[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MO., NEB., S.DAK., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 5



MISSOURI:

The cost of capital punishment



By the time a Boone County jury sentenced Brian Dorsey to death for 1st-degree 
murder in 2008, the state had spent $162,960 to defend him.

In 2010, Horst Sabla was sentenced in Camden County for 1st-degree murder. Like 
Dorsey, Sabla used a public defender. But Sabla was sentenced to life without 
parole. His case cost $15,053 to defend.

The State of Missouri has never commissioned its own study comparing the costs 
of the death penalty and life without parole. But KRCG 13 reviewed the costs 
associated with some recent 1st-degree murder cases and found death penalty 
cases cost many times as much to the state's public defender system as do life 
without parole cases.

For this story, KRCG 13 randomly selected 4 cases where prosecutors sought the 
death penalty and 4 cases where prosecutors sought life without parole. All 8 
suspects were represented by a public defender, and all 8 were convicted by a 
jury. Data provided by the Missouri State Public Defender show the 4 death 
penalty cases carried an average of $63,858 in direct costs plus another 
$70,805 in indirect costs. Defending these cases cost Missouri taxpayers a 
total average of $134,663. In contrast, the 4 life without parole cases 
incurred average direct costs of $5,592 and indirect costs of $282. The state 
spent a total of $5,874 defending these suspects on average.

Greg Mermelstein, the Appellate/Postconviction Director for the Missouri State 
Public Defender, said those costs come from the additional homework defense 
attorneys need to do for defendants facing the death penalty. He said a death 
penalty defense team typically includes 4 people, including one person who 
specializes in researching the client's past for factors that might convince a 
jury not to choose the death penalty. Those factors can include everything from 
the defendant's home life to their mental health.

"Mental health is often very expensive to investigate because you have to hire 
experts, various kinds of doctors for the case who can evaluate the defendant's 
mental health," he said.

Moreover, he said the sentencing phase of a death penalty case is almost a 
separate trial. That doesn't happen with life without parole cases.

KRCG 13 also obtained the courts' case party fee reports for all 8 cases. This 
time, the death penalty cases cost less. They incurred $323.60 in court fees on 
average, compared to $17,053.91 for life without parole cases.

Unlike most states, Missouri does not house its death row inmates separately 
from the general prison population. The Missouri Department of Corrections says 
the average cost for housing these inmates is the same as the rest of its 
prisoners. That cost works out to an average of $20,958.30 per year. The 
department says the average death row inmate spends 11.9 years in prison before 
they are executed, which leads to an average cost of $249,403.77. Persons 
sentenced to life without parole typically live for 16.7 years in prison before 
they die of natural causes. That leads to an average cost of $350,003.61.

When all of the average costs are added together, Missouri taxpayers can expect 
to spend an average of $384,390.37 on a person tried and sentenced to death. 
The same person given a life without parole sentence will cost taxpayers an 
average of $372,931.52.

Rep. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, said he doesn't think that's enough of a 
difference to warrant a change in policy. Brattin is the vice-chair of the 
House Corrections Committee and a staunch supporter of the death penalty. He 
has introduced legislation over the last two years to allow executions by 
firing squad. He said those facing the death penalty have committed 
particularly heinous crimes, crimes for which the death penalty is the only 
logical punishment.

"It may be a cost, but I think if we deter someone, by using the death penalty, 
from committing a crime of murder, we have saved the state money," he said.

Brattin suggested the state look into stricter time limits for filing appeals 
and issuing death warrants. But Mermelstein said the state already has a 90-day 
time limit for filing a postconviction appeal. He said speeding up the process 
further increases the risk of a wrongful conviction. 4 people have been 
exonerated from Missouri's death row since 1973.

For death penalty opponents like Rep. Jeanne Kirkton, D-Webster Groves, the 
question of whether to execute a convicted murderer is more moral than 
financial. Kirkton has introduced legislation to abolish the death penalty 
almost every year she has been in office.

"The state taking the life of another is not right," she said. "I think that if 
we're going to do something, we need to just lock them up and take away every 
right and privilege that they have."

