[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, VA., TENN., ARK., MO., OKLA., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 25



TEXAS:

Execution of mentally ill man serves no greater good


Any reasonable debate over the value and efficacy of the death penalty must 
eventually return to the greater good.

Those who support the continued application of capital punishment believe a 
greater good is served by putting to death the worst of the worst, those whose 
criminal acts forever brand them as evil beyond redemption.

And while recognizing that moral argument, this newspaper disagrees that any 
greater good can result from a penalty of such irrevocable finality so 
inconsistently applied.

When the life in question is a schizophrenic who demanded to represent himself 
at trial dressed as a TV cowboy and sought to subpoena the pope, John F. 
Kennedy and Jesus Christ, where is the point of contention?

Scott Panetti has struggled with mental illness for 4 decades. In the 6 years 
before he shot his estranged wife's parents, Joe and Amanda Alvarado, in 
Fredericksburg, he was hospitalized more than a dozen times, diagnosed with 
schizophrenia, delusions and hallucinations. On 1 occasion, he became convinced 
the devil had possessed his home and buried his furniture in the back yard. 
Today he believes that prison guards have implanted a listening device in one 
of his teeth.

If the state of Texas puts him to death, as a jury ruled in 1995, he will take 
his last breath believing it was the end of a plot to silence his allegations 
of prison corruption and attempts to preach the gospel.

Panetti is caught in a fatal Catch-22: He has no money to hire an expert to 
evaluate his condition, yet the state argues that courts already have rejected 
his claims and that he's not entitled to funding because he cannot show that 
he's too mentally ill to face execution.

He hasn't been evaluated by a mental health professional in nearly 7 years. A 
neuropsychologist who reviewed his records pro bono at his lawyers' request 
concluded that his condition was worsening, exacerbated by age and the stress 
of living under a death sentence.

In what could be his last hope, a panel of 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 
justices heard testimony this week and will decide whether to grant his lawyers 
access to funding that could prove his incompetence.

So we're back to that fundamental question: What greater good is served by 
putting Scott Panetti to death?

This newspaper finds common ground with Richard A. Viguerie, speaking for a 
group of national conservative thought leaders, and Texas Court of Criminal 
Appeals Judge Tom Price, who dissented from his Republican colleagues on 
allowing Panetti's execution to go forward.

Because no matter where you come down on capital punishment, the evidence in 
this case is clear: Carrying out this sentence, especially in the absence of a 
complete and timely mental health evaluation, serves neither deterrence nor 
retribution. It only diminishes us as a state, as a nation and as a people.

There's no greater good in this. No good at all.

(source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News)






VIRGINIA----impending execution

Group asks Virginia Gov. McAuliffe to delay man's execution


A group that advocates for people with intellectual disabilities wants Gov. 
Terry McAuliffe to delay the execution of a man convicted of killing a young 
couple in Virginia.

Alfredo Prieto's attorneys have asked McAuliffe to grant a temporary reprieve 
of his Oct. 1 execution so he can be transferred to California and assessed on 
whether he's intellectually disabled.

Jamie Liban, executive director of The Arc of Virginia, said in a letter 
supporting Prieto's request that the group has serious concerns about the 
upcoming execution. Liban says allowing it to go forward would be "unjustified 
scientifically."

Prieto was already on California's death row for raping and killing a 
15-year-old girl when he was sentenced to death in 2010 for the shooting deaths 
of Rachael Raver and Warren Fulton III.

(source: Associated Press)






TENNESSEE:

Tennessee Supreme Court Sets October Oral Arguments


The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear 2 civil cases, 2 Board of Professional 
Responsibility cases and 1 death penalty case when it sits for oral arguments 
in Nashville Oct. 1.

State v. Howard Hawk Willis - This death penalty case comes to the Supreme 
Court on a direct appeal. The Supreme Court is required by law to review all 
death penalty cases. Mr. Willis was convicted of the 2003 murders of a teenage 
husband and wife near Johnson City and sentenced to death. The defendant, who 
represented himself at trial after changing lawyers multiple times, has raised 
20 issues on appeal for the Court to consider regarding his conviction and 
sentence.

Oral arguments, which are open to the public, begin at 9 a.m. CDT at the 
Supreme Court building, 401 7th Ave, N., Nashville.

(source: The Chattanoogan)

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

TN Supreme Court to review Howard Hawk Willis' death penalty case Oct. 1


The Tennessee Supreme Court will hear a death penalty case from our area.

