Electric Chair Executions - Consider This Historical Alternative to Lethal Injection

Over at Criminal Justice University, there's an excellent post discussing the history of the electric chair as a method of execution in this country. 

As Utah faces an execution by firing squad next month, and the media fills with the five recent hangings in Iran as capital punishment, there's more of a focus upon alternative means to state executions other than the standard toxic injection most commonly used these days.

Entitled, "20 Criminals Executed in the Chair," the article not only provides images that bring back the horrors of this method of execution, it also rings the bell of history.  Many famous - or infamous - individuals met their death by electric chair in this country, among them:

Ted Bundy

Sacco & Vanzetti

Bruno Hauptmann (convicted of the Lindberg baby kidnapping)

Julius & Ethel Rosenberg.

If you have time today, check out the Criminal Justice University article.  Of course, maybe it's best not to do so over lunch. 

 

Firing Squad May Execute Utah's Ronnie Lee Gardner in June 2010

Lethal injection is so commonplace in the United States as the preferred method of imposing capital punishment that many assume it's the only option out there.  That's not true.

In Utah, it was only recently that their state legislature nixed the option of a death penalty by firing squad - and when it acted, four men sat on Death Row for whom the new law did not apply.  These four men were "grandfathered" into the prior law, the execution methods that were options when they were sentenced are legally still available to them today.

Ronnie Lee Gardner is one of these men - and he is choosing bullets over a needle

This week, Utah Attorney General Thomas Brunker announced that the State will not contest Gardner's motion to the court that he be killed by a firing squad instead of the standard lethal injection procedure.  Assuming that Mr. Gardner files his motion promptly, the judge could rule and his June 2010 execution may well be the first execution by firing squad that this country has seen in years. 
 

Utah's Methods of Execution and The Options Still Available Today in the U.S.

As horrific as the image of a firing squad may be in the 21st Century, lethal injection has only been an option for execution in Utah since the 1980s .  Up until around 25 years ago, Utah used firing squads as its preferred execution method. 

Utah law originally had beheading on the books as a means of capital punishment, but it was never used.  Hanging was also a means of imposing the death penalty, used until the late 1950s. (For other execution methods used by the various states, read our prior post discussing the forms of capital punishment.) 

Firing Squad Executions in Utah

Assuming that Mr. Gardner gets his wish, his name will be added to 1996's firing squad execution by the State of Utah  of John Taylor, and the infamous Gary Gilmore's death by Utah firing squad in 1977

We can only assume as the procedure continues, and the execution date draws near, that Ronnie Gardner's execution will receive extended media coverage.  For better or worse, it's a good guess that a lot of people will want to rubber-neck the firing squad execution, and lots of media outlets will be only to happy to serve them.

 

Nevada Stays Execution of Robert Lee McConnell for 2d Time

Robert Lee McConnell was set to die on February 1st at the hand of executioners for the state of Nevada, until yesterday when a federal court intervened, granting his motion to stay.  It's the second time that Mr. McConnell has faced that last walk -- he was previously set to be executed back in 2005.  Then, the execution was less than half-hour away when a stay was granted.  In 2005, McConnell had announced to everyone that he was ready to die. 

One wonders what that's like -- sitting on Death Row, being moved to the Carson City prison where Nevada kills its prisoners, setting your affairs in order and spending what you think are your last days on earth, only to find that they're not your last days.  Especially when it's happened to you twice.

Robert Lee McConnell took responsibility for a terrible mistake that he made when he murdered his ex-girlfriend's fiance back in 2002.  He pled guilty to the crime. 

Robert Lee McConnell also represented himself, both at trial and in this latest motion for stay.  In a request that exceeded 160 pages, McConnell asked Federal District Court Judge Robert Jones to halt the execution arguing in part that the death sentence was fundementally unfair.  (McConnell seems to be somewhat a jailhouse lawyer, having had his appeals to the Nevada Supreme Court heard - and rejected - last July, where he challenged the constitutionality of the lethal injection method of execution. )

Judge Jones has granted the stay, and ordered that McConnell have one month to file the appropriate petitions as well as having legal counsel appointed to assist him in that task. 

Of some note, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was litigating the constitutionality of Nevada's lethal injection method of execution in 2007, and Nevada took the challenge seriously enough to stay the execution of William Castillo, a man who had asked for the death penalty. Nevada was planning on upping the drug cocktail to double the standard amount, as well as giving Castillo a mandatory sedative.  It was only when the ACLU dropped its suit that Nevada started back with capital punishment.  Castillo's case remains on appeal. (By the way, they call these folk "volunteers" when they want to die rather than live any longer in state imprisonment.  Chilling, isn't it?)

What McConnell will argue on his latest appeal will be interesting to follow. 

Not only does he (and his newly appointed counsel) have the recent ACLU challenge to reference, as well as whatever additional appellate points they will address, they also proceed in an environment where more and more people are recognizing that powerful, powerful reality: it is simply cheaper to allow prisoners like Mr. McConnell to remain behind bars than it is to continue with capital punishment.  

Texas is Executing Mentally Retarded Regardless of Atkin v. Virginia

There's a story that's brewing in Texas which is growing in national prominence -- just this week, the Huffington Post published an excerpt from an article entitled "Cracked" from the Texas Observer, an exposé revealing that the state of Texas is continuing to execute mentally retarded individuals despite the constitutional prohibition against doing so. (Grits for Breakfast also helped to spread the word this past weekend.)

Written by Renée Feltz, the Observer’s expose throws the doors open on Texas’ Death Row to reveal that seventeen (17) men have had their IQ scores bumped up to levels that allow them to suffer the penalty of death under state and federal law. Apparently, forensic psychologist Dr. George Denkowski has used several tools of "junk science" to improperly alter the intelligence scores of these convicted men and according to Feltz’s investigation, Dr. Dankowski has done this intentionally.

In a disgraceful disregard of the spirit and intent of Atkins v. Virginia, Dr. Dankowski has testified in 29 death cases since 2002 (at a rate of $250 per hour), providing expert testimony for the prosecution in over two-thirds of the capital cases appealed in Texas from 2002 forward. Now, a federal judge has ruled that Dr. Dankowski has skewed intelligence testing results, and all his findings "must be disregarded due to fatal errors."

According to Atkins, it is unconstitutional to execute someone who scores 70 or less on a standard IQ test and demonstrates "deficits in adaptive behavior" before the age of 18 years. Texas law adds a seven question test in the determination of mental retardation as an attempt to make the label less subjective ("the Briseño standard”).

Where’s the National Media on this Story? Bloggers are taking the lead here.…

Interesting that this story is slow to gain coverage in the national media, with bloggers like those at the Huffington Post and Grits for Breakfast leading in the current search results for this story.

One wonders when the national news media will take the lead on this important and evolving revelation of injustice – and thank God for the tenacity of reporter Renee Feltz and those at the Texas Observer for their efforts to get this message out to the public.

What about Michael Richard and Chief Justice Sharon Keller?

Another thought to ponder: what does this mean for Texas' Chief Justice Sharon Keller, if anything? She awaits the fact findings from her trial this past August (Judge Berchelmann has not issued anything as yet), and Dr. Dankowski was the expert who provided the requisite testimony in the Michael Richard case, allowing Mr. Richard to be executed that fateful afternoon when Justice Keller was too busy to hear his motion for stay (“the clerk’s office closes at five.”) 

More on this story as it unfolds ....

Revisiting the Past: Capital Representation Pre-Gideon

Most Florida criminal defense attorneys who undertake the tremendous responsibility of representing defendants facing the death penalty probably cannot remember what life was like in this country in 1963. Few were practicing law back then. Many were yet to be born.

Nevertheless, the year 1963 is a critical milestone for the Florida capital defense bar because it was in 1963 that the United States Supreme Court brought us Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) - and with Gideon, everything changed.

Before we consider the necessary changes that must be made in the representation of indigent defendants facing capital punishment in Florida - and we will -- it is important to look back to the status quo as it existed pre-Gideon.

Gideon did not create the indigent's right to counsel in death penalty cases. Their right to legal representation was created much earlier by the U.S. Supreme Court in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). It was only a few years later that the High Court expanded this right to legal counsel for indigents facing felony charges in federal courts. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938).

What makes Gideon so powerful and worthy of our consideration today is that this single Supreme Court opinion recognized an indigent defendant's legal right to counsel when accused of state felonies. Gideon, 372 U.S. at 342. Suddenly, the Sixth Amendment right to the assistance of counsel was found to be essential to a fair trial; consequently, there was to be no distinction between the duty to provide indigents with legal representation in either state or federal courts. If you were poor and facing a felony charge in this country under either state or federal law, you were legally entitled to a lawyer provided to you by the government since you could not afford to hire your own counsel.

