[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, DEL., LA. KY., ARIZ., CALIF., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 8


TEXAS:

The Lake Murders: Women's misgivings compelled by sisterhood



Women who are involved as victims of the brutal torture slayings of 3 teenagers 
at a lakeside park say men will never understand. Come back when you are 
sister, mother, daughter, grand daughter, or neice, they say. It's a woman to 
woman thing.

The fact that per capita more Texans are locked up on any given day than any 
other nation in the world, and with more than 500 executions since 1980 leads 
the list of places that execute capital criminals for their ill deeds, fails to 
impress them. You see, if all that led to their safety and security, they would 
be satisfied. The truth is, they seriously believe that 3 of the real killers 
of Jill Montgomery, Raylene Rice, and Kenneth Franks are still living free in 
neighborhoods both in and near this central Texas city.

2 happenings occurred in rapid succession last week in this complex case that 
has raised doubts for more than 30 years. Both are signs that the public - 
including cops and prosecutors - never really bought in to the theories about 
who did it and why that were sold by the prosecutors and bought by juries in 
trials held in multiple changed venues.

The only living person convicted for the torture slayings of 2 young women and 
a boy, all in their teens, is demanding that his appeals attorney take a more 
aggressive stance in proving that he was never guilty of the crime for which he 
entered a plea for the simple reason that his trial attorneys and prosecutors 
promised him he would receive a short sentence and serve his time at a federal 
prison.

If he did not, he and the attorney handling his appeals maintain, he would have 
surely died with an executioner's needle in his arm. Both his lawyers, and the 
cops and prosecutors said so. He believed them.

The Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles notified Walter Reaves and the Innocence 
Project of Texas that their staff will conduct an investigation of his 
allegations of innocence laid in a clemency petition he wrote in order to make 
a recommendation to Governor Greg Abbott.

And after 16 years of waiting, Anthony Melendez finally acknowledged to his 
lawyer that in essence he realizes DNA evidence that could exonerate him is 
held hostage by a testing firm that refuses to turn specimen over to another 
firm because it is "work product," and the simple fact that a New York 
journalist who has written a book under contract with Simon & Schuster and paid 
for the testing is acting as a legal assistant to Reaves, subject to 
attorney-client privilege.

Former "New Yorker" staff writer and best-selling author Frederic Dannen ("Hit 
Men," Random House) is living in Mexico and claims he has not released his 
book-length work on the Lake Murders case to Simon & Schuster because of his 
involvement with the legal case.

Furthermore, abundant evidence exists that Anthony Melendez was not present at 
the scene of the crime on the day it occurred. His boss told lead investigator 
Truman Simons and the District Attorney, Vic Feazell, that he and Melendez were 
painting apartments a hundred miles distant in the city of Bryan on the Tuesday 
in August, 1982, when the killings took place. He furnished payroll records to 
corroborate his statement, records which clearly showed Melendez worked from 
Monday until Friday and lived in a motel there before returning to Waco for the 
weekend. The lawyer whose voice is captured on the tapes talking about an "air 
tight" alibi, says so.

Melendez wrote Reaves demanding that 1) he give statements to the media; 2) 
that he be allowed to talk to media; 3) that he be informed of the whereabouts 
of DNA samples to be tested; 4) that he be informed if the DNA testing has been 
funded. Most of all, he wants to know why the samples that could exonerate him 
have not been tested after a decade and a half.

In a letter to State Senator Rodney Ellis, he says after serving time for three 
decades, and after being promised he would do less than 10 years in a federal 
facility, "I have felt so lost and helpless; I have a group of supporters, 
however, my attorney once again refuses to answer their questions or do 
anything to help me."

In a recent letter, Reaves wrote Melendez to say if he can find another 
attorney he thinks can do a better job, to go ahead and hire him.

