[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ILL., MO., NEB., USA

[Rick Halperin]

May 17



ILLINOIS:

Illinois governor's death penalty plan adds new flaws to old one



During my 1st visit to a prison, a guard in the textile shop pointed out a 
little old man absorbed in operating some kind of machine. At 40-some years, he 
was then the longest-serving inmate at Illinois' Menard Correctional Center, in 
Chester.

"Murder," explained my guide, who seemed to know little else about it.

I wondered whether the killer, who looked like a kindly grandfather, thought he 
had been fortunate in avoiding the electric chair.

Imagining myself innocent - for I cannot fathom the idea of murdering anyone - 
I always said I would rather be sentenced to death than to life in prison. It 
seems preferable to living out my life caged.

More importantly, capital cases appear to get a lot closer review. It seems 
that the legal system frets more about wrongfully executing me than wrongfully 
condemning me to rot for decades behind bars.

This has not been much of an issue in my home state of Illinois since Gov. Pat 
Quinn signed legislation in 2011 doing away with the 1977 capital punishment 
law. It was mistakes that killed the killings. In that interim, more death row 
inmates had been exonerated (20) than executed (12).

With that backdrop, Gov. Bruce Rauner this week offered a peculiar proposal to 
reopen the execution chamber.

The Republican governor used his amendatory veto power to modify (majority 
Democrats in the Legislature say hijack) a gun control bill to add a new crime 
category called "death penalty murder."

It could be used against someone who killed a police officer or more than one 
person at a time. The peculiar part is how Rauner proposes to avoid resuming 
the risk of convicting innocent people. The new law would require prosecutors 
to prove guilt "beyond all doubt."

We haven't seen this before. The standard has always been proof "beyond a 
reasonable doubt." Jurors largely must decide for themselves what that means. 
They are expected to apply common sense and life experiences to a verdict that 
feels certain, but are not required to determine that there is no doubt 
whatsoever.

The new standard is problematic. The judicial apparatus, such as court rules 
and appellate decisions, are tailored to the "reasonable doubt" standard. Would 
a "death penalty murder" defendant walk free if the higher requirement were not 
met? Or would jurors have the added chore of also considering a lesser 
certainty for a lesser penalty.

And if that lesser penalty is life in prison, shouldn't the higher standard of 
proof apply there too? As I already pointed out, the state is effectively 
killing someone either way.

Moreover, dropping the death penalty meant saving money spent for specially 
qualified prosecutors and defense attorneys and defense investigators. Capital 
appeals are more complicated and expensive. Heck, executioners are even having 
trouble getting the lethal drugs they need. Do we want to drop all these 
problems back into Illinois' lap?

And for what? I know there are plenty of people who support death sentences, 
which are still possible in the federal court system and 31 states. I once 
counted myself among those folks, until deciding that there is no measurable 
benefit to weigh against the cost and risks. Deterrence? Vengeance? The "why" 
question deserves a debate we never seem to have. Rauner's proposal doesn't 
change that.

I'm second to none in appreciation of the dangers of police work. But does a 
death penalty protect cops? Data from the Officers Down Memorial Page, a 
respected and detailed online resource about law enforcement mortality, 
suggests maybe not.

The organization catalogs all means of duty deaths, from heart attacks to 
traffic crashes to shootings and stabbings. For the 6 years before the state 
abolished its death penalty, I found 17 obviously intentional killings of 
Illinois officers: 13 by guns and 4 by vehicles. In the 6 years following, I 
found just 5: 2 by guns, 2 by vehicles and 1 by other assault. The supposed 
deterrent doesn't seem to have mattered.

Also, let's not forget that misconduct by prosecutors, unfairly stacked 
evidence and incompetence by defense lawyers - which have been major factors in 
past wrongful convictions - might as easily fool jurors into thinking a case is 
foolproof.

I figure that Rauner, who is seeking re-election, is really looking for 
political gain on a bill whose original purpose frustrates some weapons owners. 
Its terms would lengthen the waiting period to buy assault-type rifles to 3 
days from 1, prohibit rapid-fire attachments such as "bump stocks, and put 
tighter reins on "dangerous" people possessing firearms,

The bill already passed, but cannot become law unless the Legislature either 
endorses the governor's additions or overrides them.