Curious by its absence was any instruction in Gideon on the means or methods by which the individual states were to accomplish this task. Each state was left to its own devices in how Gideon's mandate was to be accomplished, and many looked to Florida - since Gideon v. Wainwright originated in our state.

Background of Gideon v. Wainwright

In 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was convicted for breaking and entering a Panama City, Florida pool hall (with the intent to commit petty larceny) by a Florida jury and sentenced to five years incarceration in the Florida State Prison. Although Mr. Gideon asked the trial judge to provide him with an attorney, the judge declined, explaining that under Florida law only defendants facing capital offenses were entitled to appointed counsel. Mr. Gideon, therefore, represented himself.

He continued to do so after his conviction. Taking advantage of the prison library, Mr. Gideon handwrote in pencil his petition to the United States Supreme Court, as he sued Louie Wainwright as the Secretary to the Florida Department of Corrections. Gideon argued that his Sixth Amendment right to counsel applied to his situation through the Fourteenth Amendment. His constitutional rights had been violated.

Once his pleas reached the High Court, Mr. Gideon was no longer without counsel. The renowned advocate Abe Fortas, later to take his own place as a United States Supreme Court Justice, undertook the representation of the convicted pool hall burglar.

The Gideon Opinion

After hearing oral argument, an opinion was issued in mid-1963 written by Justice Hugo Black who was joined by Chief Justice Earl Warren as well as Justices Brennan, Stewart, White, and Goldberg. Douglas, Clark, and Harlan concurred. No one dissented.

In Gideon, not only did the Court strengthen its support of the Powell decision, but it overruled Betts v. Brady, a prior decision that found the selective application of the right to counsel was legally acceptable in certain situations. Clark pointed out that there is no Constitutional distinction between capital and non-capital charges. Harlan wrote to point out that merely the charge of a serious crime created the special circumstances that call for legal representation at trial.

Now, the law of the land was that the right to have legal representation was to be considered a fundamental constitutional right and therefore, worthy of the necessary procedural safeguards imposed for due process of law.

The Aftermath for Clarence Gideon

After his case was returned to the Florida Supreme Court, the State of Florida tried Mr. Gideon a second time. In his second trial he was represented by appointed counsel, and summarily acquitted.

The Aftermath for the State of Florida, the Criminal Defense Bar, and Indigents Today

No one in this country was considered to have the legal right to an attorney until the early 1930s, when defendants in federal court facing the death penalty were granted that right by the U.S. Supreme Court. For the next thirty-odd years, no one charged with a serious crime by any state this country was considered to have a right to an attorney provided to him by that state - even if he was facing life imprisonment. Gideon v. Wainwright changed all that.

Today, almost a half century later, the result of Gideon has been a consistent neglect of the needed infrastructure for indigent criminal defense in Florida, and across the country. Efforts to have effective legislation passed or broadly based executive policies instituted have been frustratingly unsuccessful.

Since the 1980s, it has become increasing clear that there is simply an incongruity between the needs of appointed counsel to mount a thorough and satisfactory defense and the limited budgetary revenues of state and local governments. Bottom line, Gideon (and its progeny) has proven to be more expensive directive than the state governments have been willing to accept.

Ohio First State in the Nation to Change Lethal Injection Execution Method to Single Drug - What Are the Consequences?

Last week, the State of Ohio announced that it was changing its method of execution from a lethal injection involving three drugs (sodium thiopental, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride) to a single injection of the drug sodium thiopental

Ohio changes to a single-drug form of execution after its failed execution of Romell Broom on September 15, 2009

You'll recall the travesty of Mr. Broom's attempted capital punishment -- as we described here, Romell Broom suffered for two and one-half hours on the gurney that day:

Romell Broom was sentenced to die for the rape and murder of Tryna Middleton by the State of Ohio and last Tuesday, Mr. Broom was strapped to a gurney and his execution by lethal injection began. 

The 2+ Hour Failed Execution

Except they couldn't find a vein in which to insert the needle.  They tried his arms.  They tried his legs.  Broom lay there, tied to the table by long leather straps covering the length of his body.  Imagine this being done to you.

Broom lay there for OVER TWO HOURS while lab techs tried to kill him.  They failed.  Broom went back to his Death Row cell, and his execution was "rescheduled."  The Governor of the State of Ohio was contacted about the problem and he ordered a one week "postponement."


According to the New York Times, Broom "sobbed with pain".  And afterwards, not only did Ohio Governor Strickland order that Romell Broom's execution be stopped, but the Ohio federal court issued a stay of his execution after hearing Broom's attorneys argue that a second try at executing Broom would be unconstitutionally cruel and unusual.  

The Consequences of Ohio's New Single Drug Execution Method

Proponents are arguing that this single, massive dose of sodium thiopental is merciful and that it's going to be the NextBigThing for death penalty proponents, since its success will hamper constitutional arguments against execution by lethal injection under the three-drug approach. 

And those are serious and substantive arguments, as we've outlined here in a three-part series of articles.  No one can truly say that a paralyzed person, laying on that gurney, isn't suffering because they are incapable of communicating what they are experiencing.  The "drug cocktail" is simply horrific.

Ohio is so confident in its new execution method -- the same type of killing method that vets use on dogs and cats -- that it's planning on having the new protocol in place by the end of this month, and there's talk that Ohio will want to try out its new One-Drug Injection procedure on Kenneth Biros, who is scheduled for execution on December 8, 2009, subject to a temporary stay. 

What has yet to be determined, however, is how this massive dose of this single drug will truly work on a human being.  What works on dogs and cats might not be as merciful, fast, and painfree on humans.  We simply don't know, and undoubtedly there will be medical testimony with the appropriate medical experts providing their opinions on this procedure before Ken Bios or anyone else is subject to Ohio's new killing option.  Or there should be.

And, what about if the Ohio one drug option doesn't work as swiftly and cleanly as its proponents suggest it will?  Well, they've got a backup -- two more drugs that would then be injected into the condemned, there on the gurney:  the executor will shoot in massive amounts of  hydromorphone and midalzolam.   

None of This Makes a Bit of Difference in the Broom Situation

With Ohio's big announcement, death penalty proponents are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the thought that the remaining 35 states using lethal injection as their primary execution method can now circumvent all number of death penalty appeals based upon the cruel and inhuman nature of the three-drug cocktail, just by adopting the Ohio One Drug method. 

Well, it's not as simple as that.  First, this method needs to be vetted by medical experts before a condemned person is used as a guinea pig here, nevermind those back-up syringes filled with hydromophone and midazolam. 

Second, has no one stopped to think that the answer is more complex than this?  Romell Broom suffered great agony on September 15th not because of the type of drug used upon him, or the number of drugs selected to be injected into his body, but because they could never find a way to successfully insert the needle.

Two Points to Ponder

So, point one, the Ohio One Drug "innovation" doesn't resolve the Romell Broom travesty and it's fascinating to watch Death Penalty proponents distract themselves from the cruelty of that day in their excitement over this new find. 

Point two:  is anyone out there thinking that executing men and women in the same way that that vets euthanize animals (even if they are beloved pets) is just plain wrong?  When did we forget about human dignity?

