[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEB., OKLA., S.DAK., UTAH, ARIZ., NEV., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Feb. 15



NEBRASKA:

State psychiatrists to declare Nikko Jenkins competent



Here comes Round 3 on Nikko Jenkins' competency.

After 8 months of observation, Nebraska state psychiatrists have once again 
stated that Jenkins is competent to understand the court proceedings awaiting 
him, according to a court official. Jenkins faces a death-penalty hearing for 
the Aug. 11 murders of Juan Uribe-Pena and Jorge Cajiga-Ruiz, the Aug. 19 
murder of Curtis Bradford, and the Aug. 21 murder of Andrea Kruger.

In fact, the state psychiatrists have issued a 32-page report to the judge, 
detailing Jenkins' competency and his purported mental health issues since 
childhood.

Judge Peter Bataillon declined to release the report Friday but is expected to 
formally receive it at a hearing Tuesday.

He then will decide what, if any, further opinions are necessary. Jenkins' 
attorney, Douglas County Public Defender Tom Riley, could request that a 
defense psychiatrist, Dr. Bruce Gutnik, evaluate Jenkins again.

And so the competency carousel continues.

Doctors long have questioned Jenkins' psyche. Those questions only heightened 
after he killed 4 people - alternatingly claiming that he heard serpent-god 
voices or that he was getting revenge on a prison system that placed him in 
solitary confinement for half of the decade he spent behind bars.

But the evaluations of Jenkins have nothing to do with whether he was sane or 
insane at the time of the crimes. Instead, the judge evaluates his competency 
on a 3-prong test: that he understands the charges, comprehends the court 
process and is able to actively participate in his defense.

Some state psychiatrists contend that Jenkins is feigning mental illness; 
others have diagnosed him with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder.

The state's Regional Center psychiatrists have been so adamant that Jenkins is 
faking that Riley has questioned the wisdom of having those psychiatrists 
evaluate Jenkins.

Shortly after Jenkins was charged, Bataillon ordered an evaluation to determine 
whether he was competent to understand the court proceedings against him. About 
that time, Jenkins started representing himself. His understanding of the law 
and his rights were apparent to anyone in court.

In declaring him competent in February 2014, Judge Bataillon noted that Jenkins 
carried on clear conversations and was able to assert his claims that officials 
had violated specific constitutional rights. The judge declared him competent 
to stand trial.

Then Jenkins lost his speaking role in court. After Jenkins pleaded no contest 
to the four murder charges, Bataillon reappointed Riley to represent him in the 
death-penalty phase.

Since then, Jenkins has stayed (mostly) silent in court. In May, he mutilated 
his face in prison. Gutnik evaluated him and again called him incompetent. And 
Bataillon ordered another evaluation by the state.

8 months later, the state's report is now in.

Jenkins continues to file occasional motions in a civil lawsuit.

Authorities have said those motions are evidence of his manipulative ways. In 
each, Jenkins writes legibly on notebook paper, making coherent legal 
arguments.

He then encloses them in envelopes that are plastered in geometric shapes of 
cursive writing, spewing thoughts about serpent gods.

(source: omaha.com)








OKLAHOMA:

Oklahoma's 4 Ways To Kill a Man



Executions are supposed to be humane and legitimate means of punishment. But 
with the Sooner State looking to find as many ways to kill its prisoners as 
possible, many are questioning what is humane or legitimate about the death 
penalty.

Senate Bill 794 passed the Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 9-0 
this week. The bill - matched by an identical one that passed a House committee 
- is something of a contingency plan. It's not an evacuation guide should 
natural disaster strike, nor does it proscribe a plan of action in the event 
of, say, a terrorist attack. Bill 794 is the state legislature's idea of a plan 
B should the state???s current method of killing people be deemed illegal.

Oklahoma has had its issues with executions. Last year, the state's execution 
of Clayton Lockett by lethal injection was catastrophically botched. Lockett, a 
38-year-old convicted murderer, was injected with a sedative and then a drug 
concoction that would stop his breathing and his heartbeat. Soon after he was 
injected, Lockett began "convulsing violently, his head and chest rising up off 
the gurney multiple times as he yelled, 'Oh, man.'" The physician carrying out 
the procedure aborted it, but eventually declared Lockett dead anyway after 43 
minutes.

As a result of Lockett's case, the state's death row inmates have brought a 
legal challenge before the U.S. Supreme Court. The state's lethal injection 
method, they maintain, is cruel and unusual punishment, and thus in violation 
of the U.S. Constitution per the Eighth Amendment. They want it outlawed.

