[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----FLA., ALA., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

Oct. 28



FLORIDA:

Options would solve death penalty dilemma


The usual objections people give for opposing the death penalty are: it's 
cruel, inhumane and expensive for taxpayers. I am ambivalent about the death 
sentence, but not for any morally ambivalent reason.

Yes, I completely agree with the argument about the possibility of human error 
in convicting an innocent person. I don't think the possibility of a death 
sentence has ever stopped anyone from killing someone, so, it's obviously not a 
deterrent at all. I think there should be alternative methods of punishment, 
which would remove the question of moral objection from jurors' minds for the 
most heinous of crimes. There should be more than just the death penalty Yes or 
No option. I'm willing to give someone convicted of a death penalty-level crime 
options - a buffet of options from which they can choose.

First, the option of spending the rest of their life in solitary confinement OR 
the death penalty. If they decide on the death penalty, they would get a choice 
of how they want to be killed; lethal injection, firing squad, hanging, 
guillotine, etc., you get the idea.

I think this approach would remove at least 99 % of the moral objections 
anybody might have about finding someone guilty in a death penalty case.

It would come down to the convicted person's decision of which option to take. 
I think it's all very civilized and rational by having removed all the wiggle 
room for moral objections.

Claudia Krysiak, Tamarac

(source: Letter to the Editor, Sun Sentinel)

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

Pam Bondi: It's 'obvious' Supreme Court didn't halt death sentences in Florida


Confusion continues to surround Florida's death penalty after the state Supreme 
Court ruled two weeks ago that death sentences must be made on a unanimous jury 
vote.

That decision upended a new law passed this spring that required a 10-2 vote by 
the jury to sentence someone to death after they have already been found 
guilty. It led to questions about whether the Legislature must act before death 
sentences can commence.

Not so, says Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. Death penalty trials should 
continue.

Still, Bondi's office has asked the Supreme Court to clarify its rulings in 
Hurst vs. Florida and Perry vs. Florida, the two death penalty cases the 
justices decided on Oct. 14 that ruled a split jury could not sentence someone 
to death.

"We're just seeking clarification toclarify for the trial courts and just state 
the obvious," Bondi said.

In fact, she said, a circuit court judge in Ocala "erred" last week when it put 
sentencing on hold in a double-murder case.

"The death penalty is still constitutional," Judge Robert Hodges said, 
according to reports in the Ocala Star-Banner. "But the process to get there is 
gone."

That's the argument that some death penalty defense lawyers have made in the 
weeks following the court's Hurst and Perry rulings.

Other questions remain unanswered about the death penalty in Florida, as well. 
Namely, what happens now to the 386 death-row inmates convicted and sentenced 
under thrown-out laws?

The question has caused stress among prosecutors who worry a mandate from the 
Supreme Court to retry cases or resentence convicted murderers would cause a 
catastrophic backlog.

But Bondi's not worried. Reporters asked Tuesday whether she thought there 
would be "hundreds of retrials and hundreds of resentencings"?

"I don't, I don't," she said.

(source: Tampa Bay Times)






ALABAMA:

Lawyers question whether Alabama inmate felt burning pain during lethal 
injection


Alabama death row inmate Christopher Brooks may have been burned alive by the 
state's new lethal drug cocktail during his January execution, a former federal 
public defender from Alabama wrote in a column published Thursday on the 
political website The Hill.

Bob Horton, spokesman for the Alabama Department of Corrections, denied the 
allegation. "The claim is unsubstantiated. There is no evidence to lead to a 
conclusion that the inmate suffered," he stated in an email to AL.com on Friday 
morning.

Stephen Cooper, in his post, points to an April 15 complaint filed by a federal 
public defender representing death row inmate Ronald Bert Smith, who is now 
scheduled to be executed Dec. 8.

Smith and several other death row inmates, including Tommy Arthur who is set 
for execution Nov. 3, have been challenging Alabama's new three-drug lethal 
injection protocol as violating the 8th Amendment provision against cruel and 
unusual punishment.

The state had halted executions for more than two years as they looked for a 
new source of the lethal injection drugs and dealt with the lawsuits.

The new 3-drug combination was first used in Brooks' execution on Jan. 21. 
Brooks, 43, was convicted in the December 1992 brutal rape and murder of Jo 
Deann Campbell inside her Homewood apartment.

"I hope this brings closure to everybody," Brooks said before his execution.

The 1st drug, 500mg dose of Midazolam, was administered to Brooks as an 
anesthesia. A prison captain pinched Brooks' upper left arm and pulled open his 
eyelid to check for consciousness before the final 2 drugs were administered.

"In the event of incomplete anesthetic depth, the injection of potassium 
chloride will cause excruciating pain."

The 2nd drug, rocuronium bromide, a neuromuscular blocker, was then 
administered followed by the 3rd drug, potassium chloride.

According to the complaint, potassium chloride disrupts the normal electrical 
activity of the heart and induces cardiac arrest by stopping the heart from 
pumping blood.

