[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 3



TEXAS----stay of impending execution

Federal Appeals Court Issues Stay of Execution for Man with Severe Mental 
Illness


A federal appeals court has issued a stay of execution in Texas of a man with 
severe mental illness who was scheduled to be put to death this evening.

Scott Panetti, a 56-year-old man whose mental illness predated and contributed 
to the 1992 double murder for which he was sent to death row, was set to be 
executed soon after 6 p.m. local time on December 3. His mental illness 
affected his trial and continues to persist. He has spent nearly 20 years on 
death row.

"Any execution is a blight on the human rights record of the United States, and 
is especially egregious in light of Mr. Panetti's severe mental illness," said 
Steven W. Hawkins, executive director of Amnesty International USA. "We are 
grateful for the court's ruling putting a halt to tonight's execution. It is 
time to end this cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment once and for all. The 
United States cannot claim to be a leader in human rights while condemning its 
prisoners to death."

Panetti had already been hospitalized more than a dozen times with 
schizophrenia and other mental illness when, soon after the last of these 
hospitalizations in 1992, he shot and killed his parents-in-law.

As 5 U.S. Supreme Court justices noted in 2007, there is "much in the record to 
support the conclusion that [Panetti] suffers from severe delusions," and the 
federal judge to whom they remanded the case found that "Panetti is seriously 
mentally ill," and "was under the influence of this severe mental illness??? at 
the time of his crime and when he represented himself at trial. The case was 
remanded back to the 5th Circuit, where it was determined the execution could 
go ahead.

Panetti insisted on acting as his own lawyer at his 1995 trial. During the 
proceedings he dressed as a cowboy and gave a rambling defense. Witnesses have 
variously described the trial as a "farce," a "joke," a "circus," and a 
"mockery."

According to his current lawyers, Panetti's mental illness persists to this 
day, as indicated in prison records. Lawyers have said that the condemned man 
reported "hearing voices," and claimed the prison authorities planted a 
"listening device" in his tooth and wanted him executed to shut him up "about 
the corruption" and to stop him from "preaching the Gospel."

Amnesty International USA opposes the death penalty in all cases without 
exception. As of today, 140 countries have abolished the death penalty in law 
or practice. The U.S. was 1 of only 9 countries in the world that carried out 
executions each year between 2009 and 2013. Texas accounts for nearly 40 % of 
all executions in the USA since judicial killing resumed there in 1977 under 
revised capital laws.

ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND

In a 5-4 ruling on 25 November, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (TCCA) 
refused to issue a stay of execution, deciding it lacked jurisdiction over the 
appeal. 4 of the 9 judges dissented, arguing that what was "at stake in this 
case" meant that the court should review the appeal. Its failure to do so, they 
wrote, could result in "the irreversible and constitutionally impermissible 
execution of a mentally incompetent person."

In a 2nd ruling on November 26, this time 6-3, the TCCA refused to review the 
claim that imposing the death penalty on someone with severe mental illness 
"offends contemporary standards of decency" and therefore violated the 
Constitution. In a strong dissent, one of the judges said that he would grant 
the claim, adding that it was "inconceivable" to him "how the execution of a 
severely mentally ill person such as [Panetti] would measurably advance the 
retribution and deterrence purposes purportedly served by the death penalty." 
The 2 other dissenters said they would have blocked the execution so that the 
issue could be further considered.

(source: Amnesty International)

***************************

Appeals Court Orders Texas To Hold Off On Execution Of Scott Panetti


Less than 12 hours before the state of Texas was set to execute Scott Panetti, 
an appeals court issued a stay Wednesday morning, meaning Panetti's lawyers 
will have another chance to argue that the death penalty is unconstitutional in 
their client's case.

Panetti, 56, is on death row for the 1992 murder of his in-laws, whom he killed 
while his wife and daughter were watching. He has suffered from schizophrenia 
and other mental illnesses for over 30 years and been hospitalized more than a 
dozen times.

The execution was scheduled for 6 p.m. CST Wednesday. Panetti's supporters have 
argued that his sentence should be commuted to life in prison because putting 
him to death would violate the Eighth Amendment, which bars cruel and unusual 
punishment.

Now, Panetti's lawyers will have another opportunity to argue their case. As 
BuzzFeed reported, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay of 
execution Wednesday morning "to allow us to fully consider the late arriving 
and complex legal questions at issue in this matter." The court said it will be 
setting a schedule for oral arguments soon.

