[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----OKLA., NEB., N. MEX., NEV.

[Rick Halperin]

Aug. 22



OKLAHOMA:

Execution state question waste of time, could lead to additional litigation, 
legal experts say


Some legal experts say a state question dealing with the death penalty does 
little, is unnecessary and could lead to additional litigation.

Voters on Nov. 8 are expected to decide a number of state questions, including 
State Question 776.

The attorney general determined the legislation wording that put it on the 
ballot didn't accurately describe the measure and provided a substantial 
rewrite.

The measure now says lawmakers can designate any method of execution that is 
not prohibited by the U.S. Constitution. It also says that death sentences will 
not be reduced because a method is ruled invalid.

The measure says that if a method is deemed invalid, the death penalty shall 
remain in force until it can be carried out with a valid method.

Finally, it says that under the state constitution, the death penalty can't be 
ruled cruel or unusual punishment.

Lawmakers in 2015 put the measure on the ballot by passing Senate Joint 
Resolution 31, by Sen. Anthony Sykes, R-Moore.

It was done following the 2014 highly publicized botched execution of Clayton 
Lockett at Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester. Lockett died of a heart 
attack 43 minutes after the lethal injection process began.

Another inmate, Charles Warner, was put to death in 2015 using the incorrect 
combination of drugs.

"Basically, I don't think it does anything," said Oklahoma County Public 
Defender Bob Ravitz. "Oklahoma law has always been that."

The state question reiterates what the Court of Criminal Appeals has said for 
100 years, Ravitz said.

Sykes did not respond to requests for an interview.

Sykes was an author of House Joint Resolution 1056 that put an earlier state 
question on the ballot. State Question 755 banned Shariah law, which is Islamic 
law and based on the Quran and the teaching of Muhammad. It passed on Nov. 2, 
2010, by more than 70 % of the vote, even though state courts do not and did 
not use Shariah law.

It drew a lawsuit and was tossed out by a federal court saying it was an 
unconstitutional infringement on individual rights. The state had to pay 
$303,333 in attorney fees to the plaintiffs who challenged it.

"The issue of the method of execution has a very real potential to be litigated 
because there is a great deal of litigation pending now in reference to methods 
of execution in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and that becomes a real 
question," said Tulsa County Public Defender Rob Nigh.

He called the state question "an incredible waste of time, energy and 
resources" at a time when the state can't properly fund education and 
incarceration rates are bankrupting the state.

"It is a distraction from the business we ought to be taking care of," Nigh 
said.

Robert Durnham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, 
said the bulk of the state question is unnecessary.

The portion commenting on cruel and unusual punishment attempts to place the 
state's execution process above the law and eliminate the checks and balances 
process provided by the judiciary, he said.

"It would deny Oklahoma state courts the power to determine whether the death 
penalty was being administered in a cruel and usual manner," Durnham said. 
"That means a whole range of constitutional protections against the unfair 
administration of the death penalty would be unavailable in Oklahoma courts."

He said there is no question the measure, if approved by voters, will draw 
additional litigation.

Durnham said the question was written prematurely.

"At the time the Legislature approved this ballot question, they were unaware 
of the colossal systematic failures by the State Department of Corrections in 
carrying out executions," he said.

Tulsa County District Attorney Stephen Kunzweiler said the measure was an 
effort to ensure that if lethal injection were determined unconstitutional, the 
state would still be able to proceed with a different measure in a 
constitutional manner.

Meanwhile, a coalition has been formed to oppose the measure.

"We feel it is unnecessary," said Connie Johnson, a former state senator who 
chairs the Oklahoma Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. "It represents a 
direct affront to the balance of power between the three branches of 
government."

(source: Tulsa World)






NEBRASKA:

Death penalty in our hands now


The death penalty debate has moved out of the Legislature and into the public 
square.

State senators in 2015 said repeal it, and they spoke with enough force to 
override a gubernatorial veto. Now, it's our turn to decide.

Conventional wisdom says Nebraskans will overturn the Legislature's decision 
and restore the death penalty by supporting a referendum in November to do just 
that.

But there's also a widespread hunch that this might not be a slam dunk, not 
really quite settled yet.

And so voters now will hear some of the same arguments that senators heard from 
supporters of death penalty repeal: It's costly, it's used so rarely that it's 
essentially unworkable and ineffective, it runs the risk of killing an innocent 
person who later is found not to have committed the crime.

And then there's the overriding issue of personal or religious belief: Do 
pro-life believers make exceptions? Or does the Bible, particularly the Old 
Testament, not only justify, but direct punishment by death if you kill 
another?

Lots of fundamental issues and important questions for Nebraska voters to 
weigh, just as their elected representatives did last year when they voted for 
repeal.

That decision startled many people in other parts of the country and made them 
reconsider some of their stereotypical views about Nebraska and Nebraskans. 
Some of your friends and associates in other states probably already have told 
you that.

On the other hand, that decision surprised and disappointed some people who 
looked on from afar, friends may also tell you.

