Much of the American public may believe that the mentally ill are spared capital punishment in this country, because to execute someone suffering from mental illness would be cruel and unusual – and therefore, in violation of our federal constitution.
And they’re wrong. Dead wrong.
Washington State plans to execute Cal Coburn Brown tomorrow, a
Yesterday, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland used his executive power of clemency and stopped the execution of Ohio Death Row inmate Kevin Keith. In his statement, Governor Strickland states (read it in full here) (emphasis added):
Yet, despite the evidence supporting his guilt and the substantial legal review of Mr. Keith’s conviction, many legitimate questions have
California re-instituted the death penalty in 1978; however, California has not executed anyone since February 2006, when Federal District Judge Jeremy Fogel stayed the execution of Michael Morales based upon Mr. Morales’ arguments against lethal injection as cruel and unusual punishment.
Federal Judge Fogel Has a Big Decision to Make
Now, after four years have
Troy Davis has the eyes of the world on his situation, as he sits on Georgia’s Death Row proclaiming his innocence. We’ve posted before about the variety of celebrities and notables who have actively worked toward freeing a man that they believe is innocent. People like the Pope. Former US President Jimmy Carter. Bishop Desmond Tutu.
It’s
Deldelp Medina wrote a personal piece about the death penalty for the San Jose Mercury News — a poignant piece that provides a perspective that serves us all well. Sure, it’s focusing upon the California death penalty, which has become a California election issue. However, it also tells the tale of a Miami murder case
Casey Anthony isn’t facing a jury yet, but major decisions regarding her jury trial for the murder of her daughter, Caylee Marie Anthony, are being made now as Belvin Perry, Chief Judge of the Ninth Judicial District Court of Florida issues his rulings on important motions presented to him by the prosecution and the
Once again, we welcome James Clark, Death Penalty Field Organizer for the ACLU of Southern California as we repost his recent article dealing with the financial realties of capital punishment upon a state’s budget.
In the past, we’ve pointed to the obvious money motive for California – and other states – to end the death penalty on merely a bottom line, dollars and cents, approach. (See, e.g., California Could Save $1 Billion By Abolishing Death Penalty. How Bad Will It Get B4 They Do?)
However, today Mr. Clark provides us with the perspective of a Californian, speaking to his neighbors and friends who are living in the beautiful state we all know is facing financial ruin.
Here is James Clark’s article (with his approval, of course). It’s worth your time to read it:
How Would You Spend $64 Million?
by: ACLU
Fri Aug 13, 2010 at 11:32:01 AM PDT
By James Clark, Death Penalty Field Organizer, ACLU of Southern California
Remember that episode of The Simpsons where Homer is so broke he breaks into his daughter’s piggy bank, only to find it full of IOUs from himself?
On Wednesday, that scene was reenacted in Sacramento, with Gov. Schwarzenegger playing the role of Homer. The governor announced that he would be "borrowing" $64 million from the General Fund in order to move forward with one of his pet projects, the construction of a new death row facility at San Quentin. And $64 million is just the tip of the iceberg. Altogether, the new facility is expected to total upwards of $400 million. That’s half a million dollars per prison cell — roughly the cost of a nice house in California.
Of course, the General Fund is virtually broke already, so our governor is borrowing against nonexistent budget. And didn’t Gov. Schwarzenegger threaten that he wouldn’t sign a budget at all? Every government agency in the state is in fiscal emergency, our social safety net is in tatters, and the state is weeks away from paying state employees with IOUs.
Which is why building a new death row is exactly what we don’t need need right now.
California has by far the largest and most costly death row in the country, with over 700 inmates, nearly double the closest runner-up. All of these inmates live in a prison that predates the CivilContinue Reading California Death Penalty: Guest Blogger Asks How Would You Spend $64 Million?
Earlier, we posted an organized list of the mitigating factors recognized by the various states still imposing the death penalty, and that effort has received a good response. It’s been helpful.
Accordingly, In tandem with that state list, we provide an itemized list (hopefully user-friendly) of the corresponding mitigating factors – as well as aggravating factors – that are recognized in federal death penalty cases (non-military).
