[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----MO., NEB., COLO., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Dec. 8



MISSOURI:

Gas chamber raised by Missouri inmates as possible execution method


Russell Bucklew and Ernest L. Johnson are rare survivors on Missouri's rapidly 
shrinking death row.

Though 18 other Missouri inmates have been executed over the past 24 months, 
Bucklew and Johnson have been spared a 1-way trip to the state's death chamber, 
at least temporarily, while they pursue a unique appeal argument.

They say they are too ill to be killed.

Both suffer from medical conditions that their attorneys argue could create 
painful reactions if authorities attempt to execute them with lethal injection 
chemicals.

But to prevail on the argument that the inmates face an unconstitutional risk 
of cruel and unusual pain, attorneys for the convicted killers are required by 
previous court rulings to offer an alternative method for their clients' 
demise.

For Johnson, whose execution was stayed last month by the U.S. Supreme Court, 
and Bucklew, who won a stay from the Supreme Court in May 2014, the alternative 
proposed by their lawyers is the gas chamber.

A relic of Missouri's capital punishment past, it still is an authorized form 
of execution under Missouri law, although the state no longer has a working gas 
chamber.

Bucklew's attorneys also have raised a possible second alternative of death by 
firing squad.

Although a firing squad is not authorized currently by Missouri law, Bucklew's 
lawyers said that they didn't foresee "much trouble" for lawmakers to pass 
firing squad legislation "considering the political landscape" in the state.

Bucklew, now 47, was sentenced to death for the 1996 killing of a man in 
southeast Missouri.

According to court documents, Bucklew suffers from cavernous hemangioma, 
described as "a rare, dangerous and sometimes debilitating congenital condition 
that causes clumps of malformed blood vessels to grow in his head, neck and 
face."

His attorneys say the condition creates a "significant risk" that lethal drugs 
injected into his body would not circulate properly.

"This will likely prolong the execution and cause Mr. Bucklew to suffer 
excruciating pain," according to the documents filed on his behalf. 
"Additionally, the weak, malformed veins in Mr. Bucklew's head could rupture, 
leading to bleeding, choking or severely compromising his airway."

Johnson, now 55, was sentenced to death for killing 3 people during a 1994 
store robbery in Columbia.

He is afflicted with a slow-growing type of brain tumor. Surgeons removed part 
of the tumor, but a portion remains along with scar tissue, and it has created 
a defect in his brain, according to court documents filed by his attorneys.

His attorneys also argue that Missouri's current method of execution will cause 
an adverse reaction.

"There is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the lethal injection drugs 
will trigger uncontrollable seizures and convulsions due to Mr. Johnson's 
unique brain defect and condition," his attorneys wrote. "There is a 
substantial and unjustifiable risk of a severely painful execution."

Appeals courts have rejected previous legal arguments by other Missouri inmates 
about the possibility of lethal injection violating their Eighth Amendment 
protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

But because of the specific medical conditions of Bucklew and Johnson, the U.S. 
Supreme Court has granted each the chance to raise and argue the issue.

In response to Bucklew's case, attorneys for the state argue that his case be 
dismissed.

The proposed alternative must be "feasible and readily available." And the 
inmate must show that it would "significantly reduce" the risk of severe pain, 
the state's attorneys said.

They argue that because Missouri no longer has a working gas chamber, the 
method is neither feasible nor readily available. And beyond making a "naked 
assertion," Bucklew has not provided proof that the method would be any less 
painful for him.

"The allegation that execution by poison gas would significantly reduce a risk 
of choking, coughing and gasping for air that allegedly exists in an execution 
by lethal injection with a fast-acting barbiturate defies common sense," the 
state argued.

In response, Bucklew's attorneys said in court filings last week that the use 
of gas is indeed known, feasible and available.

They even suggested a form of gas execution that would employ a physiologically 
inert gas - such as argon, helium, nitrogen or methane - to induce hypoxia. A 
sealed gas chamber would not be needed for such an execution because the gas 
would not be toxic.