"We are grateful that the court stayed tonight's scheduled execution of Scott 
Panetti, a man who has suffered from schizophrenia for 3 decades, for a careful 
review of the issues surrounding his competency," said Gregory W. Wiercioch and 
Kathryn M. Kase, Panetti's attorneys, in a statement Wednesday.

"Mr. Panetti's illness, schizophrenia, was present for years prior to the 
crime, profoundly affected his trial, and appears to have worsened in recent 
years. Mr. Panetti has not had a competency evaluation in seven years, and we 
believe that today's ruling is the first step in a process which will clearly 
demonstrate that Mr. Panetti is too severely mentally ill to be executed," they 
added.

The Texas Tribune reported on Monday that Kase and Wiercioch had asked the 
circuit court to intervene in the case, in addition to going to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. But the strongest pressure has been on Gov. Rick Perry (R). 
Unlike in other states, the Texas governor can't single-handedly commute a 
prisoner's sentence. Perry could, however, have ordered Panetti's execution to 
be delayed for 30 days so that a new mental health assessment could be 
conducted.

Panetti's case has attracted support from mental health reform advocates and 
death penalty opponents, as well as from a number of well-known conservatives. 
Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul and former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli 
are among the conservatives who have been calling on Perry to step in.

Former Texas Gov. Mark White (D), who oversaw 19 executions while in office, 
has also said Panetti should not be killed.

"There are incredibly close and difficult calls that have to be made to either 
allow or prohibit the death penalty from being carried out," said White. "But 
Scott Panetti's plea for clemency is no such case. He is a severely mentally 
ill man. His trial was a sham. And executing Panetti would say far more about 
us than it would about the man we are attempting to kill."

During his trial, Panetti represented himself while wearing a purple cowboy 
costume. He tried to subpoena more than 200 witnesses, including John F. 
Kennedy and Jesus Christ. Prosecutors have suggested that Panetti is faking his 
illness.

Wiercioch and Kase have been especially upset about the way they found out 
their client's execution date. A judge signed an order on Oct. 16 of this year 
that set Panetti's execution date for Dec. 3, but the district attorney never 
notified the lawyers that their client had been scheduled to be put to death. 
Instead, they learned about the pending execution on Oct. 30, through an 
article in the Houston Chronicle.

"14 days passed during which counsel could have been investigating the issues 
surrounding Mr. Panetti's competence -- issues which the District Attorney 
surely knew would have to be litigated to ensure that Mr. Panetti's execution 
would not violate the Eighth Amendment," Wiercioch and Kase wrote in a letter 
to Perry Monday, in which they requested a 30-day delay.

(source: Huffington Post)

***********************

Mentally ill Texas inmate's execution stayed by federal appeals court 
----Justices from 5th circuit court of appeals puts execution of Scott Panetti, 
who is schizophrenic, on hold over 'complex legal questions'


A mentally ill death row inmate whose impending execution attracted 
international condemnation was granted a reprieve by a federal appeals court on 
Wednesday less than 8 hours before he was scheduled to die by lethal injection 
in the Texas state penitentiary.

The 5th circuit court issued a stay of Scott Panetti's execution so it could 
"fully consider the late arriving and complex legal questions at issue".

We are grateful that the court stayed tonight's scheduled execution of Scott 
Panetti," his attorneys, Greg Wiercioch and Kathryn Kase, said in a statement. 
"Mr Panetti has not had a competency evaluation in 7 years, and we believe that 
today's ruling is the 1st step in a process which will clearly demonstrate that 
Mr Panetti is too severely mentally ill to be executed."

Panetti shot dead Joe and Amanda Alvarado, the parents of his estranged wife, 
Sonja, in front of her and their 3-year-old daughter in the Texas hill country 
in 1992.

As Panetti's execution date approached his case gained widespread attention and 
a number of evangelical Christians, mental health groups, legal figures and 
prominent conservatives called for the sentence to be commuted, along with 2 
United Nations human rights experts.

After discovering through a media report at the end of October that an 
execution date had been set, the 56-year-old's attorneys launched a series of 
petitions asking state and federal courts to remove him from death row or at 
the least to afford them more time and allocate funds to hold a fresh 
competency hearing. They said that his mental health had deteriorated since his 
previous competency hearing in 2007.