Rauner has said he supports the gun restrictions. Restoring a death penalty 
could be a way to soften the blow of that as a concession to his party's 
hard-liners with the election fewer than 6 months away.

In the end, will he find support for his changes with a continuing Democratic 
legislative majority that dumped the death penalty 7 years ago? The answer may 
not be beyond all doubt, but I think it's beyond reasonable doubt.

(source: Pat Gauen, St. Louis Post-Dispatch)

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

Rauner's revisions rile up the Democrats



Partisan skirmishing continues in Springfield.

In rewriting a gun-control bill to reinstate the death penalty in Illinois, 
Gov. Bruce Rauner is fighting fire with fire. Or, to put it another way, 
politics with politics.

The Democratic-controlled Legislature sent Rauner a gun-control bill to put him 
on the hot seat. Now, he's done the same to them with his amendatory veto that 
reinstates the death penalty in cases where more than one person or a police 
officer is killed.

Don't worry about all of the partisan caterwauling over this legislation - it's 
not going anywhere. It's just tit for tat to score political points - Democrats 
reassuring their political voters of their enthusiastic support for gun control 
while Rauner tries to lure disaffected conservatives back to his fold.

If only our elected officials devoted as much time to policy as they do 
politics, an obviously plaintive cry destined to fall on deaf ears.

But to give Rauner's action more credit than it deserves, let's consider what 
purports to be a dramatic shift in public policy.

Serious matters like this ought not be addressed by gubernatorial amendatory 
vetoes.

If Illinois is going to reinstate the death penalty, it ought to be done after 
a serious discussion of the issue in the Legislature. That assumes, of course, 
that the General Assembly is capable of a serious discussion of any issue, a 
substantial leap of logic. At any rate, it ought to be done thoughtfully, not 
by a back-door maneuver.

This is not the 1st time Illinois' top officials have acted with politically 
motivated haste on the death penalty.

After all, it was a lame-duck Legislature in the aftermath of the 2010 election 
that voted to repeal the death penalty in Illinois. The suspicious timing was 
purposeful in that outgoing legislators, many of whom had previously expressed 
support for the death penalty, voted for repeal knowing they would never have 
to account to voters.

In terms of substance, Rauner's legislative language also is problematic. To 
avoid wrongful conviction, it establishes a legal eligibility standard of 
"beyond all doubt" that eclipses the traditional standard of beyond a 
reasonable doubt. One could see that phrase being litigated ad infinitum in the 
courts.

Illinois adopted the death penalty because, theoretically at least, it's an 
appropriate penalty for the worst of the worst. But it repealed the death 
penalty because the process by which it was imposed was too prone to 
irreversible error, an intolerable circumstance in the criminal-justice system.

How many cases of wrongful convictions did Illinois endure as a result of flaws 
in the system that showed up time and again? Too many!

But that's policy. Rauner's amendatory veto is about politics.

In that respect, it's a clever move. He took a bill that established a 72-hour 
waiting period, increased from 24 hours, to buy a military-style rifle.

Rather than sign it, he rewrote it to include the death penalty and a ban on 
bump stocks, creating a tableau intended to give something to gun-control 
opponents, gun-control proponents and those tough on crime.

The bill now goes back to the Legislature, where state Rep. Jonathan Carroll 
complained that the governor "hijacked my bill."

Of course he did. Now Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan, who despises 
the governor's amendatory-veto power, will hijack Rauner's amendatory veto.

Madigan's past practices include not allowing votes on amendatory vetoes. 
Whether he does that this time remains to be seen. But the rewritten version is 
not going to pass. The original version probably won't either. In the end, both 
sides will get a political issue, which is what this has been all about from 
the get-go.

(source: Editorial, The News-Gazette)

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

Bishops object as Illinois governor pushes to reinstate death penalty



The Catholic Conference of Illinois decried the governor's call to re-establish 
the death penalty, which has not been used in the state in nearly 20 years.