In an interview held long ago in 1992 in a judge's chambers on the eve of a 
retrial of Mohammed Muneer Deeb, who was convicted of the murder for hire of 
Jill Montgomery, a teenaged girl whom Simons believed was actually mistaken for 
another young woman Deeb allegedly wanted dead, Lt. Truman Simons protested 
that other Waco cops would doubt his veracity, no matter what he said. Deeb was 
acquitted after the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that testimony offered 
to that effect was hearsay of a jailhouse snitch who quoted yet another 
jailhouse snitch not present in the courtroom. Simons worked for Vic Feazell as 
a special investigator after he quit his job as a Sergeant on the Waco police 
force and promised the Sheriff he could clear the crimes in less than a week if 
he was hired as an entry level jailer. It was not a happy day for him as the 
lawyers hammered out where the retrial would take place. What with suppression 
of the hearsay testimony, the verdict of acquittal was a foregone conclusion, 
the upcoming trial a mere formality.

Feazell faced federal prosecution under the RICO statutes for accepting bribes 
to trade with members of the defense bar to share in their legal fees in 
exchange for dropping cases or pleading offenses down to misdemeanors. After 
his acquittal, he won a judgment against a Dallas television station for $40 
million in punitive damages and $18 million in actual damages, later settled 
out of court for a reportedly much smaller amount.

In a bizarre twist, the U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas offered 
famed Dallas criminal defense lawyer Billy Ravkind a chance to see his client 
Dick Kettler plead guilty to a lesser charge carrying a maximum sentence of 3 
years and a $5,000 fine in a tax dispute in exchange for his testimony against 
Feazell and his wife Bernadette about fee sharing and bribery "to influence the 
disposition of criminal cases in McLennan County, Texas, any crimes arising out 
of that conspiracy and any tax violation except as agreed above for the years 
1981 through 1984."

In an audiofile obtained from a confidential source of a taped meeting between 
the DA, Melendez' trial lawyer Jim Barlow, Truman Simons, and Melendez, the 
quid pro quo worked out for a guilty plea to capital murder is clearly to be 
heard. In exchange for a sentence of 10 years or less to be served in a federal 
correctional facility, Melendez is to testify against David Wayne Spence, who 
was later executed for 2 of the killings. He allegedly completely severed Ms. 
Montgomery's nipple from her breast with his teeth.

Critics say there is clear-cut and abundant evidence that someone else 
committed the murders, but witnesses who saw the youngsters leave with other 
actors are afraid to come forward, and exculpatory evidence has been 
mishandled, destroyed, or withheld, according to the clemency petition.

The new Michael Morton law that took effect on January 1, 2014, has a statue of 
limitations that tolls on the 25th anniversary of the convictions. There is no 
statute of limitations on the crime of murder.

(source: radiolegendary.com)








DELAWARE:

Delaware Governor Supports Repeal of Death Penalty



Democratic Gov. Jack Markell has come out in support of an effort to repeal 
Delaware's death penalty.

Markell said Thursday that if a bill to abolish capital punishment reaches his 
desk, he would sign it.

In recent years, Markell has refused to say where he stands on the issue.

But Markell said the recent acknowledgment by the FBI that examiners in its 
microscopic hair comparison unit gave flawed testimony in more than 250 
criminal cases, including death penalty cases, before 2000, helped him reach a 
decision.

Legislation to abolish the state's death penalty cleared the state Senate last 
month on an 11-9 vote last month but faces an uphill battle in the House, where 
it will be heard in committee next week.

Delaware currently has 15 inmates on death row.

(source: Associated Press)








LOUISIANA:

Mother of convicted murderer pleads for son's life during death penalty 
sentencing



The mother of convicted murderer Lee Turner Jr. cried as she asked jurors to 
spare her son's life in the penalty phase of his double murder trial. The same 
jury convicted Turner, 25 of double murder in the deaths of Edward Gurtner, 43, 
and Randy Chaney, 54, at the CarQuest Auto Parts on Airline Highway in 2011. 
"I'm a mother that's helpless," said Melissa Moss, Turner's mother. "All I can 
do is get him a bible and tell him to read it."

Turner's defense attorneys have said this case was never about guilt or 
innocence, but rather saving their client from the death penalty.

On the stand Turner's mother answered a number of questions pertaining to her 
parenting and whether that might have had any affect on Turner as he developed.