On Oct. 1, the death penalty case of Howard Hawk Willis will go to The Supreme 
Court on a direct appeal.

The Supreme Court is required by law to review all death penalty cases.

In 2010, a jury convicted Willis in the 2003 murders of Samantha and Adam 
Chrismer.

Investigators found the teen couple's dismembered bodies in plastic containers 
at a Johnson City storage facility.

Willis represented himself at trial and changed lawyers multiple times. He has 
raised 20 issues on appeal for the court to consider regarding his conviction 
and sentence.

(source: WJHL News)






ARKANSAS:

On death row, clemency asked


A death-row inmate, scheduled to be executed in November, has requested 
executive clemency, a state Parole Board official said Thursday.

Stacey Johnson, 45, filed the request Wednesday. Granting the request can mean 
either total forgiveness for the crime or a reduction of the criminal penalty, 
said Parole Board administrator Solomon Graves.

Johnson and Terrick Nooner, 44, are scheduled to die by lethal injection Nov. 
3. Nooner had not requested clemency as of late Thursday, but has until noon 
Monday to do so, Graves said.

The Parole Board will hold a clemency hearing with Johnson at the Arkansas 
Department of Correction's Varner unit in Gould at 9:30 a.m. Oct. 15. The 2nd 
part of the hearing -- which includes the state's objection to the clemency as 
well as victim-impact testimony -- will be at 1 p.m. Oct. 15 at the Parole 
Board's office in Little Rock.

The Parole Board will consider the application and the testimony, then make a 
recommendation to Gov. Asa Hutchinson to either grant the clemency or deny it. 
The governor is not obligated to follow the board's decision.

Death-row inmates Bruce Ward, 58, and Don Davis, 52 -- who are set to die by 
lethal injection Oct. 21 -- did not submit clemency requests by the Sept. 21 
deadline, Graves said.

Besides Johnson, Nooner, Ward and Davis, inmates Marcel Williams and Jack Jones 
Jr. are scheduled to be executed Dec. 14 and Jason McGehee and Kenneth Williams 
are scheduled to die Jan. 14. All 8 have exhausted all standard appeals. 
Williams and Jones have until Nov. 3 to request clemency and McGehee and 
Williams have until Dec. 4 to request it.

Last week, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals declined Ward's request for a 
review of his death-sentence case.

A lawsuit filed in June in Pulaski County Circuit Court by all 8 men asking the 
prison system to disclose the source of its execution drugs is pending. Jeff 
Rosenzweig, an attorney for all 8 men, has said that he will ask the court to 
delay the executions.

(source: arkansasonline.com)


MISSOURI:

Nonprofit Group Reports That Flawed FBI Hair Analysis Was Used to Convict 
Defendants


Faulty testimony contributed to at least 35 guilty verdicts, with 9 executions 
resulting.

The Innocence Project, a nonprofit organization based in New York, announced on 
April 21 that the FBI erroneously testified about hair samples in 6 criminal 
cases in Missouri, including 1 that resulted in the execution of the defendant. 
And now the executed man has been identified as Jeffrey Ferguson, who was 
convicted in St. Louis County last year for the 1989 murder of Kelli Hall.

In a joint statement that was released the previous weekend, the FBI, Justice 
Department, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the Innocence 
Project declared that in an overwhelming number of cases - 96 % of 268 trials - 
the FBI hair examiners' testimony used against the defendant was flawed. 
Furthermore, the review found that 26 of 28 hair examiners overstated the 
scientific certainty of their hair matches when they either wrote lab reports 
or testified.

In addition to Jeffrey Ferguson, eight other prisoners convicted in trials in 
which faulty hair testimony was admitted have been executed and another 5 
prisoners died while awaiting execution. Overall, at least 35 defendants who 
were convicted in trials with erroneous hair testimony received the death 
penalty.

"People finding themselves charged with a crime are already at a serious 
disadvantage against the phalanx of legal resources that the state uses against 
them," said Charles James, a prominent criminal defense attorney in St. Peters, 
Missouri. "The admission of botched hair sample testimony is not only unjust 
but also tips the scales against the defendant even more."

In the Ferguson case, the Missouri State Public Defender's Office has 
documented that the FBI analyst involved, Michael Malone, made several errors 
and that he "exceeded the limits of science" when he claimed that the hair 
"could be associated with a specific individual to the exclusion of all 
others." The office further stated that Malone erred in providing a statistical 
probability to his assertion and in citing other comparisons done, all in order 
to support his findings.

