[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----Call For Submissions-Death Penalty Anthology
feel free to circulate widely * What are you views about the death penalty? From Darkness to Life: The Death Penalty Anthology is currently seeking submissions for poetry, short stories, essays, and photographs from prison inmates. If you have a submission that you would like to have considered send an e-mail with entry information to: dpanthol...@gmail.com. All entries should include the following information: name, address, e-mail, and telephone. Essays and short stories should not exceed 2,000 words, and be double spaced with 12 point font (Times New Roman). The deadline for submission is February 15, 2013. You will be contacted directly if your submission is selected for The Death Penalty Anthology. If you have any questions please contact: dpanthol...@gmail.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 ~~~
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, CONN., KY., NEV.
Nov. 27 TEXAS: Bill Would Restrict Informant Testimony in Death Cases Anthony Graves was wrongly convicted and sent to death row in 1994 based largely on the testimony of an alleged accomplice in the fiery murders of 6 people. The accomplice, while on the execution gurney, admitted he was the lone killer. 10 years later, in 2010, Graves was exonerated. Like Graves, Muneer Deeb, Michael Toney and Robert Springsteen were sentenced to death after trials that involved the testimony of their cellmates or alleged accomplices. Their convictions were all overturned. State Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, has filed a bill, HB 189, that aims to prevent wrongful death sentences in cases that involve unreliable testimony from alleged accomplices or jailhouse snitches who receive a reward for implicating someone else. What we have found is that there have been people who, for their own self-interest, have basically fabricated testimony about other folks, and as a consequence that person has been found guilty, Dutton said. Criminal justice reform advocates said the measure is a critical next step in Texas' efforts to prevent wrongful convictions. Critics of the measure, though, argue that current rules already protect defendants against unreliable testimony and that eliminating such accomplice or informant testimony could tie prosecutors' hands. Under HB 189, prosecutors in death penalty cases would be unable to use testimony from informants or from alleged accomplices of the defendant if the evidence were obtained in exchange for immunity, leniency or any other special treatment. The measure would also make testimony from cellmates of the defendant inadmissible unless the conversation was recorded. Odd as it may sound, Texas is at the vanguard of snitch testimony, said Alexandra Natapoff, a law professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles, and author of the Snitching Blog. Texas was one of 1st states to require the corroboration of jailhouse informant testimony and drug snitches, she said. And Dutton's bill would make Texas among the 1st states to prohibit prosecutors from offering criminals benefits for their testimony. A 2004 Northwestern University study of wrongful convictions found that informants played a major role in more than 45 % of overturned death sentences nationwide. The use of criminal informants is a massive source of error in our most serious cases, said Natapoff, who also wrote the book Snitching: Criminal Informants and the Erosion of American Justice. She said the Texas bill recognizes that rewarded testimony by paid informants is one of the riskiest, most unreliable forms of testimony that the criminal justice system tolerates. And disallowing that testimony in death penalty cases, she said, would acknowledge that cases in which an individual's life is at stake require a higher ethical standard. Criminal informants have strong incentives to lie and very few disincentives to lie, because criminal informants are almost never punished, Natapoff said. Jeff Blackburn, chief counsel for the Innocence Project of Texas, said his organization has long pushed lawmakers to restrict the use of informants and snitches. That's what the government does when they really need to convict somebody and they really don't have the evidence, Blackburn said. It sounds dramatic, and it's very tempting for prosecutors to use. State Rep.-elect Joe Moody, an assistant El Paso County district attorney, said accomplices or informants are often the only witnesses who know the circumstances of the crime. Existing rules allow defense lawyers to question informants about deals they may have made with prosecutors in exchange for their testimony. If a defense attorney effectively cross-examines the witness, Moody said, the jury should be able to make an informed decision about the person's credibility. Requiring electronic recordings of jailhouse conversations, as Dutton???s bill suggests, Moody said, would force jails to install recording equipment in all of their facilities. I think the rule itself would do a disservice to trying the case in the full and open light, said Moody, D-El Paso. In the wake of dozens of wrongful convictions in recent years, Texas has passed a number of measures to prevent such injustices and to compensate the victims of the criminal justice system's mistakes. Most recently, in 2011, legislators passed a bill that improved police procedures for eyewitness identifications after studies showed misidentifications played a major role in many wrongful convictions. Dutton has filed similar proposals to curb the use of informants in past sessions, and they have failed. As Texas continues to make national headlines with its exonerations, Dutton said, he is hopeful that lawmakers will be more amenable in the 2013 session. Members now recognize that Texas needs to do a lot better job of protecting the integrity of our