Tennessee's Comptroller of the Treasury studied the costs of that state's death 
penalty in 2004 and found death penalty trials cost about $15,000 more on 
average than life without parole trials. Kansas, which is the only state with 
an active death penalty statute that hasn't executed anyone since the Gregg v. 
Georgia ruling in 1976, has commissioned several studies that have reached 
similar conclusions. The Missouri State Auditor's office said it would need a 
directive from the general assembly to carry out such a study. Legislation 
authorizing a formal death penalty cost study has been introduced several 
times, but it has never gone anywhere.

(source: connectmidmissouri.com)








NEBRASKA:

Nebraska Considers Ending Death Penalty ---- The conservative state has 11 
inmates on death row, one of whom has been there for 35 years as legal 
obstacles hit executions.



Nebraska could become the 1st conservative state in more than 40 years to 
abolish the death penalty, under proposals being considered by politicians.

An initial vote earlier this year to repeal the law has sparked optimism among 
capital punishment opponents, although Nebraska Governor Pete Ricketts has 
moved to block the change.

The state last executed someone in 1997 and currently has 11 men on death row.

Democrats and Republicans have formed an unlikely alliance to try and get the 
death penalty repealed.

Democrats have cited racial disparities in who is sentenced to death and 
highlighted the dangers of executing an innocent person, while Republicans have 
pointed out legal obstacles that have prevented the state executing anyone for 
18 years.

Senator Colby Coash said the death penalty wastes taxpayers' money.

He said: "You always want to feel as a legislator that you're sticking up for 
the victims.

"I don't speak for the victims, but how is it justice if a state imposes a 
sentence that it's never going to carry out?"

The last conservative state to abolish the death penalty was North Dakota in 
1973.

In the last 6 years, 4 more liberal states have ended capital punishment: New 
Mexico in 2009, Illinois in 2011, Connecticut in 2012 and Maryland in 2013. 32 
states still have death penalty laws.

Legal experts have said if Nebraska repeals the law, it could prompt other 
states to act as well.

Frank Zimring, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, said: 
"If New Hampshire wanted to abolish the death penalty, Nebraska could set a 
terrific precedent.

"But it probably wouldn't work in Texas or Missouri."

In 2008, a state Supreme Court ruling outlawed the use of the electric chair in 
executions.

Nebraska switched to lethal injections, but the slow rate of processing inmate 
appeals meant executions were prevented for so long its stock of sodium 
thiopental expired and it could not replace reserves.

Nebraska has executed four inmates since reinstating the death penalty in 1973. 
One of its death row inmates has been there for 35 years.

In March, the Nebraska legislature voted 30-13 to repeal the penalty, but 
politicians have to vote on it twice more and Republican Governor Mr Ricketts 
has promised to veto it. Some 33 votes would be needed to defeat a filibuster 
attempting to block the bill.

A recent Pew Research Centre study found 55% of Americans support the death 
penalty - down from 62% in 2011.

It comes as Richard Glossip, a death row inmate in Oklahoma, could become the 
1st American to be executed using nitrogen gas.

(source: Sky News)








SOUTH DAKOTA:

Berget Will Keep Attorneys For Death Penalty Appeal



The same attorneys who represented Rodney Berget during his death penalty case 
will represent him during his appeal. That was the ruling handed down Monday.

This was the week Berget was supposed to be executed for his role in the 2011 
murder of Correctional Officer Ron 'RJ' Johnson, but an appeal filed last month 
issued an indefinite stay of execution. In court Monday, Jeff Larson and Cheri 
Scharffenberg made the case for why they should still represent Berget during 
the appeal.

The South Dakota Attorney General's Office argues that Larson and Scharffenberg 
shouldn't be allowed to work on an appeal that often takes a critical look at 
Berget's legal representation during his death penalty case.

"Here we have a conflict," Assistant Attorney General Paul Swedlund said in 
court. "They bring the same claims that were brought on direct appeal. We need 
a fresh perspective on this case."

Larson argued, however, that Berget can choose whomever he wants to represent 
him during an appeal and he has chosen the same team that represented him 
during his death penalty case.

"The state is trying to come in and tell my client who can be his lawyers," 
Larson said.

The judge sided with Berget and ruled that Larson and Scharffenberg can remain 
the inmate's attorneys while they try to fight for their client's life.

