There are some pretty tough death penalty defense lawyers over in Ohio and they are really showing there stuff right now, charging out of the gate here at the beginning of the new year with strong challenges to Ohio’s practice of capital punishment.

Recap – Death Penalty in Ohio for the Past Six Months

As you’ll recall from our earlier discussion, Ohio patted itself on the back last month when it became the first state in the union to execute a man using the single drug lethal injection method.  On December 8, 2009, Kenneth Biros died after state executioners essentially injected a large amount of anesthesia into his veins.  And, if that reminds you of the procedure they use to "put down" beloved pets at the vet’s office, it should.  It’s the same thing – massive anesthesia has been used for years to euthenize dogs and cats. 

Ohio opted for a single drug injection method instead of halting executions in the state after its notoriously horrific attempt at executing Romell Broom in September 2009.  Broom lay strapped to the Death Gurney for over two hours, sobbing (witnesses testified to this), as Ohio executioners tried to kill him with injection needles that were incapable of insertion.  Somehow, these trained personnel were not able to insert a needle into Mr. Broom in order to inject the toxins so he would die.  Finally, the execution was aborted and Mr. Broom returned to his cell. 

Of course, cries of unconstitutionality in the Broom execution immediately rang out, a temporary stay was granted, and his case taken to the courts.  However, that’s not all that is happening in Ohio today.

Attorneys representing several Death Row inmates have filed arguments with the courts, challenging the procedures that the State of Ohio uses in its manner of execution.  This is a next-door challenge to the actual lethal injection of drugs itself, and it’s a powerful challenge given the facts that are coming to light.

For example, just last Friday lawyers for Romell Broom (Timothy Sweeney and Adele Shank) filed arguments in federal court against the constitutionality of Broom’s death sentence, based in part on the inadequate training of his executors. 

Crux of Broom’s Argument: Team Member 21

One of the men that tried to find Broom’s veins that day had a past employment history in the medical field as a licensed EMT (emergency medical technician), but he hadn’t worked in that capacity for years.  Who knows how long it had been since he’d last tried to insert a needle into a human arm.  The Death Chamber wasn’t the place for him to practice his atrophied nursing skills.  Add to that fact this one: he wasn’t given any training by the Prison before trying to kill Broom on September 15th. 

Furthermore, this guy didn’t bother to attend the rehearsals (yes, they rehearse the execution).  Labelled "Team Member 21" in the court filings, he was one of two men responsible for carrying out the capital punishment that day on Romell Broom. 

Even dogs and cats get a trained professional to assist them when they’re euthanised.  How Ohio is not hanging its head in shame over this entire situation is amazing…. 

We send wishes for good luck as well as our prayers to our capital defense bretheren in Ohio for victory in this long, hard fight.  

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 ….

Once again, using the information collected by the Death Penalty Information Center (what a great organization) and our own work here on this blog since March 2009, we know the following:

1.  The following states still allow the penalty of death for certain crimes, although New Mexico removed itself from this list in 2009, as it became the 15th state to abolish the death penalty:

Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming.

2.  During 2009, some significant steps were taken in ten  (10) of the above listed states to end capital punishment: notably, in Connecticut, the state legislature actually passed a law that would have ended the death penalty but the state governor vetoed the bill. 

3.  Both the federal government and the United States Military still allow the penalty of death for certain crimes. 

4.  Executions are on hold in California, Maryland, Kentucky, and in the federal justice system because of pending judicial review related to the lethal injection method of executing a human being.

5.  This year, nine innocent men were freed after serving years on Death Row: 

  1. Yancy Douglas (OK) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial)
  2. Nathson Fields (IL)(conviction overturned and acquitted after re-trial)
  3. Paul House (TN) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial)
  4. Herman Lindsey (FL) (conviction overturned and acquitted after re-trial)
  5. Ronald Kitchen (IL) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial)
  6. Daniel Moore (AL) (conviction overturned and acquitted after re-trial)
  7. Peris Powell (OK) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial)
  8. Robert Springsteen (TX) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial)
  9. Michael Toney (TX) (conviction overturned and charges dismissed without re-trial).