"Potassium chloride traveling in the bloodstream from the site of injection 
towards the heart causes an extreme burning sensation as it moves through the 
body destroying the internal organs," the complaint states. "In the event of 
incomplete anesthetic depth, the injection of potassium chloride will cause 
excruciating pain."

The complaint by Smith's attorneys cites a written statement by Terri Deep, an 
investigator with the public defenders' office for the Middle District who was 
a witness at Brooks' execution.

"Ms. Deep saw Mr. Brooks' left eye open during the execution, after the 
consciousness test was performed. No official from the ADOC took action when 
Mr. Brooks' eye opened," the complaint states. "If the paralytic was injected 
properly and performed its function, Mr. Brooks would not have been able to 
open his eye."

That indicated Brooks was not insensate at the time he was injected with 
rocuronium bromide and potassium chloride, Smith's complaint argues.

In light of what happened with Brooks' execution, Smith's attorneys argued, 
"there is an objectively intolerable risk that plaintiff (Smith) will not be 
adequately anesthetized before the second and third drugs have been 
administered, causing him to experience intolerable pain and suffering."

While comments from Deep's statement were included in the complaint, her entire 
statement was sealed from public view.

When corrections officers at 6:06 p.m. Thursday pulled back the curtains over 
the large windows of the 3 witness rooms lined in a semi-circle around the 
execution chamber, Brooks was already strapped onto a gurney.

Reporters who witnessed the execution did not note any signs of distress by 
Brooks during his execution and Alabama Department of Corrections Commissioner 
Jeff Dunn said afterward that it had gone as planned.

Online federal court records do not show any response to that complaint by the 
Alabama Attorney General's Office on behalf of the prison system. Smith's 
complaint was folded into the other litigation by death row inmates.

John Palombi, assistant federal defender for the Middle District of Alabama who 
was among those who represented Brooks, stated in an email Friday that the 
reason that it has not come up in detail is that the Attorney General's Office 
has moved to dismiss all the claims on the statute of limitations grounds and 
the case hasn't moved beyond that stage. "I can't speak to why it wasn't raised 
in other cases after we filed our complaint," he stated.

(source: al.com)

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

Alabama's Last Execution Was An Atrocity


The last time Alabama played God, executing death row inmate Christopher Brooks 
by lethal injection on January 21, 2016, The Montgomery Advertiser and al.com 
published a column of mine in which I wrote:

"Initial reports out of Alabama are that the execution went as 'smoothly' as 
killing a reasonably healthy 43-year-old man can go. In any event, it appears 
there was no visible evidence Brooks suffered bodily distress as the lethal 
drugs were administered, prompting Alabama Prison Commissioner Jeff Dunn to say 
that the execution with the controversial sedative drug midazolam 'went exactly 
as planned[.]'" (See Executions are hardly an exact science, on February 8, 
2016, and Courts denied phone to attorneys of man condemned to death, on 
February 9, 2016).

Boy, was I wrong. I was wrong just like Commissioner Dunn, and every media 
representative and Alabama law enforcement official in attendance was wrong - 
for painting Mr. Brooks' execution as a peaceful passing, like he just curled 
up in a comfy hammock and dozed off - never to wake again.

In a federal court filing on April 15, 2016, that has been inexplicably 
unreported in the media, Mr. Brooks' federal defenders, who additionally 
represent Ronald Bert Smith (scheduled for execution on December 8), allege 
that after Mr. Brooks was injected with the controversial drug midazolam - the 
1st in Alabama's 3-drug execution cocktail which is supposed to anesthetize the 
prisoner so that they are "insensate" (completely lacking any physical 
sensation) - a witness to Brooks' execution, a federal investigator, Ms. Terri 
Deep, saw that "Mr. Brooks' left eye opened after the consciousness assessment 
and, assuming they even noticed, no one from the ADOC [Alabama Department of 
Corrections] took any action."

The filing further alleges that:

(1) "[t]he fact that Mr. Brooks' eye opened indicates he was feeling sensation 
contemporaneous with, or prior to, injection of the paralytic. Therefore, he 
was sensate at the time he was executed by injection of potassium chloride," 
(2) "[t]he final drug, potassium chloride, disrupts the normal electrical 
activity of the heart and induces cardiac arrest by stopping the heart from 
pumping blood. Potassium chloride traveling in the blood stream from the site 
of injection towards the heart causes an extreme burning sensation as it moves 
through the body destroying the internal organs," and (3) in the event the 
inmate is not properly anesthetized, "potassium chloride will cause 
excruciating pain" (citing a 2016 report by the National Institutes of Health).

In The death penalty in Alabama: What's it really like?, published by The 
Montgomery Advertiser in April, I discussed in graphic detail what it means 
when lethal drugs are administered to a condemned person who is not 
"insensate," a word commonly used in the death penalty context to, as the 
Supreme Court put it, "eliminate any meaningful risk that a prisoner would 
experience pain from the subsequent injections" (Baze v. Rees, 553 U.S. 35, 49 
(2008)).