"We are distressed and alarmed by Gov. Bruce Rauner's call for the 
reinstatement of the death penalty in any way, shape or form," the conference 
said in a May 14 statement.

"We are all God's children, and our 1st - and primary - right to life must 
always be protected and unconditional."

On Monday, Governor Rauner encouraged lawmakers to reinstate capital punishment 
in Illinois for individuals convicted of mass murder or the death of a police 
officer.

"Anyone who deliberately kills a law enforcement officer or is a mass murderer 
deserves the death penalty," he wrote to the Illinois House of Representatives.

The recommendation came in an amendatory veto message for House Bill 1468, 
which would require a 72-hour waiting period before an assault weapon is 
purchased.

The governor cited child safety as his reason for wanting to reintroduce the 
death penalty. He drew attention to several recent attacks in U.S. schools.

"There is nothing more precious than our children, and they deserve to be safe 
and cared for at school," he said.

Last month, an Illinois task force was created to map out a defense against 
school violence.

Governor Rauner said the death penalty should only be used in cases where an 
individual is guilty "beyond all doubt" rather than the often-used standard of 
"beyond a reasonable doubt." He said this would help avoid wrongful 
convictions, such as those that contributed to the abolishment of the state's 
death penalty.

However, the Catholic Conference rejected the idea of reinstating the death 
penalty in certain cases "beyond all doubt" instead of "beyond a reasonable 
doubt," saying that this distinction "is simply parsing words."

"You cannot teach killing is wrong by killing."

The death penalty has not been used in Illinois since 1999. Then-governor 
George Ryan issued a moratorium on the practice in 2000, following a report in 
the Chicago Tribune detailing flaws in the state's capital punishment system.

The report said that the system was "so riddled with faulty evidence, 
unscrupulous trial tactics and legal incompetence that justice has been 
forsaken."

Among other problems, the newspaper pointed to inaccurate juries, incompetent 
defending lawyers, and unreliable forensic tests. These were among the errors 
that occurred with 12 wrongfully convicted death row inmates who were later 
exonerated, the article stated.

Before leaving office in 2003, Governor Ryan commuted the death sentences of 
more than 160 death row inmates. In 2011, the death penalty was abolished in 
Illinois by then-governor Pat Quinn.

(source: angelusnews.com)

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

Yes, Illinois, let the death penalty die



Gov. Bruce Rauner's ham-handed effort to reinstate the Illinois death penalty 
for mass murderers and cop killers is a naked political ploy that has little to 
no chance of becoming law.

Thank goodness.

It would be terrible if the GOP governor's obvious attempt to curry favor with 
the disaffected Republican right wing via an overreaching amendatory veto were 
to bring back a practice George Ryan said was "haunted by the demon of error, 
error in determining guilt, and error in determining who among the guilty 
deserves to die."

In 2000, the Republican governor commuted the sentences of Illinois death row 
inmates and issued a moratorium on state-sponsored executions after more than 
20 innocent men were sent to death row for crimes they did not commit. That 
moratorium remained in force until 2011 when Gov. Pat Quinn signed legislation 
abolishing the death penalty entirely.

Since then, we have heard no hue and cry among the electorate to bring it back. 
Bills have been introduced to do so, but have consistently failed to gain 
traction, and execution appeared to be a thing past. Or at least it was until 
Gov. Rauner resurrected it in his rewrite of a General Assembly-backed bill 
that he also larded up with a number of other measures that were not in the 
bill lawmakers had carefully vetted, debated and endorsed.

The broad rewrite by Mr. Rauner seems to us a clear abuse of Illinois' already 
broad gubernatorial veto authority. Fortunately, it seems equally unlikely that 
those changes will be allowed to stand in a Legislature that doesn't take 
kindly to having its constitutional duties usurped.

That's good news since, contrary to the governor's claim, there is no way to 
ensure that the death penalty can be implemented fairly and without error. 
Simply saying, "there must be a burden of proof where a person is guilty beyond 
all doubt," before imposing the death sentence won't make it so. Juries in the 
past have no doubt believed that the people they sentenced to death but were 
later found to be innocent were guilty beyond all doubt at the time of their 
trials. How were they to know that the defendant was represented by ineffective 
counsel or that police coerced confessions or fabricated evidence or that 
witnesses lied?