The state's legislators disagree, but are prepared just in case the challenge 
is successful. Executions are on hold pending the results of the case. In the 
event lethal injection is ruled unconstitutional, Senate Bill 794 "calls for 
the use of nitrogen hypoxia, or gassing death by nitrogen." This essentially 
means putting the inmate in a gas chamber, which the legislature's fiscal 
analysis indicates would cost $300,000 to build at the Oklahoma State 
Penitentiary. Ryan Kiesel, the director of the Oklahoma branch of the ACLU, 
says the method - which is legal in four states, though has never been used, 
and is outlawed in others even as a means of euthanizing animals - is simple: 
"You are essentially suffocating them."

But the bill doesn't end there. There is a Plan C involved. In the event that 
both lethal injection and nitrogen hypoxia are made illegal, it dictates that 
the sentence should be carried out by electrocution. If the electric chair was 
good enough for Ted Bundy, it's good enough for you. Oklahoma joins Tennessee, 
which passed a law last year, in the quest to bring back the chair.

Are those mistakes, which yield horribly painful, drawn-out executions that are 
most certainly cruel, enough to outlaw the practice altogether?

But wait - there's even a plan D. If electrocution is also deemed cruel and 
unusual (which seems eminently possible considering the whole burning-flesh, 
smoke-billowing-from-your-head thing), the citizens of Oklahoma need not fear. 
The bill calls for their death row inmates to be executed by firing squad.

If we leave aside the fact that there are elected officials in the United 
States who, when told that the 1st 3 methods of killing people they come up 
with are too cruel, propose a 4th, there's something strange going on here. 
These methods are quite archaic, hauled out from their place in storage next to 
the rack and the guillotine and the other things we decided were a bit passe. 
The lawmakers in Oklahoma (and Utah) are proposing that in the year 2015, in 
the United States, we stand someone up against a wall and shoot them until they 
stop moving.

Of course, Oklahoma's high regard for the old school macabre runs in stark 
contrast to the general trend in these matters. The U.S., as the Western 
world's preeminent executioner, has been on a more than century-long quest to 
find a humane, minimally cruel-and-unusual way of putting people to death.

But what exactly is cruel and unusual? In the 1800s, execution by hanging was 
standard procedure in the U.S. Now it's too cruel. Throughout the twentieth 
century, the electric chair got plenty of use. Now it's unusual, at least in 
most places. It seems awfully subjective, almost like people are making it up 
as they go along - which, of course, they are. And this leads to mistakes. 
Lethal injection is the method of execution that is most likely to be botched, 
with an error rate of 7 %. Are those mistakes, which yield horribly painful, 
drawn-out executions that are most certainly cruel, enough to outlaw the 
practice altogether?

The cruel and unusual factor is crucial because it speaks to the legitimacy of 
the act. When we accept capital punishment as a society, we are accepting at 
least 2 things implicitly: 1) that the government has the power to take the 
life of a citizen; and 2) that the government is morally right - be it for the 
protection of others, retributive justice, or whatever reason - to carry out 
this action. Part of judging the moral value of it is whether it is 
proportional to the crime. Another part is "set[ting] capital punishment apart 
from the heinous crimes it is thought to condemn."

Most of the people on death row are there for killing someone. What is the 
difference between their act and that of the government? In a word, legitimacy. 
The state governments of Oklahoma and 33 other states are imbued with the power 
to execute citizens by those same citizens, just as they are empowered to 
imprison people and collect taxes from them. But just as crucially, the 
government is seen as administering death in a way that is not brutal or 
chaotic but clean, clinical, and above all, just. The doctor overseeing the 
lethal injection is no criminal, after all. He's a state employee.

All of these concerns, from the powers of government to the moral significance 
of how you go about putting someone to death, seem lost on the legislators of 
Oklahoma. Gas them, shock them, shoot them: it makes no difference to the 
Sooner State. Maybe Oklahomans have admitted something the rest of America is 
reluctant to: that there really isn't a humane way to kill someone. After all, 
we humans have plenty of practice and have yet to find one.

The 2 bills head to the floor in both houses for debate, and likely a vote. The 
firing squads may well be removed, perhaps to be replaced by drawing and 
quartering, before the bill is passed. But regardless of how the Supreme Court 
rules, Oklahoma will find a way.