The Attorney General's Office argues that many of the issues raised in the 
appeal have already been heard by the South Dakota Supreme Court and should be 
dismissed. Those arguments will be considered at a future hearing.

(source: Keloland Television)








CALIFORNIA:

Misty Holt-Singh's Mother Frustrated As Prosecutors Delay Death Penalty 
Decision



Emotions poured out of a Stockton courtroom on Monday as the surviving suspects 
of last year's bank robbery and shootout faced a judge.

The mother of Misty Holt-Singh, the hostage killed in the July violence, spoke 
out after prosecutors said they have yet to decide if they will seek the death 
penalty in the case.

Surviving robbery and shootout suspect Jaime Ramos, along with Pablo Ruvacalba, 
who is accused of being the drop-off driver, were in court on Monday. 
Prosecutors were supposed to set a trial date in the case that stems from the 
bank robbery and pursuit. 2 other suspects were killed in the shootout that 
also claimed the life of Holt-Singh.

Hearing that prosecutors were still deciding on the death penalty and that the 
case wouldn't be moving forward on Monday frustrated her mother.

"My daughter was killed execution style and they deserve nothing less. That's 
how I feel," she said. "They have no rights at all. They don't have no rights. 
Their girlfriends sit in there, blowing them kisses and waving; they should be 
taken off to jail."

The next hearing to discuss a trial date has been pushed back to June 8. The 
delay is even more stressful for a mother who lost her daughter, and close to 
losing another.

"My other daughter is in the hospital, dying of cancer. And these hoodlums took 
my baby, and cancer's taken my other daughter, so, no I'm not happy," she said.

Holt-Singh's family has filed a claim against the city of Stockton since we've 
learned she was killed by police gunfire. The city has said it's waiting for 
the results of an independent investigation before it makes any conclusion 
regarding that claim.

(source: CBS news)








USA:

In defense of innocence: Why the death penalty must go



In 1985, Anthony Ray Hinton was charged with murdering two men in Alabama. 
Hinton, too poor to afford an attorney, was appointed one by the court. 
Hinton's alibi checked out and a police-administered polygraph test 
substantiated his innocence, but the judge refused to admit the results at 
trial. The prosecutor, known for a history of racial bias, told the court that 
Hinton, a black man, looked guilty and "evil." There were no eyewitnesses or 
fingerprint evidence; the state circumstantially tied Hinton to the crimes with 
a gun found in his mother's home. For a pivotal witness, Hinton's 
court-appointed lawyer called a one-eyed ballistics expert. Hinton was 
sentenced to death. He has maintained his innocence ever since.

In 2002, after years of appeals, several firearms experts (including a former 
chief of the FBI's ballistics unit) refuted the state's weapon match. 
Nevertheless, Alabama refused to re-examine Hinton's case until 2014, when the 
United States Supreme Court unanimously overturned his conviction and ordered a 
new trial. Soon thereafter, state forensic testing confirmed that Hinton did 
not commit the murders. On April 3rd Anthony Ray Hinton was released from death 
row, 30 years after he was so wrongfully convicted.

Hinton's case may seem atypical - a complete lack of evidence, a deficient 
defense lawyer, the time spent behind bars - but it isn't. Hinton's case 
testifies to the harm an inherently flawed legal system can inflict on the 
innocent, something that occurs more often than we realize. Hinton is the 152nd 
person exonerated from death row since 1973. But he is one of the lucky ones.

A recent analysis of the 7,482 capital cases between 1973 and 2004 describes a 
horrifying reality. Presenting a "conservative estimate," the study, published 
by the National Academy of Sciences, found that 2,675 inmates (36 %) were 
removed from death row after new evidence cast doubt on guilt. At least another 
307 people (4.1 percent) sentenced to die are innocent, 118 of whom were 
eventually exonerated. It is unclear how many of the 190-plus remaining 
convicts were executed. While there are 10 known cases of executions despite 
strong evidence of innocence, there most likely have been many more innocents 
executed since 1973.