They also argued that executing someone as delusional as Panetti would serve no 
useful retributive or deterrent purpose and would violate the constitution's 
ban on "cruel and unusual" punishments.

The Wisconsin-born US navy veteran had been admitted to hospitals more than a 
dozen times for a variety of mental health problems since first being diagnosed 
with schizophrenia aged 20 in 1978. In 1986 his 1st wife sought to have him 
committed to hospital after he tried to "exorcise the devil" from their house 
by burying furniture in the back yard and nailing the curtains closed.

At his 1995 trial he was allowed to represent himself and tried to call Jesus, 
John F Kennedy, the Pope and Anne Bancroft as witnesses. He dressed in a purple 
cowboy suit in court and often rambled incoherently and on irrelevant topics 
such as Native Americans and the death of his dog. He said the killings were 
perpetrated by an alter ego known as "Sarge" and mounted an insanity defence 
despite calling veterinarians to the stand rather than mental health experts.

Over nearly 2 decades a variety of state and federal courts agreed that he is 
seriously mentally ill yet found him competent to be executed on the basis that 
he has a factual and rational understanding of the relationship between his 
crime and his punishment. That is the legal standard set out by the supreme 
court in a 2007 judgment known as Panetti v Quarterman.

His pro bono attorneys challenged that interpretation, saying that he had a 
fixed delusion that Texas prison officials hatched a satanic plot to kill him 
in order to stop him preaching Christianity.

(source: The Guardian)

************************

Texas Catholics to governor: don't execute mentally ill man


The Texas Catholic Conference has called on governor Rick Perry to stay the 
execution of mentally ill death row inmate Scott Louis Panetti, saying his 
execution is "not merely unjust, but immoral."

"Mr. Panetti's lengthy history of mental illness, his delusional behavior while 
defending himself at trial in 1995, and the multiple diagnoses from mental 
health professionals confirming his severe mental illness, provide even more 
reason to stop his execution," the conference said in a Nov. 21 letter to the 
Texas governor, who is a Republican.

"Putting to death anyone whose faculties are so severely debilitated by mental 
illness as to not comprehend nor be responsible for his actions is not merely 
unjust, but immoral," the conference continued, adding that the Church opposes 
the death penalty as "a desecration of human life."

In September 1992 Panetti killed his in-laws Joe and Amanda Alvarado in their 
home in front of his estranged wife and their 3-year-old daughter. He was 
heavily armed and dressed in camouflage.

He had been hospitalized for mental illness more than a dozen times before the 
murders, and is a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic.

During his 1995 trial, he acknowledged that he had killed the 2. However, he 
acted as his own attorney and dressed as a cowboy, believing that only an 
insane person could make an insanity defense, the Associated Press reports. He 
also tried to subpoena John F. Kennedy and the Pope.

Panetti is scheduled to be executed by lethal injection the evening of Dec. 3.

Kathryn Kase, one of Panetti???s lawyers, has said Panetti believes he is being 
punished as part of a satanic conspiracy to prevent him from preaching the 
Gospel on death row.

Prosecutors have said that Panetti is faking insanity. Court-appointed experts 
for the state have voiced suspicions that some of his behavior was contrived. 
An assistant district attorney for Gillespie County, which handled his trial, 
has said that the inmate's discussion of politics during a Nov. 4 prison visit 
with relatives showed he was oriented in time and place.

However, the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles has unanimously recommended his 
sentence be commuted.

The Texas Catholic Conference voiced "tremendous sympathy" for the family of 
Panetti's 2 victims. It also noted the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which 
Christ "teaches that a true neighbor is one who shows mercy."

"Showing mercy does not mean neglecting to administer justice or punish people 
for their crimes. Showing mercy does mean exhibiting compassion toward all of 
our brothers and sisters, and providing them with an opportunity for atonement 
and rehabilitation," added the Catholic conference, which called for Panetti's 
sentence to be commuted for him to obtain appropriate medical treatment for 
mental illness.

"While government has an obligation to protect the community from violent 
offenders, it also bears a responsibility to ensure justice and proper 
treatment for our brothers and sisters suffering from mental illness," the 
conference said.

Opponents of the execution include his ex-wife, who signed a petition against 
the execution, and over 20 conservative leaders who opposed the execution in a 
joint letter.

Abby Johnson, a pro-life advocate who left her job as a Planned Parenthood 
clinic director in Texas, also opposed his execution in a Nov. 18 essay in the 
Dallas Morning News.

