[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, FLA., MISS., KY., ARK., USA

[Rick Halperin]

November 9




TEXAS:

Texas AG fights Harris County prosecutors to keep Bobby Moore on death row
----Prosecutors and defense lawyers agree that Bobby Moore is too 
intellectually disabled to execute - but the state of Texas wants him put to 
death anyway.


A day after Harris County prosecutors made the rare move of siding with a death 
row inmate in a Supreme Court filing, the Texas Office of the Attorney General 
took the possibly unprecedented step of asking to take on the case and keep 
pushing for the death chamber.

"The DA, who represents just 1 of Texas's 254 counties, does not represent the 
Attorney General's interest," the state's top prosecutor wrote, claiming that 
the district attorney offered "no analysis" beyond "2 conclusory sentences" in 
her filing a day earlier.

The state's 17-page brief represents yet another twist in a groundbreaking case 
that's already shaken up how Texas determines whether a prisoner is too 
intellectually disabled to be put to death.

Lawyers for Moore, an attorney general spokesperson and the district attorney's 
office all did not weigh in on Wednesday's filing. A day earlier, Harris County 
District Attorney Kim Ogg offered a short statement pointing to an earlier 
Supreme Court decision in the case.

"We agree with the Supreme Court that the intellectually disabled should not be 
executed," she said.

The convicted killer was 1 of 3 men involved in a botched robbery at the 
Birdsall Super Market, a 1980 slaying in which he fired the shot that killed 
elderly store clerk James McCarble. That same year, the former carpenter was 
sentenced to death during his 1980 trial.

For more than 3 decades, Moore fought his appeals, once coming within hours of 
execution. Then, in 2017, the Supreme Court handed down a groundbreaking 
decision, in a 5-3 ruling determining that Texas had been, for years, not 
properly measuring intellectual disability in cases like Moore's. The ruling 
booted Moore's claims back to a lower court, where prosecutors switched course 
and asked for a life sentence.

But - even though the district attorney's office agreed to the more lenient 
outcome - the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals didn't, handing down a split 
decision Moore's lawyers condemned as an "outlier" and "inconsistent" with the 
higher court.

Last month, Moore's legal team appealed that ruling up to the Supreme Court 
again, asking the justices to yet again examine the state's standards for 
intellectual disability, but also asking the high court to consider whether an 
execution should count as unconstitutional if both sides agree that it is.

"As far as counsel is aware, this Court never has permitted an execution when 
both the prosecutor and the defendant agree that the defendant is 
intellectually disabled and ineligible for execution," defense attorney Cliff 
Sloan and Pat McCann wrote in their Supreme Court filing. "For good reason."

Although the Supreme Court banned states from executing intellectually disabled 
prisoners more than a decade ago, for years Texas skirted that by relying on an 
out-dated, nonclinical test to evaluate mental capacity.

Named after plaintiff Jose Briseno, the test used seven questions to determine 
intellectual disability, as outlined in a 2004 ruling that famously referenced 
"Of Mice and Men" character Lennie as someone most Texans would agree should be 
exempt from the death penalty.

But even though he failed every single grade, did not understand the days of 
the week by age 13, and fell below the standard for being able to live 
independently as an adult, under the old standard Moore still didn't qualify as 
intellectually disabled.

The Court of Criminal Appeals twice decided that despite his apparent deficits, 
he was still fit to execute. Then last year the Supreme Court reversed the 
first of those two decisions with its groundbreaking 5-3 ruling.

The high court's 2017 ruling didn't just impact Moore's case, it also ordered 
Texas to come up with new standards - something other than the Briseno factors 
- for determining intellectual disability.

The ruling sparked a stream of requests from inmates hoping to get off death 
row, and 2 condemned killers won stays this year because of the decision.

But even the Supreme Court's decision hasn't been enough to spare Moore - at 
least not yet. After the high court's decision last year, prosecutors in 
November 2017 agreed with the defense that a life sentence was appropriate.

And still, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said no. Even though the appeals 
court came up with a new, clinical standard for measuring intellectual 
disability, they still found that Moore didn't meet it.

So in October, Moore's lawyers filed another appeal in the Supreme Court. On 
Tuesday, the district attorney's office agreed.

"The respondent parts company with the TCCA in its determination that the 
applicant is not intellectually disabled," the district attorney's office 
wrote. Citing the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the prosecutors laid out 
some of the indicators of Moore's disability, and concluded by asking the 
justices to reverse the Texas appeals court's decision.