"You want to put my life on trial," she told defense attorney Margaret 
Lagatutta during questioning. "Putting me on trial is not going to help my son, 
but if that is what you want to do, then we can do this."

Moss sobbed loudly during most of her testimony, and at one point the judge 
handling the case asked for a brief recess so she could collect herself.

Moss apologized to the victim's family from the witness stand and testified 
that she loves her son and wants to see his life saved.

"I love my kids. I will fight for every last kid, and I will fight for them 
until the day I die," Moss testified. "I cannot let them kill my baby. I'm here 
because I am begging that they don't kill my child."

Defense attorneys also called other family members including Turner's 
grandmother who also apologized for her grandson's actions and told him that 
she loved him.

Late Thursday the defense called on an expert witness to testify to Turner's 
mental state and how his upbringing could have influenced things.

The prosecution team plans to call its own expert witness to testify to 
Turner's mental state.

Wednesday's testimony was also from several of Turner's family members, all 
describing him as someone they would never imagine in this situation.

Turner's half brother, Demarcus Moss, told jurors after the shooting, his 
family actually thought he had committed the crime, not Turner.

Kedron Powell, Turner's uncle, testified he missed a call from his nephew a few 
days before the murders, and now looking back, he says he feels maybe Turner 
was reaching out for help.

"If I had answered, none of us would be here. I think it's my fault," said 
Powell to the jurors.

Emphasis was placed on how Turner grew up - at times going hungry and growing 
up in different homes with different men his mother was dating.

Both sides hope to have a verdict by the end of this week.

District Court Judge Richard Anderson is presiding over the case.

Once all of the witnesses are heard the judge will turn the penalty phase over 
to the jury and they will decide if Lee Turner should get a life sentence or 
the death penalty.

A death sentence must be unanimous.

(source: WAFB news)








KENTUCKY:

Top prosecutor balks at judge's decision to drop death penalty for 2 charged in 
Lexington slaying



Co-defendants in an upcoming robbery-murder trial will not face the possibility 
of execution after Fayette Circuit Judge Pamela Goodwine granted a defense 
motion to remove the death penalty from the jury's sentencing options.

Trustin B. Jones and Robert Guernsey, scheduled to go on trial June 1, had 
faced the possibility of execution if convicted in the 2013 shooting death of 
Derek Pelphrey, 23.

On Tuesday, Goodwine, who has expressed opposition to the death penalty in 
court, granted a defense request to exclude death from consideration for Jones, 
21, and Guernsey, 34. The ruling was sought by Kim Green, an assistant public 
advocate who represents Jones. Guernsey's attorneys joined Green to seek the 
exclusion for their clients.

Fayette County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson said Wednesday that he 
disagreed with Goodwine's decision "because I think she has put herself, a 
judge, in the position of a jury. Juries are supposed to be the bodies that 
determine the appropriate punishment for an aggravated murder."

Larson said his assistant prosecutors were investigating legal options in 
response to the judge's order.

Last year, Goodwine rejected another defense motion that the death penalty was 
unconstitutional. Earlier this year, Goodwine rejected the argument that 
Guernsey should not face the death penalty because he wasn't the shooter.

When execution is excluded, a jury that convicts on a murder charge would have 
sentencing options of 20 to 50 years in prison, life in prison, or life without 
the possibility of parole for 25 years.

During a hearing last week, Goodwine said she had taken execution off the table 
- as state law allows - in only one other case "because I just did not believe 
the facts of the case would even get to the point where the jury would even 
consider" the death penalty.

The jury in that case acquitted the defendant, Goodwine said.

In January, Goodwine said in open court, "I think the death penalty should not 
be a penalty, ever."

"If I had my druthers, there would be no death penalty in Kentucky," she said, 
but "I will do what the law requires me to do."

Pelphrey, a student at Bluegrass Community and Technical College, apparently 
was targeted because he had been in communication with Guernsey, who thought 
Pelphrey carried a large amount of money. Pelphrey was shot to death as he sat 
in his car on Ridgepoint Road near Spangler Drive, not far from Tates Creek and 
Wilson Downing roads.