"Death by hypoxia is not caused by any lethal chemical entering into the 
bloodstream, rather death results from depriving the brain of oxygen," 
Bucklew's lawyers said in their filing.

They noted that officials in Oklahoma and Louisiana recently have raised the 
possibility of using nitrogen asphyxiation as a form of execution.

Advocates of euthanasia also have proposed the use of inert gases by employing 
a plastic hood device known as a "suicide bag," they pointed out.

Missouri used the gas chamber from 1938 to 1965. The last man to die by lethal 
gas was Lloyd Leo Anderson, who was convicted of killing a 15-year-old St. 
Louis boy during a drug store robbery.

After a hiatus of about 5 years, Missouri reinstated the death penalty in 1977, 
adopting the method of lethal injection, but keeping lethal gas as an 
alternative method.

Since the 1st execution in 1989 under the revised law, all of the state's death 
sentences have been carried out by lethal injection.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., the 
traditional means of lethal gas execution involved strapping an inmate to a 
chair in a sealed room.

Crystals of sodium cyanide were then added to a pail of sulfuric acid to create 
a cloud of hydrogen cyanide gas.

Witnesses described evidence of "extreme horror, pain and strangling."

"The eyes pop. The skin turns purple and the victim begins to drool," 1 former 
California prison official reported.

Though Missouri's gas chamber has not been used for 50 years, it still is 
housed inside a small building at the now-closed prison in Jefferson City and 
is part of tours conducted by the Jefferson City Convention and Visitors 
Bureau.

Bucklew's attorneys said that because his execution is not imminent, Missouri 
officials would have "plenty of time" to repair the existing gas chamber if 
they chose to do so.

Because Johnson was only recently granted a stay of execution, his attorneys 
and attorneys for the state are in the process of filing motions and responses. 
Oral arguments on his case have been scheduled for mid-January.

(source: kansascity.com)






NEBRASKA:

This pause in the death penalty fight is prudent ---- Gov. Pete Ricketts said 
officials would "wait to carry out capital punishment sentences or make 
additional efforts to acquire (the lethal) drugs until the people of our state 
decide this issue."


Nebraska won't be executing a death row inmates until the people have spoken.

Gov. Pete Ricketts' announced Friday that his administration is hitting the 
pause button until after the November 2016 death penalty referendum. Ricketts 
said officials would "wait to carry out capital punishment sentences or make 
additional efforts to acquire (the lethal) drugs until the people of our state 
decide this issue."

That's the appropriate course. Regardless of one's opinion on capital 
punishment, there are many complexities that make this issue one in which 
prudence is preferred.

First, Nebraska currently lacks a way to conduct executions. The last occurred 
in 1997, using the electric chair. But that method of execution was declared 
unconstitutional by the Nebraska Supreme Court in 2008.

In May, Ricketts announced that the Department of Correctional Services had 
spent $54,400 for 2 lethal injection drugs to replace those in the state's 
inventory that had expired. But it has been unable to obtain them.

In early September, FedEx returned a package of sodium thiopental sent from a 
supplier in India, saying the package lacked proper paperwork. In October, the 
state tried to buy several units of pancuronium bromide from a U.S. 
distributor, but the distributor said the paralyzing agent was not available.

Last Friday, hours before Ricketts announced his policy shift, U.S. Attorney 
Deborah Gilg told The World-Herald that importing sodium thiopental would 
violate federal law.

Ricketts said he has been exploring the possibility of changing Nebraska's 
lethal injection protocol over the past several weeks. But right now, the 
punishment can't be carried out.

Moreover, there is the ongoing policy debate - with strong feelings on all 
sides - about the death penalty itself.

Earlier this year, the Legislature voted to repeal the death penalty. Ricketts 
vetoed that bill, but lawmakers showed the strength of their convictions by 
overriding him, 30-19.

Although the people's representatives voted to repeal the death penalty, enough 
people disagreed to conduct a successful petition drive and put the issue 
before voters.