In Depth Look at the Law: Secrecy in China - Successfully Hiding the Truth About Executions for Profit from the World

Supplying the International Demand for Human Transplant Organs is Big Business in China

The demand for transplantable organs is the main reason why organ procurement is so pervasive in China. [204] It is common knowledge that high-paying customers will receive a prompt organ transplant in China. [205]Former transplant patients have reported that they were expected to hand out "red envelopes" filled with money to every doctor they saw.[206]

The money is shared with both prison and court officials. [207]It has been reported that foreign nationals pay upwards of $200,000 for an organ transplant performed in China, using Chinese donors. [208] Sadly, there is also a reported case where a transplant recipient died because the essential post-operation care and treatment ceased because the patient ran out of money.[209]

Due to the high demand for organs, the large number of death-row prisoners, the improved medical technology, and the huge profits, selling organs from executed prisoners in China will continue. [210] The situation is exacerbated because many of the people who are key participants in the harvesting of the organs are poorly paid prison and hospital administrators.[211]

Executions for Profit Have Extra Benefit -- Intimidation and Control of the Citizenry

China's organ procurement from the bodies of executed prisoners is not only a lucrative money-maker, it is also a method to coerce and intimate the general population into submission of government control.  [212] Actually, since the discovery of the lucrative organ transplant market, the number of crimes punishable by death has increased.[213]

Chinese web bulletins boards have reported information discussing the sale and corruption of the "organ business." [214] Chinese websites advertising organ transplants openly admit to obtaining their organs from executed prisoners. [215] One website specifically targeting foreigners announced on the front page that viscera or soft interior organs including brain, lungs, and heart could be found immediately. [216] This website also thanked the support of the Chinese government, specifically naming the Supreme Demotic Court. [217]

Secrecy in the Chinese government

China has maintained an air of secrecy concerning the sale of organs harvested from executed prisoners, concealing the transfer of profits. [218] China strove to keep the 1984 order on the use of prisoner cadavers confidential in order to avoid international backlash. [219] Even official figures regarding death sentences and executions in China are kept secret from the public and foreigners. [220] Additionally, international human rights organizations are not permitted to visit prisoners in China. [221] Until recently, the Chinese government emphatically denied the legal procurement of organs from Chinese prisoners condemned to death.[222]

The only people that would be present at the scene of an organ harvesting are the victim and the perpetrators. [223] No bystanders would be allowed to witness the event. [224] Afterward, no body would be found, and no autopsy would be conducted. [225] The body would be cremated, and the evidence vanished. [226] The operating room would be left like any other empty operating room. [227] Cremation of the body prevents any evidence from surfacing regarding the harvesting of organs. [228] In addition, any wills created by condemned prisoners are subject to official censorship by the government.[229]

The Supreme People's Court issued a secret regulation concerning a prisoner's last will and testament that states, "Those parts which are slanderous in nature or which make reactionary statements are not to be handed over to the person's family . . . sections complaining about grievances or alleged injustices are not to be passed on to the person's family." [230] When one executed prisoner's brother asked to see the documentation of his brother's consent to donate his organs, the Chinese officials would not give him the information. [231] Furthermore, the government warned the brother that if he did not keep silent, he and his family would face retaliation.[232]

Continue Reading...

In Depth Look at the Law: China Death Vans and China's Widespread Corruption - There is No Fairness in China's Criminal Justice System

Corruption of China's Communist Party

It has been reported that there is widespread corruption among Chinese government officials including graft, bribery, use of official position for personal gain, blackmail, misuse of public money, and extortion. [161] One source cites graft and bribery as constituting over 50% of the economic crimes in China.[162]

Under the current Chinese government, the rights of individuals are always subject to the drafting of new legislation that may suspend those rights. [163] Moreover, violations of those rights guaranteed by the Chinese constitution are generally not enforceable against the government because of the lack of checks and balances in the system. [164]

The Communist Party always takes precedent over the independent rule of law. [165] Chinese citizens may only exercise their right to freedom if their behavior does not infringe upon the interests of the society and the state. [166] Research has indicated that Chinese citizens who engage in promoting freedom of expression are arbitrarily arrested, detained, tortured, and convicted. [167]

Many crimes involving expression of ideas or even an association with an idea or movement that differs from the party line are classified as political crimes. [168] The ensuing trials are held in secret, excluding observers and even lawyers, under the excuse of maintaining state secrets.[169]

Economic gain from organ harvesting

China sells organs of executed prisoners on a large scale for profit under the guise of state secrets. [170] China has a system that readily sentences, condemns, and executes human beings so that their organs can be sold by government officials for personal gain. [171]

Arrestees are often denied immediate access to legal representation following their detention. [172]  Chinese police even take extreme steps to limit defense attorneys from assisting their clients. [173]

For example, Chinese police severely limit the length and number of times a defendant is allowed to meet with his attorney, require the attorney to brief police concerning the nature of the conversation prior to the meeting, cancel meetings that are intended to cover topics that are not preapproved, and severely restrict the attorney's access to the prosecution's evidence. [174]

Torture Is An Accepted Practice

Moreover, torture is often used to elicit confessions. [175]  International organizations have documented the widespread abuse and torture of prisoners occurring at all types of detention facilities and legal institutions in China. [176]

One individual reported that he was forced to confess to a crime after undergoing torture perpetrated by the police that included electrical shock applied to the toes, fingers and genitals, beating with heavy chains and sticks, and injection of hot pepper, gasoline, and ginger into his nose. [177] Thus, it is not surprising then that China refuses to accept the Optional Protocol to the United Nations Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which allows for regular international inspection of detention centers.[178]

Injustice is Inherent in China's Criminal Justice System

In addition to the arrest and detention of prisoners, trials are often held before defendants are provided adequate time to prepare a defense. [179] Defendants do not have a guaranteed right to cross-examine witnesses. [180]

In addition, verdicts and subsequent sentences are often determined by private committees prior to a proper trial. [181]Unfortunately, it is quite common for a court to have reached a verdict before the defendant even enters the courtroom. [182]

Continue Reading...

In Depth Look at the Law: China Death Vans and Harvesting Prisoner Organs for Profit

Due to reports of the torture and anguish of prisoners and the secrecy surrounding the death penalty's application in China, it is virtually impossible to independently verify that any executed prisoners truly gave consent for the use of their organs.[100]

Chinese prisoners are generally not notified of their impending execution until just hours before it occurs.[101] As a result, donor consent is rarely obtained in spite of it being a lawful requirement. [102]The family members of the condemned prisoners are also rarely informed of the execution.[103]

Even when the family members are notified of the execution, they are rarely informed of the prearranged plans for organ extraction. [104] In the rare instances where the family members are notified, they are offered money in advance to authorize the use of the prisoner's organs. [105] If the family refuses the payment, it is then common for the government to provide the family with a large bill following the execution to recoup losses ranging from food and lodging for the prisoner to the cost of the bullet used to perform the execution.[106]

One death row prisoner was witnessed lying on the floor in solitary confinement with all of his limbs stretched out and shackled to the ground by his wrists, ankles, and even his neck. [107] He was fed one meal a day.[108]  Only after he "consented" to donating his organs was he unshackled from the ground. [109] However, he was still in leg irons and handcuffs.[110]

It has also been reported that prisoners who are healthy and have useful organs are often pushed to the front of the waiting lists for executions.[111] In essence, once a prisoner has been deemed fit for an organ transplant, the prisoner becomes nothing more than a warm object sheltering an organ for some other waiting and paying person.[112]

Chinese ideology

The underlying ideological principles of China's social and political culture justify the use of organs from executed prisoners. [113]Society as a whole is deemed more important than individual rights. [114] Because of the organ deficit for transplantation and the demand from high-paying foreigners, China justifies the use of these prisoners' organs for the overall good of the country. [115] The Chinese government considers the use of death row prisoners for organ transplants charity.[116]

The criminals are considered bad people deserving of their death sentence. [117] In producing the death, the prisoners create waste that can be used to help others continue their lives, hence charity. [118] Even hospital and prison employees deem the system of retrieving organs without consent just a way to pay back the state for the expense of the prisoners' care while incarcerated.[119]

Continue Reading...

In Depth Look at the Law: Death Penalty Organ Harvesting is a Government Business in China

Organ harvesting is a government business in China. [77]

At least ninety percent of all organ transplants performed in China come from executed prisoners. [78] Only the government has the power to carry out these executions, and therefore, only the government can control the organ trade.[79]

Without the death penalty in China, the entire system of organ harvesting would be nonexistent. [80] Recently in 2006, both the Vice-Minister of Health in China and senior transplantation specialists finally admitted that the vast majority of organs used for transplants were harvested from executed prisoners.[81]

Different people in the government play an integral role in the organ transplant process.[82]

The judges and other court officials speed up the process from appeals to death sentence, which ensures that prisoners are available for the optimum time to extract organs for waiting patients. [83] Court officials inform doctors when death sentences are handed down, so they can contact the prisons to make matches for waiting patients. [84] Prison guards and other officials allow hospital staff into the wards to test prisoners to determine appropriate donors for waiting transplant patients.[85]

Many times, prisoners are subjected to a large variety of medical screening tests prior to execution to determine the compatibility of their organs for transplantation. [86] In these instances, medical personnel are strictly forbidden from revealing the purpose of these screenings.[87]

The prison guards also set the execution dates and ensure that family members are unaware of the execution until after-the-fact. [88] The guards also allow the doctors to perform the organ extractions immediately after execution directly at the execution site. [89] In fact, medical personnel are routinely informed of the date, time, and location of executions in advance, so they are prepared for the immediate extraction of organs for transplantation.[90]

Deliberately Botched Execution and Harvesting Organs From the Living

There have also been credible reports of deliberately botched executions to postpone brainstem death to aid in the retrieving of the organs while the blood is still circulating through the body.  [91] It has been reported that organs such as kidneys are removed the night before the scheduled execution. [92]

Continue Reading...