"The execution of Panetti would be more than an embarrassment to our state. It 
would undermine our commitment to protecting life, especially the most 
vulnerable, by extinguishing the life of someone clearly suffering from mental 
illness," she said.

The Texas Catholic Conference's Texas Mercy Project has written a prayer asking 
for mercy for Panetti, and for mercy and compassion from those with authority 
over his execution.

(source: Catholic News Agency)

********************

Sane enough for Texas: the Lone Star State's history of executing mentally ill 
inmates----On Wednesday, Scott Panetti will become the latest American prisoner 
to be put to death in apparent disregard of the constitutional ban on executing 
the insane


Texas inmate's storied history of mental illness likely won't halt his 
execution

Nearly 2 decades after the US supreme court outlawed the execution of severely 
mentally ill people, Andre Thomas was placed on Texas death row for killing his 
estranged wife, his 4-year-old son and his 1-year-old stepdaughter while 
carrying out what he believed was an order from God to exorcise their demons.

He cut out his children's hearts and part of his wife's lung then tried to stab 
himself to death. When that failed he put the organs in his pocket and walked 
home. Reading the Bible in prison a few days later, he came across a passage 
from Matthew: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out." He gouged out his 
right eye.

Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, he was subsequently treated and deemed 
fit to stand trial two months later. In court, prosecutors argued that his 
violent behaviour was explained by drink and drugs while clawing out his eye 
was simply a moment of madness. In 2005, a jury gave him the death penalty.

In 2008, he pulled out his left eye and ate it. The following year, in 
rejecting an appeal, a judge with the Texas court of criminal appeals wrote: 
"This is a sad case. [Thomas] is clearly 'crazy' but he is also 'sane' under 
Texas law."

This is a sad case. [He] is clearly 'crazy' but he is also 'sane' under Texas 
law.

Another man wedged in this logic-defying legal conundrum is set to receive a 
lethal injection on Wednesday at 6pm local time in the Texas death chamber in 
Huntsville, near Houston. Barring the success of last-minute appeals, Scott 
Panetti will become the latest American prisoner to be put to death in apparent 
disregard of the constitutional ban on executing people with mental illness.

Panetti's attorneys have issued a flurry of appeals to various courts and a 
determined campaign for clemency is backed by evangelical religious leaders and 
influential conservative figures such as the libertarian Ron Paul.

But on Monday, the Texas board of pardons and paroles voted unanimously not to 
delay Panetti's sentence or recommend it be commuted to life. Earlier in the 
day the Wisconsin native's lawyers asked the supreme court for a stay. They 
also appealed to the outgoing Texas governor, Rick Perry, to grant a 30-day 
reprieve.

The plea to Perry is probably a long shot. In 2004 he rejected a rare 
recommendation of clemency from the pardons board for Kelsey Patterson, a 
schizophrenic man who heard voices and believed the military had planted a 
mind-control device inside his head. 3 years earlier, Perry vetoed a bill that 
would have banned executing the mentally disabled.

'I am the Prince of God and I will rise again'

Judicially killing mentally ill inmates is not a phenomenon unique to Texas - 
last year, Florida put to death John Ferguson, a man with paranoid 
schizophrenia whose last words were "I am the Prince of God and I will rise 
again." But even since the supreme court's 1986 ruling, Texas prosecutors have 
shown a tenacious desire to secure death penalty convictions regardless of 
medical evidence, and juries have frequently been persuaded to mete out the 
ultimate punishment. The state's appeals courts and the highly conservative 
federal fifth circuit appellate court have shown scant inclination to overturn 
original trial verdicts - no matter how problematic.

Among contentious cases in recent years: Texas death row inmate Steven Staley 
is a delusional paranoid schizophrenic man with an IQ of 70, right on the 
intellectual disability threshold. For years, prosecutors sought the right to 
medicate him forcibly so they could make him competent enough for execution, 
but in 2013 the Texas court of criminal appeals stopped the involuntary 
medication on the basis that a district court had overstepped its authority.

In 2002, Texas executed Monty Delk, who on death row covered himself in feces 
and claimed to be a submarine captain and an agent with the FBI and CIA. His 
last words were: "I've got one thing to say, get your warden off this gurney 
and shut up. I am from the island of Barbados. I am the warden of this unit. 
People are seeing you do this."