In any event, it was noticed. It was news. Big change, unexpected, even 
startling, chronicled in New York newspapers and celebrated in Rome by bathing 
the historic Colosseum in white light.

On the other hand, it also was a decision that quickly mobilized death penalty 
supporters determined to reverse the Legislature's decision.

So now it's our turn as voters to decide.

TV ads are going to try to influence us, convince us, nudge us toward a 
decision.

Death penalty opponents probably are going to have to change minds if they hope 
to succeed, just as they did in the Legislature; supporters will make a case 
for deterrence and just punishment, pointing to heinous crimes.

The most compelling 30-second ads -- we'll probably see a ton of them -- could 
make a difference in moving the needle on voter consideration of this issue.

But this essentially is a private and personal decision and one that for most 
people probably already has been made.

The critical question is: Are there still open minds?

(source: Lincoln Journal Star)






NEW MEXICO:

Reviving death penalty would be a waste of money


At a time when the governor has called for a special session to deal with a 
devastating budget deficit, Gov. Susana Martinez is asking to bring back the 
death penalty. Yet, the death penalty is expensive, does nothing to deter 
crime, takes resources away from communities, and, on occasion is used against 
innocent people.

The cost of one death penalty case is about $1.5 million dollars more than a 
life sentence prosecution. This price tag is created by constitutional 
protections and mandates that are required in cases where the state wants to 
take the life of a citizen. Even with all that money spent, innocent people end 
up on death row, but more on that below.

What level of community safety do we get for those millions of dollars? Police 
chiefs agree: very little. Police chiefs from around the country have been 
surveyed to learn what tools they believe are critical for public safety. 
Overwhelmingly, these law enforcement leaders have ranked the death penalty 
last on their list.

Why is the death penalty last? Because the death penalty is ineffective as a 
crime deterrent. The death penalty does not make anyone "think twice" - people 
who murder are not thinking straight anyway. Death penalty states, like Texas, 
do not have lower crime rates than states that have abolished the death 
penalty.

New Mexico's murder rate decreased in the year immediately following the 
abolishment of the state death penalty, even though there was widespread 
publicity that New Mexico would no longer kill people as punishment.

If spending taxpayer money on the death penalty doesn't work, what could we use 
the money on that does work?

Experts say law enforcement needs funding for more officers, improved 
technology, comprehensive training and sophisticated investigatory equipment.

Last year the Donna Ana County sheriff said he was severely understaffed and 
needed millions of taxpayer dollars to provide required services to the county. 
Just a few death penalty cases would undermine that budget. Just one death 
penalty case would pay the annual salaries of about 50 Dona Ana County 
sheriff's deputies. And, of course, law enforcement is only one area that, if 
it received full funding, might help decrease crime. What about education and 
child services? New Mexico is still 49th in child well-being. We are 50th in 
education and child poverty.

There is no room in our state budget to take money that could be spent for 
children's education and services and spend it to fund ineffective and 
expensive death-penalty prosecutions. That is especially true this year when 
the entire state is facing drastic budget cuts, and all state agencies will 
likely have to tighten their belts.

And if you think the money is worth it because people prosecuted under the 
death penalty have all committed terrible crimes, think again. We have all 
heard news stories about innocent people being incarcerated for terrible crimes 
they did not commit. Some innocent people have sat on death row for years, some 
innocent people took plea deals to avoid the death penalty, and some were 
likely executed.

Death penalty prosecutions are used against the innocent. As of October 13, 
2015, there have been 156 exonerations of innocent men and women on death row. 
If each prosecution cost on average $1.5 million, then $234 million taxpayer 
dollars were used to prosecute the death penalty against the innocent.

That cost is unacceptable. That waste is unacceptable. And potentially 
executing an innocent person is unacceptable.

Except for shameless political purposes, it is inconceivable politicians would 
put forth legislation to reinstate the death penalty. It is an ineffective 
waste of scarce resources and hard-earned tax dollars during a time of extreme 
budget shortfalls. I hope our lawmakers use this upcoming session to focus on 
what can really help New Mexico law enforcement and our state.

(source: Opinion; Margaret Strickland, President-elect / New Mexico Criminal 
Defense Lawyers Association----Albuquerque Journal)






NEVADA:

Lack of drugs is latest obstacle for Nevada death penalty


Nevada officials face yet another obstacle in carrying out the death penalty if 
inmates exhaust their final appeals.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports (http://bit.ly/2bDnFCs) 1 of the 2 drugs 
that make up the lethal injection has expired, and companies that produce it 
refuse on principle to give the state any more.

The state also hasn't had a usable execution chamber since about 2011, when one 
at the shuttered Nevada State Prison fell out of compliance with the Americans 
With Disabilities Act. A new chamber is under construction in Ely at a cost of 
$858,000 and should be ready on Nov. 1.

There are 80 people on Nevada's death row, but no executions are pending.

State officials plan to reach out to pharmaceutical companies nationwide in 
hopes of finding a supplier.

(source: Associated Press)