It's not every day that I get a welcoming forum to discuss the death penalty and why state killing should be abolished. So I was particularly delighted to appear today on WBAI's "Law and Disorder." Want to hear what I had to say? Click this to play the interview.
A special thanks to Michael Smith, Michael Ratner and Heidi Bogosian for inviting me and to WBAI in New York for broadcasting this show both on the radio and the Internet.
It's a reason for optimism in the long battle to end State Killing. The New York Times editorial today called for the abolition of the death penalty. I applaud. The abolition of state killing should be a mainstream, American idea.
The Times is angry and points out the obvious about the change in Ohio from 3-drug state killing to 1-drug state killing:
This is what passes for progress in the application of the death penalty: Kenneth Biros, a convicted murderer, was put to death in Ohio last week with one drug, instead of the more common three-drug cocktail. It took executioners 30 minutes to find a vein for the needle, compared with the two hours spent hunting for a vein on the last prisoner Ohio tried to kill, Romell Broom. Technicians tried about 18 times to get the needle into Mr. Broom's arms and legs before they gave up trying to kill him. Mr. Biros was jabbed only a few times in each arm.
The Times gets quickly from the barbarism of the Biro and Broom executions to the main point:
The larger problem, however, is that changing a lethal-injection method is simply an attempt, as Justice Harry Blackmun put it, to "tinker with the machinery of death." No matter how it is done, for the state to put someone to death is inherently barbaric.
It has also become clear - particularly since DNA evidence has become more common - how unreliable the system is. Since 1973, 139 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were innocent, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
An untold number of innocent people have also, quite likely, been put to death. Earlier this year, a fire expert hired by the state of Texas issued a report that cast tremendous doubt on whether a fatal fire - for which Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 - was arson at all. Until his execution, Mr. Willingham protested his innocence.
Most states still have capital punishment, and the Obama administration has so far shown a troubling commitment to it, pursuing federal capital cases even in states that do not themselves have the death penalty.
The Times conclusion:
Earlier this year, New Mexico repealed its death penalty, joining 14 other states - and the District of Columbia - that do not allow it. That is the way to eliminate the inevitable problems with executions.
Put another way, abolition is the answer to the lingering horror of state killing. Abolition cannot happen soon enough.
Here's a trick question. Is there anything wrong with a death penalty jury trial in which the prosecutor trying the case is having an affair while the case is going on with the judge who is trying the case? I know. It looks pretty unfair. It looks pretty sleazy. There really should be something the matter with this, right? Shouldn't the judge recuse herself? Shouldn't the case be assigned to a different prosecutor, all for the sake of the appearance of fairness?
But in Texas, ground zero for state killing, there's no answer to these questions. At least not today Why? Because the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas's highest court that considers criminal appeals, is wagging its finger at the defendant's lawyers saying that the affair isn't something that the Court will look at because the defense lawyers waited too long to raise the issue. According to the Court, it's OK to execute Charles D. Hood whether there was an affair or not because the defense waited too long to raise the question. You cannot make this stuff up.
Those who support Progressive causes are in an odd position these days: we're often in the majority on issues that matter; and we're seriously talking about how to turn what, just a few years ago, was a wish list...into a "reality list".
Staying in the majority, however, requires the assistance of centrist voters--and that means, from time to time, finding philosophical compromise with voters we'd like to keep "in the fold".
In years past, the issue of the death penalty has created a considerable chasm between Progressives and centrists; with the one side concerned about the misapplication of capital punishment, and the other convinced that, for the most heinous of crimes, the only way to achieve a truly just outcome is for the guilty party to face the most severe of punishments.
What if we could bridge that gap?
In today's discussion we propose to do exactly that: to create a death penalty process that only executes those who are truly guilty and excludes those who might not deserve to be put to death...in fact, those who might not be guilty of any crime at all.
Today's New York Times tells the story of yet another travesty of justice from Alabama in a death penalty case. This is the kind of thing that unfortunately is no longer a revelation. It's what you might expect. And it's happened over and over again.
What a disgrace. On Friday, the Connecticut legislature passed a bill abolishing the death penalty. I asked readers of my essay to call or email Governor Rell to ask her please to sign the bill. There was, I pointed out, a strong chance that the Republican Governor, a long time death penalty supporter, would veto the bill.