The law will always strive for truth, but it can never be guaranteed to arrive 
at it. Wrongful convictions are unfortunately inevitable. However, under normal 
circumstances, these mistakes can be re-examined and corrected. An innocent 
sentenced to life imprisonment may suffer years of wrongful incarceration, but 
freedom can always eventually be restored. In capital cases, this is not always 
so. When the heart has been stopped by a barbiturate cocktail, when the vital 
organs have been destroyed by a fatal electric shock, there is no room for 
second thoughts. Innocent or guilty, death is forever.

For some, infrequent innocent deaths are a negligible side effect of a 
predominantly efficient punishment. But they are very wrong.

Beyond its unacceptable human toll, capital punishment is costly in the fiscal 
sense as well. Largely due to monumental prosecution costs, implementing the 
death penalty is across-the-board more expensive than sustaining an inmate for 
life in prison. Pursuing and carrying out an execution, depending on state, can 
cost twice to ten times as much as a comparable case of life imprisonment. The 
ACLU reported that California could save more than $1 billion over the next 5 
years by replacing the death penalty with life imprisonment.

On top of all this, the death penalty does not deter crime. Nearly 95 % of 
criminologists find no correlation between capital punishment and lower murder 
rates, determined a Northwestern University study. Murder rates are higher in 
states with capital punishment and have declined in states since its 
abolishment. Furthermore, the death penalty exacerbates racial tensions - it is 
disproportionately sought in cases with black defendants, like Hinton, who, 
especially in the South, continue to receive abysmal legal representation and 
must confront predominantly white juries.

Increasingly, the death penalty is considered a primitive punishment; nearly 50 
% of Americans believe life imprisonment should replace capital punishment. The 
United States is the only Western democracy that executes criminals, joined by 
the likes of Somalia, Iran, and North Korea.

Capital punishment is antiquated, expensive, and not a deterrent. But, most 
tragically, for as long as the death penalty lives, innocents will die. 
Replacing capital punishment with life imprisonment will ensure that our 
imperfect legal system does not execute the innocents it will undoubtedly 
convict. <>P> To save the innocent we must not kill the guilty.

(source: Dan Korff-Korn is an incoming freshman at Dartmouth College, where he 
intends to study government. He is currently living a year abroad in Israel 
studying philosophy and Jewish law; The Hill)

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

Death-penalty abolitionists fight a guerrilla war: Bloomberg View



Is there a guerrilla war under way against the death penalty? Justice Samuel 
Alito proposed the idea Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral 
arguments about the use of the drug midazolam while administering lethal 
injections. The answer, to put it bluntly, is yes: Death-penalty abolitionists, 
unable to persuade either the public or the courts to prohibit the death 
penalty absolutely, rely on all the legal means available to them. Their 
arguments before the court are politics by other means -- Clausewitz's famous 
description of war.

The guerrilla tactic that brought the advocates before the court this week 
worked just as Alito alleged. First, the opponents pressured pharmaceutical 
companies and compounding pharmacies not to provide drugs that would 
effectively paralyze and kill. Next, they asked the courts to strike down the 
use of the inferior drugs that are left for the states to use, because those 
drugs don't work reliably.

That such an indirect legal war against capital punishment exists doesn't end 
the matter. It leaves open the more fundamental question: Is the use of such 
legal tactics as a form of political warfare in any way illegitimate? Or is it 
simply a normal tactic employed by almost all social movements, including those 
as politically disparate as anti-abortion groups and gay- rights activists?

Start with Alito's view, which to his credit he expressed in open court. He 
first acknowledged that the death penalty is "controversial as a constitutional 
matter. It certainly is controversial as a policy matter." He then explained 
what he thought was legitimate political and legal action: "Those who oppose 
the death penalty are free to try to persuade legislatures to abolish the death 
penalty. Some of those efforts have been successful. They're free to ask this 
Court to overrule the death penalty." Yet, Alito concluded, neither the 
legislature nor the courts had abolished the death penalty, and the 
abolitionists instead engaged in their tactical, "guerrilla" approach of 
affecting the drug supply and then challenging its legality.

Notice that Alito was not making the familiar argument that controversial 
policy matters should be resolved by the legislature, not by the courts. That's 
actually a pretty good argument, albeit one that has lost some of its currency 
in this era of extreme judicial activism on both conservative and liberal 
sides. The death penalty is in fact politically controversial, and it's not 
unreasonable to claim that as a result, the court should avoid deciding the 
question definitively and wait for the public to make up its mind.