Jones admitted to police that he was the shooter and that his "sole purpose in 
going there that night was to rob" Pelphrey, whom he didn't know and hadn't 
met, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Andrea Williams said during last week's 
hearing.

Jones "got all his information from Robert Guernsey and sat outside of BCTC and 
waited for Derek Pelphrey to come out of class. He got the information about 
the car that Derek Pelphrey drove from Robert Guernsey and followed that car."

Guernsey wanted Jones to rob Pelphrey because Guernsey needed money for a car 
payment, Williams said.

A 3rd co-defendant, Desmond Jones, 24, a cousin of Trustin Jones, pleaded 
guilty in April to criminal facilitation to 1st-degree robbery. A murder charge 
against him was dismissed. His recommended sentence was 5 years in prison.

Before he is sentenced June 26, Desmond Jones must testify at the trial of 
Guernsey and Trustin Jones.

Fayette County juries aren't prone to recommending the death penalty, Goodwine 
said last week.

"I've obviously tried heinous, heinous crimes with totally innocent victims - 
rapes, murders, sodomies - and they don't see fit even in those cases to impose 
the death penalty," Goodwine said.

The most recent example was April in the trial of Joel Searcy, who was charged 
with murder in the 2013 death of Donald "Leroy" Cook, 82, of Lexington. Police 
said Searcy assaulted Cook, who later died, and tried to steal Cook's truck.

Had he been convicted of murder, Searcy might have faced the death penalty. But 
after a 3-week trial before Fayette Circuit Judge Thomas Clark, the jury found 
Searcy guilty of 2nd-degree manslaughter and 1st-degree robbery. The jury 
recommended a 10-year sentence for manslaughter and 15 years for robbery, with 
the sentences to be served consecutively, for a total of 25 years.

In her order to exclude execution, Goodwine wrote that she had presided over 
more death-penalty cases than any other judge in Kentucky, according to 
information she received from a judicial program.

Goodwine wrote: "The death penalty is the ultimate punishment and should be 
reserved and sought in cases involving only the most egregious set of facts one 
could possibly imagine."

In a footnote, Goodwine wrote that the last time the death penalty was imposed 
and upheld in Fayette County was in 2000, in the murder and robbery of Lonetta 
White, 73. She was bludgeoned to death, placed in the trunk of her car, driven 
to a field and set on fire. Virginia Caudill and Johnathan Goforth are awaiting 
execution in that case.

There are 33 people under a death sentence in Kentucky. The state has carried 
out 3executions since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976. The last 
time an inmate was put to death was in 2008.

Goodwine said during the hearing last week that even when juries recommend 
execution, the cases continue for years because of numerous appeals.

"There's something to be said for closure. There's something to be said for 
finality, which doesn't happen when a death-penalty conviction is handed down," 
she said. "And for the victim's families ... there is no closure because their 
cases are still going, they're still arguing, they're still challenging ... 
death convictions that have been handed down."

(source: kentucky.com)



ARIZONA:

Superior Court To Hear Arguments On Constitutionality Of Arizona Death Penalty



A Maricopa county Superior Court judge will hear arguments Friday challenging 
Arizona's death penalty. Attorneys argue the law is unconstitutionally 
arbitrary.

Under state statutes, there are 14 aggravating factors listed for applying 
capital punishment. The prosecution can seek the death penalty if it can allege 
at least 1 of those factors in the case.

Opponents say the law is too broad and allows prosecutors to apply capital 
punishment to every 1st-degree case.

Attorneys for 41-year-old Macario Lopez will argue the constitutionality of the 
law. Lopez was charged with killing his girlfriend in 2009. The prosecutor 
filed to seek the death penalty motion. More than 25 other defendants have 
joined the challenge to have the death penalty option removed from their cases 
as well.

(source: KJZZ news)








CALIFORNIA:

Livermore Man Charged in Double Murder, Could Face Death Penalty----The suspect 
has been charged with special circumstances in the commission of the murders.



A Livermore man has been charged with 2 counts of murder with special 
circumstances for the shooting deaths in March of 2 men that resulted from an 
illegal gun sale, police and prosecutors said today.