The strength of their convictions was shown in the number of signatures 
obtained by Nebraskans for the Death Penalty.

At least 56,942 signatures were needed to place the death penalty question on 
the ballot. To keep the repeal bill from taking effect, 113,883 needed to sign. 
And signatures from more than 5 % of registered voters were required in 38 of 
the state's 93 counties.

The drive easily bested all those marks. A total of 143,478 signatures were 
verified, and the 5 % threshold was met in 85 counties.

All of which reflects the sharp differences of opinion over the death penalty - 
between state officials, between legislators and many of their constituents, 
and between Nebraskans.

The voting booth is the place to resolve a question of this magnitude. The 
governor's decision to wait on voters is sensible.

(source: Editorial, World-Herald)






COLORADO:

What A F*cking Terrible Niche Practice


I know there is pressure on lawyers, especially those outside of Biglaw, to 
develop a niche practice area - something in which they are truly experts. But 
sometimes the race to be known for one area of the law can have some awful 
results - like how Colorado lawyer Daniel King is the lawyer to mass shooters.

As Reuters points out:

The public defender for [Robert Lewis] Dear, 57, who police say surrendered 
after killing 3 people and wounding 9 in the Nov. 27 clinic rampage, King most 
recently represented Colorado movie massacre gunman James Holmes.

I understand the virtues of our criminal justice system and that every 
defendant really does need and deserve an attorney, but pulling that beat has 
to be depressing as hell - particularly right before the holidays.

And as you might have anticipated, the prosecutor in the case against Dear is 
expected to seek the death penalty. The good news is that King's team doesn't 
seem terrible at their job, which given the sad state of capital punishment 
defense work, is nothing short of amazing:

Within hours of taking on Dear's case, King???s team had filed motions seeking 
to seal evidence, visit the crime scene, have defense experts observe forensic 
tests, and the imposition of a gag order to prevent anyone in law enforcement 
from disclosing details of the crime.

Colorado's public defenders have successfully had several death sentences 
overturned on appeal, and are widely viewed as among the nation's most 
effective death penalty litigators.

Perhaps it is trite, but these cases are getting all too familiar - for the 
lawyers, judges, and public at large. There is no reason why someone should 
have to be the lawyer to the mass shooters, and as a society we need to do 
better.

(source: Kathryn Rubino, abovethelaw.com)






USA:

Americans are turning against the death penalty. Are politicians far behind?


As many people know, most recently from the presidential primary debates, 
Americans are backing away from harsh criminal justice policies. In the 
debates, both Democrats and Republicans have consistently and uniformly 
suggested that mass incarceration has gone too far.

That includes the death penalty. Politicians may soon realize that the public 
has soured on capital punishment, as our polling data show, just as it has on 
mass incarceration more generally. In fact, some already have. Recently Jeb 
Bush said he was "conflicted" about the death penalty. Democratic candidates 
have criticized Hillary Rodham Clinton for her tepid endorsement.

Public opinion changed on mass incarceration. Politicians followed.

>From the 1970s until the end of the 20th century, mass incarceration and the 
war on drugs were surefire ways for political leaders to show their mettle. But 
slowly, beginning around 1995, the public has moved against these harsh and 
costly policies. So there's no surprise that politicians of both parties now 
consistently say the United States needs fewer people in prison.

Peter Enns recently showed the close links between aggregate public opinion on 
crime and the political response. Using a method and software developed by UNC 
political science professor Jim Stimson, he constructed a massive database of 
33 distinct questions about crime posed over the period from 1953 to 2012. In 
all, he used 381 national surveys to generate a comprehensive measure of the 
public's mood on crime. That nation's prisons filled up when the public mood 
was punitive, and the prison population declined when the mood became less 
harsh.

In a representative democracy, we expect the leaders to follow opinion, or even 
anticipate it. This is essentially what Enns showed regarding crime.

Public opinion is changing on the death penalty. So what's up with politicians?

The death penalty may show even more strongly how tightly public opinion and 
official response are linked. During the 1970s through the mid-1990s, as with 
crime in general, we saw a national movement toward increased support for, and 
increased use of, capital punishment.