In its unusual response a day later, the attorney general asked to replace the 
district attorney on the case and accused the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 
of taking on the role of the legislature when it adopted updated, clinical 
standards for determining mental capacity earlier this year.

The state also dinged the county prosecutors for changing their stance on the 
case.

"For one thing, the DA's concession was an abrupt reversal of her office's 
longstanding position that the same evidentiary record demonstrated that 
petitioner is not intellectually disabled," the state argued.

And, the attorney general wrote, the court requires arguments from 2 sides in 
death penalty cases. But when prosecutors agree with the defense, they're not 
really offering true opposition, the state said.

"Petitioner's arguments outlined above should be fully addressed by a true 
brief in opposition before the Court considers the extraordinary remedy of 
summary reversal," the attorney general wrote. "If allowed to intervene, the 
Attorney General will perform that important function for the Court."

(source: Houston Chronicle)





FLORIDA:

Supreme Court vacates death penalty for St. Lucie County cop killer----Gary 
Morales was shot and killed during a traffic stop in 2013.


A man sent to death row for the murder of St. Lucie County Deputy Sgt. Gary 
Morales will be re-sentenced.

The Supreme Court of Florida vacated the death sentence of Eriese Alphonso 
Tisdale on Thursday.

The court wrote in its opinion, "we vacate his death sentence because we cannot 
conclude that the Hurst error in his case was harmless beyond a reasonable 
doubt."

In 2015, a jury convicted Tisdale of killing Sgt. Morales during a traffic stop 
in 2013. 9 of the 12 jurors recommended death for Tisdale.

The judge then handed down the death penalty in April 2016.

However, Florida law changed in January 2016 when the United States Supreme 
Court ruled 'Florida's sentencing scheme' unconstitutional, according to the 
2018 Opinion from the Florida Supreme Court.

Prior to the ruling, a judge could impose a death sentence with a 
recommendation by at least 7 jurors.

After the Supreme Court ruling, the new law required a recommendation of death 
by at least 10 jurors.

The court reaffirmed Tisdale's convictions, and sentences on all the lesser 
charges and ordered a new penalty phase of trial.

The St. Lucie County Clerk's Office says a re-sentencing date has not been set.

(source: CBS News)

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


Unanimous jury sets high bar for death penalty cases


Getting a mandatory unanimous jury death sentence is difficult because jurors 
are being asked to do something that judges should be doing, State Attorney 
Brad King says.

“I’ve always believed that it is not the appropriate question to ask someone,” 
King said of verdicts that call for death or life in prison. “That’s why we 
elect judges.”

The U.S. Supreme Court, which overturned Florida’s old death penalty law, has 
taken the opposite view.

In the past, juries voted on a sentence recommendation and the judge would make 
the final decision. He or she could even reject the jury’s recommendation. The 
closer the vote was to a unanimous death recommendation, the more likely a 
defendant would be sentenced to die.

Judges know the law and they are aware of other cases across the state and how 
they are being handled, King said. Likewise, the Florida Supreme Court reviews 
cases to see if a sentence is unusually harsh.

“For jurors, this is the only case they have ever seen,” King said.

And it is the most troubling decision they will ever have to make.

King says jurors should be asked if the state proved its list of statutory 
aggravating circumstances required for a death sentence and if there are 
offsetting mitigating circumstances.

Defense attorneys, of course, favor the requirement for a 12-0 vote.

“It should be hard,” said Public Defender Mike Graves.

Graves’ public defenders still have their work cut out for them. They must 
bring in all kinds of trial doctors and mental health experts at great expense. 
Otherwise, they risk having a high court rule that they provided inadequate 
counsel and make them try the case all over again.

This week’s death penalty rehearing for Raul Roque, who killed another prison 
inmate, cost at least $200,000 for defense experts alone, according to John 
Spivey, Graves’ executive assistant public defender. The jury didn’t even 
record its vote when it decided to give Roque another life sentence.

The U.S. Supreme Court opposes state death penalty laws if it thinks the laws 
are “arbitrary and capricious,” King said. But where else in society do we 
require 12 people to agree on anything, other than a guilty or not-guilty 
verdict?

Appellate courts don’t have to be unanimous, he said. They can overturn or 
uphold a death sentence with a 1-vote margin.