However, Tom Dittmeier, the prosecutor who handled Ferguson's murder trials 
that led to his execution on March 26, 2014, has insisted that there was plenty 
of incriminating evidence to convict Ferguson and that not admitting the faulty 
hair analysis would not have mattered in his case.

"The prosecution may have had compelling evidence in the case of the executed 
man from Missouri, but the revelation about the faulty hair analysis has now 
cast some doubt on that assertion," James said. "And it begs the question of 
just how many innocent people have been wrongly convicted based on erroneous 
testimony."

(source: lawfirmnewswire.com)






OKLAHOMA:

State responds to affidavits from condemned inmate Richard Glossip's legal 
team, defends his conviction ---- In a filing with a state appeals court, the 
reliability of 3 defense witnesses' testimony is questioned.


In a court filing Thursday, the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office called new 
witnesses in death-row inmate Richard Glossip's innocence claim "inherently 
suspect."

Glossip, 52, came within 4 hours of execution on Sept. 16 before receiving a 
stay from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. The court postponed Glossip's 
lethal injection until Sept. 30 to provide time for review of new evidence in 
his claim that he is innocent. Glossip was sentenced to death for hiring Justin 
Sneed to kill their boss, Barry Alan Van Treese, in 1997.

In recent weeks, Glossip's legal team has filed affidavits from 2 men who 
served time with Sneed who said he either lied about Glossip's involvement in 
the killing or never mentioned it at all.

A 3rd affidavit from a man who took drugs with Glossip's brother also conflicts 
with the prosecution's position that Sneed was under Glossip's control.

(source: Tulsa World)

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

Psychiatric report of key witness surfaces in Glossip execution appeal


Richard Glossip is scheduled to be executed next week for the 1997 murder of a 
motel owner.

The execution has already been stayed 3 times.

It was the testimony of Justin Sneed that sent Glossip to death row years ago.

Sneed claimed Glossip ordered him to kill the victim, Barry Van Treese.

Sneed is currently serving a life sentence.

Glossip's attorneys are still working up until the last minute to build their 
case against Sneed.

In a legal back and forth between Glossip's attorneys and the state, new court 
filings are pouring into the Court of Criminal Appeals.

The attorney general recently included a psychiatric report on Sneed.

Sneed was in jail when the report was done.

"He indicated that the alleged crime was in connection with a burglary, but 
that he does not carry a charge of burglary," the doctor said.

Sneed went on to say he was in jail for killing someone.

He didn't ever mention Glossip to the doctor, even though Sneed testified 
Glossip paid him to carry out the murder.

Police arrested Glossip back in 1997 outside attorney David McKenzie's office.

"I can tell you what he wanted me to tell the police, which I did," McKenzie 
said. "He wasn't going to cooperate with their investigation anymore, and I 
called the police while he was in my office and relayed that to them."

Glossip had a lot of cash with him and said it was for the attorney.

Police allege it was money stolen from Van Treese.

The late district attorney Bob Macy charged Glossip with the death penalty.

Macy sent more than 50 offenders to death row - the most in state history.

Former dean of OU School of Law, Andy Coats, was Macy's predecessor.

"It's a case where, personally, if I'd been DA at the time, I wouldn't have 
filed the death penalty on it, because I don't think it's solid enough," Coats 
said.

Glossips attorneys tell Newschannel 4 they continue to interview new witnesses, 
but hit a snag this week.

Arrest warrants were issued for 2 of their witnesses for probation violations.

(source: KFOR news)

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

Prosecutors Seek Death Penalty Against Bethany Man Accused In Toddler's Death


Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against a man accused of killing a 
2-year-old child.

Dustin Davison was arrested back on May 18 after he called 911 saying the child 
was unresponsive.

News 9 talked with child's uncle Thursday afternoon by phone.

Mike Sepe says he thinks Dustin Davison should rot in prison for the rest of 
his life for what he's accused of doing to this little boy. But Sepe says the 
rest of the family is in favor of the death penalty.

Court papers reveal Dustin Davison had been babysitting 2-year-old Kreedin 
Brooks while the son's mother, who was his girlfriend at the time, was away 
from their apartment.

"He was an innocent little child you know," said Sepe during an on camera 
interview back on July 24. "I mean innocent little child, at 2 years what could 
you do? There's no way any child any child would deserve something like that."

Court papers state Kreedin was covered in bruises and had blood coming from his 
nose and mouth. He also suffered blunt force trauma to his head.

When paramedics arrived at the Bryan Hill apartment complex near NW 36th and 
Meridian back on May 18, they hoped they could save the child. But they could 
not.