And though this governor is now calling only for the death penalty for cop 
killers and those who murder two or more people, it will be hard to slam the 
door on further expansion, a possibility which Gov. Rauner appeared ready to 
consider beyond what he initially proposed including this week. The risk of 
executing the innocent is simply too great to risk doing so.

In a 2003 address before Northwestern University College of Law then-Gov. Ryan 
raised a series of troubling concerns about the fairness of the death penalty 
that will not be resolved with this proposed reinstatement.

"Should geography be a factor in determining who gets the death sentence? I 
don't think so but in Illinois it makes a difference. You are 5 times more 
likely to get a death sentence for 1st-degree murder in the rural area of 
Illinois than you are in Cook County. Where is the justice and fairness in 
that? Where is the proportionality?'"

What of the role of poverty, race and IQ in the process of seeking justice? 
What of the cost of housing death row inmates and the data which suggests that 
its existence does not act as a deterrent to murder?

Those difficult questions and their equally troubling answers require Illinois 
to follow the lead of Justice Harry A. Blackmun, who promised to "no longer 
tinker with the machinery of death."

And to declare, as he did, that "the death penalty experiment has failed," and 
pledge to let it rest in peace.

(source: Editorial, Quad Cities Online)








MISSOURI:

Attorney: Too little cash for transgender killing defense



The head of Missouri's public defender system says a suspect in the slaying of 
a transgender teen should be spared from facing the death sentence if he's 
convicted because there isn't enough money to adequately defend him.

Missouri State Public Defender Office director Michael Barrett argued this 
month in a motion filed in Andrew Vrba's 1st-degree murder case that it's not 
fair that the state is stepping in to help county prosecutors while also 
"depriving the defense of the resources necessary to provide diligent, 
effective, and conflict-free-representation." The motion is the latest effort 
to draw attention to funding problems that have prompted an ACLU lawsuit and 
increasingly led Missouri public defenders to turn down new cases.

"Simply put," the motion said, "if the State wishes to have a death penalty, it 
needs to pay for it."

Vrba is 1 of 4 suspects charged in the death of 17-year-old Ally Steinfeld, who 
had been missing for weeks when her burned remains were found in September in 
the town of Cabool, a rural area about 70 miles (115 kilometers) east of 
Springfield. Investigators say her eyes were gouged out and that she was 
stabbed several times, including in the genitals. Authorities in Texas County, 
Missouri, aren't saying what led to the killing, but have insisted the crime 
was not motivated by Steinfeld's gender identity.

After announcing plans in April to seek the death penalty against Vrba, county 
prosecutors requested help from the state attorney general's office, citing a 
lack of resources and time to handle it. Barrett cried foul, saying the public 
defender's capital division staff is "burdened with the greatest number of open 
cases in approximately 20 years" and has been rendered "unable to perform its 
constitutionally required function."

Missouri attorney general's office spokesman Ryan Cross didn't immediately 
return a phone message from The Associated Press. Texas County prosecutor Parke 
Stevens Jr. was in court Wednesday and didn't immediately return a message.

The motion highlighted several studies that found that the public defender's 
system is underfunded. The funding situation came to a head last year when the 
ACLU filed a class-action lawsuit seeking to force the state to spend more. 
Then last fall, the Missouri Supreme Court justices disciplined an attorney 
with a large caseload they said risked client neglect and later told a public 
defender she must ask permission before denying additional cases. Following the 
rulings, more public defenders have been turning down cases, leading to 
months-long waits before some suspects get legal representation.

The motion said the state has "knowingly disregarded its obligations to provide 
diligent, effective, and non-conflicted counsel to poor persons who face loss 
of liberty, which is presented in rather glaring contrast to how the ease with 
which the (Texas County Prosecuting Attorney) appears able to procure whatever 
resources it wishes in the State's effort to execute Mr. Vrba."