To make matters worse, King said he knows of at least 3 cases where jurors have 
lied in jury selection about being willing and able to consider a death 
sentence. “They have gotten in there and said, ‘I don’t care. I’m not going to 
do it, no matter what. Let’s go home.’”

There’s no repercussion either. “If a judge does that, people can vote him out 
of office,” King said.

Despite the difficulty, King’s Assistant State Attorney Rich Buxman recently 
scored 2 death sentences in Orange County, though a judge rejected the jury’s 
decision in 1 case.

“It involved the death of a 3-month-old baby by a dad who basically stomped on 
the baby’s head,” King said. Jurors heard the 911 tape of the man calling for 
an ambulance while the baby is dying in the background.

“I really thought the jury was going to come out of the jury box to get their 
hands on him,” King said.

The judge looked at the man’s borderline IQ and made the decision that death 
was not the appropriate decision.

Though King said he disagreed with the ruling, at least it was a judge who made 
the decision.

King has always been a proponent of the death penalty under the proper 
circumstances.

“To me, if there is no death penalty, the value of that person whose life was 
taken is less than the defendant’s. That’s not fair to me.”

Court rulings and even public opinion seems to have shifted in the other 
direction.

People talk about “smart justice” now, King says, and how prisons are too full 
and perhaps we should let some people out since the crime rate is low.

“The reason the crime rate is low is because they’re in prison,” he said. “To 
me, this is backward thinking.”

He remembers a time when Florida prisoners were let out after serving only 17 % 
of their sentence. Then, there was an outcry from crime victims and the law was 
changed requiring that they serve 85 %.

Will the idea of a death penalty gain popularity again?

“I don’t know that I’ll see it in the time I have left in public service,” King 
said.

It would probably take a horrific crime and the public demanding to know why 
something more isn’t being done, he said.

In the meantime, it only takes 1 juror to say no. That was the case this spring 
in the case of David Mariotti, who killed 84-year-old Bernadine Montgomery in 
her Leesburg home and dumped her body in the Ocala National Forest.

Next year, Lake County has more death penalty cases for jurors to consider, 
including 2 young men who killed a retired teacher in her home and the father 
of a baby who said he killed his daughter because his wife wanted a divorce.

(source: Daily Commercial)




MISSISSIPPI:

Why would inmate risk execution? He says he would rather prove innocence and 
'die fighting.'


Jeffrey Havard became angry when he was removed from Mississippi’s death row in 
September, nearly 16 years after he entered.

His initial reaction to the court tossing out his death sentence was “worse 
than doing nothing at all,” Havard said in an interview inside the Adams County 
Jail. “I would rather die, taking my chances on death row and go down being 
executed, fighting for my innocence, than to just be thrown into prison, life 
without parole, and waste away.”

His lawyers plan to appeal the judge’s decision to the state Supreme Court, 
opening the door for justices to reimpose the death penalty.

So why would anyone risk that?

“All I want to do is to be able to tell the jury my story,” Havard said. “I 
haven’t gotten a chance to do that.”

She noticed that Chloe wasn't breathing

It was the night of Feb. 21, 2002, and 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt was 
crying.

Her mother, Rebecca, was gone, buying something from the store.

Havard said he thought Chloe had soiled her diaper, discovering instead she had 
spit up.

He decided to give her a bath, and after she was done, he pulled her out.

As he reached for a towel, she was wiggling and fell from his grasp, hitting 
the toilet, he said.

He returned her to his arms, gave her a little shake and spoke to her, he said. 
“Chloe, are you OK?”

She started crying, he said. “I held her in my arms and made sure she was OK. I 
dried her off, and she quit crying. I thought she was OK.”
Chloe Madison Britt, 6 months old, died on Feb. 21, 2002.

When Rebecca returned minutes later, she checked on Chloe, he said. “That eased 
my mind, and I didn’t say anything.”

He said he gave Rebecca money to rent a movie for them to watch.

When she returned, she noticed that Chloe wasn’t breathing and began to scream, 
starting CPR on her daughter.

Havard, who was in the bathroom, said Rebecca yelled out for him to go to his 
grandparents down the road.

He said he replied, “No, let’s get in the car and go to the hospital.”

At Natchez Community Hospital’s emergency room, medical personnel scrambled to 
revive Chloe, who wasn’t breathing and had no pulse.

At 10:04 p.m., they got their first ray of hope. Chloe’s blue skin began to 
turn pink.