Today's Hartford Courant says that Governor Rell vows to veto the measure when it gets to her desk. It might take a few weeks to get there:
Just hours after the state Senate gave final legislative approval Friday to a historic measure abolishing the death penalty in Connecticut, Gov. M. Jodi Rell came out with an expected announcement:
She said she was going to veto the measure as soon as it hits her desk.
"I appreciate the passionate beliefs of people on both sides of the death penalty debate. I fully understand the concerns and deeply held convictions of those who would like to see the death penalty abolished in Connecticut," she said in a statement.
"However, I also fully understand the anguish and outrage of the families of victims who believe, as I do, that there are certain crimes so heinous - so fundamentally revolting to our humanity - that the death penalty is warranted."
What nonsense. The families of victims are far from unanimous that the death penalty is warranted. In fact, as the Courant pointed out in its photo caption, Friday "[f]amilies of victims of murder [spoke] at a press conference in support of a bill passed by the legislature Thursday that would abolish the death penalty. Pictured are Gail Canzano, at podium, Elizabeth Brancato of Torrington, State Representative Gary Holder-Winfield of New Haven, Rev. Walter Everett , Cindy Siclari of Monroe and Anne Stone of Farmington." So the Governor's invocation of wishes of the families of victims rings hollow.
We can all easily understand how appealing revenge on killers might be, but the overwhelming majority of civilized societies in the world have now abandoned that barbarian argument. Rell chooses, however, to dress up the old canard in victims' rights clothing. The fact is that she's not doing anything for victims' families by permitting the state to kill killers. And she's certainly not doing anything for the rest of us, in whose names these state killings will be carried out. State killing doesn't deter killing, and it doesn't bring "closure" to the families of victims.
Governor Rell's vowing the veto because she allegedly "believes" in the death penalty. And when Republicans enact policies just because they believe in them-- surely the memory of George W. Bush has not been forgotten-- you know that irrationality has prevailed.
You might want to tell Governor Rell that the death penalty is a bad idea, that we can live without it, and that she's making a mistake if she vetoes this bill.
Please telephone Governor Rell (860.566.4840) or email her (Governor.Rell@ct.gov) and let he know that it's time for Connecticut to step into the 21st Century. It's time for her to sign the death penalty abolition bill.
Early this morning the Connecticut Senate voted to abolish Connecticut's death penalty. The vote was 19-17. The bill now goes to Governor Jodi Rell (R). She sounds like she will veto the bill. So, if you care about the value of human life and making Connecticut and America more just and ending the barbarism that is the death penalty, this is an important time to spend a few moments to call or email Governor Rell to ask her to sign the bill. The phone is 860.566.4840. The email: Governor.Rell@ct.gov.
There's a hard -- this is a hard question, because, you know what? I'm sort of leaning -- I've been so pro-death penalty my whole life -- but the Innocence Project, you know, by Barry Scheck, has kind of made me question, as a pro-life guy, that maybe that's not a good idea. We've made too many mistakes.
Yesterday was a wonderful day for me and for everyone else who hopes that state killing will eventually be abolished in the US:
Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported capital punishment, signed legislation to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the "most difficult decision in my political life."
The new law replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The repeal takes effect on July 1, and applies only to crimes committed after that date.
"Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime," Richardson said.
Europe's human rights watchdog on Thursday hailed the decision as "a victory for civilization." The American Civil Liberties Union called it "a historic step and a clear sign that the United States continues to make significant progress toward eradicating capital punishment once and for all."
I wrote about this on several occasions, and I requested repeatedly in those essays that you call the Governor and urge him to sign the bill. It is especially for all of those phone calls to the Governor and your emails to him that I want to thank you. This is a great victory. And, truthfully, it would not have happened without your support. I applaud you!
I know that one abolitionist friend today is joyfully wearing a t-shirt that says, "Someday happens."
For the record: New Mexico became the second state, after New Jersey, to repeal the death penalty legislatively since 1965, when both Iowa and West Virginia repealed their death penalty laws. New York's death penalty was struck down as unconstitutional, and it has not been re-enacted. Twelve other states never had the death penalty: they either outlawed it before 1965, or after 1972 after Furman v. Georgia struck down all death penalty laws, they never enacted a new one. Fifteen states, including New Mexico, now do not have the death penalty. Thirty-five states, the military and the U.S. federal government retain it.