In Depth Look at the Law: China's Death Penalty - 3: Who are the Falun Gong? Why are they targeted for execution and organ harvesting?

This is third part of our new Friday Legal Memo Series - In Depth Look at the Law, where we're focusing on an international horror that is not getting enough attention. In China, people are being executed inside mobile death vans, vehicles that drive from village to village. First, the victim is killed inside the van. Thereafter, his organs are taken from him almost immediately so they can be sold for a profit. All this, while grieving loved ones may well be just outside the vehicle. This is real. Take notice. Spread the word.

Practitioners of Falen Gong have been targeted for execution and organ harvesting by China. Why?

Falun Gong was founded in 1992 by Li Honghzi in northeastern China. [46] Falun Gong followers practice meditative, slow-motion exercises and adhere to the movement's guiding principles of truthfulness, benevolence, and forbearance taken from Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism.[47]

The Chinese government touts protection of certain religious activities, which include Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Protestantism, and Catholicism. [48]However, all other religious groups, sects, and denominations are illegal and subject to suppression by the Chinese government.[49]

In April 1999, over ten thousand Falun Gong members gathered in Tiananmen Square to peacefully protest the persecution of their practices.[50]

On April 25, 1999, fifteen thousand members of Falun Gong gathered outside of the government's central headquarters in Beijing and demanded official recognition.[51] Following the April 1999 protests, the Chinese government began a campaign to eradicate the Falun Gong. [52]Leaders of the movement were detained, the organization was outlawed, and a massive media campaign was launched aimed at discrediting the organization.[53]

On July 22, 1999, the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Civil Affairs decreed the Falun Gong an illegal organization.[54]

Following the outlaw of Falun Gong, the international news media and academic groups began producing and disseminating documentation of the group's rapid dismantling. [55] In October 2000, the Chinese government increased efforts to destroy the Falun Gong by pronouncing the group as a "reactionary and hostile" organization.[56]

As a result, detention and re-education efforts were increased. [57] The Chinese government undertook a three-pronged approach to quash the Falun Gong movement: 1) re-education of members; 2) violent treatment of members; and 3) distribution of anti-Falun Gong propaganda.[58]

Eight hundred thirty thousand Falun Gong followers had been arrested by the conclusion of April 2001. [59] However, it was reported in April 2006 that each year, more than twice as many Chinese nationals join Falun Gong than the Communist Party, much to the Chinese government's fear and dismay.[60]

In 2001, the Chinese president, Jiang Zemin, stated, "Religion must never be allowed when it opposes the direction of the Party of the socialist system, or destroys national reunification or ethnic identity." [61]

In late 2001, China declared the use of the Internet to organize or coordinate the activities of "evil cults" a criminal offense. [62] In the years following, thousands of Falun Gong followers were detained and charged with violating the anti-cult laws.[63]

President Jiang Zemin actually created the 6-10 office, a special branch of the Chinese government designed specifically to eliminate the Falun Gong movement. [64] The 6-10 office sent thousands of Falun Gong practitioners to prisons and labor camps.[65]

Falun Gong practitioners have been subjected to torture, capricious detention, and re-education to include confinement, forced labor, and psychological treatments. [66] One research group identified over three thousand Falun Gong practitioners who have lost their lives as a result of persecution by the Chinese government.[67]

Organ harvesting of Falun Gong prisoners may have begun a decade ago

Researchers linked the large surge in organ transplants performed in China to the persecution and imprisonment of Falun Gong members in 1999. [68] In many prisons and labor camps, Falun Gong practitioners have been singled out from non-practitioners for blood tests and organ examinations.[69]

Although those practitioners were given medical screenings, presumably to determine compatibility for organ transplants, many diagnosed with illnesses were not provided with any medical treatments.[70]

One study found that Falun Gong practitioners who die in captivity would officially be categorized as suicide by the Chinese government, and their bodies would be immediately cremated. [71] Furthermore, it has been reported that a large number of these deaths were carried out specifically to gather organs for transplants.[72]

Many family members of executed Falun Gong practitioners have reported seeing corpses with surgical incisions and missing body parts. [73] Moreover, the government gave no explanation as to why the corpses were mutilated.[74]

Many Falun Gong practitioners whose organs were harvested following their execution were never identified by their families because these practitioners refused to identify themselves to the authorities when they were captured. [75]Therefore, it is easy to conclude that these unidentified practitioners were the easiest and safest targets for clandestine organ harvesting.

These findings parallel international human rights groups that have widely reported that executions in China are often performed in conjunction with specific transplant requirements, i.e., shooting a prisoner in the head when kidneys are needed or shooting a prisoner in the chest when corneas are needed.[76]

[46]Christopher Chaney, The Despotic State Department in Refugee Law: Creating Legal Fictions to Support Falun Gong Asylum Claims, 6 (No. 1) Asian-Pac. L. & Pol'y J. 130, 142 (Winter 2005).

[47]Leavy, supra note 50, at 756-57.

[48] 48Id. at 757-59.

[49]Chaney, supra note 51, at 142.

[50]Id. at 131.

[51] Leavy, supra note 50, at 761.

[52] Id.

[53]Matas & Kilgour, supra note 46, at 9.

[54]Id. at 10.

[55]Joseph Watson & Alex Jones, Falun Gong Demonstrator Speaks Out on Chinese Government's Ghoulish Organ Harvesting, Prison Planet.com, Apr. 25, 2006, ¶¶ 13-14, http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/250406speaksout.htm (last visited July 29, 2008).

[56] Edelman & Richardson, supra note 48, at 254.

[57]Id.

[58]Id.

[59]Matas & Kilgour, supra note 46, at 10.

[60]Id. at 11.

[61]Leavy, supra note 50, at 756.

[62]David Matas & David Kilgour, Bloody Harvest Revised Report into Allegations of Organ Harvesting of Falun Gong Practitioners in China, OrganHarvestInvestigation.Net, Jan. 31, 2007, at 34 [hereinafter Bloody], available at http://organharvestinvestigation.net/report0701/report20070131-eng.pdf (last visited July 29, 2008). Matas and Kilgour continued their research after publishing their first report and published this updated report with additional findings.

[63] Kirk C. Allison, Ph.D., M.S., Assoc. Dir., Univ. of Minn., Program in Human Rights and Health, Address at the University of Hawaii at Manoa: Transplantation and Human Rights in China, slide 89 (Oct. 29, 2007), available at http://organharvestinvestigation.net/events/Kirk_Allison_102907.pdf (last visited July 29, 2008).

[64]Bloody, supra note 67, at 38.

[65]Allison, supra note 68, slide 70.

[66] Matas & Kilgour, supra note 46, at 9.

[67]Fear of Torture or Ill-Treatment/Prisoner of Conscience, Amnesty Int'l (ASA 17/049/2006), Aug. 29, 2006, at 1, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/049/2006/en/dom-ASA170492006en.pdf (last visited July 29, 2008).

[68]Bloody, supra note 67, at 45.

[69]Id.

[70]Id. at 35.

[71]Hemphill, supra note 29, at 439-40.

Next Friday: Prisoners as another source for China's organ harvesting business

In Depth Look at the Law: China's Death Penalty -2: Truly Inhumane Killings Are Happening in China Under the Guise of Capital Punishment

This is second part of our new Friday Legal Memo Series - In Depth Look at the Law, where we're focusing on an international horror that is not getting enough attention. In China, people are being executed inside mobile death vans, vehicles that drive from village to village. First, the victim is killed inside the van. Thereafter, his organs are taken from him almost immediately so they can be sold for a profit. All this, while grieving loved ones may well be just outside the vehicle. This is real. Take notice. Spread the word.

How does China officially respond when confronted with these horrors? China doesn't deny the death vans exist. Instead, China claims that the death vans are more humane.

Executions in China are performed by either lethal injection or firing squad. [20] China approved the use of lethal injection in 1997. [21] Although the Chinese government is claiming that lethal injection is a more humane form of execution, there have been reports that the executioners have lowered the dosage amounts to cut costs, which results in a lingering, more agonizing and painful death. [22]

China Prefers Lethal Injection Over the Firing Squad - But Not Because it is a More Humane Manner of Death.