They could see bruises on her forehead and the front of her thighs. A nurse 
removed her diaper to take her temperature and said, "Look at this."

They noticed the baby's rectum was dilated and called police.

Not long after, they lost her pulse. Her face swelled; so did her brain. By 
10:50 p.m., doctors declared her dead.

'You're going to be executed for this'

By the time that declaration took place, Havard was already in the back of a 
squad car.

At about 3 a.m., deputies led him from the jail to the interrogation room.

It was here, for the first time, that he learned Chloe was dead.

“And before I can even react, (the deputy) said, ‘And she’s been raped,’” he 
recalled.

The news stunned Havard.

“Son,” he said the deputy told him, “she’s been ripped from end to end. You 
tell us right f---ing now what you did to her, and maybe that will keep the 
needle out of your arm up there in Parchman. You’re going to be executed for 
this.”

The words shocked Havard.

“That scared the hell out of me,” he recalled. “I was scared to say I dropped 
her at that point.”

The next day, a hospital conducted a DNA test on him, hoping to link him to the 
sexual assault.

When he returned to the jail, authorities handed him with papers that explained 
his arrest.

He said his head spun as he read the words, accusing him of sexual battery and 
shaking Chloe to death.

Authorities continue to say Jeffrey Havard is guilty of a heinous homicide, but 
he maintains he accidentally dropped 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt.

When he saw the words “subdural hemorrhage,” he said he realized that 
accidentally dropping her on the head may have caused her death.

He shared his story with deputies, who pressed him repeatedly on the 
allegations of rape.

He said he wanted to be helpful and tried to think of what might explain this, 
but they continued to believe he had sexually assaulted Chloe.

“It was the perfect storm,” he recalled. “It still is.”
'Absolute low point of evil and human depravity'

In December 2002, Havard went on trial for capital murder.

A parade of witnesses — doctors, nurses, the sheriff and others — described an 
anal dilation the size of a quarter, along with tears, rips, lacerations and 
bleeding they said they saw in the child’s anal area.

Then-state pathologist Dr. Steven Hayne told jurors that Havard had shaken the 
baby to death, comparing the injuries to those seen in car crashes and falls 
from significant heights.

No defense experts testified because Judge Johnson wouldn’t permit their 
hiring.

He told defense lawyers they could question Hayne about the death. They didn’t 
bother.

Jurors never heard from Havard, either, because his court-appointed lawyers 
advised him not to testify.

After 40 minutes of deliberation, jurors convicted Havard, who professed his 
innocence when he was sentenced, and recommended the death penalty.

Circuit Judge Forrest Johnson told him, “Just when you think that you have seen 
everything and that you have seen or heard of the absolute low point of evil 
and human depravity, someone like you comes along and shows us a new low in 
human behavior."

Havard received a sentence of death by lethal injection.
Scientists discredit shaken baby syndrome

In the years that followed the trial, scientists have discredited shaken baby 
syndrome.

In 2001, Minnesota pathologist Dr. John Plunkett conducted a groundbreaking 
study, examining Consumer Product Safety Commission reports involving falls 
from playground equipment. He concluded short-distance falls are capable of 
producing the triad of symptoms previously identified as shaken baby syndrome.

"It's clear that low velocity, even a 2- or 3-foot fall can cause serious and 
fatal brain injury," he told The Clarion-Ledger. "If people had paid attention 
to the science, it would not have been a mystery."

The Clarion Ledger questioned Hayne about the changing science. He backed off 
his shaken baby conclusion, acknowledging the injuries could have come from a 
short fall.

He cited a 1979 study measuring the falls of children. "You can generate 
tremendous G forces in a short distance when you hit a very hard surface," he 
said.

Sexual assault was the underlying felony charge against Havard that enabled 
authorities to pursue the death penalty against him.

Authorities believed sexual assault because of the anal dilation, but a 1996 
study found anal dilation was common among children who died, especially those 
who suffered brain damage.

Hayne told the Clarion Ledger that he informed prosecutors he didn’t see any 
evidence of sexual assault.

A rape kit found no semen or foreign DNA, and he examined those sections under 
a microscope.

His conclusion? There were no tears, rips or similar injuries to the child’s 
rectum, he said. “I would think that would be a definitive evaluation.”

In 2015, the state Supreme Court ordered a new hearing for Havard, citing the 
shifting science on shaken baby syndrome, but justices wouldn’t allow the judge 
to consider evidence that no sexual assault took place.
Havard vows to keep fighting: 'The truth is the truth'

At that August 2017 hearing, Hayne and four other experts concluded that Chloe 
did not die of shaken baby syndrome.