Here's the background. In 1972, the Supreme Court invalidated capital 
punishment on the grounds that it was applied capriciously, with race 
potentially playing too much of a factor and the heinousness of the crime not 
enough. The political response was swift and powerful, as states quickly 
adjusted their laws to reinstate the death penalty in conformance with the new 
constitutional safeguards. For a generation, increasing numbers of people were 
sent to death row, with executions rising as well. The court sanctioned the new 
laws in 1976 and the 1st execution of the "modern era" took place in 1977; the 
race was on.

While the attitudes toward mass incarceration and the death penalty were 
similar, the actual results were quite different. Millions of prisoners were 
caught up in mass incarceration. But the death penalty has never been more than 
symbolic. Even in the peak year of 1999, the U.S. executed only 98 inmates, a 
very small number compared to the more than 15,000 homicides that year.

But that symbolism was critical for politicians. In a 1988 debate, Michael 
Dukakis coolly said that even if his wife were raped and murdered he wouldn't 
want the perpetrator killed - with a clinical response that was widely seen as 
detrimental to his presidential bid. When Bill Clinton ran for office in 1992 
he made sure to trumpet his strong support for the death penalty as governor of 
Arkansas, even suspending his presidential campaign to return to Little Rock 
for an execution.

We have constructed a comprehensive index of public opinion on the death 
penalty just as Enns did for criminal justice punitiveness. Our index runs from 
the beginning of the modern era of the death penalty in 1976 through this year. 
We identified 488 national surveys with 66 distinct questions about various 
aspects of the death penalty (in a 2008 book, Baumgartner and colleagues used 
292 surveys from 1937 to 2006 to develop a similar index). These questions were 
asked as many as 25 times (for the Gallup Murder question), but all were asked 
at least twice.

Since our assessment is based on 488 national surveys, the sampling variation 
is reduced to a minimum. The figure below shows how death penalty opinion 
tracks closely with Enns's measure of crime opinion in general. (Both series 
are set to have a value of zero in 1976, the beginning of the modern period of 
the death penalty.)

As you can see above, what Enns argued about crime in general may well be true 
about the death penalty. The number of death sentences tracks closely with 
public opinion toward that form of punishment, just as incarceration numbers 
tracked with opinion on crime in Enns's study.

As the public has increasingly spurned the death penalty, death sentences have 
also declined - from 315 in 1996 to just 73 in 2014, and are projected to be 
lower still in 2015.

No matter how we look at it, for the past 20 years, the death penalty has been 
dying. The figure below compares opinion, death sentences, executions, the 
number of states carrying out an execution, and the number of counties carrying 
out an execution.

Executions have declined as public opinion shifted against them.

Are American standards of decency shifting? You bet. Death sentences have 
declined by 70 %; executions by more than 60 %; and fewer and fewer 
jurisdictions are using capital punishment at all. A recent Reuters report 
noted that we are on track in 2015 to have the lowest numbers of death 
sentences and executions in decades. As of Nov. 25, with 1 more execution 
scheduled in Georgia before the end of the year, 2015 will see just 27 or 28 
executions, down from 35 in 2014.

Consider Texas alone, often seen as a leader in capital punishment. In 1999, 
the Lone Star State had 48 death sentences. Since then, it has averaged fewer 
than 10 a year. So far in 2015, Texas juries have sentenced only 3 individuals 
to death. Even Houston, responsible for more executions than any state other 
than Texas itself, has given out no death sentences in 2015.

Whether we look at national trends or particular hot spots, the answer is the 
same. The death penalty is still regularly used in few places in the United 
States - because just as with mass incarceration, the public no longer favors 
it.

By now, for every 9 people who have been executed, 1 person has been 
exonerated. As a result, fewer and fewer Americans are confident that the 
government can be counted on. And where public opinion goes, political leaders 
eventually catch up.