(source: The Daily Beast)








SOUTH DAKOTA:

Death Penalty Opponent Advocates System of Vigilantism



Last Wednesday, the House State Affairs Committee heard testimony on 2 
anti-death penalty bills brought by "Republican" Rep. Steve Hickey of Sioux 
Falls. The 1st was HB 1158 to "require that a victim's opposition to the death 
penalty be presented at a presentence hearing," and the 2nd was HB 1159 to 
"permit South Dakotans to express opposition to the death penalty when applying 
for a state issued identification card."

It's interesting that Hickey in his proponent testimony of this bill paints a 
picture where the desires of the victim of the victim's family is paramount, 
with justice taking a backseat - if it shows up at all.

He claims he doesn't want a victim pursuing justice for themselves, yet a 
perverted image of that is exactly what he's promoting here - one where the 
convicted murderer gets to leverage misguided people to pursue his own version 
of watered-down justice.

If a victim or victim's family believes in the death penalty, he wants the 
court to IGNORE that when he seeks to get rid of the death penalty. But until 
such time as he can get rid of the death penalty, he wants the court to listen 
to a victim or victim's family's opposition to the death penalty.

What should we do if some family members of the victim support the death 
penalty and some oppose it? Do we let them all testify, and turn the trial into 
an emotional circus? To which family members to we give deference (obviously 
Hickey would have us defer to the family members who OPPOSE the death penalty, 
not those who support it)?

In the case of a murder, the family of the victim isn't really the aggrieved 
party. To be certain, they suffer horrible pain because of what the convicted 
murderer did, but the offense was actually against the victim ... and the 
victim cannot speak at the trial to offer forgiveness or state any potential 
opposition to the death penalty.

As Rapid City State's Attorney Mark Vargo said in opponent testimony, the focus 
needs to remain on the crime and the criminal, not the well-meaning but 
ultimately irrelevant wishes of someone who cannot offer fresh testimony at the 
trial (because they were murdered by the defendant) or is not the ultimate 
victim of the crime (i.e. a family member).

Even if the victim were able to do that, or their opposition (at the time they 
got a driver's license and potentially registered opposition to the death 
penalty...which could have changed by the time they were murdered) was on 
record, society has been offended by the crime. Society has been injured by the 
crime, as the sanctity of innocent human life (upon which we all depend for our 
safety) has been violated. As we know, the victim does not carry out trial and 
punishment against a murderer. The victim's family does not carry out trial and 
punishment against a murderer. Society carries out trial and punishment against 
a murderer, because when crimes such as murder are allowed to happen without 
proper punishment, society is placed in peril. And (thankfully) society has 
made the statement through our constitutionally passed laws that we value 
innocent human life so highly that the wrongful taking of innocent human life 
should be punished by the forfeiture of one's own life. So until society 
decides to register its opposition to the death penalty by constitutionally 
outlawing it, the desires of the victim or the victim's family are not really 
relevant to the administration of justice.

Interestingly, as State's Attorney Aaron McGowan from Sioux Falls pointed out 
in opponent testimony, it is highly likely that even a victim who might 
(academically) be opposed to the death penalty (prior to the time they are 
seconds away from being murdered) might change their minds about opposition to 
the death penalty once faced with the reality of the cold-blooded barbarism of 
the actual act of murder. Most people - unless you are a homicide investigator 
or an actual murder victim - have probably never fully evaluated the contempt 
that a murderer has toward innocent human life, nor have they fully appreciated 
the pain and horror faced by the murder victim as they recognize their life has 
now come to a brutal, immediate end. It is therefore highly likely that if you 
could query a murder victim at the moment of their murder or immediately 
thereafter, they just might have a new appreciation for the barbarity of the 
act and might actually change their mind to support the death penalty for such 
a cold-blooded murderer.

Why aren't the wishes of the victim or victim's family relevant to the issue at 
hand. Because justice isn't about doing what the victim or victim's family 
wants done. Our justice system is supposed to be a dispassionate, impartial 
application of justice. Did someone violate the law? If yes, then they are 
found guilty and given the punishment appropriate to their crime. No ifs, ands 
or buts. We don't punish a criminal more harshly because the victim or victim's 
family wants us to, and we don't punish a criminal less harshly because the 
victim or the victim's family wants us to.

I frequently disagree with Rep. Brian Gosch due to his frequent forays 
Leftward, but he said it well when he stated incredulity that this bill would 
seek to allow a convicted murderer to bring into the mix the voice of the 
victim, when the convicted murderer deliberately chose to silence completely 
and forever the voice of his victim. His victim. The murderer's victim. The 
murderer wants to leverage the voice of his victim to help get him out of the 
justice he deserves (out of the same "sentence" he carried out against his 
victim, even without the benefit of due process). What a crock!