James Wear, 28, was arrested on a probation violation at about 9 p.m. on March 
1, roughly 4 1/2 hours after 2 men were shot on Altamont Creek Drive near 
Winding Stream Drive in Livermore.

Livermore resident Ryan Rossknecht, 22, was pronounced dead at the scene and 
Brandon Lowell, a 29-year-old Manteca resident who formerly lived in Livermore, 
died a short time later at a hospital.

Wear, a food server who has a prior conviction for grand theft, was held on the 
probation violation until Tuesday, when prosecutors filed the murder charges 
against him after what Livermore police described as "a thorough and complete 
investigation."

He's being held without bail and was arraigned this morning in Alameda County 
Superior Court in Pleasanton.

In addition to 2 counts of murder and the special circumstance of committing 
multiple murders, the Alameda County District Attorney's Office charged Wear 
with being a felon in possession of a gun and possession of heroin for sale, as 
police said he was in possession of more than 2 ounces of tar heroin when he 
was arrested.

He could face life in prison without the possibility of parole or the death 
sentence if he's convicted.

At the time of the shooting, Livermore police said Rossknecht and Lowell were 
killed in an apparent dispute over contraband.

Detective Glen Robbins wrote in a probable cause statement that Wear told 
police Lowell wanted to buy a gun from Rossknecht but during the transaction 
the 2 men got into an argument and he saw Rossknecht shoot Lowell before Lowell 
managed to wrestle the gun away and shoot Rossknecht.

But Robbins said Wear's statement "was not consistent" with information police 
got from his father, Gregory Wear, and evidence that was located at the scene.

Wear sped away from the shooting scene when witnesses confronted him and showed 
up a short time later at his father???s house in Stockton with bloody shoes, 
according to Robbins.

Wear told his father that he had shot a man in Livermore after the man had shot 
his friend, Robbins said.

Wear then left his father's house and officers who "pinged" his cellphone found 
him in the area of Bluebell Drive and Sunflower Court in Livermore, according 
to Robbins.

Wear resisted arrest but was apprehended by 4 officers after a police dog bit 
him, the detective said.

Robbins said he believes Wear is responsible for the deaths of Rossknecht and 
Lowell based on his investigation, Wear's actions, witness statements, forensic 
analysis, ballistic evidence, digital evidence, video surveillance and evidence 
at the scene.

(source: Patch.com)








USA:

Bernie Sanders on the death penalty: The state shouldn???t be in the business 
of killing people



Not since 1988 has a presidential candidate for a major political party 
declared themselves opposed to the death penalty. In announcing his run for the 
presidency, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has thrown down his gauntlet. During an 
appearance on "The Thom Hartmann Show" on May 1, a caller asked Sanders if he 
would end executions of the mentally ill. Sanders replied that he opposes all 
executions, offering a moral explanation for his position.

CALLER: Execution of the mentally ill, I think [...] I'd be more inclined to 
vote for you if you were to sign an executive order to stop or make a stay on 
executions of the mentally ill. I think the right wing is actually using that 
subliminally so that we be afraid of them. [...]

SANDERS: Let me just give you an answer that I suspect not everybody will agree 
with. I am against capital punishment in general. I understand, and certainly 
for people who are mentally incapacitated who don't know what they're doing or 
what's happening to them - I think people have been executed who were not even 
aware of what was going on, and that's not something that a civilized nation 
should be engaged in. But in general, this is what I think. Look, there are 
people who commit horrendous, horrendous, horrendous crimes: we all know that. 
And we are furious at them, we can't understand their barbarity. But I think, 
as with so much violence in this world today, I just don't think the state 
itself, whether it's the state government or federal government, should be in 
the business of killing people. So when you have people who have done terrible, 
terrible things they're gonna spend the rest of their lives in jail, and that's 
a pretty harsh punishment. But I'm against capital punishment.

Recall that former Secretary Clinton is a lifelong advocate of capital 
punishment.