Over 3300 men and women set on Death Row today, awaiting execution.  Among them sits Troy Davis, whom many, many, many people believe to be innocent.  (We’ve discussed Mr. Davis’ case earlier this year, and we’re monitoring his case.)  The number of executions annually continues to decline.  Media outcry surrounding the executed of an innocent man in 2004 (Cameron Todd Willingham) and the fiscal realities of the expense of  pursuing the death penalty in these recessionary times seem to be the two biggest weapons in abolishing the death penalty that we’ve seen this year.

Progress is being made, thank God.  May He have mercy on us all.

As is being reported in the Miami Herald, my client Richard Wolfferts does have a past.  Twenty years ago, back in 1989, a bomb was placed in a car driven by Miami divorce lawyer Gino Negretti  – and Dick Wolfferts admitted to planting that bomb.  He served five years in prison, and he offered state’s evidence against the man that he testified paid him to do the job. 

Now 67 years old and living in Key Largo, Richard Wolfferts has paid his debt to society and like many other senior citizens in our area, loves the sun and likes to fish. 

When Mr. Wolfferts was indicted this fall as part of “Operation Melon Smasher” (a DEA operation tracking down those individuals who were allegedly hollowing out melons to store cocaine in melon shipments from Panama to the US), I was happy to represent him.   And sure enough, despite what the grand jury may have believed, the two co-defendants in the Melon Smasher case told federal law enforcement authorities that Dick Wolfferts knew nothing of the cocaine enterprise.  Dick Wolfferts was in Panama getting money to fund a new commercial fishing operation.

On December 9th, fisherman Wolfferts was released.  Now, he could resume his plans for a new fishing boat, aptly named “the Resurrection.” 

Seeing Richard Wolfferts a free man, instead of continuing to face charges for being partly responsible for sneaking cocaine into this country via hollowed out melons, was a great thing.  That’s a good day in this job. 

When everyone in my office started bouncing around in excitement to see 20 fresh stone crabs being delivered, a gift from Richard Wolfferts, that was just icing on the cake. 

A happy client enjoying his freedom out on the streets, especially in time for Christmas, is a great thing.  20 stone crabs admist the usual poinsettias, fruitcakes, and chocolates?  Priceless.  (And tasty.)

Thanks for the gift, Richard Wolfferts — and Happy New Year to everyone!!!!

