[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IND., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 24



INDIANA:

Indiana Supreme Court upholds death penalty for William Clyde Gibson


The Indiana Supreme Court has upheld a judge's ruling that serial killer 
William Clyde Gibson receive the death penalty, according to an opinion issued 
by the court.

Gibson was sentenced to death in 2013 for the April 19, 2012 murder of family 
friend, 75-year-old Christine Whitis. He killed Whitis, sexually assaulted her 
and mutilated her corpse.

"We find the nature of Gibson's offense to be beyond horrendous," the court 
wrote in its opinion, which was filed Thursday morning. "He brutally murdered 
an elderly woman, sexually assaulting her in the process, even after she was 
dead, then dismembering her body. As for his character, Gibson has an extensive 
criminal history. And although we understand he is afflicted with various 
mental disorders and grief over his mother's death, no one testified he was 
unable to appreciate the severity of his crime. Gibson's jury heard this 
evidence and more, determined the State proved all four aggravators beyond a 
reasonable doubt, and found those aggravators outweighed the mitigating 
evidence presented."

"In light of the horrific manner in which Gibson took Whitis's life and his 
lack of redeeming character traits, we find this is not the kind of exceptional 
case that warrants appellate modification of a sentence," the court continued. 
"Finding Gibson's sentence of death was not inappropriate, we decline to revise 
it."

Gibson has also pleaded guilty to the murder of Stephanie Kirk. Kirk's body was 
found buried in the backyard of Gibson's New Albany home in April 2012. He was 
sentenced to death in that case as well.

In April 2014, Gibson received a 65-year sentence for the murder of Karen 
Hodella. Police say Hodella is the 1st person Gibson killed: a 44-year-old 
Florida woman, found stabbed to death near the Ohio River in Clarksville, Ind.

(source: WDRB news)






USA:

Pope calls on US to abolish death penalty


Speaking to Congress, Pope Francis is calling for an end to the death penalty 
in the U.S. and across the world.

Francis says that every life is sacred and society can only benefit from 
rehabilitating those convicted of crimes.

The pope noted that U.S. bishops have renewed their call to abolish capital 
punishment. That idea is unpopular, however, with many American politicians.

The pontiff did not specifically mention abortion - a particularly contentious 
issue in Congress at the moment that threatens to force the shutdown of the 
U.S. government next week.

Still, his remarks referred to the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. He 
urged lawmakers and all Americans to "protect and defend human life at every 
stage of its development."

"Let us remember the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do 
unto you" (Mt 7:12).

This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same 
passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others 
the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, 
as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us 
give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let 
us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick 
which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our 
responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its 
development.

This conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at 
different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty. I am convinced 
that this way is the best, since every life is sacred, every human person is 
endowed with an inalienable dignity, and society can only benefit from the 
rehabilitation of those convicted of crimes. Recently my brother bishops here 
in the United States renewed their call for the abolition of the death penalty. 
Not only do I support them, but I also offer encouragement to all those who are 
convinced that a just and necessary punishment must never exclude the dimension 
of hope and the goal of rehabilitation."

(sources: Associated Press & International Business Times)

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

Is the Death Penalty Unconstitutional?----Following a controversial ruling over 
lethal injections, Justice Breyer suggested that capital punishment may violate 
the 8th Amendment. It's time to bring that case to court.


In the past nine months, the State of Oklahoma has tried twice to execute 
Robert Glossip. Sentenced to death in 1998 for the murder of his boss, Glossip 
was 1 of 4 death-row inmates suing the state over its use of an unreliable drug 
cocktail that contributed to botched executions. In January, the Supreme Court 
issued a stay and agreed to hear his case; in a bitterly split 5-4 decision, 
the Court ruled that Oklahoma could continue to use the procedure. But when the 
state sought to execute Glossip on September 16, new evidence suggesting that 
he'd been framed by his codefendant prompted a state court to stay his 
execution again, a mere 3 hours before it was carried out. That court is 
working fast to review Glossip's new claims, with a 3rd attempt at execution 
set for September 30.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Glossip v. Gross arrived at a moment when the 
country's enthusiasm for executing its citizens reached a historic low. 
Prosecutors are seeking capital sentences far less often, and jurors, even in 
highly aggravated cases, are imposing long sentences instead of death. Seven 
states have repealed capital punishment since 2000 (most recently Nebraska, a 
red state), and its demise is soon likely in several more. 3 governors in 
capital states have announced that there will be no executions while they're in 
office; a fourth has put a halt to executions pending further review. Even 
longtime supporters of the death penalty, including former prosecutors and 
state attorneys general, are announcing their opposition with increasing 
frequency, in part due to the recognition that our system of justice is far 
more fallible than they once believed.