Yet in making his point, Alito either couldn't or wouldn't rely on the familiar 
distinction between policy and constitutional law -- presumably because the 
court is so thoroughly in the business of ruling on capital punishment already. 
Indeed, the tradition of the Supreme Court assessing the constitutionality of 
the death penalty itself in various mechanisms for sentencing and punishment 
goes back more than 40 years, to Furman v. Georgia, the 1972 case in which the 
court temporarily halted the death penalty nationally by holding that it was 
cruel and unusual because of the arbitrariness of its application.

That means Alito must be arguing something more subtle. According to his view, 
it's fair to challenge the death penalty both in legislatures and in courts. 
What's unjustified is to attack capital punishment obliquely, by going at the 
technicalities of its administration -- what Justice Harry Blackmun at the end 
of his career famously called "the machinery of death."

What makes that technique unfair? The guerrilla metaphor is instructive. Real 
armies, goes the theory, attack frontally on the battlefield. Calling the death 
penalty morally wrong and unconstitutional would count as a frontal assault. 
Guerrillas don't fight that way. They frustrate conventional opponents by 
sneaking around. Sometimes they don't wear uniforms. Sometimes they hide among 
civilians. In these ways they may violate the international laws of war -- 
which are, of course, written by states that have conventional armies, not by 
guerrilla fighters.

According to Alito, what's wrong with guerrilla attacks on the death penalty is 
that they frustrate the constitutional and political process, which should 
involve direct arguments. By implication, the legal and political debate should 
be meaningful and not obfuscated in a miasma of tactics.

Generally speaking, I think Alito is probably right about this. We do better 
constitutional law and politics when we actually debate our values and our 
preferences. We have a lot to gain from talking about controversial issues, and 
little to gain from dancing around them.

Yet the reality has often been otherwise. Consider the anti-abortion movement, 
which, like the movement against the death penalty, hasn't had a definitive 
victory in the courts since Roe v. Wade. Anti-abortion advocates pass laws that 
chip away at the edges of the abortion right, for example by prohibiting 
particular techniques. Then they urge the courts to find these restrictions 
constitutional. When the laws cut against them, like the creation of buffer 
zones around abortion clinics, the anti-abortion groups challenge those laws as 
violations of free speech. In neither circumstance do the advocates say what 
they really mean: that abortion is morally wrong and should be condemned.

The gay-rights movement has similarly pursued a piecemeal legal strategy that 
could be characterized as guerrilla warfare. It has offered a wide array of 
arguments in seeking the right to marry, ranging from privacy to equality to 
dignity. It's challenged marriage prohibitions at both state and federal 
levels. The recent struggle between a federal district court and the Alabama 
state courts counts as guerrilla warfare running in all directions, fueled by 
gay-rights advocates as well as opponents. Instead of arguing squarely about a 
constitutional right to marriage, that debate has largely been over the 
technical question of whether a federal district court decision binds state 
courts.

What makes these guerrilla techniques legitimate is that everyone involved 
knows what the real, underlying issue is. Deciding controversial moral 
questions in the courts may be a funny way to do business. But as Americans, we 
know the rules -- and those rules allow us to try to win using any means 
necessary.

(source: Noah Feldman, a Bloomberg View columnist, is a professor of 
constitutional and international law at Harvard and the author of six books, 
most recently "Cool War: The Future of Global Competition."----Bloomberg News)

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

Legal challenge to death penalty in the United States

Capital punishment is still legal in 32 American states, but the death penalty 
in the United States is facing its most high profile test in decades. Three 
death row inmates in Oklahoma are challenging new experimental drugs used in 
lethal injections, after several botched executions. North America Corresponder 
Lisa Millar reports for Lateline.

Transcript



EMMA ALBERICI, PRESENTER: When 8 people, including the 2 Australians Andrew 
Chan and Myuran Sukumaran, were executed by Indonesia, it reminded us that many 
parts of the world don't share our view of capital punishment.

In fact, 36 nations still have the death penalty, including our 3 biggest 
trading partners, China, Japan and the United States.