Davison's call to 911 ended up implicating him in the child's death.

According to court papers, Davidson originally told Bethany police officers 
that he was in the shower for 15 minutes prior to finding the victim lying 
unresponsive and unconscious on the living room floor. Davison stated he 
attempted to administer CPR to the victim. He explained how the victim was in 
his terrible 2's and liked to climb things. When asked, Davison stated he did 
not see the incident occur.

While at the police department, Davison told investigators the same story as he 
told responding officers, however, he added the victim fell and hit his head on 
the coffee table. Once confronted with the evidence that did not match his 
recollection of the events of the incident, Davison admitted to playing rough 
with the victim. He admitted to getting into a pillow fight with the child and 
hitting him with a pillow, which caused the child to fall off the couch and 
slam his head into the coffee table. Davison stated the victim hit the table 
very hard.

According to medical personnel at the hospital, the victim sustained a 
fractured skull and had swelling and bleeding of the brain. The victim also had 
other previous injuries to the head due to older bruising and the injuries were 
consistent with abuse. Recent bruising also led investigators to believe the 
victim sustained multiple hits to the head.

Davison reportedly told investigators the victim caused the recent bruises and 
head trauma by playing slip and slide in the bathroom tub and claimed the 
bruises were self - inflicted.

Court papers state police also found marijuana in the living room on the coffee 
table.

News 9 obtained an excerpt of the 911 call Davison made back on May 18.

Davison is heard saying:

"I was in the shower and next thing I know I come out and there's blood on the 
left side of his head - and also his forehead is severely bruised. and I think 
the internal bleeding from the skull went into the lungs ... I tried patting 
his back as many times as I could to get all of the blood out but I'm just 
holding him right now hoping that he will make it through this."

In the bill of particulars filed Wednesday, prosecutors stated they are seeking 
the death penalty because the murder was especially heinous and they feel 
Davison would be a threat to society.

Now, Kreedin's uncle Mike just waits for Davison's day in court. A court date 
is yet to be set.

"Any grown person that abuses a child isn't worth nothing in my eyes," said 
Sepe.

Sepe's mission now is to help raise money and awareness for child abuse 
victims.

(source: KWTV news)



USA:

Pope has influenced Obama's attitude on death penalty


Pope Francis's appeal to end the death penalty has "influenced" President 
Obama's thinking on the issue, the White House said Thursday.

In a speech to Congress, Francis reiterated his call to abolish the death 
penalty across the globe, saying it violates mankind's "responsibility to 
protect and defend human life at every stage of its development."

"It's fair to say the president's views are influenced by statements that are 
made by the pope," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters. But 
Earnest stressed that Obama, who watched at least part of Francis's speech, is 
not ready to change his position on the issue.

Francis's U.S. tour has revived the debate over the death penalty, one of the 
most polarizing elements of the American justice system.

Obama backs the death penalty but has raised concerns in the past with how it 
is applied. After a botched execution in Oklahoma last year, the president 
ordered a review by the Justice Department.

"In the context of answering this question in the past, the president has noted 
his concerns with the way that the death penalty has been applied," Earnest 
said. Obama has also expressed worry about racial disparities and situations 
where death row inmates have been exonerated after further evidence proved them 
innocent.

"Certainly, those kinds of results are troubling," Earnest said.

The debate over the death penalty comes as Obama is pushing Congress to pass a 
sweeping set of criminal-justice reforms.

Lawmakers are considering a number of bills that would reduce sentences for 
nonviolent drug offenders. Abolishing the federal death penalty would be a 
heavy lift in Congress.

(source: the hill.com)

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

Newt Gingrich 'More Open' To Ending Death Penalty After Pope's Address----"We 
need to profoundly rethink what we've done over the past 25 years in criminal 
justice."


Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker and onetime Republican presidential 
candidate, said he is "more open" to eliminating the death penalty after 
hearing Pope Francis' address to Congress.

"I very deeply believe we need to profoundly rethink what we've done over the 
past 25 years in criminal justice," Gingrich said Thursday on HuffPost Live.

Earlier that day, the pope had spoken to a joint meeting of Congress about many 
issues, including the importance of ending capital punishment.

"The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend 
human life at every stage of its development," Pope Francis said. "This 
conviction has led me, from the beginning of my ministry, to advocate at 
different levels for the global abolition of the death penalty."

Gingrich, who converted to Catholicism several years ago, was "very impressed" 
with the way the pope made his argument. As for the death penalty, he said, 
"You do want to be careful not to execute someone that you find later on, as 
we've found, to be innocent."