But several states continue to execute in earnest, and a small number, 
including Oklahoma, continue to use a 3-drug cocktail for lethal injections. 
The 1st drug is supposed to be an anesthetic that knocks the prisoner out; the 
2nd is a paralytic that prevents all movement; the 3rd causes searing pain and 
stops the heart. In recent years, states have had increasing difficulty 
obtaining an anesthetic, primarily because these drugs are largely manufactured 
in European countries that long ago abandoned capital punishment, and these 
companies are increasingly wary of supplying drugs to kill rather than heal.

There is no dispute that prisoners will suffer horrifically if the first drug 
wears off prematurely or does not adequately induce and sustain 
unconsciousness. In the past 2 years, though, some states have selected the 
controversial sedative midazolam as the 1st drug. In 3 executions, it failed to 
keep the condemned unconscious despite the administration of high dosages. In 
an Ohio case, the inmate could be heard gasping and snorting more than 20 
minutes after receiving it. In an Arizona case, the inmate gasped for nearly 2 
hours before being pronounced dead. And in Oklahoma, condemned inmate Clayton 
Lockett awoke during the execution process after receiving a large dose of 
midazolam and suffered greatly before his death.

In many ways, Glossip's case confirmed advocates' claims about the cruelty and 
arbitrary nature of capital punishment. Despite midazolam's troubled track 
record, an Oklahoma federal judge ruled that the inmates' evidence failed to 
show that it was unreliable. That court also denied relief because Glossip had 
failed to demonstrate that the state had a viable alternative - essentially 
faulting his legal team for representing his interests. And the Supreme Court 
granted Glossip's petition for review only after it allowed Oklahoma, on a 5-4 
vote, to execute Charles Warner, another inmate who had joined the suit.

As the opposing votes on Glossip and Warner make clear, the Court was already 
sharply divided when the justices heard oral argument. The hour-long hearing 
was as raw and charged as they come. Justices Samuel Alito and Antonin Scalia 
sharply questioned Glossip's counsel and charged that the pressure placed on 
the drug companies by death-penalty abolitionists was responsible for the lack 
of reliable anesthetic drugs. Justice Sonia Sotomayor pointed out inaccuracies 
in the state's brief, and Justice Elena Kagan argued that if midazolam failed 
to sedate, the inmate would feel as if he were being burned alive.

On June 29, the conservative majority upheld Oklahoma's use of midazolam, 
concluding that there was not a "substantial risk of serious pain" necessary to 
establish an Eighth Amendment violation. The majority also held that it is the 
inmate's burden to identify a workable alternative.

Justice Sotomayor's stinging 31-page dissent, joined by Justices Kagan, Stephen 
Breyer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, vigorously asserted that Glossip's evidence 
established a substantial risk of cruel and unusual punishment. It found the 
district court was wrong on the science concerning midazolam and sharply 
disagreed with the majority's holding that inmates challenging execution 
protocols have the burden to establish an acceptable method of execution.

But it is Justice Breyer's long dissent, joined by Justice Ginsburg, that will 
command the most attention in the coming years. Channeling a growing number of 
Americans, he wrote that it is time to consider whether the Eighth Amendment 
bars capital punishment in all cases.

Breyer is hardly the 1st Supreme Court justice to invite constitutional debate 
about the death penalty. Several members of the Court that brought back the 
death penalty in 1976 later came to reject it. Nixon appointee Lewis Powell 
told his biographer that the death penalty should be abolished. Another Nixon 
appointee, Harry Blackmun, wrote in 1994 that he would no longer "tinker with 
the machinery of death." And in 2008, John Paul Stevens wrote that his review 
of hundreds of cases had persuaded him that the penalty is both profoundly 
unworkable and unconstitutional.

What has Breyer learned to put him in such company? Plenty. In his dissent, he 
argued that the death penalty is seriously unreliable and arbitrary in 
application; he believes the long delays undermine its penological purpose; and 
he is convinced that we have executed the innocent.

In the 1963 case of Rudolph v. Alabama, Justice Arthur Goldberg similarly 
suggested that capital punishment might violate the Eighth Amendment. That 
dissent prompted statewide moratoriums and encouraged cases to be brought to 
the Court challenging the constitutionality of capital statutes. A decade 
later, the Court struck them all down in Furman v. Georgia. Perhaps, in the 
wake of Glossip, we are about to travel down that path once again.

(source: George Kendall, The Nation)