Despite these allegations, the Chinese media and government officials continue to tout that lethal injection is a civilized method for administering the death penalty. [23] The Chinese media often justify the use of lethal injection by citing the use of lethal injection in the United States. [24] The death van designer also claims that switching from gunshots to lethal injections show that China is now promoting human rights. [25]

Critics, however, state that the death vans allow China to carry out executions more quickly and easily. [26] Realistically, the government is not seeking a more enlightened vision of capital punishment but rather a more efficient way to execute a larger number of people. [27] In addition, the vans keep the executions out of the public eye.[28]

Death Vans Are a Profit Machine: They are Used for Organ Transplantation and Lethal Injection is Better for a Fast Harvest

It has been reported that the Chinese government uses mobile execution units to harvest organs from prisoners condemned to death. [29] Human rights activists and death penalty opponents fear that China is using lethal injection more frequently to harvest the organs of executed prisoners to supply China's growing market for organ transplants. [30] Amnesty International is also concerned with China using lethal injection for the purposes of facilitating organ transplants from executed prisoners.[31]

These Silent, Mobile Death Vans are Viewed as Helping the Black Market Human Organ Market to Florish and Grow

The Executive Director of Human Rights in China states that the mobile execution vans help facilitate the black-market trade in organ sales because independent monitoring organizations, like the Red Cross, are denied access to prisons or labor camps. [32] With the secrecy already surrounding executions and organ harvesting in China, the death vans only aid in the business of black-market organ transplants. [33] Critics positively see a link between the silently rolling death vans and the organ trade.[34]

Amnesty International Reports on How Lethal Injection is Preferable in Human Organ Harvesting

According to Amnesty International, the chemicals used for lethal injection, which have neurological and neuromuscular effect, can be flushed through the kidneys without causing permanent damage. [35] The chief concern with damaging organs during execution is depriving the organs of oxygen or harming them physically through trauma. [36] Lethal injection allows the executioner to avoid both of these risks. [37] Although the drugs used for lethal injection in China is not publicly known, even the poisonous mix used in the United States would not damage the vital organs desired for transplants. [38]

With a shot of the anticoagulant, Heparin, beforehand, even a heart could be transplanted if removed quickly. [39] By leaving the body whole via lethal injection, organs can be extracted more quickly and effectively compared to execution by gunshot.[40]

Chinese Doctors Harvesting Human Organs With Grieving Family Members Just Outside the Van

Prior to the death vans, doctors had to hurriedly perform the organ extraction directly at the execution site before they were detected by the common people. [41] During one particular organ extraction inside an ambulance at the execution site, the doctors could hear people outside of the ambulance. [42] Because the doctors feared that those people might have been the prisoner's family, they left the job half finished. [43] The corpse was then hastily thrown in a plastic bag and left on the flatbed of the crematorium truck. [44] As the ambulance drove away, the people outside pelted the vehicle with stones. [45] Therefore, the windowless death vans would provide a much safer venue for the doctors and police officers performing the executions and organ extractions.

[20] Executed, supra note 5, at 44.

[21]Id. at 48.

[22] Charleton, supra note 3, ¶ 5.

[23] Executed, supra note 5, at 48.

[24]Id. at 50.

[25] MacLeod, supra note 12, ¶ 4.

[26] Antoaneta Bezlova, Death Penalty-China: Rapid Death by Roaming, Inter Press Service News Agency (Italy), July 19, 2006, ¶ 2, http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=34023 (last visited July 29, 2008).

[27] Charleton, supra note 3, ¶ 6.

[28] Bezlova, supra note 26, ¶ 2.

[29] Joan E. Hemphill, Comment: China's Practice of Procuring Organs from Executed Prisoners: Human Rights Groups Must Narrowly Taylor Their Criticism and Endorse the Chinese Constitution to End Abuses, 16 Pac. Rim L. & Pol'y 431, 440 (Mar. 2007).

[30] Bezlova, supra note 26, ¶ 16.

[31] People's Republic of China the Olympics Countdown-Failing to Keep Human Rights Promises, Amnesty Int'l (ASA 17/046/2006), Sept. 2006, at 2 [hereinafter Failing], available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA17/046/2006/en/dom-ASA170462006en.pdf (last visited July 29, 2008).

[32] Bezlova, supra note 26, ¶¶ 20-21.

[33] Id. ¶¶ 20-22.

[34] Id. ¶ 16; MacLeod, supra note 12, ¶ 7.

[35] Carers, supra note 14, at 16.

[36] Id.

[37] Id.

[38] Craig S. Smith, In Shift, Chinese Carry Out Executions by Lethal Injection, The N.Y. Times, Dec. 28, 2001, ¶ 11, available at http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E0D91131F93BA15751C1A9679C8B63 (last visited July 28, 2008).

[39] Id.

[40]MacLeod, supra note 12, ¶ 8.

[41] See Organs, supra note 4, at 59 (statement of Wang Guoqi, former doctor, Chinese PLA Hospital).

[42] Id.

[43] Id.

[44] Id.

[45] Id.
Next Friday: Who are the Falun Gong and How are they involved?

It Can Happen Overnight: Japan Suspends the Death Penalty

Remembering back to a couple of months ago, we posted about three executions taking place in Japan, in just one week. 

Well, here's how fast things can change:  Japan has effectively nixed capital punishment today.  How?  By the appointment of Keiko Chiba as the country's new Justice Minister.  A lifelong opponent of the death penalty, it's highly unlikely that Minister Chiba will sign the necessary execution order for any Japanese inmate to be executed in Japan. 

No signed order, no hanging.

Author of Series on China's Death Penalty: Sin-Ting Mary Liu

The next entry in our Friday series -- Friday's Legal Memo, an In-depth Look at the Law -- educates us on how capital punishment is administered in China. 

Its author is our invaluable legal intern, Sin-Ting Mary Liu, and her qualifications for providing us with this trusted work are:

EDUCATION & TRAINING

JURIS DOCTOR CANDIDATE, Nova Southeastern University, Expected Graduation 2010

GPA - 3.72

Class Rank - 5 (Top 2%)

Honors
• Dean's List
• Fall 2007 Highest Grade Award -Legal research and writing
• Spring 2008 Highest Grade Award -Legal research and writing
• ILSA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW, Staff Member - editing, source pulling, and Bluebooking multiple journal articles
• Nova Southeastern University - Shepard Broad Law Center Merit Scholarship Award

Activities
• Phi Alpha Delta (PAD) - Member
• American Bar Association (ABA) - Student Member
• Asian Pacific American Law Students Association (APALSA) - Member

Special Areas of Legal Interest
• Criminal Law
• Employment Law
• Biotechnology
• Family Law

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN ADVERTISING, University of Florida, 1994
• Minor in East Asian Languages and Literature

DALE CARNEGIE TRAINING COURSE, 1997 - 1998

Continue Reading...

Ohio Set for Second Execution Attempt of Romell Broom Unless His Lawyers Work Fast

Romell Broom was sentenced to die for the rape and murder of Tryna Middleton by the State of Ohio and last Tuesday, Mr. Broom was strapped to a gurney and his execution by lethal injection began. 

The 2+ Hour Failed Execution

Except they couldn't find a vein in which to insert the needle.  They tried his arms.  They tried his legs.  Broom lay there, tied to the table by long leather straps covering the length of his body.  Imagine this being done to you.

Broom lay there for OVER TWO HOURS while lab techs tried to kill him.  They failed.  Broom went back to his Death Row cell, and his execution was "rescheduled."  The Governor of the State of Ohio was contacted about the problem and he ordered a one week "postponement."

Ohio Has Scheduled a Second Execution

Well, now Broom's execution -- again, by lethal injection -- has been put back on the calendar, and a national outcry is joining with the arguments of his lawyers that this amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.   According to his counsel, this event has traumatized inmate Broom.  That's probably an understatement. 

Legal Arguments Based Upon Cruel and Unusual Punishment are Being Advanced in the Face of Willie Francis Precedent

Broom's attorneys -- as well as organizations like the American Civil Liberties Union -- are advancing the argument that Governor Strickland should grant clemency to Broom and commute his sentence to one of life imprisonment because of this botched execution.  Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a second execution is not, in and of itself, cruel and unusual.  Those in the know with their legal death penalty history will remember the Louisiana case of 16 year old Willie Francis, where an electric chair execution failed and the issue of whether or not a second try at killing Francis would be cruel and unusual.  In Francis v. Resweber, the High Court held second executions were constitutional.