(source: Frank R. Baumgartner is the Richard J. Richardson Distinguished 
Professor of Political Science at UNC-Chapel Hill. Emily Williams and Kaneesha 
Johnson are students in his class this semester and contributed substantially 
to this research----Washington Post)

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

Is the Criminal Justice System Just and What Do We Do if It's Not?


In the last 3 months, the United States has executed 8 people. Prior to their 
executions, these individuals collectively served over 100 years on death row. 
They contribute in number to the 1,421 individuals who have been executed by 
the United States since 1976.

Kelly Gissendaner served 16 years on death row for successfully planning to 
kill her husband in the late 1990s. Since her trial and sentencing in 1998, she 
admitted to her part in her husband's death (a boyfriend was convicted for the 
actual murder), received a degree in theology, and reconciled with her 
children. Together they fought her death sentence. Her execution continued 
despite public and private appeals from her children, a letter from Pope 
Francis, national concern over the efficacy of execution drugs, and vigorous 
public support. Protests outside courthouses and prisons, even rousing support 
from social media--adorned with hashtags like #kellyonmymind--failed to alter 
the sentence of the court. Kelly Gissendaner was executed on September 30, 
2015, just after midnight.

Kelly's story is poignant because it is a tale of hope and reconciliation 
despite the triumph of a solid and unyielding system of justice. Kelly was 
executed by the United States as a normal proceeding of our system of justice. 
A system that too often ignores or inhibits rehabilitation and reconciliation 
when it should be encouraged, facilitated, and celebrated. Does the 
prioritization of retribution over reconciliation produce justice?

Hesitations about the justice system in America are not confined to the death 
penalty. Awareness in our nation regarding inequalities in the enforcement and 
sentencing of crimes continues to grow. Movements like Black Lives Matter are 
gaining momentum. Articles about the presence of law enforcement in schools and 
the overwhelming prison population are appearing with increasing frequency in 
prominent news outlets.

These concerns don't start at the prison fences. They point to larger issues of 
economic and racial injustice in our nation.

Scholars and writers have attempted to tackle the origins, manifestations, and 
implications of mass incarceration in and for the United States. (Here, I would 
be remiss if I did not mention a recent article in The Atlantic, by Ta-Nehisi 
Coates, and The New Jim Crow, by Michelle Alexander.) Their inquiries have 
resulted in countless publications, theses, suggested solutions and 
disheartened conclusions.

The collective work of these writers details a large and complex system of 
conviction and incarceration. A system we look to for "justice." A system that 
boasts a body count. I think it's time we begin to seriously question if 
Justice is truly the result of such a system.

While it may be terrifying to consider that the answer to this question could 
be "no," resounding or with reservations, those who answer in the negative are 
not alone. A growing lack of confidence, and even full-out disdain, for the 
criminal justice system in America makes identifying opportunities for change 
increasingly critical. For too long we've prioritized "peace" over justice, 
locking our "problems" away instead of acknowledging their human face and 
asking our fellow citizens what they need and how we can work together to make 
things better.

It's been demonstrated time and time again that the trends and tenets of mass 
incarceration in America are regrettable and wrong. But regret and condolences 
are not enough. We must change the way we think about policing, crime, 
criminality and prisons in America. People are dying every day we don't.

Fortunately, as awareness grows, so do opportunities for reform. Admirable 
nonprofits and leaders are putting their full weight behind advocacy for 
individuals in the system, more holistic approaches to justice (like 
restorative justice practices), and pressuring for policy changes. Bryan 
Stevenson, Executive Director of the Equal Justice Initiative, delivered a 
widely viewed TED talk discussing the impact of mass incarceration on American 
culture. The Southern Poverty and Law Center and the American Civil Liberties 
Union champion reform of the criminal justice system. As citizens we can 
support and multiply the efforts of these devoted nonprofits and advocates. We 
can build on the momentum already at play to ensure positive change. Together 
we can create a criminal justice system that does not exacerbate inequalities 
and acknowledges that we are all more than our worst acts. We can create a 
system that truly produces Justice.