This morning, I re-wrote my dailyKos diary from yesterday, put it up, and again asked people please to call New Mexico Governor Richardson and to ask him to sign the Death Penalty Abolition Bill. Here's what I wrote:
I posted this diary yesterday. I'm posting it again today because Governor Richardson is taking comments on the New Mexico Death Penalty Abolition Bill until Monday evening.
Friday, I wrote that the New Mexico legislature passed a bill calling for the abolition of that state's death penalty. The bill (pdf) has been sent to Governor Richardson for his signature. That's where you, my fellow Kossacks, come in. We all need to call the Governor and ask him to sign the bill.
Richardson, a second-term Democrat, has opposed repeal in the past but now says he would consider signing it.
"I haven't made a final decision," the governor said this week.
I want you, fellow Kossacks, to help him make his final decision, a decision to sign the abolition bill.
You can make a lasting contribution to the abolition of the death penalty in New Mexico and ultimately in the entire US, by making a single telephone call to New Mexico Governor Richardson and asking him courteously to sign the death penalty abolition bill. Just ask that he sign the bill. Here's the number: (505) 476-2225. The number will record your request. There is no human being on the phone, just a recorder.
Please spend 30 seconds making this call and make this request.
The logic for this is clear. The more calls the Governor receives, the more he understands that there is enormous support for him and for abolition and for his signing the bill. Huge support for signing makes it more likely that the Governor will sign the bill.
It's unbelievably simple what is needed. But it requires you, dear Kossacks, to take action, to make the call, to spend 30 seconds.
Please make this call. Please bring abolition of the death penalty to New Mexico.
Despite their directness, neither diary/essay generated a large response. Today's had about 20 recommendations; yesterday's, about 40. I have no idea how many people actually called Governor Richardson's number (505) 476-2225 and left a recorded message asking the Governor to sign the bill. I know that I did, and I trust that those who said they called in the comments actually called. Of course, I have no idea how many people just made the call after they saw the essay and didn't bother to click anything on dailyKos.
I also sent the first request for calls essay to a number of well known, large, leftwing blogs to ask them to help out with this, to ask them to ask their readership to call the Governor. This morning I awoke to see that none had responded to the request.
I don't really claim to understand how something that seems to me to be so important and so easy to carry out can have so lame a response. I'm not whining about this. I'm just saying that I don't understand it. I have no intention of spending additional time or energy trying to figure this out. I need to devote myself to trying to bring about results and not shunt myself onto some abandoned siding to analyze the meta.
So, dear readers, I am asking you to call Gov. Richardson and ask him to do the right thing, sign the bill, end the death penalty in New Mexico. It's easy. And it's the right thing to do.
Update (3/15, 3:35pm ET): Richardson apparently is taking this decision very seriously. Here's the local Sunday story:
The governor said he is looking for the public's input before he decides.
"I want to hear compelling argument, factual arguments. I want to hear from the clergy-conscious arguments," he said.
Although the death penalty is still common in places like China, Africa and Middle-Eastern countries, The United States is on an increasingly short list of western nations that still execute prisoners--something the governor says he's aware of.
"It bothers me that America is one of the few countries that still has the death penalty," he said.
The governor's office has been flooded with thousands of calls and e-mails on the issues, with opinion split evenly. Now, the governor says he wants to go face-to-face with voters.
"We're going to be available all weekend to hear from constituents," he said. "I'm going to meet with constituents on Monday--anyone that wants to talk to me about this issue," he said.
You can call the governor at 505-476-2225. You can also e-mail him through his website under the "contact the governor" link.
Put another way, your call is especially urgent. And, of course, you can email as well.
Update (3/16, 1:53 pm ET): Last chance to make this call is today, Monday. I'm doing what I can to solicit responses, including this at GOS. Anyone else is, of course, free to post similar solicitations. Thanks for all the attention to this.
To be completely honest, when I began, I never expected that over the course of the next seven years I would write more than 200 essays about ending state killing in America. But today I noticed-- I usually miss the date-- that March 18, 2009, is the seventh Anniversary of my starting a listserv about ending the death penalty. And I see that I've written more than 200 essays about the topic.