If we're going to make justice about what the victim or victim's family wants, 
then we truly will adopt a system of vigilante justice.

Our justice system is supposed to be based on the solid foundation of law, not 
the wishy-washy sea of turbulent and dangerous emotion. With all its flaws, our 
justice system has served us well over most of our nation's history when we 
have followed the rule of law over the opinions and emotions of men.

We don't need vigilantism of any form. We don't need emotionalism. We don't 
need the dispensation of justice to be based on or even influenced by emotion 
and emotionalism.

Let's not depart further from the rule of law and into the abyss of liberal 
emotionalism. Let's stick with law. Let's stick with justice, and justice 
indicates that if you demonstrate the ultimate contempt toward innocent human 
life, you have forfeited your own life.

Thankfully, the committee agreed, voting 10-2 against 1158 and 10-2 against 
1159.

2 more direct assaults on the death penalty, SB 121 and SB 122, were also heard 
in the Senate and thankfully both were put down 7-2 and 7-2 respectively.

4 bad bills met the death they deserved - just like the death the convicted 
murderer has chosen for himself with his contempt for innocent human life.

(source: Bob Ellis, American Clarion)








UTAH:

UTAH TO PULL TRIGGER? Controversial firing-squad death penalty a step closer



A hotly contested proposal that resurrects Utah's use of firing squads to carry 
out executions narrowly passed a key vote Friday in the state's Legislature 
after three missing lawmakers were summoned to break a tie vote.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 39-34 Friday morning 
to approve the measure, sending it to an uncertain fate in the state's 
GOP-controlled Senate. Leaders in that chamber have thus far declined to say if 
they'll support it, and Utah's Republican Gov. Gary Herbert won't say if he'll 
sign it.

Senate President Wayne Niederhauser, a Republican from Sandy, again declined to 
tell reporters on Friday if he'd support it.

(source: bayoubuzz.com)








ARIZONA:

Prosecution Rests Its Case in Death Penalty Trial, Arias Will Be Able to 
Directly Plea for Life to Jury



The prosecution in the Jodi Arias death penalty sentencing retrial rested its 
case on Thursday, signaling that an end to the high profile trial may soon be 
near.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sherry Stephens told jurors to expect to 
continue reporting to the courthouse until the end of February since there 
could be testimony from rebuttal witnesses as late as Feb. 26, according to The 
Associated Press.

Judge Stephens also launched an investigation to explore allegations that 3 
court watchers racially taunted an expert on the Arias defense team, reports 
KPHO.

On Wednesday, defense attorney Kirk Nurmi told the judge that 3 people began 
singing the popular Mexican song "La Cucaracha" while their mitigation 
specialist Maria De La Rosa walked by them on Monday.

The sentencing retrial, which is currently in the mitigation stage, is set to 
resume on Wednesday. During this phase, the defense team will have another 
opportunity to persuade the jury not to sentence the convicted killer to death 
due to different mitigating factors, reports USA Today.

The defense will also bring back 2 psychologists who have already testified in 
the trial about the relationship Arias had with the victim, Travis Alexander. 
In addition, they will likely bring back computer experts to testify about the 
pornography found on Alexander's computer.

Following the last witnesses, Arias will be allowed to address the jury 
directly and offer a plea for her life. Both sides will then end with a closing 
argument before the jury begins deliberating a life in prison or death 
sentence.

Although Arias was found guilty of 1st-degree murder in May 2013 in the death 
of her ex-boyfriend, jurors failed to reach a unanimous decision on her 
sentencing. As a result, the retrial will determine whether she should be 
sentenced to death, life in prison or life with a chance of release after 
serving 25 years.

According to medical examiners, Arias stabbed Alexander 27 times, primarily in 
the back, torso and heart in his Phoenix home. She also slit Alexander's throat 
from ear to ear, nearly decapitating him, and she shot him in the face before 
she dragged his bloodied corpse to the shower and took pictures of him.

(source: Latin Post)








NEVADA:

DA seeking death penalty in Las Vegas pharmacy slaying case



The district attorney in Las Vegas will seek the death penalty against a Las 
Vegas man accused of robbing two pharmacies and killing a clerk he used to work 
with.

Prosecutor Michelle Fleck filed notice Friday that the state will seek capital 
punishment for 25-year-old Jin William Young Ackerman II.

Defense attorney Tom Pitaro declined to comment.