The former U.S. representative had previously taken a strict stance on capital 
punishment, even proposing death as a penalty for possession of significant 
amounts of marijuana. But as he noted Thursday, Gingrich has been evolving on 
criminal justice issues for some time now. He even found common ground with 
hip-hop mogul Jay Z last year on California's Proposition 47, which sought to 
make the state a little less "tough on crime."

"I think we have destroyed lives by getting them in situations where they learn 
how to be good criminals, but not anything else. In that sense, I am more open 
than I would have been," Gingrich said Thursday.

(source: Huffington Post)

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

Rep. Rodney Davis open to repeal death penalty, says he held position before 
pope's speech


U.S. Rep. Rodney Davis said Thursday that he's open to elimination of the 
federal death penalty, something Pope Francis called for worldwide in his 
speech to a joint session of Congress.

Davis, a Taylorville Republican and a Catholic, said he has been open to the 
option before, and the pope didn't change his mind. He also said that a change 
in the law should be coupled with other law changes, possibly including those 
concerning some illegal drugs.

"I'm somebody who understands both sides of that debate," Davis told reporters 
via telephone after the pope's speech. "And I can easily agree with the pope to 
eliminate the death penalty."

But Davis said he thinks the message was also about criminal justice reform.

"We have policies in place now that sometimes punish those who may have made a 
mistake of having a certain amount of marijuana," Davis said. "They're in jail 
longer than folks who were accused of much more heinous crimes, in my opinion. 
We as the federal government need to take a strong look at ensuring that our 
criminal justice system punishes those who deserve to be punished."

Davis is anti-abortion, and asked specifically if he would be OK with abolition 
of the death penalty, he said he would like to couple that with doing 
"everything we can to protect the sanctity of life."

On the death penalty, Davis said he also understands "the call for those who 
are victims of crime to have that option."

"But in my case, I'm somebody who said I would consider the repeal, and this 
was long before the pope came today," he said.

Davis converted to Catholicism in 2001, and his wife, Shannon, who was his 
guest in the House chamber, is a lifelong Catholic.

Davis said he was intrigued and energized by the message.

"It wasn't about politics," he said. "It was about how the pope feels. ... We 
all want to make a difference. Caring for the poor, the sick and the unborn are 
fundamental."

Davis said he sat next to new U.S. Rep. Darin LaHood, R-Peoria, and it was a 
proud moment for both when the pope mentioned Abraham Lincoln as the "guardian 
of liberty," given that both Davis and LaHood represent areas Lincoln once 
represented.

"For me, it was a message that hit close to home," Davis said.

In a prepared statement, LaHood said it was humbling to attend the address.

"As a practicing Catholic and someone who has looked to my faith throughout my 
life, the opportunity to be present to hear the spiritual leader address 
Congress and the American people was an experience that will stay with me for 
my entire life," he said.

U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin, a Springfield Democrat, told reporters by telephone that 
Francis "has really captured the imagination of the people around the world."

If it were possible to describe the "winning formula," said Durbin, also a 
Catholic, "I think it's genuineness on one hand, humility on the other, and I 
think he continues to challenge all of us, every person, whether you're 
Catholic or not, to lead a better life and to help people."

Durbin said messages Francis continued to return to were helping the poor and 
being "sensitive and conscious about our changing world." He said he hoped 
members of Congress could find common ground in addressing those concerns.

The genuine nature of the pope was on display a day earlier, Durbin said.

"From the minute he drove up to the White House in that little Fiat, I thought 
to myself, 'This fella is for real,'" Durbin said. The small car fit with the 
pope's modest living quarters and efforts to seek out and spend time with the 
poor, he said.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican from Highland Park, issued a statement 
calling it an honor to have the pope, "a symbol of love and compassion," in the 
country.

"May we take his message of unity and cooperation to heart," Kirk said.

(source: Springfield (Ill.) Journal-Register)

******

Pope's death-penalty remarks draw renewed attention to Scalia's Memphis speech


As Pope Francis spoke to Congress Thursday, advocating for the abolishment of 
the death penalty, his remarks kindled new interest in statements made by a 
Supreme Court justice just days ago - in Memphis.

In case you missed our story, Justice Antonin Scalia, the longest-serving 
justice on the court, spoke at Rhodes College Tuesday night and mentioned the 
death penalty several times in his hour-and-20-minute speech.

His talk was in honor of Constitution Day (although a few days late after the 
actual holiday) and was titled "Constitutional Interpretation."