(source: rawstory.com)

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

What Justices Alito and Scalia overlooked on the death penalty



Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a death penalty case, 
Glossip v. Gross, challenging the use of midazolam - a drug intended to induce 
an anesthetic and unresponsive state - in executions. The court must consider 
whether midazolam's use violates the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and 
unusual punishment, and specifically whether there is an intolerable risk that 
the drug, which has been tied to at least 3 botched executions, will cause 
gratuitous suffering.

Doctors have referred to the use of midazolam as "a failed experiment." Sen. 
John McCain (R-Ariz.) labeled a botched execution in Arizona "torture." And 
Justice Elena Kagan observed during oral arguments that regaining consciousness 
during an execution by lethal injection is "like being burned alive."

Instead of focusing narrowly on the risk of gratuitous suffering, however, 
Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. turned their attention to why 
Oklahoma employs midazolam. In much the same way that the American Medical 
Association and the American College of Physicians counsel doctors to refuse to 
participate in executions, pharmaceutical companies have ceased supplying 
states with lethal-injection drugs. Midazolam became the drug du jour when it 
proved to be the only one that states such as Oklahoma could get their hands 
on. Scalia placed the blame for this shortage on the death penalty 
"abolitionist movement.

Alito was more specific, stating that if the court was to prohibit the use of 
midazolam in lethal injection, the court's decision could be interpreted as 
rewarding or condoning the methods used by death penalty abolitionists: "Is it 
appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerrilla war 
against the death penalty, which consists of efforts to make it impossible for 
the states to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out capital punishment 
with little, if any, pain?" Justice Anthony M. Kennedy jumped into the fray, as 
well: "What bearing, if any, should we put on the fact that there is a method 
but that it's not available because of opposition to the death penalty? What 
relevance does that have?"

To answer the question: The fact that some pharmaceutical companies do not want 
to sell execution drugs to state corrections departments tells us nothing about 
whether midazolam presents an intolerable risk that petitioner Richard Glossip 
will endure gratuitous suffering if the drug is used to render him unconscious.

It almost sounded as though Scalia and Alito want to apply the doctrine known 
as "forfeiture by wrongdoing," which prohibits a defendant from benefiting when 
he creates the circumstances that deprive him of a constitutional right. (For 
example, a defendant who kills a witness who was set to testify against him 
cannot complain that the absence of the witness at trial violates his Sixth 
Amendment right to confrontation.) But that doctrine makes no sense in this 
context because it requires intentional wrongdoing.

It is laughably simplistic to conclude that some loosely defined group of 
"death penalty abolitionists" coerced billion-dollar, multinational 
pharmaceutical corporations into doing anything not in their self-interest. A 
much more likely scenario is that some companies believed that enough of the 
people who buy drugs from them would be so offended by their facilitation of 
executions that they would be lost as customers. That's not wrongdoing; it's 
free-market economics.

Or perhaps some companies were convinced by the moral argument that their drugs 
should be used to extend, not end, life. Much as when corporations were 
persuaded to divest from South Africa during apartheid, it would be a tribute 
to the integrity of our democracy if a relatively powerless and moneyless group 
of citizens could use the moral force of an argument to obtain a specific 
outcome.

But even if you accept the premise that "death penalty abolitionists" convinced 
Big Pharma to stop selling lethal-injection drugs, it doesn't change the fact 
that Glossip is not an activist member of the death penalty "abolitionist 
movement," nor did he directly or indirectly lobby pharmaceutical companies to 
stop selling lethal-injection drugs. As a condemned prisoner, he lives in 
nearly complete isolation on Oklahoma's death row. He did not waive, and the 
court should not ignore, his right to be free from gratuitous suffering based 
on the activities of some unnamed political activists whom he presumably 
doesn't even know.

Thus, while the political circumstances prompting Oklahoma's use of midazolam 
may personally trouble Alito and Scalia, in the end they have no bearing on the 
only question before the court: Will the justices tolerate the risk of pain and 
suffering that experimenting with midazolam presents?

Last year, in Oklahoma, Clayton Lockett regained consciousness during the 
execution despite being injected with midazolam. He struggled, moaned and 
gasped for air and died 43 minutes after receiving the injection. In Ohio, 
Dennis McGuire struggled to free himself from restraints as he coughed and 
choked for roughly 10 minutes. In Arizona, Joseph Wood gasped for air 600 times 
in the nearly 2 hours before he died. On the question of acceptable risk, the 
gruesome details of the3 most recent botched executions speak for themselves.

