kill her, according to
investigators with the Craven County Sheriff's Office.
While 2 children may have witnessed the argument, they fled the home prior to
the shooting, according to Sheriff???s Capt. Joseph Heckman.
The young children - Jennifer Lilly's from a previous marriage = were home when
the argument began. They are now with their biological father, according to
District Attorney Scott Thomas.
"The suspect fled in the woods after shooting his wife," Heckman said.
The shooting occurred between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. and resulted in a manhunt in
which a Highway Patrol helicopter was called in to assist.
Sheriff Jerry Monette said an off-duty deputy contacted Lilly by mobile phone
and convinced him to surrender around an hour after the shooting.
(source: New Bern Sun Journal)
SOUTH CAROLINA:
Death penalty opponents: SC should kill Senate bill
An organization opposed to capital punishment wants to block legislation that
would prevent disclosure of information about the manufacturers of lethal
injection drugs. The bill is expected to come up for debate and a possible vote
Thursday morning in a meeting of the full Senate Corrections and Penology
Committee.
Members of the South Carolina Death Penalty Resource and Defense Center are
asking supporters to petition lawmakers considering S.553, a senate bill that
won quick approval from a subcommittee Tuesday.
Critics say the bill introduced by Senator Mike Fair (R-Greenville) would make
information about the source of lethal injection drugs secret, even if targeted
by a court order.
The bill is designed to help the state obtain 1 or more of the 3 drugs used to
carry out executions.
A message released today by the anti-death penalty group says making the
procurement process a complete secret, preventing even the legislature or
governor from investigation "violates every standard of transparency and
accountability."
In February, Corrections Director Bryan Stirling said South Carolina has been
unable to obtain pentobarbital, an anesthetic often used to euthanize animals
and the 1st of the 3 drugs administered in the execution process.
Many states have struggled finding supplies of lethal injection materials in
the U.S. and had turned to foreign sources.
But the British government and others banned such shipments.
Hospira, the only American manufacturer of another widely used drug, sodium
thiopental, stopped making it in 2011.
South Carolina switched to pentobarbital after the supply of sodium thiopental
ran out.
The Palmetto State has executed 1 inmate in almost 6 years.
(source: WIS TV news)
FLORIDA:
State would seek death penalty if father convicted of tossing daughter off
bridge
Prosecutors will seek the death penalty if John Jonchuck Jr. ultimately is
convicted of killing his 5-year-old daughter, who police say was tossed off the
Dick Misener Bridge.
Last month Jonchuck was ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial by
Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Court Judge Chris Helinger and ordered to a state
hospital. Assistant state prosecutors said they believe his competency can be
restored with treatment.
Jonchuck is charged with 1st-degree murder in the death of his daughter,
Phoebe. Police say he threw his daughter over the 60-foot bridge approaching
the Sunshine Skyway on Jan. 8, an incident witnessed by a St. Petersburg Police
officer on his way home from work after midnight.
After his arrest, Jonchuck was evaluated by court-appointed doctors and found
by 2 to be mentally incompetent to stand trial.
Jonchuck has a history of mental health issues that are expected to play a role
in the case. A report released by a state task force in February determined the
people and agencies meant to help children in need failed Phoebe nearly every
step of the way before her death.
The intent to seek the death penalty was filed March 4.
According to online records, a status check on Jonchuck???s competency is set
for Sept. 8.
(source: tbo.com)
ALABAMA:
Courtney Lockhart is an Iraqi war veteran now on Alabama's death row, but he
shouldn't be.
The jury that heard the prosecutor's request for his execution voted
unanimously against it, opting instead for life imprisonment after hearing
evidence of Lockhart's brutal tour of duty in Iraq. Lockhart served 16 months
in Ramadi, Iraq - the deadliest part of Iraq - where he was attacked with a
mortar strike and witnessed far too many friends and comrades die. Once home,
he struggled with PTSD, hiding under his bed or in a closet and then living out
of his car. His life spiraled into one of isolation and despair, and in 2008 he
tragically shot and killed a college student.
The jury voted unanimously to sentence Lockhart to life, based on his military
service and PTSD. Yet Lockhart faces execution for the simple reason that his
case was tried in the state of Alabama. Alabama is 1 of only 3 states that
allow judges to override - literally veto - the decisions of juries in capital
cases, and the only state to do so in practice.