Scalia adheres to a doctrine known as "originalism," which holds that it is not 
up to a court to rewrite the Constitution. It must be preserved in its original 
form, and it is not up to judges to use it to rule on mainstream issues like 
abortion and the death penalty.

Scalia also mentioned it wouldn't surprise him if his court did rule that the 
death penalty is unconstitutional. It's clear he would not be in the majority 
if that were to be the case. But Scalia mentioned he "wouldn't be surprised" 
because he said there are four judges who have already said they believe it is 
unconstitutional.

But the only1 of the 4 Scalia mentioned was Justice Stephen Breyer. And at 
first, Scalia said there are only three judges that believe it is 
unconstitutional, but later corrected it to 4.

"If the death penalty did not violate the 8th amendment when the 8th amendment 
was adopted, it doesn't violate it today," Scalia said. "But I sat with three 
colleagues who thought the death penalty is unconstitutional ... Even though 
it's mentioned in the original Constitution. 'No person shall be deprived of 
life without due process. And in all capital cases, the accused is entitled to 
a grand jury indictment.' That's what the Constitution says.

"(But) I sat with 3 colleagues, and there is now a 4th - Justice Breyer has 
announced that he thinks the death penalty is unconstitutional."

In a written dissent in June, Breyer and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called for 
a new legal examination of the death penalty, and said it might not be 
constitutional.

In his speech, Scalia asked, "Where does this come from?"

"Do you really want your judges to rewrite the Constitution? What is it that I 
learned at Harvard Law School that makes me peculiarly qualified to determine 
such profound, moral and ethical questions as to whether there should be a 
right to abortion, whether there should be same-sex marriage, whether there 
should be a right to suicide.

"What have I learned at Harvard Law School? It has nothing to do with the law. 
Even Yale Law School doesn't teach that."

Scalia continued that the idea of a changing Constitution and activist judges 
does not permit any flexibility, as is commonly argued, because once the 
Supreme Court weighs in, the discussion ends.

"It's no use talking about abortion any more," he said. "It's just off the 
(Democrats') table. No use arguing about it. Coast to coast. Now and forever. 
Or I guess until the Supreme Court changes its mind. Is that flexibility?"

It was then he made his statement predicting a possible outcome on the death 
penalty.

"If we decide - and it wouldn't surprise me if we decided that the death 
penalty is unconstitutional - that will be the end of it. Coast to coast. 
Nobody can have the death penalty.

"Whereas, under my Constitution, it is flexible. You want abortion? Persuade 
your fellow citizens it's a good idea. You want to prohibit abortion? Persuade 
them that way. And you can change your mind. The same with the death penalty. 
You can abolish it, if it turns out you're having a lot more murders, you can 
reinstitute it. That's flexibility."

(source: Memphis Commercial Appeal)

*******

Can the pope's moral anti-death penalty argument sway American lawmakers? 
Logic, experience and evidence have failed to turn the tide against the death 
penalty. Perhaps faith, and Pope Francis??? concern for humanity, can succeed


There are many substantive policy reasons for opposing the death penalty: the 
risk of executing innocent people; the unfairness inherent in the judicial 
process; the persistent evidence of racial discrimination; and lack of evidence 
that killing some people deters other people from killing anyone. And, for the 
past 20 years, support for the death penalty has been falling more or less 
consistently - though a comfortable majority of Americans still support its 
use.

Empirical evidence, however, rarely moves Congress. So perhaps a moral 
argument, made by somebody with perhaps the greatest moral authority on the 
planet, might be more effective. Pope Francis' impassioned speech before 
Congress Thursday morning might just be what it takes to move hearts and 
legislative pens on the issue.

Speaking before both houses of Congress, US supreme court justices, members of 
the president's cabinet and to millions of viewers watching the live broadcast, 
Francis made an explicit call to end capital punishment.

Though he spoke more poetically - some might say obtusely - about immigration, 
"the family" and climate change, citing his belief in the Golden Rule, Francis 
said, "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," he continued.

No sooner had the pope finished his speech, then advocacy groups were breaking 
out in celebration. "The pope's speech before Congress was nothing less than 
historic," the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty executive 
director Diann Rust-Tierney said in a statement. "His words are a critical 
endorsement of our fight." More dispassionate voices also agreed that the 
pope's statement was a meaningful boost for reformers. The executive director 
of Death Penalty Information Center, which doesn't take a side in the debate, 
told the Guardian that his question was what impact the pope' words might have. 
"I think that Pope Francis's statement was very clear, very direct and 
compelling," Robert Dunham said. "And I think that it will have a an effect. 
It's hard to immediately measure what that effect will be."