(source: Opinion; Robert J. Smith and Charles J. Ogletree Jr. are professors at 
the University of North Carolina and Harvard law schools, 
respectively----Washington Post)

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

The death penalty is a gamble that we are not willing to take



The following piece, written by the editorial editors, reflects the majority 
opinion of the editorial board.

On January 16, 2014, using the 2-drug cocktail of midazolam and hydromorphone, 
Ohio executed Dennis McGuire, who appeared to writhe in pain for 26 minutes 
during what should have been a 10-minute sedated execution - the longest in 
Ohio's history.

Nearly 7 months later, on July 23, it took Arizona inmate Joseph Wood nearly 2 
hours to die. Officials had to pump Wood with the same 2-drug combination 15 
times before he finally expired.

The recent spell of botched executions is just one of the many facets to the 
controversial issue of capital punishment in the United States that stems from 
human error.

On November 1, 2014, inmates Riley Jackson and Wiley Bridgeman were officially 
exonerated of their crimes and released after Eddie Vernon, the key witness in 
their jury trial, recanted his damning testimony. Each spent 39 years behind 
bars - many of which were on death row - on a wrongful conviction.

In response to the botched lethal injections and wrongful convictions, Ohioans 
to Stop Executions (OTSE) has enacted a Fix It or End It campaign and Ohio 
Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) is leading a charge to turn 56 
recommendations to improve the fairness of Ohio's death penalty system into 
law.

This is laudable, but not enough.

If the issues were completely fixed, if there were no human error and there 
existed an omniscient power that could tell right from wrong, the death penalty 
would still be inhumane.

It has long been harkened that the only criminals put to death should be the 
worst of the worst, but how can you tell who the worst of the worst are without 
blanket covering an entire crime? There are too many shades of grey - too many 
"what ifs?"

What if someone is innocent? This is not a gamble that states should be willing 
to take. Death is too finite. It is better to release an inmate after 39 years 
in prison than it is to kill a guiltless man.

Opponents of the death penalty sometimes ignore or look over the fact that the 
majority of death row inmates have committed heinous crimes, but the depravity 
of the act a criminal is facing punishment for is irrelevant.

This begs the question: if the death penalty were not the highest form of 
punishment available, would the jury feel more inclined to dish out life 
without parole?

Because of their innate humanness, inmates have a right to live. The act of 
killing a person for having killed another is counterintuitive, a vicious cycle 
- it only serves to continue the crime that they started.

The United States perceives itself across the board as the moral authority and 
the policeman of the world; however, after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, 
we are the 5th leading country in the world for number of executions - far 
ahead of Sudan, Yemen, Egypt and Somalia.

The worst punishment by far should be life in prison without the opportunity of 
parole; however, what about the prisons that aren't so bad - the white collar 
prisons with tennis courts and flat screen TVs? Is life in prison in the United 
States truly a form of punishment?

The point of a prison is not to make a person suffer, no matter how much they 
may deserve it. The point of a prison is to remove a dangerous person from 
society, and if states have the means of doing so in a humane way, then they 
should.

The surrest and simplest way to make sure that the human error invovled in 
every component of the death penalty process is avoided is simply to end it.

(source: Editorial Board, The Miami Student)

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

An execution warrant for the death penalty



April 29, exactly 1 year after Oklahoma's infamously botched execution of 
Clayton Lockett, the Supreme Court heard Glossip v. Gross, involving three 
Oklahomans on death row whose counsel argued the constitutionality of the drug 
cocktail used in lethal injections. 7 years ago, in Baze v. Rees, the Court 
held the 3-drug combination did not constitute cruel or unusual punishment. 
However, as pharmaceuticals have become scarce, states' experimentation with 
drug combinations and apparent failure of the initial sedative to induce coma 
while the 2nd and tertiary drugs stop the heart, have led to botched executions 
in several states, including Ohio. While the Court decides whether this 
specific method is cruel or unusual by the Eighth Amendment, there is no 
discussion of the constitutionality of capital punishment itself. This quagmire 
highlights, once again, that there is no right way to do a wrong thing.