Federal Death Penalty Statutes – Overview
Federal law provides for the sentence of death when a wide variety of crimes have been committed. Under federal law, you can be executed without having yourself killing anyone. For a complete list of the various federal statutes allowing for the death penalty, please refer to the excellent resource list provided by the Death Penalty Information Center. There’s over 40 listed there, at last count.
In federal death penalty cases, the defense must have two attorneys, and one of them must be death-penalty qualified. After guilt has been adjudicated, there is a separate trial to determine first if capital punishment is legally an option; thereafter, evidence is presented on the aggravating factors and the mitigators.
Mitigating circumstances need only be proven by a preponderance of the evidence; however, the prosecution must establish its aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt. The federal death penalty jury cannot sentence a defendant to death unless the vote is unanimous.
Mitigating Factors In Federal Death Penalty Cases
(1) Impaired capacity.
The defendant’s capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the defendant’s conduct or to conform conduct to the requirements of law was significantly impaired, regardless of whether the capacity was so impaired as to constitute a defense to the charge.
(2) Duress.
The defendant was under unusual and substantial duress, regardless of whether the duress was of such a degree as to constitute a defense to the charge.
(3) Minor participation.
The defendant is punishable as a principal in the offense, which was committed by another, but the defendant’s participation was relatively minor, regardless of whether the participation was so minor as to constitute a defense to the charge.
(4) Equally culpable defendants.
Another defendant or defendants, equally culpable in the crime, will not be punished by death.
(5) No prior criminal record.
The defendant did not have a significant prior history of other criminal conduct.
(6) Disturbance.
The defendant committed the offense under severe mental or emotional disturbance.
(7) Victim’s consent.
The victim consented to the criminal conduct that resulted in the victim’s death.
(8) Other factors.
Other factors in the defendant’s background, record, or character or any other circumstance of the offense that mitigate against imposition of the death sentence.
Aggravating Factors in Federal Death Penalty Cases
Federal law defines different aggravating factors depending upon the crime involved: treason, for example, has a different set of aggravating factors than homicide or a drug conviction. The aggravating factors in federal capital punishment cases are as follows:Continue Reading Terry Lenamon’s List of Federal Death Penalty Aggravating Factors and Mitigating Circumstances
News coverage of Timothy O’Reilly’s murder trial this week is providing an example of what occurs during the penalty phase of a death penalty case, specifically one in the federal system, as the Detroit federal courtroom hears testimony from both prosecution and defense in the Timothy O’Reilly case.
A jury has just returned a guilty
The dichotomy speaks for itself, really, and it’s a lot to ponder. First, in the national news this week, we have a prominent New York law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, whose errors may cost Alabama Death Row’s Cory Maples his life. On the other end of the spectrum, we learn yesterday that Iran’s Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani’s death penalty attorney who had been missing for almost a week, Mohammed Mostafaei, is alive and seeking asylum in Turkey after, apparently, advocating too well for his adultery-charged client who faces execution by stoning.
The Quality of Representation Received by Alabama Death Row’s Cory Maples
Earlier this week, we wrote on the Cory Maples situation. In sum, two New York associates from swanky Sullivan & Cromwell walked into an Alabama trial court, post-conviction (pro hac vices granted), and filed a motion under Rule 32 of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure. Thereafter, the two associates left the law firm, and when the court clerk sent out notices that the Rule 32 motion had been denied (tick tick tick of the appellate clock), Sullivan & Cromwell returned the notices: "return to sender."
Of importance, the Rule 32 Motion was denied in part because of (1) failure to state a claim and (2) asserting arguments that were to be made in direct appeal. Also of importance, their signature blocks never gave the firm’s name, just the individual attorneys — and yet, the law firm kept the representation after the two lawyers left its employ, learning of the missed appellate deadlines only after their client’s mother called to check on status.
This very serious situation has been made the subject of this week’s Brief of the Week at the National Law Journal.
The Quality of Representation Received by Iran’s Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani
After writing about the possibly imminent stoning execution of Sakineh Mohammedi Ashtiani, a woman tried twice for adultery and sentenced – without evidence – to death by stoning under Iranian law, it was even more shocking to learn that fellow blogger and Death Penalty defense attorney for Ashtiani, Mohammed Mostafaei, had gone missing after leaving an interrogation by prison official.