It will, almost certainly, pose a direct challenge to Catholic legislators, 
prosecutors and judges who are willing to be swayed by the Pope's words. 
Indeed, many of the states to abolish the death penalty in recent years are 
heavily Catholic, including Illinois, New Jersey, New Mexico, and New York. And 
in a couple of cases - Governor Pat Quinn in Illinois and Governor Bill 
Richardson in New Mexico - Catholic leaders played an influential role in 
abolishing it. Polling data suggests that Catholics are more disturbed by the 
problems posed by capital punishment than the general population.

But not all Catholics are apparently swayed by this Pope: in addition to 
Catholic Republican Congressman Paul Gosar, who boycotted the speech, and a 
variety of other criticism from ultra-conservative Catholics, of the 6 members 
of the US supreme court who are Catholic, only 3 (John Roberts, Anthony 
Kennedy, and Sonia Sotomayor) attended the pope's address to Congress. The more 
right-leaning Catholic justices (Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel 
Alito) were notably absent.

Still, now any reporter or citizen can approach Catholic lawmakers from House 
speaker John Boehner on down, and ask if they agree with the pope that the 
death penalty should be overturned. It puts pressure on them that, if it 
existed before, wasn't as explicit.

And it's not just Catholics that Francis might have reached with his remarks 
about the death penalty: while other popes have been mainly popular among 
Catholics, Pope Francis has been able to reach a wider audience, especially 
young people. "This particular pope has demonstrated a crossover appeal that 
goes beyond Catholicism" said Dunham, noting that his statements about support 
for the poor and dispossessed have resonated widely. "When a public figure who 
is that highly regarded makes a statement like this, it's going to have an 
effect."

Those trying to quantify the effect of the pope's speech may not have to wait 
long for data. Last year Gallup found support for the death penalty, while 
down, is still as high as 63%. A more recent survey from Pew, puts the number 
at 56%, down from a high of 78% in 1996.

The new Gallup poll is scheduled to come out in a matter of weeks, so we'll 
have an idea of just how big the pope effect really is. People's views on the 
law are already affected by their views about morality and their level of 
compassion for humanity. Pope Francis has made a strong argument that concern 
for humanity and morality should lead one to oppose the death penalty; maybe he 
- and faith - can succeed in turning the public tide where logic, experience 
and evidence has failed.

(source: The Guardian)

****

Pope Francis and the future of the death penalty


When Pope Francis called for the "global abolition" of the death penalty on 
Thursday, he touched upon a debate brewing across the country that is on the 
minds not only of the public and lawmakers, but 4 of the Supreme Court justices 
who were sitting in the front row of the House chamber.

"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," Francis told the joint meeting of Congress.

As the number of Americans who approve the death penalty has hit a 40-year low, 
some federal judges question its constitutionality, and states struggle with a 
shortage of lethal injection drugs, some 3,000 inmates across the country hope 
they live long enough to see the debate resolved in their favor.

"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," the Pope said.

At the current center of the death penalty debate are Richard Glossip and Kelly 
Renee Gissendaner, two inmates currently scheduled for execution next week.

Last week, Glossip came within three hours of being strapped to a gurney in 
Oklahoma when a new set of lawyers managed to win a two-week delay. 
Gissendaner, the only woman on Georgia's death row, was taken to a death cell 
last March only to have her execution postponed after prison officials grew 
jittery because the drugs meant to kill her seemed unusually cloudy in their 
vials.

What is the future of the death penalty? Experts like Elisabeth Semel of the 
Death Penalty Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, 
decline to guess. "I do not believe in prognostication," she said in an 
interview. But she allowed that, "it is fair to say we may be approaching a 
crossroads based on signs from multiple sources," including popular opinion, 
legislatures, policymakers and declining death sentences and executions.

The issue is not lost on death row inmates. "Condemned prisoners are paying 
close attention," said Dale Baich, an assistant federal public defender and 
lawyer for Glossip. "There is a sense by some that they are caught in the 
middle of continuing political discussions and legal proceedings, and that 
their execution dates will be set while the process unfolds.

Victims' Rights

Some victim's family members are baffled by the outpouring of support for 
Glossip and Gissendaner and other inmates. Glossip was convicted of a 
murder-for-hire plot involving the death of Barry Alan Van Treese. But he has 
received widespread support from Hollywood actress Susan Sarandon as well as 
activist Sister Helen Prejean, who both say he is innocent. Gissendaner was 
convicted for plotting the 1988 murder of her husband, Doug Gissendaner. The 
faith community has rallied around her pointing out that she has become a model 
prisoner and counsels others.