(source: Hope Lloyd, Huffington Post)

********

Executioner Wanted -- Care to Apply?


Help Wanted - Executioner For Part Time Work: As/when required. Must be 
discreet and obedient to judicial orders. Able to carry out assignments without 
passing personal judgment; impartial to client age, race, sex, nationality, 
religion, or pleas of clemency. Persons subject to fits of compassion, mercy, 
or second guessing need not apply.

Can you do it?

The polls say 60 % of you can -- 40 % of you can't. Surveys consistently 
indicate a majority of North American adults support capital punishment... 
under the right circumstances. So if you support it... you should be able to 
hand out the death penalty.

It's not too difficult to categorize who should die for high crimes. Child 
rapist-murderers head the list. So do serial killers like Vancouver's Willie 
Pickton who butchered 50 women and fed them to his pigs.

Then there are bombers like Timothy McVeigh and, of course, terrorists like 
last week's ISIS husband and wife who shot up a San Bernardino banquet. Most 
people will do-in some scumbag who knocks off his wife for insurance and takes 
up with a floozie. And death to the cop-killer, too.

But what about the drunk driver who runs down someone for the 3rd time? Or the 
druggie who gets excessive in the corner-store holdup? Or the wife who 
flips-out and knifes her husband over his secret gay lover?

Is there merit to "the punishment must fit the crime"? What about 
"an-eye-for-an-eye"? Where do you draw the line on who sits on Old Sparky and 
who sits on ice? What happens if the condemned turns out to be innocent? Can 
you remotely take the chance? Does it deter others? Is it downright cruel and 
unusual -- an act no civilized society can condone -- regardless of the 
severity of the crime?

Well, hang on and read the job description. These aren't your concerns if 
you're looking for the work, so park it and ask the missing question.

How am I supposed to do it?

Let's take a look at your options.

These days, your best instrument is lethal injection. You'll operate in a 
sanitary environment easing your patient with a sedative before clinically 
administering an intravenous flow of phenobarbital to put them to sleep. It's 
neat, tidy, and you'll have little clean-up once you're done.

Depending on where you're required, you might still activate an electric chair. 
Watch The Green Mile first so you won't be too surprised when something smokes 
and cooks off.

The gas chamber is still elective and a firing squad is fast. Hanging is a 
swingin' method, tried & true, but has some nasty side effects.

Years ago, you'd have a whack of acceptable devices. Crushing by elephants was 
handy, as was using horses to tear limbs apart. Drawing and quartering worked 
fine, as did burning at the stake, boiling and burying alive, flaying, 
garroting, stoning, smothering, keelhauling, and impaling. Remember Vlad? Sick 
puppy he was.

Let's not forget the guillotine -- messy but meaningful. Ling Chi, or "Death By 
1000 Cuts", took a while. Google "Cave of Roses". That'll creep the bejeezus 
out of you. Starving and dehydration were simple. The Pendulum was quite a 
feature and included the benefit of sheer terror. Consider beheading by 
double-bladed ax and disemboweling, as well.

Leave crucifixion alone. It's been done and has gained quite a sympathetic 
following.

There's been a variety of creative tutors, but there's one Russian guy who was 
really a master.

He's Vasili Blokhin, a Major-General in Stalin's army. He possibly notched-up 
100,000. In 1 month alone, Ol' Vasili personally executed 7,000 Polish 
soldiers, setting an ambitious quota of 300 per night. To keep up the pace he 
used a single shot to the base of the neck from a .25 Walther pistol, being 
handed fresh magazines by an eager apprentice.

Vasili eventually drank himself to death. Some say it was suicide by vodka. 
Doesn't matter -- he made it to the 2010 Guinness Book of Records as the 
world's most prolific executioner.

So... are you up for the job?

Got what it takes?

Decide soon. All applications must be in by midnight.

(source: Garry Rodgers is a retired homicide detective and forensic coroner, 
now bestselling crime writer. Garry lives on Vancouver Island on Canada's west 
coast and hosts the popular blog DyingWords.net----Huffington Post)