When I started the listserv I described it like this:
The views and opinions of an experienced criminal defense lawyer who is also a buddhist. About pending executions, legal developments, the media, the abolition movement, contemplation, prayer, and engaged, nonviolent activism. Sent sporadically. Only for those who value all lives and are opposed to the death penalty. Not for debate.
Long story short, the NM legislature has passed the bill abolishing capital punishment in New Mexico and has sent it on to the governor for signature.
This happened about 15 minutes ago. Here's a first link to prove it's so.
Now you can open that bottle of champagne and offer a toast to New Mexico and to the abolitionists who worked so hard and well to bring about this wonderful victory.
For most of my life, I've been passionately opposed to state killing. I remember as a child knowing that California's gas chamber execution of Caryl Chessman was unjust. I remember hearing with horror about the federal electric chair executions of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. And I admit that since I was 10 I have never understood how civilized people could justify state killing. From the beginning, state killing has appeared to me to be barbaric and horrific. Yes, there are lots of other barbaric things in the world, you could make a long, annotated list of them, but for one reason or another, despite all of the other terrible things in the world, something about state killing deeply appalled me. And eventually, the fight to end state killing spoke to me, so I took it up. That was a long time ago.
It's probably my feelings about barbarism that are driving me today to try to save the 49 people facing the federal death penalty. I know we are better than this. I know we are not killers. I know we are more compassionate than that. I know we are more just than that. It's my feelings about barbarism that have me writing an essay every day about the same thing. That's what has me asking you over and over again to email Attorney General Eric Holder at Whitehouse.gov or at askDOJ@doj.gov. That's what has me asking you to sign a petition. In short, I'm appalled by state killing, and I want to stop it.
What's necessary now in my opinion is to ask Attorney General Eric Holder please to review all of the decisions made by his predecessors in office that directed federal prosecutors to seek the death penalty in federal cases and to determine whether he agrees with those decisions. If he does not think that the death penalty is entirely appropriate, he should withdraw authority for federal prosecutors to seek death. It's really quite simple. I'm not asking him to dismiss the indictments. I'm not asking him to drop cases. I'm not asking him to perform acts of mercy. I'm just asking him whether the United States can be satisfied asking for a maximum of life without parole and not death in these cases. That's all I'm asking for.
It's not much to ask for. Really it isn't. What, if anything, is the government giving up by not asking for death and asking instead for life without parole? In my view the government gains in stature and it gives up nothing of value. What it does give up are things it should have abandoned decades ago. In my view, by not asking for death, the government gives up some of its inhumanity, it gives up a horrific difference from other civilized nations, it abandons an old harbor for its racism, it leaves behind its most unenlightened, violent, hypocritical aspect. It emerges wiser, more powerful, more human, more compassionate, and more just. It acknowledges that humans are imperfect and that there are weapons that should never be used.
There are 49 people presently facing the federal death penalty. If we want to, we might be able to spare them. We might be able to get the new Attorney General, Eric Holder, to review the decisions by the three Bush Administration Attorney Generals to pursue the death penalty in these cases, and if the new Attorney General thought, if there were convictions, that the defendants shouldn't be killed, he could require prosecutors not to seek the death penalty, to be satisfied with a maximum sentence of life without parole. This would be a remarkable development. It would save lives. The United States would join the civilized world that has stopped state killing. The essential hypocrisy of an eye for an eye would be abandoned. It would be a new era. We would not have these people's blood on our hands.
Yesterday I wrote about the 49 people facing the death penalty in the federal courts because of decisions made by previous, Bushco AGs, and that these were lives we could save. This essay continues that discussion.
The Bush Justice Department went far, far off the tracks on torture, rendition, black sites, wiretapping, the federal death penalty, and on and on and on. It went so far afield that articles about this evening's expected confirmation of Eric Holder as Attorney General note the gigantic changes expected at DoJ from the new, Obama Administration. The NY Times, for example, writes:
The Justice Department, probably more than any other agency here, is bracing for a broad doctrinal shift in policies from those of the Bush administration, department lawyers and Obama administration officials say.
It might be easy to forget the Federal Death Penalty. We might not want to think about it. It wasn't an issue in the past election. For eight years the Bush DoJ used its muscle to expand federal use of capital punishment by overruling local United States Attorneys' decisions not to seek death. Those political decisions to seek death are still very much in effect: the US government continues in court to seek the death penalty in all of those cases.