Capital punishment is still legal in 32 American states, but that country is 
witnessing the most high-profile test of its laws in decades.

3 death row inmates in Oklahoma are challenging the state's rights to use new 
experimental drugs in lethal injections after several botched executions.

Now, other killings are being delayed and American states are scrambling to 
find alternative methods, even raising the possibility of bringing back firing 
squads.

North America correspondent Lisa Millar reports from Oklahoma.

LISA MILLAR, REPORTER: Oklahoma is a deeply conservative, deeply religious 
state with a firm grip on traditional values. It's no surprise it's at the 
front line of America's latest battle over the death penalty.

Richard Glossop is phoning in from death row.

BILLIE JO BOYIDDLE, NIECE: You sound gloomy.

RICHARD GLOSSOP: Gloomy?

BILLIE JO BOYIDDLE: Yeah.

RICHARD GLOSSOP: Oh, I'm not gloomy. You know better than that. I'm never 
gloomy.

BILLIE JO BOYIDDLE: OK!

LISA MILLAR: Glossop's niece and sister talk to him several times a week. This 
time though, he wants to get a message to the media.

What are the conditions like there for you at the moment, Richard?

RICHARD GLOSSOP: It's been 18 years of hell when you have to live in a place 
like this. I mean, it's not a great environment for anybody.

LISA MILLAR: Glossop is on death row for ordering the killing of his boss, a 
hotel owner, a crime he says he didn't do. In January, just a day before he was 
scheduled to die, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case that could have 
widespread ramifications.

RICHARD GLOSSOP: I'm glad I wrote in. It makes me really happy that I get to be 
a part of this because like I told anybody, you know, no matter what happens, I 
hope that in my time that I have lived, I can make a difference to where I can 
help stop this from happening to other people in this country.

LISA MILLAR: Lethal injection has been the most widely used method of execution 
in the US, but the drugs are in short supply because pharmaceutical companies 
opposed to capital punishment refuse to sell them to prisons. That's forced 
states to try new, untested combinations of drugs and sparked this court case.

ROBERT DUNHAM, DEATH PENALTY INFORMATION CENTRE: The states are now botching 
executions. So you've seen in Arizona, you've seen in Oklahoma, you've seen in 
Ohio, defendants being essentially tortured to death because the inappropriate 
drugs were being used, being inappropriately administered and inappropriate 
safeguards taking place.

LISA MILLAR: Last year, Oklahoma used midazolam for the 1st time in the 
execution of Clayton Lockhart. It was meant to send him into a deep coma, but 
he groaned and convulsed and died 43 minutes later of a heart attack.

Lawyer Dale Baich witnessed the drug being used in another execution in 
Arizona. It took Joe Wood 1 hour and 58 minutes to die.

DALE BAICH, LAWYER: His breathing slowed and it appeared that it had stopped. 
The colour had started to leave his face. And about 12 minutes into the 
process, he suddenly opened his mouth and gasped and he did this again and 
again.

LISA MILLAR: Dale Baich is part of the team arguing that Oklahoma's method of 
killing people violates the US Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual 
punishment.

DALE BAICH: If Richard Glossop is executed, we're hoping that the drugs that 
will be used to carry out that execution will not cause pain and suffering 
during the process.

LISA MILLAR: The justices appeared sharply divided as he heard the arguments 
last week, one of them asking if the case was in fact a guerrilla war against 
the death penalty.

SCOTT PRUITT, OKLAHOMA ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think they were trying to 
characterise this as simply an attack on the death penalty, and fundamentally, 
I think that's what it is.

LISA MILLAR: There are strong feelings in McAlester, home to Oklahoma's state 
prison.

Sheriff Joel Kerns is walking us through a holding cell for women, praising the 
conditions prisoners have.

How many have you have in here generally?

JOEL KERNS, SHERIFF: Ah, a capacity of 36. Right now I have about 38.

LISA MILLAR: He's got no time for activists trying to abolish the death 
penalty.

JOEL KERNS: The majority of the constituents here, the majority of the people 
here are in favour of the death penalty.

LISA MILLAR: And why do you think that is?

JOEL KERNS: The simple fact that we're in a religious area where they believe 
that an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.