Before Panetti shot dead his parents-in-law in the Texas hill country in 1992, 
he had been hospitalised more than a dozen times for illnesses including 
schizophrenia, delusions and manic depression.

Then - off his medication - he insisted on representing himself at his 1995 
trial. Frequently incoherent, wildly unfocused and rambling, and referring to 
an alter ego called "Sarge", he dressed in a purple cowboy suit and called 
veterinarians to the witness stand rather than mental health experts. His 
actions seemed to intimidate jurors, who at the time did not have the option to 
sentence him to life without parole. Soon after he was convicted, he was found 
incompetent to represent himself for the appeals process.

'Rational understanding' in an irrational system

Mentally ill criminals do not have the same level of protection from capital 
punishment as other categories of vulnerable people, notably juveniles and 
people who are intellectually disabled.

In 2005, in a 5-4 ruling, the US supreme court banned the execution of anyone 
under 18, citing "national consensus" and evidence that minors are too immature 
to be held fully accountable for their crimes.

In a 2002 case known as Atkins v Virginia, the court prohibited the execution 
of people they termed "mentally retarded" because it would violate the eighth 
amendment's prohibition of "cruel and unusual punishment" - though, 
problematically, the court left it up to individual states to determine the 
mental disability threshold. Texas issued criteria partly based on the 
character of Lennie from the John Steinbeck novel Of Mice and Men.

But Panetti has not so far profited from a notable supreme court case bearing 
his name. In a key ruling from 1986, Ford v Wainwright, the supreme court held 
that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally incompetent. Then, in a 
2007 judgment known as Panetti v Quarterman, the court added detail by 
declaring that death row inmates must have a rational understanding of the 
reason for their executions.

However, the justices left the definitions of key criteria such as rational 
understanding and competency up to lower courts. This absence of a clear 
standard has allowed a series of courts to find that even though there is no 
question that Panetti is seriously mentally ill, he is still eligible for the 
death penalty. As one federal court put it: "The test for competency to be 
executed requires the petitioner know no more than the fact of his impending 
execution and the factual predicate for the execution."

In a decision worthy of Catch-22, the 5th circuit ruled last year that since 
Panetti was rational enough to argue at trial that he is insane, he is sane 
enough to be executed.

Other courts have since affirmed that the 56-year-old is eligible to be put to 
death because he has a "rational understanding" of his situation. But the 
argument that Panetti truly comprehends the cause and effect of his punishment 
would appear undermined by his delusion that he is being executed as part of a 
satanic plot that involves Texas prison officials conspiring to silence him 
because they want to stop him preaching the gospel.

"I think that intersection of law and psychiatry has always been very murky and 
subjective and in fairness mental illness is very hard to understand in 
comparison with [intellectual disability]," said Ron Honberg at the National 
Alliance on Mental Illness.

"In some cases, the mental illness surfaced while the person was incarcerated 
but in Scott Panetti's case there has been a steady, consistent, unremitting 
pattern of delusional thinking," he said.

I think that intersection of law and psychiatry has always been very murky and 
subjective

"1 lesson here is the supreme court needed to be more specific in explaining 
what it meant. Procedures and criteria need to be developed by lower courts in 
assessing the competency of such individuals." An estimated 5-10% of death row 
prisoners have a serious mental illness, according to the advocacy group Mental 
Health America.

'Well, he's not that bad'

Stephen Bright, president and senior counsel of the Southern Center for Human 
Rights, believes that people with mental disorders suffer in a legal system 
that is generally indifferent to those on the margins of society and inexact in 
the way it defines and understands mental illness.

"Mentally ill people can be perfectly normal for weeks or years then suddenly 
have a psychotic break. It's not as easily put in a compartment [as other 
disabilities] so the courts just don't deal with it," he said. "It's such an 
uncertain area, there's always somebody who's going to say, 'Well, he's not 
that bad.'"

Despite Panetti's illness history stretching back long before he committed 
murder, state medical experts have indicated in court documents that they 
believe his symptoms are to some extent faked.

US senator and potential 2016 Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, then 
Texas solicitor general, argued before the supreme court in 2007 that Panetti 
was a malingerer and that possessing "rational understanding" was too high a 
bar, which opened the door to con artists and risked throwing a wrench into the 
works of the state's well-oiled machinery of death. Instead, Cruz proposed, 
only those inmates who are so deficient that they lack the capacity to 
comprehend their punishments should be put to death.