Hayne and another prosecution expert still believed her death was a homicide.

Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City said he believes the 
injuries of 6-month-old Chloe Madison Britt are consistent with a fall.

Renowned pathologist Dr. Michael Baden of New York City disputed that 
conclusion, saying the baby’s injuries were consistent with the fall Havard 
described. “With short falls,” he said, “you can have fatal injuries.”

After 3 days of testimony and hundreds of pages of briefs, Judge Johnson wrote 
an order that took up less than 5 pages.

Despite the new evidence on shaken baby syndrome, Johnson concluded that Havard 
was just as guilty, citing the testimony of Hayne and Dr. Scott Benton, chief 
of the division of forensic medicine at the University of Mississippi’s Medical 
Center.

But the judge tossed out the death sentence, concluding that while the evidence 
was “not sufficient to undermine this Court’s confidence in the conviction, 
there is a cautious disturbance in confidence of the sentence of death, even if 
slight.”

That conclusion baffled Havard. “If I’m just as guilty as I was before, what 
disturbs my death sentence?” he asked.

And if there is indeed doubt, he asked, wouldn’t that affect his conviction?

His resentencing is set for Nov. 19, where he is expected to receive a life 
without parole sentence. (District Attorney Ronnie Harper told the judge that 
his office won't seek the death penalty.)

Havard's appeal of the judge's order, however, opens the door for him to 
possibly receive the death penalty.

For 16 years now, he said he has felt like he was underwater.

Since 2012, he feels he has been rising up in that water, more and more 
evidence reflecting his innocence, he said. “Now I’m within an inch or two of 
the surface.”

But instead of breaking through, the judge’s order has blocked his way, he 
said.

He vows to keep fighting. “If it takes a week, if it takes 10 months, if it 
takes 10 years, the truth is the truth,” he said. “I want the truth to come 
out.”

(source: clarionledger.com)





KENTUCKY:

New Attorney to Prosecute Madden Death Penalty Case


This week’s election has produced a shakeup in a capital murder case in south 
central Kentucky.

Nearly 3 years after a young Allen County girl was brutally murdered, a new 
prosecutor is joining the case.

Clint Willis, the commonwealth’s attorney for Allen and Simpson counties, was 
defeated in Tuesday’s election by Franklin lawyer Corey Morgan.

Willis built the case against Timothy Madden after he was charged in the 
November 14, 2015 death of 7-year-old Gabbi Doolin.

Morgan has past experience as the assistant county attorney in Barren County. 
He currently specializes in criminal defense and says that could be 
advantageous in prosecuting the Madden case.

"I think that will help me a lot, not just this case, but all all my cases 
because I have, in fact, defended a lot of cases in the past that are high 
profile," Morgan told WKU Public Radio.

However, this is Morgan’s 1st death penalty case.

The Madden case has faced multiple delays in going to trial over the past three 
years, but Morgan says he has every intention to get the case before a jury 
next fall.  The trial is currently is set for September 4, 2019.

A call placed to Willis was not returned. Morgan will be sworn into office on 
December 31.

(source: WKYU news)





ARKANSAS:

Death penalty reversed in Pine Bluff killing for ineffective defense


The Arkansas Supreme Court today reversed the death penalty given Kenneth Reams 
by a Jefferson County jury in the 1993 shooting death of Gary Turner during a 
robbery at an ATM machine. The court said Reams had ineffective counsel during 
the penalty phase of the trial.

The decision was 5-2, with Justices Rhonda Wood and Shawn Womack dissenting. 
Justice Jo Hart concurred with the majority in .

A co-defendant in the case, Alford Goodwin, was convicted and sentenced to life 
in prison before Reams went to trial. Reams' attorney failed to get Goodwin's 
testimony in support of Reams' defense that Goodwin shot Turner, not Reams.

The Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's finding in the appeal by Reams for 
post-conviction relief. From the opinion:

     Throughout the trial, trial counsel’s theory was that Goodwin had shot and 
killed Turner. Despite this defense theory, trial counsel testified at the Rule 
37 hearing that he could not talk to Goodwin because Goodwin was represented by 
counsel. Trial counsel testified that he did not recall whether he had 
approached counsel for Goodwin but that he did not have a good working 
relationship with Goodwin’s counsel. Trial counsel further testified that “[he 
didn’t] know when [Goodwin] pled in relation to [Reams’s] trial.”