Serving on a jury in a capital case is hard work. Jurors have to miss work, be
separated from their families for extended periods of time, and ultimately
decide the fate of another human being. But in Alabama, the product of this
expensive and difficult emotional journey is only advisory.
The judge, who faces re-election, can - and in Alabama often does - substitute
his or her judgment for the jury's. Delaware and Florida have judicial override
on the books, but it is largely a relic of the past. Judges in Alabama, on the
other hand, have overridden over 100 life verdicts by juries to impose death.
At least 10 people have been executed by Alabama after a judge overrode the
jury's verdict of life.
This practice is not just wasteful and dismissive of jurors' time. It is
actually unconstitutional. Override of a jury's determination violates the
defendant's right under the Sixth Amendment to have a jury, not a judge, make
factual findings in a criminal case. It also violates the defendant's right
under the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against arbitrary punishments.
The rest of the country has effectively abandoned override - recognizing that
is it not an appropriate method of imposing the most serious sanction ever
dispensed under the law. Alabama's outlier practice runs afoul of the nation's
evolving standards of decency in direct contravention of the Eighth Amendment.
2 years ago the Supreme Court declined to hear a challenge to Alabama's outlier
practice in Woodward v. Alabama, over the sharp objections of Justices
Sotomayor and Breyer. As Justice Sotomayor explained, she thought the court
should hear the case because of "deep concerns about whether [the practice] of
override offends the Sixth and Eighth Amendments."
Courtney Lockhart and another Alabama death row inmate, Christie Scott, have
now asked the Supreme Court to look at Alabama's unreliable and unfair override
practice, in a request that could be decided as early as this week. The court
should take this opportunity to bring Alabama in line with the rest of the
country, and the Constitution.
(source: ACLU)
****************
Fried Felons: Alabama Death Penalty May Return To Electrocution
Imagine, if you can, being strapped into a wooden contraption designed to send
powerful electrical currents through your body, causing your veins to explode,
your organs to melt and your feeble, broken frame to seize and shake
uncontrollably ... and then you die, your head still smoking from the
electrodes hooked to the bald spot shaved into it, your limbs still trembling,
mouth still frothing, the stench of burnt flesh permeating everything around
you.
Apparently, to the so-called "pro-life" conservatives in Alabama's House of
Representatives, this scenario doesn't sound too bad.
In fact, it sounds fantastic.
One can only surmise this from the recent vote in the House to bring back the
"Yellow Mama," the brilliant name given to the medieval torture device locked
in a basement at Holman Prison, as a means of execution when lethal injection
drugs can't be obtained.
It shouldn't surprise any readers to know that I am staunchly opposed to the
death penalty - it seems to stand in direct conflict to the old adage my mother
taught me that "2 wrongs don't make a right."
However, here in the South murdering murderers is something we take great pride
in.
In fact, I would wager that we could get a better turnout for a public hanging
or stoning than we can for midterm elections.
Anytime I have the discussion about the immorality and cruelty of the death
penalty, I'm met with the same explanations and excuses:
--"It saves tax money."
--"It's better than having to feed them."
--"If you kill somebody, you deserve to die."
Past that, I've heard no moral reasoning as to why it's okay to kill someone,
so arguing these points is not very difficult for a modestly enlightened mind.
To the 1st and 2nd points, if we were really interested in saving money on our
overcrowded prison system we would institute real prison reform - by
discontinuing the incarceration of non-violent offenders, the number of
prisoners in our system would drop dramatically and, as a result, save the
state millions of dollars.
We could also do away with "mandatory minimums," which can have a 20-year-old
pothead in prison for more years than a convicted rapist or murderer.
To the 3rd point, this mostly falls from the foolish lips of people too
hypnotized by right-wing theology to think about what they are saying.
For one, you don't rectify a crime by committing the same crime, particularly
knowing that we regularly execute innocent people in this country.
Further, where do humans get the audacity to think that we have dominion over
another person's soul and can decide when, why and how they die?
Arrogance, hate and ignorance - the same traits which make people hate social
programs to help the poor or feed the hungry.
Compassion is not something Alabamians are very good at, and it shows in the
majority of our backwards policies concerning our most disenfranchised and
desperate citizens.
While our most savage offenders may certainly be unfit to mingle among the
public, a concerted effort on the part of our lawmakers to make them
productive, educated and content prisoners would be much better than turning
them into bacon.
(source: Adam Powell, mintpress.com)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