Panetti's legal representatives argue that they should be afforded time and 
court-designated funds to further litigate their claim that he is incompetent. 
He last had a competency hearing in 2007, according to his lawyers, who say 
that his mental health has deteriorated further in recent months and that he 
believes prison officials implanted a listening device in one of his teeth and 
tracked him through bugs placed in Halloween pumpkins.

In 2006, he told an interviewer he had scars on his body from burns that were 
healed by John F Kennedy using coconut milk in the Pacific during the 2nd world 
war, the New York Times reported.

Last week the Texas court of criminal appeals twice refused to issue a stay, 
saying that it did not have jurisdiction. But fissures among the court's 9 
judges have become evident.

Tom Price, a Republican whose term expires next month after 18 years as a Texas 
appeals judge, issued a dramatic dissent in which he said that Panetti's 
execution would be unconstitutional, arbitrary and have no benefit. Moreover, 
he no longer supports the death penalty at all.

He wrote: "Based on my specialized knowledge of this process, I now conclude 
that the death penalty as a form of punishment should be abolished because the 
execution of individuals does not appear to measurably advance the retribution 
and deterrence purposes served by the death penalty; the life without parole 
option adequately protects society at large in the same way as the death 
penalty punishment option; and the risk of executing an innocent person for a 
capital murder is unreasonably high."

Another conservative, Elsa Alcala wrote in her dissent: "This court, at best, 
deprives appellant of a fair opportunity to litigate his claims, thereby 
violating the constitutionally required procedural protections recognized in 
Ford. At worst, this Court's decision will result in the irreversible and 
constitutionally impermissible execution of a mentally incompetent person."

(source: The Guardian)

********************************

Tom Price: Abolish the death penalty


Having spent the last 40 years as a judge for the state of Texas, of which the 
last 18 years have been as a judge on this court, I have given a substantial 
amount of consideration to the propriety of the death penalty as a form of 
punishment for those who commit capital murder, and I now believe that it 
should be abolished.

I, therefore, respectfully dissent from the court's order denying the motion 
for stay of execution and dismissing the subsequent application for a writ of 
habeas corpus filed by Scott Louis Panetti.

I would grant applicant's motion for a stay of execution and would hold that 
his severe mental illness renders him categorically ineligible for the death 
penalty under the Eighth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States 
Constitution.

I have many reasons for reaching this conclusion, only a few of which I will 
discuss at this juncture, and will begin with the problems illustrated by this 
case. The Supreme Court has determined that the execution of a mentally 
retarded person or of an insane person would violate the Eighth Amendment. The 
court's general rationale is that the execution of such individuals would not 
measurably advance the retribution and deterrence purposes served by the death 
penalty.

It is inconceivable to me how the execution of a severely mentally ill person 
would measurably advance the retribution and deterrence purposes purportedly 
served by the death penalty. And yet, unless a court grants his application, 
the applicant, who few dispute is severely mentally ill, will be executed, 
whereas a similarly situated mentally challenged person, such as one who is 
mentally retarded or one who is insane, will have his sentence commuted to life 
in prison. This artificial line divides life and death.

I can imagine no rational reason for carving a line between the prohibition on 
the execution of a mentally retarded person or an insane person while 
permitting the execution of a severely mentally ill person.

But carving out another group that is ineligible for the death penalty is a 
Band-Aid solution for the real problem. Evolving societal values indicate that 
the death penalty should be abolished in its entirety.

Since Texas enacted life without parole as a punishment for capital murder, 
Texas district attorneys have significantly decreased their requests for the 
death penalty, and juries today often prefer that punishment to the death 
penalty.

Because the public at large is protected from a capital murder defendant 
regardless of whether he is executed or incarcerated for his lifetime, the life 
without parole option often satisfies societal desire for protection from a 
capital murderer.

Perhaps more importantly, society is now less convinced of the absolute 
accuracy of the criminal justice system. A 2012 study by the University of 
Michigan and Northwestern University law schools ranks Texas 3rd nationally in 
wrongful convictions over the past 24 years, behind Illinois and New York.

In my time on this court, I have voted to grant numerous applications for writs 
of habeas corpus that have resulted in the release of dozens of people who were 
wrongfully convicted, and I conclude that it is wishful thinking to believe 
that this state will never execute an innocent person for capital murder.