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----worldwide
Nov. 27 JAPAN: Strong support for death penalty due to biased polls, say experts Government opinion polls on the death penalty consistently show overwhelming public support for the process, which is by hanging. Now, the neutrality of questions that have produced an 85.6 % support rate is being called into question. The government has carried out 9 opinion polls on the death penalty since 1956. Since 1994, respondents have been asked to choose from 3 options: death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances; death penalty cannot be helped depending on circumstances; and don't know/ difficult to say in general terms. The last survey, held in 2009, found that 85.6 % of the respondents picked the option cannot be helped. Successive justice ministers and other figures in authority have cited the high support rate to argue that the bulk of the general public supports the death penalty. On Nov. 27, a Japan Federation of Bar Associations committee to discuss abolition of the death penalty invited experts in opinion polls to give their views on the way the questions in the government poll are phrased. Fumiyasu Yamada, a professor of socio-informatics at Shizuoka University, said the questions are slanted. 'Under all circumstances' sounds assertive, whereas 'depending on circumstances' sounds softer, Yamada explained. The question helps to bloat the approval rating for the death penalty, and so it is not appropriate. Kazuo Takamine, president of a consulting company that carries out opinion polls, agreed. The question is very biased, Takamine said. The 85.6 % figure includes those who believe more discussions are necessary. The Justice Ministry maintains the phrasing of the questions does not lead to biased replies. * * * Question and optional answers in government opinion polls on the death penalty (5 surveys between 1956 and 1989) Question: Do you agree or disagree with the opinion that the death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances in present-day Japan? Answer: 1) Agree 2) Disagree 3) Don't know (4 surveys between 1994 and 2009) Question: Which of the following opinions on the death penalty do you agree with? Answer: 1) Death penalty should be abolished under all circumstances 2) Death penalty cannot be helped depending on circumstances 3) Don't know/ Difficult to say in general terms (source: The Asahi Shimbun) INDONESIA: 10 years after Bali, the death penalty is still wrong Friday 12 October saw the nation mourn 10 years since the Bali bombings. It was a time of reflection over loved ones lost and maimed on the popular Indonesian island. It was also a time to reflect over another loss of life - life taken not by extremists but by the cool steady hand of government. That week also marked 10 years since the 1st World Day Against the Death Penalty was established by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty to raise awareness in combating the primitive practice of capital punishment. And so, for this year's annual Australians Against Capital Punishment (AACP) and Australian Lawyers for Human Rights (ALHR) World Day Against the Death Penalty dinner, over 200 supporters came together in the spirit of humanity, compassion and continued support of this important fight for human dignity. The many guests included judges, magistrates, senators, human rights-conscious lawyers and Lee and Chris Rush, parents of Scott Rush, who spent years on death row in Bali until a successful appeal changed his sentence to life imprisonment. There were also many law students and young people: an encouraging sign of the continued and growing interest in this issue. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (WCADP), created in Rome on 13 May 2002, is an alliance of non-government organisations, professional legal bodies and unions whose aim is to strengthen the international campaign against the death penalty. As at July 2011, the WCADP had 121 member organisations. While Australia has not executed anyone since the hanging of Ronald Ryan in Melbourne jail in 1967, there are still many countries that do including our neighbour, Indonesia, where other Australians, Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, also members of the Bali Nine, are still facing the death penalty. The evening was hosted by ALHR President Stephen Keim. The main speaker, however, was Father Frank Brennan SJ AO who flew from Melbourne for the event. Father Brennan is a renowned human rights advocate and the son of Sir Gerard Brennan, a former chief justice of the High Court of Australia. Father Brennan delivered a speech whose reach spanned decades and circumnavigated the globe. It included memories of Ronald Ryan's hanging whilst at boarding school; working at a remote refugee camp on the Ugandan border; and personal relationships with members of the judiciary around the world. The speech provided a profound and powerful message