Barrett also said in the motion that the attorney general's office shouldn't be 
allowed to handle the prosecution because of "repeated ethical violations" in 
other cases. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for July.

(source: Associated Press)








NEBRASKA:

Attorneys argue over need ability to use lethal gas in Columbia death penalty 
case



A Columbia man on death row for 2 decades sought an untried method of execution 
in federal court on Wednesday.

Attorneys for Ernest Lee Johnson argued in federal appeals court that lethal 
gas, instead of lethal injection, should be used to kill him, claiming the 
injection would cause painful seizures that amount to cruel and unusual 
punishment. A federal district judge dismissed Johnson's petition last year 
over the issue, and Johnson appealed it the Eighth Circuit.

Johnson was first sentenced to death in 1995 for murdering Mabel Scruggs, Mary 
Bratcher and Fred Jones at a convenience store on Ballenger Lane the year 
prior. 2 juries upheld that decision after higher courts reversed the 
decisions.

The U.S. Supreme Court delayed Johnson's death hours before his execution in 
Nov. 2015, claiming the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals didn't properly hear 
the case. Johnson's case was sent back to the district level, where he has 
attempted to persuade judges to order lethal gas be used in his execution.

Jeremy Weis, one of the attorneys representing Johnson, said a doctor's 
examination of Johnson proved pentobarbital posed a "significant" risk of 
causing painful seizures due to a brain surgery he had in 2008. Judges 
questioned Dr. Joel Zivot's affidavit, saying it did not meet the legal 
standard that cruel and unusual punishment was a "likely or very likely" result 
of the injection.

"Those are legal terms, and not necessarily medical terms," Weis said. "He's 
using medical terminology. The legal terms are what the court has used in terms 
of sure or very likely."

Weis said the state could use nitrogen hypoxia instead. An inmate would have a 
hood secured over their head and nitrogen gas pumped into it, suffocating them. 
Oklahoma recently approved the method for use, and began developing policies to 
begin conducting executions with it.

"The things to implement it are easily available," Weis said. "Nitrogen gas is 
an inert gas that is available on the open market, and the use of a hood or a 
mask would allow for a simple process."

A person must prove an alternate method of execution is feasible and readily 
implementable, according to a Supreme Court decision. Assistant Attorney 
General Gregory Goodwin argued nitrogen hypoxia met neither standard. 
Oklahoma's own study of the method pointed out problems.

"Even a small amount of oxygen that enters the environment has a serious chance 
to disrupt the entire execution," Goodwin said.

(source: ABC News)








USA:

America to trial using nitrogen gas as method of execution----Lethal injection 
promised to be more humane than the electric chair and gas chamber - but 
failed, with many prisoners suffering extreme agony for hours. Now some states 
are trialling nitrogen inhalation



Hamstrung by troubles with lethal injection - gruesomely botched attempts, 
legal battles and growing difficulty obtaining the drugs - states in America 
are looking for alternative ways to carry out the death penalty. High on the 
list for some is a method that has never been used before: inhaling nitrogen 
gas.

Oklahoma, Alabama and Mississippi have authorised nitrogen for executions and 
are developing protocols to use it, which represents a leap into the unknown. 
There is no scientific data on executing people with nitrogen, leading some 
experts to question whether states, in trying to solve old problems, may create 
new ones.<

"If and when states begin carrying out executions with nitrogen, it will amount 
to the same type of experimentation we see in the different variations of 
lethal injection," said Jen Moreno, a lawyer who is an expert on lethal 
injection at the Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic.

With some 2,750 inmates on death row in 31 states and in federal and military 
prisons, any jurisdiction that tries something new will be scrutinised as a 
test lab.

The push for change comes because lethal injection, introduced 40 years ago as 
more efficient and humane than the electric chair or gas chamber, has not met 
that promise. Indeed, it has sometimes resulted in spectacles that rival the 
ones it was meant to avert.