     Based on the above testimony and in light of the defense’s theory that 
Goodwin shot Turner, there is no strategic reason not to at least investigate 
and attempt to present Goodwin at trial to corroborate Reams’s defense that he 
was not the shooter. Accordingly, we hold that trial counsel’s failure to at 
least attempt to present Goodwin’s testimony during the penalty phase of trial 
constitutes deficient performance.

The case was returned to Circuit Court for a new determination of penalty.

(source: Arkansas Times)




USA:

Can There Really Be A Humane Way To Kill A Person Who Wants To Live?


In January 2014, in Ohio, Dennis McGuire gasped, his stomach heaved violently 
and his fists clenched through 25 minutes of a botched execution. Horrified, an 
audience and a team of executioners watched a human being suffer before finally 
succumbing to the lethal cocktail of drugs.

In April 2014, in Oklahoma, a new combination of drugs shrouded in secrecy and 
untested was to be used on two death row inmates. The first of the 3 drugs was 
meant to knock the offender unconscious so he couldn’t feel the excruciating 
pain caused by the following drugs. The remaining two would ultimately kill 
him. Clayton D. Lockett was the first of the two death row inmates set to die 
and after searching for a vein for an hour, they administered the knock out 
drug. Assuming he was unconscious, they then injected the lethal doses and 
Lockett proceeded to writhe in visibly excruciating pain, clenching his teeth 
and struggling to lift his head for 43 minutes. It was so disturbing a sight, 
the execution team lowered the blinds so the witnesses could no longer see what 
was going on. The second man, Charles Warner, received a stay of execution 
after that.

In July 2014, in Arizona, it took Joseph R. Wood one hour and 40 minutes to die 
from his injection, appearing to suffer through that time. One witness counted 
640 gasps from Joseph as he struggled in front of an audience for near two 
hours.

That was just 2014.

Lethal injection is the latest in a long line of execution methods. Each of the 
previous methods was left behind because we no longer saw them as “humane”. 
This is, of course, one of the most absurd conversations we’ve ever had as 
modern human beings.

The word, “humane” is defined as having or showing compassion or benevolence. 
You cannot apply that to a method of slaughter unless it is an act of mercy for 
which the victim has a profound and unchangeable desire. Under no circumstances 
can killing someone against their will ever be considered humane. If you’ve 
somehow convinced yourself of the opposite, well, I congratulate you on denial 
levels more impressive than a banana-munching Ray Comfort.

Describing any execution as humane is simply the attempt by the governing body 
and people involved in the execution to shrug off guilt, to appear less cruel 
than they actually are. Denying that is just a way to combat the cognitive 
dissonance that comes with describing an act of needless violence and slaughter 
as humane.

The first execution by lethal injection in the USA took place in 1982. It was 
introduced to combat two things: The painfulness of the procedure so as to be 
more “humane” and the horror that witnesses are subject to when watching an 
execution. Being as the willing and premeditated slaughter of a human being 
against their will can never be described as “humane”, this leaves us with only 
one real reason for the introduction of lethal injection: to ease the 
conscience of those involved. Pure, unadulterated, selfish reasons.

The one thing that is most often overlooked when studying the death penalty is 
the impact on the family of the offender. Killers, rapists, and violent 
offenders often have families just like yours or mine, with mothers who tried 
their best and fathers who worked hard to make ends meet. They have loving 
siblings and close-knit cousins and aunts and uncles and grandparents who love 
and adore them, even though their loved one committed a heinous crime. These 
loved ones of the offender are innocent, law-abiding citizens. Sometimes they 
are elderly women, a sole survivor left of a family torn apart by crime just as 
significantly as the victim’s family was. These are innocent, hardworking men 
and women who have to prepare the very last thing they’ll utter to their loved 
one. They have to plan what to wear to their son or daughter’s execution. They 
have to lay awake nights fretting over the very possible likelihood that the 
execution does not go smoothly. They try to put out of their minds the idea 
that they may have to witness their child suffer in great pain as the victim’s 
family shouts awful things at him or her. These are innocent, loving people who 
didn’t choose to be related to a violent offender, and they feel every bit as 
much as the victim’s family does.