Florida's Contribution -- the Lesson of Angel Diaz

Here in Florida, we remember the case a couple of years back where the execution of Angel Diaz was excruciating, as the executioners pushed the needs through his veins and into muscle tissue -- which meant Mr. Diaz took over half an hour to die, laying there in front of everyone on that gurney.  After that botched business, the State of Florida stopped lethal injection executions for a period of time.  Florida resumed executing inmates in 2008, under purportedly new and better injection procedures. 

Maybe Ohio needs to look at its own procedures instead of cavalierly putting Broom's name back on its death calendar.  Or maybe they should just stop executing people, period....

Inside the Death Chamber - Tours by Death Row Wardens

North Carolina

The video below is a ten minute documentary by Scott Langley, where a North Carolina Warden gives a detailed tour of Death Row, and tells what happens during an execution -- from last phone calls, to the execution itself and its aftermath.




Texas

The Associated Press has placed an interview online -- they're calling it an "interactive" -- where a Texas Warden who oversaw nine executions by lethal injection gives a tour of the Death House and an explanation, step by step, of his job during an execution. 

http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_national/texas_execution/index.html?SITE=TXSAE

Due to AP's copyright/fair use protections, the actual video cannot be placed here on the site.  Instead, only the link to their site can be shown.  Please take the time to click on the above link, and watch this short video. It is worth your time. 

Warning:  these tours are chilling, and may leave you in a somber mood for the rest of the day.

Technological Advances and the Death Penalty: Evidence Changes Over Time as Science Exonerates Defendants, but Capital Punishment Can Mean Justice Comes Too Late

Our system of justice is built on the belief that it's better to let a guilty man go free than to imprison - or kill - an innocent man for a crime he did not commit.  That's why there are all those procedural hurdles from the beginning of an investigation all the way through that last minute request for stay of execution.

This dedication to protecting the innocent threads through the controversy surrounding Texas Chief Justice Sharon Keller and her infamous "the clerk's office closes at 5:00" phone call.   It's why the DNA revelations of Israel's Dan Frumkin are reverberating around the world.   It's why the Innocence Project exists.  

It would seem self-evident that the continued revelations from our scientific community, particularly the new DNA warning by Frumkin, would obviously balance against any continued use of capital punishment, given the fragility of reliablity of prosecution evidence over time. 

Wouldn't it?  This seems obvious from the defense counsel's perspective.   This seems to be what our system of justice and the parameters of due process require. 

Maybe it takes something that hits home, touches people's hearts for this truth to become self-evident.  Sometimes there is the one case that really hits home with a lawyer -- and in The Huffington Post today, Cy Vance (a veteran criminal lawyer currently running for District Attorney of Manhattan) gives us an eloquent piece on the case of Cameron Todd Willingham.

Willingham may well have been another innocent man executed by the State, whose innocence was revealed after his death due to scientific advances that gave more details to the evidence found at the scene of the crime.  Willingham's case is particularly poignant because he was convicted and killed for the death by fire of his own children.  Now, arson experts are saying that this was never an arson case, the fire was not intentionally set. 

I highly recommend you take the time to read what Cy Vance has voiced about the Cameron Todd Willingham case, as well as the death penalty overall.  It's worth your time.  And it really demonstrates, concretely, that continued technological advances is one of the biggest argument against the death penalty.

AEDPA, the Power of Judicial Dissents, and the Reality of Troy Davis

This week, the New York Times reports that dissents are increasing in federal cases, based in large part upon judicial frustration with the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.   According to their investigation and research, this single statute has been the basis of 6 -24 dissents per year in federal death penalty appeals. 

What is the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996?

The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 is a federal law that was passed by Congress in response to concerns that Death Row inmates were taking advantage of loopholes in the appeals process.  What AEDPA does to correct this concern is to put boundaries on what the federal appellate court justices can take into consideration when called upon to review a death penalty appeal.  The federal appellate courts must limit their review in state court cases where the death penalty has been imposed to certain specific areas. 

Specifically, AEDPA allows federal judges to grant relief in a death penalty case only if  the state court decision is found to be:


  1. contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or

  2. based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding.


AEDPA does other things as well.  It bars certain habeas corpus petitions.  It cuts off the power of the U.S. Supreme Court from reviewing lower  federal court decisions denying an inmate permission to file a habeas corpus petition in certain circumstances.  It establishes specific review provisions in death penalty cases arising out of states that have set standards for performance (e.g., "death penalty qualified") on attorneys involved in representations at the penalty phase of a death case (the sentencing trial).   These are a few examples of the powerful impact AEDPA imposes upon capital punishment review nationally.

What's the Impact of All These Judicial Dissents?

Dissenting opinions ("Dissents") from justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are commonplace today -- sometimes short, sometimes long, they're always there to give further explanation as to the reasoning of the particular justice.  We've come to expect them, particularly on the big issues. 

Justice William O. Douglas loved dissenting opinions, for example, and wrote 486 of them (he also dissenting in another 309 cases, but didn't bother to write an opinion for them).  And, of particular import here, Justices Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, Jr. became famous for their dissenting opinions in death penalty cases.   Both were adamently opposed to capital punishment, and used the opportunity offered by the dissenting opinion to offer eloquent and persuasive arguments against its legality.

And it's true that dissents can be used to persuade others.  Marshall and Brennan saw the power in dissenting, and the New York Times article points to the power of the growing number of federal appellate judges who are opposing the AEDPA via the tool of a dissenting opinion.  

Dissents are power, they give judicial voice to perceive injustice and persuade an alternative viewpoint, sometimes offering a solution or optional outcome. 

Bringing the Case Home -- This is Life or Death For Troy Davis

Earlier, we posted about Troy Davis and how Mr. Davis may well be an innocent man executed by the State of Georgia.  Right now, a second habeaspetition sits before the United States Supreme Court -- with an Eleventh Circuit Opinion denying Mr. Davis's requests and amici curaie supporting him growing by the day as well as a swelling public outcry by the likes of Pope Benedict, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter.  

Dissent in Davis's case before the 11th Circuit

The Eleventh Circuit voted against Davis 2-1.  The majority opinion is based upon two AEDPA requirements, which were found not to be met by Davis.  Since Davis failed to meet these "gatekeeping requirements," his petition was rejected, preventing Troy Davis from getting that new trial. 

Rosemary Barkett filed a dissent.  In her opinion, Judge Barkett wrote:

 "[t]he majority takes the position that we cannot permit Davis to bring his evidence before the district court because our discretion to do so is constrained by AEDPA.  But AEDPA cannot possibly be applied when to do so would offend the Constitution and the fundamental concept of justice that an innocent man should not be executed."

The U.S. Supreme Court Has Davis's Life and the future of the AEDPA in its hands

How the U.S. Supreme Court decides to handle AEDPA in Mr. Davis's situation will determine whether or not Troy Davis dies.    Surely Judge Rosemary Barkett felt the importance of her words as she wrote her dissenting opinion -- but we don't know yet how persuasive Judge Barkett has been. 

The Supreme Court may well choose form over substance and let Troy Davis die rather than upset the apple cart of the AEDPA.  And, no matter how powerful a dissent from a United States Supreme Court Justice may be, it will be of cold comfort to Davis's family and friends if the High Court fails to grant Davis' request in its majority opinion.

The Death Penalty in Japan - Three Executions This Week

Here in the United States, it depends upon which state you're considering -- some states have the death penalty, some do not. Some are zealous in executing those on Death Row (think Texas), others have inmates living on Death Row for years and years (think Oregon).

However, in Japan, things are different. Japan has the death penalty for treason and murder (usually, multiple murders with aggravating factors). There's only one method of execution: hanging. And the execution is performed within a prison facility, in an execution-designed room.

The Japanese inmate is told that he is going to die on the date of the execution. No advance notice. He or she does get a last meal of their choosing. No one is invited to watch the hanging, and the inmate's family (as well as his lawyers) are told of the death after the execution has taken place.

The Japanese Death Row is different than the United States, too. All Death Row inmates live in solitary confinement. Two exercise periods per week are given with no exercise allowed in the cells, and they can have only three books. No TV. Visits are not often and all visits are supervised. Death Row inmates cannot talk with each other.

This week, Japan executed Three Men

In a press release yesterday, the locals as well as the world learned that three men had been hung by the Japanese Government as punishment for their crimes. This brings the total number of executions in Japan for this year to 7 (Japan executed 4 men this past January). Last year, Japan carried out 15 death sentences.