One pitfall is that execution teams must find a vein to infuse, a process that 
can be excruciating. In February, an Alabama execution team gave up after 
trying for more than 2 hours on an inmate whose blood vessels had been damaged 
by chemotherapy and drug abuse. His lawyer accused the team of opening an 
artery and puncturing the prisoner???s bladder. The state later said it would 
not try again to execute him.

Lethal injection also involves drugs that, if given incorrectly, can result in 
suffering. One is a paralysing agent, and the other stops the heart. The 
paralysing drug was included in the original plan for lethal injection partly 
to make the process look peaceful and less disturbing to witnesses, by 
preventing the prisoner from thrashing around.

Both it and the heart-stopping drug are supposed to be given after a powerful 
sedative has rendered the person unconscious, but if the sedative does not work 
properly, the other two drugs can cause significant pain.

Barbiturates were originally used for sedation, but manufacturers began 
refusing to sell them for executions. So states tried substituting other drugs. 
Some were ineffective and left prisoners moaning in what appeared to be 
prolonged agony.

Nebraska and Nevada hope to soon start using the opioid fentanyl as a sedative. 
Illegal use has made it a scourge of national death statistics, but medically 
it is an important painkiller and anaesthetic.

Defence lawyers in Nebraska have argued that fentanyl comes under a federal law 
that limits its distribution to lifesaving purposes, and that it is therefore 
against the law for a prison clinic to distribute it for an execution. A trial 
seeking information about the source of the fentanyl is scheduled for 14 May.

In March, Oklahoma's attorney general, Mike Hunter, said that using nitrogen 
was "the safest, the best and the most effective method available".

There is scant scientific data to back up that statement. What little is known 
about human death by nitrogen comes from industrial and medical accidents and 
its use in suicide. In accidents, when people have been exposed to high levels 
of nitrogen and little air in an enclosed space, they have died quickly. In 
some cases co-workers who rushed in to rescue them also collapsed and died.

Nitrogen itself is not poisonous, but someone who inhales it, with no air, will 
pass out quickly, probably in less than a minute, and die soon after - from 
lack of oxygen. The same is true of other physiologically inert gases, 
including helium and argon, which kill only by replacing oxygen.

A report from the US Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board said that 
breathing "an oxygen-deficient atmosphere" can knock a person unconscious after 
just 1 or 2 breaths, and that "the exposed person has no warning and cannot 
sense that the oxygen level is too low."

(Although nitrogen itself would be novel, gas chambers have existed as a US 
execution method since the 1920s. The last case was in 1999, when Arizona used 
clouds of hydrogen cyanide to execute an inmate. Coughing and hacking, he took 
18 minutes to die.)

Death from nitrogen is thought to be painless. It should prevent the condition 
that causes feelings of suffocation: the buildup of carbon dioxide from not 
being able to exhale. Humans are highly sensitive to carbon dioxide - too much 
brings on the panicky feeling of not being able to breathe.

Somewhat surprisingly, the lack of oxygen does not trigger that same reflex. 
Someone breathing pure nitrogen can still exhale carbon dioxide and therefore 
should not have the sensation of smothering.

Before passing out, a person may feel lightheaded, dizzy or maybe even a bit 
euphoric, and vision may dim.

Dr Charles D Blanke, who has studied data on physician-assisted dying, said it 
was not at all clear that nitrogen inhalation would bring a peaceful death. 
Blanke, a medical oncologist and professor at Oregon Health and Science 
University, said he had consulted colleagues in pulmonary medicine and 
anaesthesiology, and they had concerns that carbon dioxide actually could build 
up and cause feelings of suffocation.

Nitrogen is not used in states where medically assisted dying is legal; those 
patients, who are terminally ill, usually drink a huge dose of barbiturates.

Veterinary experts generally do not recommend nitrogen or other inert gases for 
euthanising mammals. Responses to the gas vary according to species, and in its 
2013 guidelines, the American Veterinary Medical Association said: "Current 
evidence indicates this method is unacceptable because animals may experience 
distressing side effects before loss of consciousness."