I am convinced that, because the criminal justice system is run by humans, it 
is naturally subject to human error. There is no rational basis to believe that 
this same type of human error will not infect capital murder trials. This is 
true now more than ever before in light of procedural rules that have hastened 
the resolution of applications for writs of habeas corpus and limited 
subsequent applications for habeas relief.

The lack of a guarantee of effective counsel in an initial application for 
habeas relief, combined with this court's refusal to consider a subsequent writ 
that alleges the ineffectiveness of initial counsel, increases the risk that an 
innocent person may be executed for capital murder based on the procedural 
default of a possibly meritorious issue.

I am among a very few people who have had a front-row seat to this process for 
the past 4 decades. I now repeat what I stated originally [in a 2002 dissenting 
opinion in another case]: "We are the guardians of the process."

Based on my specialized knowledge of this process, I now conclude that the 
death penalty as a form of punishment should be abolished because the execution 
of individuals does not appear to measurably advance the retribution and 
deterrence purposes served by the death penalty; the life without parole option 
adequately protects society at large in the same way as the death penalty 
punishment option; and the risk of executing an innocent person for a capital 
murder is unreasonably high, particularly in light of procedural-default laws 
and the prevalence of ineffective trial and initial habeas counsel.

(source: Opinion--Republican Judge Tom Price has served on the Texas Court of 
Criminal Appeals since 2000. This essay is condensed from his dissenting 
opinion in last week's 6-3 denial of a stay for condemned inmate Scott Panetti. 
Reach the court at abel.acosta at txcourts.gov----Dallas Morning News)

********************************

Dudley Sharp: Judge Tom Price is wrong


In a recent appellate opinion, Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Judge Tom Price 
went on a rant against the death penalty. He was dead wrong on everything.

The judge thinks that Texas' 2005 law establishing life without parole makes 
the death penalty unnecessary.

That only makes sense if we equate life and death. Most folks know the 
difference, and jurors continue to select death in those cases in which they 
find it the most just sanction available, proof that jurors appreciate the 
obvious difference between the sanctions, as do criminals, (some) judges, 
prosecutors, defense lawyers and citizens.

Justice is the reason for the death penalty, just as with all sanctions. In 
addition, the death penalty helps to spare more innocent lives in 3 ways, to a 
greater degree than does life without parole:

Enhanced due process - No one denies that the death penalty has greater due 
process protections than do any other sanctions, offering greater protections 
for both the innocent and the guilty.

Enhanced incapacitation - Living murderers harm and murder, again. Executed 
ones do not.

Enhanced deterrence - The evidence that the death penalty deters some is 
overwhelming. The evidence that the death penalty deters none does not exist.

The judge thinks the possibility of executing a wrongfully convicted person is 
an "irrational risk that should not be tolerated by the criminal justice 
system."

Judge, consider reality:

There is no proof of an innocent executed in the United States, at least since 
the 1930s.

Just since 1973, at least 14,000 additional innocents have been murdered in the 
United States by known murderers that we have allowed to murder again - 
recidivist murderers.

Up to 5,000 innocents are murdered every year by known criminals whom we have 
released or failed to incarcerate.

Based upon the judge's reasoning, the true "irrational risk" is leaving 
murderers alive and letting countless known criminals back into the free world.

Right, Judge?

The anti-death penalty folks have redefined both "exonerated" and "innocent" on 
death row to deceptively increase the numbers, a scam that has been exposed for 
over 15 years and is the model for Price's reference.

All states should have "Proof for Actual Innocence" laws so we can get rid of 
these common exoneration frauds/confusions, something which has already 
occurred in Texas. It is common to hear that 12 Texas death-row inmates have 
been exonerated, but only 2 of those inmates have availed themselves of the 
legal system to declare themselves innocent and receive $80,000 in compensation 
for each year of incarceration.

Why? Because the others don't have the proof for actual innocence.

The judge's willful ignorance, combined with grandstanding, should be an 
embarrassment to the court.

(source: Opinion; Longtime death penalty supporter Dudley Sharp lives in 
Houston----Dallas Morning News)

*****************************

Killer's competency in spotlight on eve of execution


Scott Panetti dressed as a cowboy during his murder trial and, acting as his 
own lawyer, called John F. Kennedy, Jesus and the pope as witnesses.

He's been hospitalized more than a dozen times for psychosis and delusions.