I wrote:

"That 1st drug is supposed to put you down, painlessly, like a dog - your eyes 
just close and you 'go to sleep' forever. Except often, it don't work like 
that. Because when that 1st drug don't do the trick and your eyes close like 
your sleepin', but really, you're not, they inject them next drugs and then 
your muscles stop workin', your lungs can't breathe, and your beaten 
broken-down heart goes bust. And then, Jesus H. Christ have mercy, you feel it, 
every sharp stinging step of the way. Like your insides are melting, 'cause 
they are ... they're melting from the inside out ... they're burnin', bubblin', 
liquefyin' ... like a bonfire raging inside of you ... and you're the witch. 
You ever hear that expression a death by a thousand cuts? The needle, the 'big 
jab,' the 'stainless steel ride,' - whatever you want to call this lethal 
injection business - it may be worse."

Attached to their filing pending before The Honorable Chief District Judge W. 
Keith Watkins, Smith and Brooks' federal defenders have attached a sworn 
affidavit from Ms. Deep about her observation that "[b]efore the curtains were 
closed, Mr. Brooks' left eye opened, and was still open when the execution 
chamber curtains were closed." Medical experts, they allege, indicate that it 
is medically impossible for Mr. Brooks' eye to have opened during his execution 
unless he was experiencing exactly that type of "excruciating pain" the Eighth 
Amendment of the United States Constitution forbids.

Alabama's Attorney General's office, beleaguered Governor Robert Bentley, and 
ADOC have not, to this date, offered any substantive response to the federal 
defenders' claims about what now appears to be yet another shameful example of 
a botched US execution - in which a death row inmate was forced to suffer cruel 
and unusual punishment - in the name of justice.

Tommy Arthur's execution in Alabama, scheduled for November 3, will mimic Mr. 
Brooks' gruesome demise if allowed to proceed. Ronald Bert Smith's execution 
date follows closely after on December 8. Will the people of Alabama allow 
these executions to go forward in their name, or will they, in the name of all 
that is good, and all that is right, demand that Governor Bentley immediately 
declare a halt to all State executions?

Why?

Because Alabama may have just burned a man alive.

(source: Stephen Cooper is a former D.C. public defender who worked as an 
assistant federal public defender in Alabama, in the same office that 
represented Christopher Brooks, between 2012 and 2015----Alabama Political 
Reporter)






NEBRASKA:

Death penalty still pending in Garcia case


A Douglas County jury convicted Anthony Garcia on all counts including four 
counts of First Degree Murder Wednesday. Even with the verdict of guilty 
Anthony Garcia's fate with the death penalty is still pending.

His fate hinges on a hearing Friday and then a three judge panel. Friday's 
hearing is called an aggravator hearing. For there to be a death penalty 
sentence, the state must prove there were 'aggravating circumstances' that 
existed for this 1st degree murder case.

To prove those, both the state and the defense will argue those aggravators in 
front of a judge and jury. In this case, County Attorney Don Kleine will argue 
3 aggravators existed:

(1) The murder was committed in an effort to conceal the commission of a crime, 
or to conceal the identity of the perpetrator of such crime.

(2) The murder was especially heinous, atrocious, cruel or manifested 
exceptional depravity by ordinary standards of mortality and intelligence.

(3) At the time the murder was committed, the offender also committed another 
murder.

The jury will use the facts and evidence heard throughout the Garcia trial to 
decide if those aggravators exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

If they do, the aggravators they feel were present are turned over to a 3 judge 
panel to decide on the death penalty.

Judge Gary Randall will be one of those judges, and the other 2 will be named 
by the Nebraska Supreme Court Justice.

While the aggravator hearing normally takes only a day, it could take 3 to 4 
months before the 3 judge panel is put together.

The fate of Anthony Garcia, in part, will also be determined by Nebraska 
voters. On Election Day, Nebraska voters will decide whether to keep the death 
penalty.

On Election Day, Nebraska voters are deciding whether to keep the death 
penalty. If it is voted out, there will be no 3 judge panel, the case will go 
to sentencing without the option of the death penalty. That hearing will be in 
Judge Randall's court Friday at noon.

(source: WOWT news)






USA:

Death penalty is morally hypocritical


The death penalty has been a debated topic for years and is an action that 
should be ended.

The 2 main reasons that Americans believe that the death penalty should stay 
is: first, keeping Americans safe from individuals who have been found guilty 
of a crime; and, 2nd, that these individuals should "pay" for their actions.

Even though many individuals believe that the death penalty statute will cause 
a decrease in crime, it actually has the opposite effect. Studies show that 
murder rates are tremendously lower in states that refuse to use the death 
penalty statute. In fact, police chiefs in the U.S. actually listed the death 
penalty as the least effective in fighting crime.

While passion tends to play a big part on the punishment side of crime, the 
death penalty is a morally hypocritical punishment. But who are we to take a 
life? Is it not just acting the same as the offender and just further 
supporting the exact type of evil that they say is so terrible? While we act on 
passion and mourn the evil actions of others, we are still not justified to 
take a life of an individual.

Ellen Bernhard

Louisville, Ky. 40220

(source: Letter to the Editor, Courier-Journal)