Unlike lethal injection, the use of nitrogen would not require that the 
execution team dig around for a vein. An anaesthesiologist, who requested 
anonymity because medical societies bar members from participating in 
executions or providing information to encourage them, said that nitrogen 
inhalation was less cruel than lethal injection. And since it presumably would 
involve no paralytic agent, witnesses would be able to see whether the person 
seemed to be suffering, he said.

Seizures might occur from inhaling nitrogen, he said. But if the technique 
appears to go smoothly, he predicted that other states would quickly adopt it.

In fact, according to state documents, in May 2016 an Arizona company sent a 
sales-pitch letter for nitrogen gas executions to Nebraska officials. Among the 
standout features of its Euthypoxia Chamber: it "produces calm and sedation 
followed by inebriation and euphoria"; it "requires no medical expertise"; and 
it guarantees "the demise of any mammalian life in 4 minutes".

In passing along the letter to another official, a state corrections department 
executive hand-wrote: "I'm not intending to respond - just thought it was an 
odd correspondence."

Moreno, of the Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic, said that implementing 
nitrogen gas is not as simple as states suggest. There are different grades of 
nitrogen, including medical and industrial with commensurate purities and 
regulations.

Observers of the execution would need protection. Officials would have to 
figure out how to safely clear nitrogen from the room before a physician could 
declare death and the staff could remove the body.

The Final Exit Network, a volunteer organisation that supports the rights of 
people with terminal illness or intractable suffering to end their lives, 
considers nitrogen inhalation a reasonable method, and directs people to 
information about it. The technique involves putting a plastic bag over one???s 
head and pumping in nitrogen.

Janis Landis, president of the network, said: "The science behind inert gases 
is quite well settled. Any inert gas one can breathe in, in place of oxygen. 
You don't have air hunger. You can keep breathing. You pass out and you die."

She said that in the past, many people had used helium to end their lives, from 
tanks they purchased at party-supply stores that stock them to inflate 
balloons.

But some suppliers, realising their product was being used for suicide, began 
mixing in air, making the helium less effective, so nitrogen became the 
preferred choice.

Landis said: "People opposed to the death penalty, scratching their heads about 
how this could work, I think they're mixing up their views about whether this 
should be done versus whether it can be done."

Experts on state-sanctioned execution methods suggest that the search for a 
palatable means of carrying out death sentences is itself uniquely American. 
Aside from the United States, the relatively few countries who execute 
prisoners typically do so by hanging, beheading or firing squad - methods that 
most Americans find repugnant.

Robert Dunham, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Centre, said 
that such a reaction exemplifies the collision between 2 contradictory traits 
that streak through the national identity.

"One is a tradition of tenderness, with us being the safeguard of human dignity 
and decency," he said. "The other is a culture of violence. And when you're 
concerned about human rights and dignity, that carries an aversion to gruesome 
killings by the state. But the death penalty is inherently violent - so those 
traditions now are really at loggerheads."

(source: independent.co.uk)

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

Behind death penalty's sharp global decline, a shift in attitudes?



Why We Wrote This

Nowhere is diligence more required of justice systems than in the imposition of 
the death penalty. As societies carefully consider the stakes - and the 
effectiveness - of the punishment, more of them are backing away.

The stats tell a story: Over the past decade, an average of 1 country per year 
has repealed the death penalty, with Guinea and Mongolia doing away with it in 
2017. That's according to a report by Amnesty International that suggests a 
change in global attitudes toward the death penalty, a handful of execution 
strongholds notwithstanding. Amnesty recorded 993 executions in 23 countries in 
2017, down 39 % from 2015. (These figures do not include thousands of suspected 
executions in China, Belarus, and Vietnam, which are state secrets.) That 
downward trend includes the United States, which carried out 23 executions in 
2017, down from 98 executions in 1999, according to the Death Penalty 
Information Center. There is a host of factors driving the decline, including 
concerns about human rights, discrimination, potential wrongful convictions, 
and its effectiveness as a deterrent. Some point to a deeper shift in 
attitudes. "We are in a period of national reconsideration of capital 
punishment," says one political scientist who studies capital punishment. "The 
death penalty is not just on the decline but [its proponents are] on the 
defensive."

(source: Christian Science Monitor)