The three men? All convicted of murder, ranging in age from 25 to 41. Hiroshi Maeue, 40, was convicted of three murders in 2005. Maeue was found guilty of finding victims through the internet, where they had posted on a type of suicide forum. Yukio Yamaji, 25, was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of two sisters, also in 2005. Chen Detong, 41, was convicted of the robbery and murder of three roommates, back in 1999. Two of the hangings took place in the Osaka facility, the third in Tokyo.

Let's Consider the Differences

Japan doesn't take as long to go from conviction to execution. There's no advance warning to the inmate, and there's no comfort to the inmate or his loved ones by any goodbye, or being present at the time of execution. Of course, the victims' families aren't allowed the opportunity of closure by being present at the execution, either. No lawyers are there. And, the method of execution is considered by many to be cruel and unusual punishment - one wonders why Japan doesn't follow the trend of lethal injection. Capital punishment may not happen as often as it does in the United States, but when it does occur it is a secretive event whose speed and absence of review and witness would not be tolerated here.

If there must be capital punishment in this country -- WHILE there is capital punishment in this country -- at least we can take some small measure of comfort in recognizing all the benefits that our due process protections provide us.

It is a horrific thing, to consider that the government kills its own citizens. But at least we get to be present to take comfort in being there for those last moments, and thank God we have procedures in place (like WITNESSES) to make sure those deaths are not cruel and inhumane.

Pending Senate Bill Will Expand Federal Death Penalty

Last week, as an amendment to the Department of Defense fiscal authorization bill to cover 2010 expenses, the U.S. Senate passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act.

This week, the Senate passed an amendment to the Act - and if this becomes law, it will allow capital punishment for those found guilty of hate crimes if certain circumstances are met.

Right now, this Death Penalty Amendment to the Hate Crimes Prevention Act can be killed: in September, the joint House-Senate has to reconcile the two versions of the legislation (House version, Senate version) before it comes to a full Congressional vote. And, assuming it stays put, it still will be a bill awaiting Presidential approval before it becomes law.

Still, this is a scary thing to have happened, and it shows the extent to which the death penalty is considered a worthwhile form of punishment by many in this country today.

What is the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act? If enacted, it will allow the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute hate crimes based on the victim's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability - just as the feds are already allowed to do when faced with hate crimes provoked by the victim's race, color, religion, or national origin.

Does the name "Matthew Shepard" sound familiar? It should. This was a notorious case out of Wyoming where a young man was tortured and murdered - targeted because he was gay. The story was made into a TV movie starring Sam Waterston and Stockard Channing.

By the way, neither defendant who was tried and convicted for the murder of Matthew Shepard was sentenced to death. Just something to think about.

U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Bies Case - Ohio Can Have A Second Sentencing Trial to Try and Impose Death Penalty on Mentally Retarded Defendant

Last month, the pending case of Michael Bies was discussed here - Bies, held to have an IQ of 63, had been sentenced to die by the State of Ohio and advocates for Bies took his case to the highest court in the land in protest. Testimony had been provided that Michael Bies was functionally mentally retarded.

We don't execute the mentally retarded in this country; this has been held to violate the Eighth Amendment as being cruel and unusual punishment in Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).

Supreme Court Rules That Bies' Case Goes Back to Ohio for Further Proceedings

Nevertheless, today the U.S. Supreme Court has announced that the Bies case can return to Ohio for another trial on the appropriate sentence for his crime. (Bies has been found guilty of the kidnap and murder of a 10-year-old boy.) Why? The Court has found that the federal appellate court was too speedy in throwing out capital punishment for Michael Bies because the federal court acted before the 2002 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on the subject.

"Mental retardation was not a conclusive or necessary determination in any Ohio court proceeding to date," according to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Attorneys for Michael Bies will return to the Ohio courtroom, where another sentencing trial will be had. At that proceeding, they'll argue once more that Bies must be spared the death penalty because of his mental retardation - and the prosecution will once again fight for the death of Michael Bies.

Unique Perspective: Former Warden of San Quentin's View on the Death Penalty

This week, a national group fighting against the Death Penalty gave a special award to Jeanne Woodford in recognition of her courage in speaking out against the death penalty. Why is Jeanne Woodford so special?

Prison Guard to Warden of San Quentin to Head of State Corrections Department

Well, Mrs. Woodford began her career as a prison guard at San Quentin, rose to become the warden of California's famous state prison for several years, and then undertook what she herself calls the "top job in the state -- director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation."

During her stint as warden, Jeanne Woodford oversaw the execution of four prisoners. Retiring from civil service in 2006, she is now active in her efforts against capital punishment, and it serves us all to read her own words in explanation for her position in an editorial she wrote for the Los Angeles Times in October 2008.

Jeanne Woodford's Position Letter

There, Mrs. Woodford explains what led her, with her unique vantage point on capital punishment as warden of San Quentin and head of California's Corrections Department, to challenge the state's ability to impose death as punishment for a crime.

What Joanne Woodford writes is worth your time to read.

Florida's 30th Anniversary for the Death Penalty

There was a time in the mid-twentieth century when this country had essentially suspended the death penalty. It didn't last long.

First, in 1972, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Furman v. Georgia, opening the doors for capital punishment to be an accepted form of punishment should a state seek to impose it upon a defendant. In Furman, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for the death penalty to be imposed at the same time that a defendant was found guilty. Deciding the penalty of death would have to take place only after a guilty verdict was announced.

Second, in the 1976 case of Gregg v. Georgia, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that capital punishment, in and of itself, was not in violation of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, it was legal to kill citizens as punishment for certain crimes in this country, should the state choose to do so. They just had to follow the two-prong trial phase of guilt/punishment established in Furman.

Many state statutes were unconstitutional under Furman, and if a state wanted to impose capital punishment as allowed by Gregg, a new law would have to be enacted that comported with Furman's requirements. It fell upon the Great State of Florida to be the first state to act in accordance with the Furman decision, and to reinstitute the death penalty with a newly written statute in August 1972.

Florida's 30 Year Anniversary

And while Florida did commute over 90 cases because of the Furman decision, Florida was also the first state to impose the penalty of death since 1964 - a moratorium of 15 years - when in 1979, John Arthur Spenkelink was executed by electric chair ("Old Sparky") in 1979.

There has been some worthwhile media coverage of this thirty year milestone, and of particular interest is:

1. Coverage by the Associated Press' Ron Wood, where interviews of Richard Dugger, the assistant warden of the Florida State Prison at the time of the Spenkelink Execution, as well as David Kendall, Spenkelink's attorney - and eyewitness to the execution, are provided. There is some worthwhile discussion of death by electrocution, including some graphic details of the botched executions involving Florida's electric chair, known as "Old Smokey."

2. Naples Daily News' Jeff Weiner's article focusing upon the ten Florida Death Row inmates pertaining to Southwest Florida (Lee and Collier County). Note the length of time that these individuals have been facing death, and consider once again what daily life on Death Row is like (see 04/04/09 post, "What it's Really Like on Florida's Death Row.").

In-Depth Look at the Law: Does the Florida Death Penalty by Lethal Injection Violate the Constitution? (Part 3)

Today, in the final part of our three part series: the record of errors in Florida's use of lethal injection as a method of execution is discussed. Again, much of the language used here can be seen in any number of defensive motions filed in capital punishment matters across the state today.

Lethal Injection is the Most Commonly Botched Method of Execution

The history of execution by lethal injection in the United States is a miserable one. It has been characterized as the most commonly botched method of execution in the United States. Sims v. State, 754 So. 2d 657, 667, n.19 (Fla. 2000) (quoting the expert testimony of Professor Michael Radelet).[6]

Since 1985, there have been at least twenty-one executions by lethal execution that were botched. Marion J. Borg and Michael Radelet, On Botched Executions in Capital Punishment: Strategies for Abolition 143-168 (Peter Hodgkinson and William Schabas eds., 2001). Lethal injection, meant to be the neat and modern execution method, [has been] plagued with problems, or execution glitches, as they are also referred to in the business. Stephen Trombley, THE EXECUTION PROTOCOL: INSIDE AMERICA'S CAPITAL PUNISHMENT INDUSTRY 14 (1992).

Some of The Horrific Examples of Botched Executions Using Lethal Injection

Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, and Illinois have reported bungled attempts to dispatch prisoners by lethal injection. These mistakes include blow-outs, improperly inserted catheters (no doubt attributable to the fact that, for ethical reasons, physicians are not involved in the process), and the improper mixture of the lethal solution. Id. A few notable examples follow. [7]

Stephen Morin, in Texas, lay on the gurney for 45 minutes while technicians punctured him repeatedly in an attempt to find a vein suitable for injection. Denno, supra at 111.