He's filed documents seeking Ackerman's release from jail pending trial.

Clark County District Court Judge Jennifer Togliatti is due March 5 to pick a 
trial date sometime next year.

Ackerman is charged with robbing Walgreens stores at gunpoint Dec. 24 and Dec. 
26, and shooting 58-year-old Antonino Isnit to death in the 2nd robbery.

Ackerman has pleaded not guilty to murder, kidnapping, armed robbery and 
burglary with a weapon charges.

(source: Associated Press)








USA:

Public defender mum as taxpayer tab mounts for accused 'Batman' killer James 
Holmes



He's likely the most hated man in Colorado after killing a dozen people in a 
2012 shooting spree, but taxpayers will spend at least $7 million to try James 
Holmes and help survivors of the attack - and opening arguments haven't even 
begun.

The Arapahoe County District Attorney's Office has disclosed more than $2 
million in direct and indirect expenses involved in prosecuting the 27-year-old 
former neurology graduate student. But it is not clear how much has been spent 
by the Colorado public defender, because the office, citing attorney-client 
privilege, refuses to disclose a figure. That stance has critics fuming.

"This killer has taken enough from our community," said Jon Caldara, president 
of the Colorado-based free market think tank, Independence Institute. "We 
should at least have the right to know what we are spending on him."

The public defender's stance, cited in the denial of a Freedom of Information 
Request made by FoxNews.com, faces a challenge Thursday, when 2 state lawmakers 
urge colleagues to support their bill forcing the agency to give a public 
accounting.

But for now, tabulating the expenses borne by state and federal taxpayers to 
try Holmes and care for the victims of the July 20, 2012 shooting rampage at a 
midnight screening of the Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" is inexact, 
partly because separating fixed costs and those associated specifically with 
the Holmes case is not always possible. For instance, salaries of prosecutors 
and public defenders already on staff would be paid by taxpayers regardless of 
the public employee's duties. But those assignments reflect the demands and 
priorities of the office and in some cases may divert personnel from other 
matters.

Some of the $7 million in expenses associated with the case that Fox News 
identified included:

--The Colorado Department of Personnel and Administration records show Douglas 
Wilson, who heads the state Public Defender's Office, has earned $280,000 since 
the case began. Wilson's duties include far more than oversight of the Holmes 
case, but his office has assigned 8 staff to the Holmes case, at a cost of 
approximately $750,000 per year, for a total to date of $1.77 million.

--The district attorney has 5 lawyers assigned to the Holmes case, but an 
office spokesperson said only one was hired specifically to work on it. The 
$1.6 million set aside in part to compensate that attorney, as well as 4 victim 
advocates working under the attorney's direction, comes from a federal grant 
relating to work coordinating victim communication, services, and outreach on 
this case. The remaining 4 attorneys, 2 investigators and 1 paralegal earned a 
total of $1.3 million, although they have substantial duties not related to the 
case.

--The district attorney acknowledges the office has set aside $775,000 for the 
prosecution of Holmes, $15,000 for travel and other expenses, $163,000 for 
expert witness fees and $11,241 to a district attorney investigator.

--Federal taxpayers will spend $2.9 million to help the 70 injured and 1,430 
others impacted by the attack, which Holmes admitted to waging while dressed as 
"The Joker." As of Dec. 31, $1.6 million of that federal grant has been spent 
by 8 agencies including the District Attorney's office, the Colorado 
Organization for Victim Assistance, Arapahoe County Sheriff's Office, Aurora 
Mental Health Center, Denver Police Department, City of Aurora, Jefferson 
County Sheriff's Office and Judicial District Administrator.

--Jury selection in the death penalty case is currently underway, but is 
expected to take several months as an unprecedented pool of more than 9,000 is 
whittled down to 12 jurors and 12 alternates. Once the jury is selected, and 
the trial begins, jurors and alternates will be paid $50 each per day, likely 
adding up to $200,000 during what could be a 6-month trial.

--The Colorado Court Security Commission allocated $405,000 in security 
emergency grants with a total of $23,500 spent on printing and mailing jury 
summonses and $900 for high-speed scanners to expedite the processing of juror 
questionnaires. Another $5,950 also was used to purchase 10 additional juror 
chairs at $595 apiece.

Holmes' public defenders also pursued a costly and extensive legal case against 
Jana Winter, a former FoxNews.com investigative reporter. Fox News eventually 
won that case when New York's highest court ruled in December 2013 that a state 
shield law protected Winter, now a national security reporter for The 
Intercept, from revealing sources used in an exclusive story about a journal 
Holmes sent to his 1-time psychiatrist. Holmes' attorneys subsequently filed a 
cert petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied, seeking to 
overturn the New York decision.