The Eighth Amendment reads, "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor 
excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." There is 
no more excessive fine than death. Even if unrepentantly evil, life is the 
absolute most a capital offender can give. Further, the death penalty is 
undeniably cruel. It is the only irreversible punishment handed down by our 
government. In 1958, the Supreme Court forbade punishment by revoking a 
natural-born citizen's citizenship. So, even convicted capital offenders are 
U.S. citizens and, as such, should have a right to the possibility of 
exoneration until their natural death. Surely, the fundamental right to a fair 
trial implies the right to a possible retrial, whenever it may (or may not) 
come. Frequent death row exonerations validate the importance of this right.

Because this right is inalienable, a person, no matter how reprehensible, 
should not be executed for a capital crime because it arbitrarily occurred in a 
certain state (or, as is often the case, a specific county within that state). 
The 14th Amendment, guaranteeing equal protection under the law and the 
backbone of Brown v. Board of Education and Roe v. Wade, surely applies to such 
criminals. As it seems unlikely Washington D.C. and the other 18 states that 
have abolished the death penalty will anytime soon resume executing prisoners, 
equal protection demands capital punishment's abolishment in the remaining 32 
states. Public opposition is growing. Indeed, a month ago, The Boston Globe 
called on the federal government to spare Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the death penalty - 
the man who, with his brother, brought that city to its knees.

True, the framers of the U.S. Constitution did not intend the language of the 
Eighth Amendment to forbid capital punishment. In fact, the 5th Amendment 
intimates the validity of capital punishment if by due process of the law. But, 
the framers also included no language forbidding slavery (enter, the 14th 
Amendment). In 1958, former Justice Earl Warren said, "The [8th] Amendment must 
draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress 
of a maturing society." 14 years later, responding to the Court's ordering a 
national overhaul of the death penalty, then-Justice Thurgood Marshall opined, 
"In recognizing the humanity of our fellow beings, we pay ourselves the highest 
tribute. We achieve 'a major milestone in the long road up from barbarism' and 
join the approximately 70 other jurisdictions in the world which celebrate 
their regard for civilization and humanity by shunning capital punishment."

Between 2007 and 2012, China, Iran, North Korea, the U.S. and Yemen executed 
the most prisoners. The United States is the only G7 country that uses the 
death penalty. Only 18 % of all nations retain the death penalty in law and 
practice. Belarus is the only European nation that does so. April 29, Hungary 
called upon the European Union to debate reintroduction of the death penalty, 
the abolishment of which is necessary for EU membership. According to the BBC, 
"The Council of Europe said the return of the death penalty would be 'contrary 
to the values that Europe stands for.'" Also on the 29th, Australia, which 
abolished the death penalty in 1967, expressed outrage and removed its 
ambassador from Jakarta after Indonesia executed 2 Australians convicted of 
drug smuggling. Excluding Saint Kitts and Nevis (population: 56,000), the U.S. 
is the only country in the Americas that carries out capital punishment.

Society is maturing, but it is not being led by the U.S. So often, the 
arrogance of isolation and abundance makes U.S. citizens believe beyond the 
shadow of a doubt the U.S. leads the world in every conceivable dimension. This 
blind egoism allows our culture to "rot," as diagnosed but not understood by 
Justice Antonin Scalia, who uses the rot-versus-mature argument to justify his 
originalist stance (specifically, to reject interpretation of the word 
"unusual" in the 8th Amendment). However, if we consider the sinister company 
we keep as one of the few global executioners and the tide of death penalty 
abolishment sweeping the globe, we must realize society has matured and left us 
behind, our hands bloodied with botched executions and a system that, by 
design, makes mistakes.

And, conservative friends, sometimes wont to call for an eye for an eye, let us 
remember what Jesus Christ said immediately after sparing a capital criminal 
her death sentence: "Let whoever is without sin cast the 1st stone."

Chris Curme

(source: Opinion; The Miami Student)