In April, 1998, the needle popped out during Joseph Cannon's execution, also in Texas. Seeing this, Cannon lay back, closed his eyes, and exclaimed to the witnesses, It's come undone. Officials then pulled a curtain to block the view of witnesses, reopening it fifteen minutes later when a weeping Cannon made a second final statement and the execution process resumed. Borg & Radelet, supra at 143-168.

In Louisiana, witnesses to the April, 1997, execution of John Ashley Brown saw Brown go into violent convulsions after he was administered the drugs.

In May 1997, Oklahoma inmate Scott Dawn Carpenter shook uncontrollably, emitted guttural sounds and gasped for breath until his body stopped moving. Borg & Radelet, supra at 143- 168.

An attorney who witnessed the June, 2000, execution of Bert Leroy Hunter reported that Hunter had violent convulsions. His head and chest jerked rapidly upward as far as the gurney restraints would allow, and then he fell quickly down upon the gurney. His body convulsed back and forth repeatedly. Id.

Continue Reading...

In-Depth Look at the Law: Does the Florida Death Penalty by Lethal Injection Violate the Constitution? (Part 2)

Today, in part two of our three part series: the three drugs that make up the Florida execution cocktail are discussed in detail. Again, much of the language used here can be seen in any number of defensive motions filed in capital punishment matters across the state today.

1. Thipental Sodium - the First Drug to be Administered

Thiopental sodium is the first drug to be administered during an execution by lethal injection in Florida. As a general anesthetic, thiopental sodium poses special risks because it is so short-lasting that for any number of reasons it can cease to operate as sufficient anesthesia long before the other drugs cause the death of the condemned.[1] Think about that.

It stops working within minutes.

In an affidavit submitted during litigation in Tennessee, Dr. Dennis Geiser, the chairman of the Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences at the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Tennessee, swore under oath that:


the dosage of thiopental sodium must be measured with some degree of precision, and the administration of the proper amount of the dosage will depend on the concentration of the drug and the size and condition of the subject. Additionally, the drug must be administered properly so that the full amount of the dosage will directly enter the subject's blood stream at the proper rate. If the dosage is not correct, or if the drug is not properly administered, then it will not adequately anaesthetize the subject, and the subject may experience the untoward effects of the neuromuscular blocking agent . [Further], under Thiopental Sodium the anesthetic effect is extremely short-lived, and will be effective for surgical restraint and anesthesia for a period of only five to seven minutes.

Affidavit of Dr. Dennis Geiser, in the case of Abu-Ali Abdul Rahman v. Bell, 226 F.3d 696 (6th Cir. 2000), cert. granted on other grounds, 535 U.S. 1016, cert dismissed as improvidently granted, 537 U.S. 88 (2002), on remand on other grounds, ___F.3d___, 2004 WL 2847749 (6th Cir. Dec. 13, 2004) (en banc) (emphasis supplied).

It actually heightens sensitivity to pain.

Drug manufacturers warn that without careful medical supervision of dosage and administration, barbiturates like thiopental sodium can cause paradoxical excitement and can actually heighten sensitivity to pain. See Physicians Desk Reference, 50th Ed. 1996 at 438-440. Manufacturers warn against administration by intravenous injection (hereinafter AIV) unless a patient is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated. Id. Thus, there are serious problems with the first drug, the anesthetic, actually operating to anesthetize the person being executed sufficiently or for long enough to prevent suffering caused by the subsequent two drugs. Denno, supra, at 95-98.

Continue Reading...

San Francisco Federal Jury Convicts Defendant Dennis Cyrus and Returns Next Week to Decide Death Penalty - Will They Sentence Cyrus to Die and Break a 63 Year Run?

Yesterday, the jury came back in a San Francisco federal courtroom, and found Dennis Cyrus guilty of a number of gang-related acts, including the murders of three men - including Ray Jimmerson, who had informed the cops about the gang's assorted criminal activities.

The Distinction Between State and Federal Prosecutors

It was the first time since 1991 that San Francisco has seen a trial where capital punishment was even on the table - two of its district attorneys had followed an internal determination not to seek the death penalty, even if the law allowed for capital punishment. But they are state officials, and this is a federal proceeding.

Over in the Northern District of California's federal district court, the U.S. Attorney makes the call on whether or not to ask for the death penalty, and this U.S. Attorney has decided to do so in Cyrus' case. It's the first time since 1946 that the federal prosecutors have sought the death penalty in the Northern District. The last time that the U.S. Attorney's Office in this federal district asked for capital punishment in a crime was in the 1946 trial of two men who had escaped from Alcatraz and in the process, had killed two guards and three prisoners.

So why now, 62 years later, is capital punishment being sought? Why now? Why Dennis Cyrus?

Continue Reading...

In Depth Look: Filicide is Different - 1

Filicide, the killing of a child by its parent, has unique characteristics making it different from other forms of homicide.[1] Filicide seems particularly horrifying and inexplicable, especially when the parent is the mother.

Remember first that, in the United States, a staggering number of children go missing each year. In 2001, 797,500 children under 18 were reported missing, resulting in an average of 2,185 children being reported missing each day.[2] Unfortunately, of these missing children, nearly 1,300 were victims of homicide.[3] Nearly half of these children were under the age of five, and a parent killed over half of these.[4] Of all the children under age five killed during the period 1976 to 2000, 31% were killed by fathers, 30% by mothers, 23% killed by male acquaintances, 7% by other relatives, and 3% by strangers.[5]

Maternal Filicide - The Profile of Mothers Who Kill Their Children

A general profile of mothers most at risk of committing filicide has developed. Typically, the mother is young, around 21 years of age. She is single and has had multiple unstable relationships with men. Either she is mentally deficient or an apparently normal young woman, forced to put off high school graduation, college, or career because of pregnancy. She is unemployed and has financial difficulties. She may have suffered from serious mental illness in the past, or only manifested undiagnosed personality changes after the birth of her child. Roughly, one fifth of these mothers have been victims of physical or sexual abuse.

Continue Reading...

New Mexico Repeals Death Penalty

Effective July 1, 2009, there will be no death penalty in New Mexico. Capital punishment will still apply to any capital crimes committed between now and midnight on June 30th. - and there has been no change in the punishment of death for the two men currently residing on New Mexico's Death Row.

Albuquerque's Sheriff Darren White Leading an Effort to Put It to a State-Wide Vote

Not everyone in New Mexico is pleased with this development. Sheriff Darren White is reportedly investigating the possibility of putting capital punishment to a full state-wide vote, which would enact an amendment to the New Mexico constitution approving of the death penalty for certain types of crimes.

According to Sheriff White, he's undertaking this action because of the large number of phone calls he's received from the citizenry, who are upset about the change. White says that state polls show a majority of New Mexicans are in favor of capital punishment.

Undoubtedly, Sheriff White will be assisted and supported by prosecutors across the state, as well as the New Mexico Sheriffs' and Police Association, as well as other law enforcement organizations that were against the New Mexico repeal efforts.

What About the Two Men on New Mexico's Death Row?

Since 1933, New Mexico has executed nine (9) individuals - all men - using three different methods : one by gas, one by lethal injection, the rest by electric chair. That's not a high death rate.

Continue Reading...

Forms of Capital Punishment: the Legal Methods of Executing a Death Penalty Sentence in the U.S. Today

Historically, the variety of methods for imposing capital punishment seems almost endless. In the United States, our federal constitution forbids any form of execution that is cruel and unusual punishment, however, and this has led us to careful consideration about the practicalities the state must address when it kills someone in punishment for a crime that has been committed.

Currently, only five methods of execution have passed constitutional muster:

Firing Squad

Today, Utah still gives the prisoner the option of choosing the firing squad over lethal injection - if they made their choice before Utah law abolished the firing squad as an alternative method of execution. Idaho and Oklahoma also approve of the firing squad as a method of execution.

Electrocution

Nine states execute(d) by electrocution (electric chair). These are Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia.

Gas Chamber

Five states allow(ed) execution by gas chamber. These are Arizona, California, Maryland, Missouri, and Wyoming.

Hanging

Two states still approve(d) of execution by hanging. These are New Hampshire and Washington.

Lethal Injection

For thirty-five (35) states, plus the U.S. Military and the federal government, lethal injection is the approved method of execution. For those states listed above that approve different methods of execution, they all allow for lethal injection as an alternative.

Continue Reading...