LISA MILLAR: And he's not losing sleep over botched executions.

JOEL KERNS: From everyone that I've talked to and visited with and what I know, 
they think that was just a minute problem to what he caused the victim in his 
crime.

LISA MILLAR: So no sympathy?

JOEL KERNS: No sympathy, none whatsoever for Mr Lockhart.

LISA MILLAR: Behind me here is death row in Oklahoma. It's where Richard 
Glossop is being held and where he made that phone call from. There are about 
50 prisoners waiting to be executed here and the state of Oklahoma has said 
even if it loses this case in the Supreme Court, it's got back-up plans. It 
will use the gas chamber and it hasn't ruled out bringing back the electric 
chair, even a firing squad.

Robert Dunham from the Death Penalty Information Centre is convinced this case 
against the use of the drug midazolam is the start of something bigger.

ROBERT DUNHAM: I think we're at a critical stage in the death penalty in the 
United States. I think the botched executions have galvanised the debate.

LISA MILLAR: There are more than 3,000 inmates on death row across America. 
Last year, 35 were killed, the lowest number in 2 decades. A majority of 
Americans, a little under 60 %, support the death penalty, but Robert Dunham 
can see a time when that punishment won't exist at all.

ROBERT DUNHAM: 1 by 1 by 1 by 1, states have been abolishing the death penalty. 
We've dropped from 38 to 32 states that have the death penalty in the last 10 
years, and in that same time, we've had 4 states that have imposed moratorium.

LISA MILLAR: Back in Oklahoma, Billie-Jo is fighting for her uncle's release.

BILLIE JO BOYIDDLE: Nobody should ever have to suffer like that. I understand 
people do bad things, but that doesn't give us the right to do that as well. 
That makes us no different than the criminals.

RICHARD GLOSSOP: And it is time, it really is time to stop the death penalty in 
this country because we tell other countries that it's barbaric to kill 
innocent people, but yet we do it here.

LISA MILLAR: Time is not on Richard Glossop's side. The court will make its 
decision next month. Win or lose, Oklahoma's Governor has vowed executions will 
go ahead.

(source: ABC news)

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

Stories of Innocents - Shujaa Graham Q&A----This story is part of the Torch's 
coverage of the Stories of Innocents event.



The Torch: Do you believe your past played a large role in your conviction? 
Why?

Shujaa Graham: I grew up in the south, in Lake Providence, La. I grew up on 
racism. Racism played a part in my mind, and I eventually realized a lot of it 
when I was in prison, when I became politicized in the institution. As I 
evolved, I was politicized in prison by other prisoners who had committed 
crimes and were totally guilty, but they just wanted to educate me about the 
injustices and the racism, and they convinced me to join a political movement 
for social justice. After being in prison for three years and being a part of 
that movement, in 1973, a human being was murdered and his name was Jerry 
Sanders. I was accused of leading a political uprising, because of the police 
brutality and the racism that was going on in prison. As a consequence of me 
being recognized as a leader of that movement, when that [murder] happened, I 
was one of the first people that they picked up and put in solitary 
confinement. They indicted me, and for the next 9 years, I had to fight for my 
life.

The Torch: What were you thinking when you heard your guilty verdict? What was 
the first thought that came into your head?

Graham: The judge announced it, "We find Mr. Graham guilty, and we sentence you 
to die at San Quentin on a particular day to a gas penetrator, and you're no 
longer with us." That was a hard part for me. Think about you being totally 
innocent, and you going off for something that you really didn't do, but 
[you're] gonna pay the punishment, so that was one of the hardest parts for me 
during my confinement in prison.

The Torch: What was a constant thought you had during your time on death row?

Graham: I said, "I'm not just a prisoner, I'm a death row prisoner." At a 
particular time, they're going to kill me. So, I had to start focusing on how I 
was going to get out of there. I never contemplated suicide while I was on 
death row, but there were many nights that I went to bed and was perfectly okay 
if I didn???t wake up. Think about the worst day that you ever had, and knowing 
that tomorrow will be even worse. That's death row everyday that you're there.

The Torch: What was your first thought when you were finally found innocent?