Now, Panetti, 56, is scheduled to die by lethal injection on Wednesday for the 
1992 murder of his estranged wife's parents. The case has sparked a global 
debate over whether people with severe mental illnesses should be put to death 
for their crimes. Despite appeals from the American Psychiatric Association, 
the European Union and others, Texas officials plan on carrying out Panetti's 
execution at 6 p.m. Wednesday.

On Monday, the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole voted 7-0 to deny clemency for 
Panetti. A spokesman for the board would not discuss his case specifically. 
Appeals with the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Supreme Court and 
Gov. Rick Perry's office are still pending.

On life and death, justices show more divisions

"This is a man that has been severely and profoundly ill since 12 years before 
the crime," said Ron Honberg, legal director for the National Alliance on 
Mental Illness. "It will be a travesty to proceed with this execution."

There are no statistics showing how many people with mental illnesses have been 
executed over the years, though those executions routinely happen, said Richard 
Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a 
Washington-based non-profit that's critical of the death penalty. An estimated 
10% to 15% of people on death row in the U.S. are believed to have some form of 
mental illness, he said.

Whether or not to execute defendants with severe mental illnesses -- such as 
schizophrenia -- has been a growing topic of debate, Dieter said. A recent 
survey by Public Policy Polling showed 58% of those polled oppose the death 
penalty for persons with mental illness, while 28% are in favor of it.

"It's being watched very closely," Paul Appelbaum, a Columbia University 
psychiatry professor and member of the American Psychiatric Association, said 
of the Panetti case. "It has struck a chord. It's hard for many people to 
comprehend what good is done to put to death a man who is so ill."

Panetti was first diagnosed with schizophrenia in 1978 at Brooke Army Medical 
Center in San Antonio, according to court records. He was hospitalized 
repeatedly in the ensuing years for bouts of delusion and hallucinations and 
qualified for federal disability benefits due to severe mental illness.

On Sept. 8, 1992, Panetti shaved his head, dressed in military fatigues, armed 
himself with a sawed-off shotgun and hunting rifle and shot his in-laws, Joe 
and Amanda Alvarado, at close range in front of his wife and young daughter, 
according to the records. The wife and daughter were later released unharmed.

Panetti rejected a plea offer of life in prison and was deemed competent to 
stand trial, where he wore a cowboy costume and spoke as his alter ego, 
"Sarge." He was found guilty of capital murder and sentenced to death.

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court halted his execution and called for another 
review of Panetti's competency. Last year, the Fifth Circuit again found 
Panetti to be competent enough to be executed.

"His mental state is deteriorating," said Kathryn Kase, one of his attorneys 
who says Panetti continues to hear voices and believes he's the father of 
actress/singer Selena Gomez. "It's absurd to say a man with this history is not 
mentally ill."

In competing filings, however, prosecutors with the Texas Attorney General's 
office argued that Panetti's claim of mental imbalance was "exaggerated" and he 
was repeatedly deemed by court-ordered psychiatrists and a jury of his peers to 
be competent enough to stand trial. The filings further detail taped phone 
conversations Panetti had with family members while in prison where he appears 
to be lucid and coherent.

"Panetti's assertion of severe mental illness are in doubt when compared to the 
multiple past findings on his sanity, competency to stand trial, and competency 
to be executed," it read.

The Supreme Court protects some groups - such as minors and inmates with 
intellectual disabilities - from the death penalty. But the high court doesn't 
specifically protect defendants with mental illnesses and defers to states to 
determine whether someone is competent enough to be executed.

A study published in June in the Hastings Law Journal showed that more than 1/2 
- or 54 - of the last 100 executed offenders had been diagnosed with or showed 
signs of severe mental illness. 6 of the defendants were diagnosed with 
schizophrenia, 3 with bipolar disorder and nine with post-traumatic stress 
disorder, according to the report. 6 of them had attempted suicide during their 
lifetimes.

"(Those with mental illness) can be punished. They're guilty of their crime," 
Dieter said. "But the death penalty seems extreme given what they're afflicted 
with. It's not their fault they have this illness."

During recent meetings with his lawyers, Panetti has said he believes Texas 
officials want to execute him for preaching the gospel on death row, not for 
executing his in-laws. He hears voices during the meetings and tries to hide 
his affliction from visitors, Kase said.

The fact that he hasn't had a competency hearing in seven years alone should 
halt his execution, she said.

"Executing someone with his mental illness crosses a moral line," Kase said.

(source: USA Today)