Doug Gissendaner's family members says they have been on a "long, heartbreaking 
road."

"Doug is the true victim of this pre-meditated and heinous crime," the family 
said in a statement released after the postponement.

Victims' rights groups wonder why so much attention is spent on the death row 
inmates at the cost of their victims.

Indeed, the majority of Americans still support the death penalty, according to 
Pew Research Center. Fifty-six percent favor the death penalty for those 
convicted of murder, while 38% oppose it. But Pew says the support has fallen 
to a 40-year low. The change is evident when it comes to Democrats, where 40% 
favor the death penalty while 56% are opposed. Republican support has changed 
less dramatically. In 1996 87% were in favor, today that has fallen to 77%.

Currently, the death penalty is legal in 31 states, but in 2014, only 7 states 
actually went through with an execution.

"The death penalty is on the books, but rarely carried out," said Richard 
Dieter, the senior program director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a 
group that takes no official position on the death penalty. Dieter notes that 
death sentences were at a new low last last year.

Opponents of the death penalty say it is being arbitrarily implemented and 
doesn't serve a purpose to deter crime. They worry about the number of 
exonerations - 155 inmates have been exonerated since 1973 - and the length of 
time it takes from the time a person is sentenced to death and the time of 
execution.

And then there are the costs. A 2011 study by Judge Arthur Alarcon and 
Professor Paula Mitchell concluded that trial costs, appeals, and the cost of 
incarceration contributed to a price tag of $4 billion for the State of 
California since 1978. The authors contend that if those on death row received 
commuted sentences, the state could see a savings of $170 million per year.

"We are in the midst of a reconsideration of the death penalty" Dieter said, 
pointing out that juries are returning it less and prosecutors aren't seeking 
it as much.

Constitutional questions

Some of those issues came up when Glossip's case initially went before the 
Supreme Court last term. He was challenging the use of one of the drugs - 
midazolam - that he said would not put in him in a deep enough coma so that he 
didn't feel the effect of the other 2 drugs in the protocol.

Oral arguments in the case were particularly tense. On the last day of the 
term, a 5-4 Court allowed the use of the drug. The liberal justices on the 
bench were in dissent, and 2 of them, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader 
Ginsburg, went even further saying that they thought the Court should revisit 
the constitutionality of the death penalty.

In 1972, the Court voided death penalty statutes across the country, but by 
1976 it effectively reinstated the death penalty in a case called Gregg v. 
Georgia.

Court watchers are curious regarding the impact of Breyer and Ginsburg's 
dissent. Since it was issued, the Court has denied emergency requests for death 
sentence reprieves from other death row inmates with no noted dissent by either 
of the justices. Neither Justice Elena Kagan nor Justice Sonia Sotomayor joined 
the dissent. And Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a crucial swing vote, has shown 
no inclination to say the death penalty is unconstitutional even though he has 
voted to narrow its application when it came to juvenile offenders and the 
intellectually disabled.

Meanwhile, in California, a federal district court judge issued an opinion last 
July holding that the state's death penalty system violates the federal 
Constitution. In that case, U.S. District Court Judge Cormac J. Carney wrote 
that since 1978 over 900 people have been sentenced to death for their crimes 
in California, but only 13 have been executed. Carney said that California's 
"dysfunctional " administration of the death penalty violates the Eighth 
Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The case is 
currently on review at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

Drug shortages

In other states, a major struggle is that manufacturers, in part due to 
pressure from death penalty opponents, have stopped providing lethal injection 
drugs. As a result, states have had to try different drug protocols.

During the Glossip hearing before the Supreme Court, Justice Samuel Alito took 
on some death penalty opponents who he suggested might be contributing, 
indirectly, to the shortage of proven drugs.

"Is it appropriate for the judiciary to countenance what amounts to a guerrilla 
war against the death penalty which consists of efforts to make it impossible 
for the State to obtain drugs that could be used to carry out capital 
punishment with little, if any, pain?" he asked.

Alito's comments revealed fissures on the Court as it tries to sort out claims, 
many of which arrive on a last minute basis, and the country as a whole as it 
weighs the issue of victims' rights against the potential rehabilitation of 
death row inmates in an effort to target what the Pope called the need to 
"protect and defend human life."

(source: CNN)