Graham: My greatest nightmare has finally come to an end. I was happy to be 
able to get out. Not just to get out and be free, but to get out of prison and 
do the things that I committed myself to. What happened to me is over with. I 
can go out into society and make sure that what happened to me, never happens 
to anyone else without me raising my voice.

The Torch: What are your views on capital punishment?

I'm totally against the death penalty in all situations, no matter what you've 
done or no matter what you've been accused of. Capital punishment solves no 
problems, it only intensifies them. All capital punishment does is make more 
victims.

Graham: What is your biggest goal for the future?

Not just the end of the death penalty, not just the end of the criminal justice 
system as it stands. I dream of a society that all mankind will have equal 
chance in a society without racism and discrimination. I use the death penalty 
to be able to articulate what I feel, and deal with human rights and the social 
injustices that happens in our society. The goal is the end of the death 
penalty, but that's just a single issue.

The Torch: What message are you trying to convey with your audience today?

Graham: To inspire them and to not be negative. To take advantage of their 
opportunities in school and learn as much as they can, and get their education. 
Once they receive their education, don't use that education for self alone. I 
always tell people, 'you're gonna go to school to be a lawyer, doctor or 
teacher. I don't know which one you're gonna be. But, I want you to add 1 more 
thing to your vocation. Find a cause for social justice and human rights, and 
add it to your vocation. When you do this, it's going to make you a better 
lawyer, a better teacher or a better doctor.'

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

Stories of Innocents - Juan Melendez Q&A----This story is part of the Torch's 
coverage of the Stories of Innocents event.



The Torch: Do you believe your past played a large role in your conviction? 
Why?

Juan Melendez: Race* played a big role in my conviction I believe. Being poor 
played a big role in my conviction. Having an unfair prosecutor** is one of the 
factors. Having an almost all-white jury played a big role on my conviction.

*Melendez did not speak English at all and according to him, no one provided 
any interpreter.

*Melendez' prosecutor hid actual evidence that would've put the person guilty 
in prison.

The Torch: What were you thinking when you heard your guilty verdict? What was 
the first thought that came into your head?

Melendez: I was very angry, very disappointed at the system. But most of all I 
was scared, very scared to die for a crime I did not commit.

The Torch: What was a constant thought you had during your time on death row?

Melendez: I can tell you the truth: the electric chair was in my head everyday. 
That's how I was sentenced to die. [During] my time we didn't have the lethal 
injection. It came in before I left, but mine was for the electric chair.

The Torch: What was your first thought when you were finally found innocent?

Melendez: I was very, very concerned about my family. I wanted to see my 
family, and I wanted to kiss the ground, and that's what I did. One thing I 
wanted to see as soon as I got out was the moon. I didn't walk in no grass, no 
dirt for all them years. I wanted to do the simple things. I'm the luckiest 
person in the world; I have 2 birthdays*.

*Melendez said he was released on Thursday, January 3rd, 2002. According to 
him, he celebrates the date as his 2nd birthday.

The Torch: What are your views on capital punishment?

Melendez: I believe [death penalty] should be replaced with life without 
parole. Some people commit crimes so horrifying that even if they change in 
prison the crime is so horrifying that they lost their right to be in the 
community, the community have the right to be safe, but you don't have to kill 
them. That's what I think. Keep them in prison alive for the rest of their 
lives, but you don't have to kill them. Society has the right to be safe.

The Torch: What is your biggest goal for the future?

Melendez: For the future, all I'm really interested in is to abolish the death 
penalty. That's probably my only goal right now. I'm doing that by educating 
people, and the problem about the death penalty is all about details. People 
need to know that it's racist. People need to know that it costs too much. 
People need to know that it does not deter crime. People need to know that it's 
cruel and unnecessary.

The Torch: What message are you trying to convey with your audience today?

Melendez: The message is to motivate the students to get involved in public 
safety, and one of the ways to get involved in public safety is to be against 
the death penalty because the death penalty costs a lot of money to maintain 
it. It costs more to execute a person than to keep them alive in prison for the 
rest of his life. And that money can be used to prevent crime, to educate kids 
in the community, to give police more better training and better equipment so 
they can get the real perpetrator.

(source for both: The Torch)