Take, for example, Harriet, a woman who was profiled in Grief, Loss, and 
Treatment for Death Row Families: Forgotten No More. Her son asked her to be a 
witness to his execution and without hesitation, she said yes. Able to put 
aside the horror she knew she would go through, she vowed to be there for her 
son, and she was. It was not easy.

     When Harriet witnessed her son’s execution, she was mindful of the presence 
of the victim’s family members… She tried her best to focus all her attention 
on her son as she communicated her love for him through her eyes. While she was 
not permitted to speak, she mouthed, “I love you” to her son over and over. It 
was particularly challenging for her to maintain her focus on her son, however, 
with the victim’s family members calling out hateful messages to her son as he 
was being executed.

For a moment, put yourself in Harriet’s shoes. She tried desperately to filter 
out the loud declarations that the drugs were not painful enough, as she 
watched her son die. Picture yourself in that very same situation, in a room 
full of people foaming at the mouth with hatred for the person you love the 
most as you watch that person die. Just close your eyes, and try to empathize 
with this woman, who did nothing wrong, didn’t ask for this, and most certainly 
does not deserve it.

How about Laverne, whose son was executed 10 years after his conviction, with 
no regard for the fact that he was extremely mentally ill. She had been present 
at her son’s execution so he had someone who loved him there, but she said that 
witnessing her son die was overwhelming. She said her heart broke watching him 
die and she has been haunted by images of it ever since. She explained that no 
hour went by that she didn’t think about watching him die, or picture it in her 
mind. She’d stopped leaving her house. She had stopped answering her phone. She 
had stopped participating in life. She was profiled in the book, Hidden 
Victims: The Effects of the Death Penalty on Families of the Accused.

It’s also extremely easy to overlook the effects of executions on correctional 
officers, executioners and wardens.

Murder victims’ families also come out against the death penalty in significant 
numbers. To this end, a non-profit was founded, Murder Victims Families For 
Human Rights. This group is made up of the loved ones of those who have been 
taken from them by murder, and who feel that the gruesome display of an 
execution is an insult to their loved ones’ memories. They fight to abolish the 
death penalty, just as hard as those who have never lost a loved one to violent 
crime.

Witnessing a human being be killed is not something you walk away from 
unscathed. Even if you feel anger towards that person, even if you hate them 
more than you ever thought capable. While some victims’ families will witness 
an execution and walk away from it unable to admit that it made them 
uncomfortable, I don’t think the human condition allows for that, unless you’re 
as cold-blooded as the murderer himself. It affects every last person who 
witnesses it, from reporters and executioners, wardens and the offender’s 
family. To expect that the murder victim’s family will walk out of that room 
feeling good, is to be as gullible as human beings get.

The families of murder victims need care, they need compassion, they need to 
grieve. Witnessing the slaughter of a human being is not going to facilitate 
that, no matter how much they assert it will.

The last person an execution affects negatively is the medical personnel who 
are required by most death penalty states to be present for a lethal injection. 
More and more of these medical professionals are refusing to take part in 
executions as it directly conflicts with the oaths they took to help and not 
harm people. It violates, in every way possible, the medical profession’s 
ethics. Many states are experiencing turmoil in their death penalty system as 
it becomes harder and harder to find medical professionals willing to attend 
executions.

Both the American Medical Association and the American Board of 
Anesthesiologists have come out with statements against participation in lethal 
injections. The American Board of Anesthesiologists even voted to revoke the 
license of those men and women who have been found to assist in the execution 
of a human being.

The act of aiding in an execution defies the Hippocratic oath directly and 
leaves the medical personnel involved not only having to deal with taking a 
life but also having to grapple with the fact that it violates the ethics of 
their profession.

The death penalty is inhumane. It’s inhumane not just to the man or woman who 
is losing their life, but also to their innocent loved ones who certainly 
didn’t ask to have their world turned upside down by a violent crime. It’s 
inhumane to the men and women who go to work for 30-60 days prior to an 
execution, to prepare to kill a human being. It’s inhumane to the wardens and 
executioners who have to train their staff how to kill a person. It’s inhumane 
to the murder victims’ families who need positivity and compassion and time to 
grieve, rather than grisly scenes of death all over again. Finally, it’s 
inhumane to the men and women of the medical profession, who struggle to come 
to terms with their guilt over having to take a human life and the fact that 
the act defies the values of the very profession they are in.

There is no way you can ever make the case that lethal injection or any other 
form of execution is humane. It’s just simply not possible.

(source: patheos.com)