As the new Attorney General arrives in Washington, it's vitally important that the new DoJ immediately remember to re-evaluate all of the federal cases in which the death penalty is presently being sought. And it's important that if these cases do not meet their professed higher standards for imposition of the death penalty (this is an oxymoron, standards that allow state killing cannot be high), authorization to seek the death penalty be withdrawn. This may save 49 lives and prevent state killings from being carried out in our names.
Mississippi has long supported the death penalty. So it is remarkable when a Mississippi Supreme Court Justice writes a dissenting opinion in a death penalty case that calls for the abolition of the death penalty. In Doss v. State (pdf), Justice Oliver Diaz, Jr., did just that, he called for the end of the death penalty.
Outgoing Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz Jr.'s impassioned call for an end to the death penalty has drawn both criticism and praise.
In what was likely his departing dissent as his tenure on Mississippi's highest court ends, Diaz says society finally must recognize that "even as murderers commit the most cruel and unusual crime, so too do executioners render cruel and unusual punishment."
Jimmy Robertson, a Jackson attorney who served on the state Supreme Court from 1983 to 1992, said Diaz laid out a number of points, including that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder, that were "pretty close to being irrefutable to anybody that's objective on the question."
The criticism in the Sun Herald article was provided not by Mississippians but instead solely by Kent Scheidegger, legal director for the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation of Sacramento, a right wing, pro death penalty organization, who provided the usual shop worn generalities.
Great news. A California Court of Appeal has invalidated California's lethal injection protocol because the state failed to comply with the state's Administrative Procedure Act. The decision(pdf format) in Morales v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, holds that the State' lethal injection protocol, "STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN QUENTIN OPERATIONAL PROCEDURE NUMBER 0-770 EXECUTION BY LETHAL INJECTION, is invalid and it enjoins California "from carrying out the lethal injection of any condemned inmates under OP 770 unless and until that protocol is promulgated in compliance with the APA."
The more than 660 prisoners on California's death row should briefly sigh some relief. There is little doubt that the regulation will be re-enacted, but the struggle against state killing in California goes on, and today's ruling is a great victory.
A state appeals court on Friday ensured further delays in California's already inert death penalty system, finding that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration did not follow proper procedures when it attempted to revise the state's lethal injection method to get executions back on track.
In a 14-page ruling, the San Francisco-based 1st District Court of Appeal upheld last year's decision by a Marin County judge, who found state officials failed to provide public scrutiny of plans to overhaul California's execution method. The appeals court ruling, if it stands, would force the state to go back to the drawing board in its efforts to bring the execution system into compliance with a federal judge's concerns that the current method is unconstitutional.
The appeals court ruling will have a ripple effect on California's bogged down capital punishment system. A broader legal challenge in federal court to California's lethal injection method cannot move forward until the state comes up with a revised procedure, and that is now tied up further as a result of the appeals court's findings.
Senior Assistant Attorney General Ronald Matthias, who supervises the state's death penalty cases, was still reviewing the decision and could not predict the next step. But the state can either appeal to the California Supreme Court or move forward with public review of the proposed lethal injection reforms, and either process would take months or longer.
Executions in California have been on hold for more than 3 years because of challenges to the state's lethal injection protocols. The 2006 Judge Fogel stopped all California executions, but provided a number of steps state officials could take to ensure that executions were carried out humanely. The governor then ordered state prison officials to come up with a new plan. The plan called for improved training and supervision of execution team members, as well as the construction of a new, modernized execution chamber. But plan was challenged in state court under the argument it violated state procedures that require public review, and Fogel put the federal case on hold until that issue was resolved.
Is the issue resolved now? No. The state can either try to adopt a new protocol, following the law, or it can appeal. Either way, state killing cannot resume until the issues are resolved.
I applaud today's ruling, and I compliment all of the people who have worked so diligently to stop state killing in California.
Original article, by Joe Mowrey and sub-titled Which Candidate Supports Petraeus, the Bailout, the Death Penalty, Nuclear Power, the Occupation, the Cuban Embargo ..., via counterpunch.com.
Ooooh...a guessing game. I wonder who it could be? Hmmmm? Let's find out below the fold!
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