While nearly all government agencies involved in the case have disclosed their 
expenditures, the Colorado public defender's office refuses to reveal how even 
1 dollar has been spent on behalf of Holmes.

"The Office of the State Public Defender is an agency of the judicial branch of 
Colorado state government [and] the judicial branch of Colorado state 
government is not subject to the Colorado Open Records Act," said Karen Porter, 
chief financial officer for the Colorado Office of the State Public Defender.

Under Colorado law, the public defender also is exempt from disclosing 
"privileged information??? because the information is protected by 
attorney-client privilege, Porter said.

"The public defender is often reluctant to turn over the money because the 
public often begrudges the money spent on these cases. However, at some point, 
costs of federal death cases are generally released," Laurie Levenson, 
Professor of Law at Loyola Law School and the David W. Burcham Chair of Ethical 
Advocacy.

Colorado Judge William Sylvester also prohibited release of the records through 
a "Motion To Limit Pre-Trial Publicity" issued on July 23, 2012, and amended 
August 13, 2012, Porter said.

That interpretation of the law is unnecessarily strict and at odds with 
policies in most other states, said State Rep. Polly Lawrence, a Republican 
member of the Colorado House of Representatives.

"I find it interesting that in Colorado, the information is so much more 
sensitive than in other states," Lawrence said, questioning how reporting 
aggregate numbers from the case would jeopardize the defense???s 
representation.

"When I had a meeting with the public defender last week, I told him 'if you 
want to spend taxpayer dollars, you should be able to tell us how you are 
allocating resources,'" Lawrence said.

Lawrence introduced bi-partisan legislation to make the expenditures public, a 
bill which will be heard for the 1st time Thursday in the House Judiciary 
Committee.

"This is not a partisan issue," said Lawrence, whose co-sponsor was Rep. Rhonda 
Fields, a Democrat who represents the district where the shooting took place. 
"This is all about transparency."

Holmes has not denied committing the attack, but his attorneys are claiming he 
is not guilty by reason of insanity. Prosecutors have refused to drop their bid 
for the death penalty in exchange for a guilty plea and a life sentence. Some 
critics say it is the prosecutor's insistence on seeking the death penalty that 
is really driving the exorbitant cost of trying Holmes. Having had their offer 
of a guilty plea and life in prison rebuffed, Holmes' attorneys have little 
choice but to fight, said Denver attorney Jason Jordan.

"It is the DA that is continuing the fight, not the public defender," Jordan 
said.

As the state continues to reel from the human toll of Holmes' shooting spree, 
Lawrence is hoping taxpayers can at least also know how much it will cost to 
try a man who doesn't deny slaughtering a dozen people and wounding at least 70 
more.

"As a steward of taxpayer dollars, I believe we should be able to see how they 
are spending the money," Lawrence said. "I don't think that is asking too 
much."

(source: Fox News)

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

US Fails as Human Rights Leader if Death Penalty Remains - Amnesty Int'l



The United States fails as a global human rights leader as long as it uses the 
death penalty, Amnesty International USA Executive Director Steven Hawkins 
said, following Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf's decision to halt a scheduled 
execution in his state.

"Amnesty International USA welcomes Gov. Wolf's decision to halt executions. 
The world is moving away from this cruel and barbaric punishment ..." Hawkins 
said in a statement on Friday. "The United States cannot truly be a global 
leader in human rights while the death penalty remains the law of the land."

On Friday, Pennsylvania's newly elected governor Wolf issued a moratorium on 
the death penalty, saying that the practice was ineffective, unjust and 
expensive, according to US media reports.

The moratorium will remain in effect until a report is made by the state's 
legislative commission and will grant a reprieve to the death row inmate 
Terrance Williams, who was scheduled to be executed on March 4.

"Pennsylvania is now moving toward the national consensus that the death 
penalty is broken, costly and needs to be abolished," Hawkins said in the 
Amnesty International statement.

Some executions carried out in the United States have reportedly caused the 
convicted person to suffer, as in a 2014 case where Dennis McGuire was killed 
by a previously untried drug mixture causing an unexpectedly longer period of 
time for him to die.

The death penalty is legal in 32 out of 50 US states. According to the US 
watchdog group Death Penalty Information Center, there were 3,035 people on a 
death row as of October 2014.

(source: sputniknews.com)