Currently, not only the federal government but a majority of states provide for capital punishment (the death penalty) in certain crimes. There are those that argue that true fairness in this country would be an all-or-nothing approach: either every state in the union should impose capital punishment or no state should. Otherwise, two individuals convicted for the same crime may not face the same punishment – death — depending upon which side of a state boundary they sit. From this perspective, imposition of a true uniform standard in death penalty cases would be to abolish capital punishment in this country. However valid one may find this argument to be, federalism and the United States Supreme Court allow for this incongruity today. Given this reality, perhaps the more critical question we can ask right now is what standards are being imposed within those jurisdictions that allow the government to kill people as punishment for crimes. Are there uniform standards in the imposition of the death penalty? Arbitrary and Unguided Imposition of Death Forbidden by Furman v. Georgia In 1972, the United States Supreme Court found both the capital punishment laws of Texas and Georgia (and indirectly, every other death penalty statute in the country) unconstitutional because they were allowing arbitrary, unguided imposition of death sentences. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) was a per curiam opinion with all nine justices writing either concurrences (Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall) or dissents (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Rehnquist) — and the case effectively halted capital punishment in this country for a significant period of time. Over thirty state legislatures were forced to enact new death penalty statutes -which then had to undergo judicial scrutiny (e.g., Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976)). What was the power of Furman? According to this decision, a death sentence in this country cannot be imposed unless the sentencing authority finds at least one statutory aggravating factor and then weighs that aggravating factor against mitigating factors provided by the defense. Before death can be the punishment, the penalty must be based upon a consideration of both the circumstances of the case and the character of the defendant – all shown in a “specific and detailed” way to those responsible for sentencing the individual. Post-Furman Death Penalty Statutes In Gregg, the High Court found the newly enacted Georgia death penalty statute constitutional. There, either a Georgia judge or a Georgia jury may act as the sentencing authority. There must be a bifurcated trial. In the sentencing portion of the trial, ten aggravating factors are listed in the statute and one of these must be found to exist beyond a reasonable doubt before death can be imposed. The sentencing authority must also consider mitigating factors presented by the defense, and the sentence (which is subject to automatic judicial review) must identify its basis in the statutorily defined aggravating factors. That same year, both Texas’ statute ( Jurek v. Texas, 428 U.S. 262 (1976)) and Florida’s death penalty law (Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U.S. 242 (1976)) were also found compliant with federal constitutional provisions. In Texas, death was limited to five specific situations of capital homicides where the murders were intentional and knowing with a jury as the sentencing authority in a two-phase trial being required to answer three statutorily defined questions “yes,” in order to impose death. In Florida, as in Texas and Georgia, a bifurcated trial was set by the new law. However, sentencing authority involved an advisory jury verdict with a sentencing judge to consider both aggravating factors and mitigating ones, with the findings upon which the death sentence is based to be provided in writing with expedited judicial review. The Problem of Individualized Sentencing In Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978), the Ohio death penalty statute was reviewed by the US Supreme Court post-Furman and found lacking. The Ohio death penalty statute provided that upon finding a defendant guilty of “aggravated murder” together with one of the seven (7) statutorily-specified aggravating circumstances, the death penalty must be imposed unless, considering “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history, character, and condition of the offender,” the sentencing judge determined that at least one of the three (3) statutorily defined mitigating circumstances was established by a preponderance of the evidence. According to the High Court (in a plurality opinion), a capital sentencing scheme must treat each person convicted of a capital offense with that “degree of respect due the uniqueness of the individual.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. at 605. And here lies the crux of the problem – how is the state to effectively balance the “uniqueness of the individual” against the consistent, uniform imposition of the death penalty in the various states as well as by the federal government? How can a systemic formula truly impose fairness in any particular circumstance, particularly when death is in the offing? The Impossible Situation As Justice Blackmun foresaw so well (dissenting in Callins v. Collins, 510 U.S. 1141 (1994)): “….[t]he basic question — does the system accurately and consistently determine which defendants “deserve” to die?– cannot be answered in the affirmative….The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal, and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent, and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.” Justice Blackmun drew his own line in the sand in that historic dissent, announcing that “…[f]rom this day forward, I no longer shall tinker with the machinery of death,” having considered the High Court’s “experiment” with the death penalty to be a failure. Id. Nevertheless, the courts still continue to “tinker with the machinery of death,” using Blackmun’s terms – and still, that attempt to balance the needs of the system for uniformity and the needs of the individual for unique consideration is sought unsuccessfully. Do we need uniform standards in the imposition of the death penalty? Yes. Can they be achieved? Many respected legal minds aside from Justice Blackmun suggest not. For example, Professor Linda Greenhouse recently opined in the New York Times that the U.S. Supreme Court applied “selective empathy” in its consideration of two death penalty cases this fall, where the two defendants shared histories of “similarly horrific” childhoods. The result? One man escaped the death penalty (Porter); the other did not (VanHorn). Just last month, in considering the “guided discretion approach” originating in the Model Penal Code template, Kentucky Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty President Don Vish eloquently pointed out in the Louisville Courier Journal that “… competing constitutional values get in the way of one another and, like Virgil’s army, crowd the field so totally that none has room to do its work … [and] justice in death penalty cases is becoming to the Constitution what absolute zero is to the laws of thermodynamics: a place one can progress toward but never reach.” Perhaps the best interests of both our system of justice and the interests of the individual would be best served by what many continue to avoid as this legal tinkering continues: abolishing the death penalty in its totality – not only would this be the most uniform of standards to be implemented, as we all are aware, it would definitely be the cheapest.

With thanks to the Death Penalty Information Center’s excellent recordkeeping, here is a list of those who were executed so far this year, in alphabetical order by state.   While it is a blessing that capital punishment appears to be on the decline in this country, it will be truly a joyous occasion when this list for a future year will be blank.  Of note: all these executions were by the standard multi-drug lethal injection except for Ohio’s Ken Biros, which involved a single drug lethal injection and Virginia’s Larry Bill Elliot, who was executed by electrocution (electric chair).  The oldest executed was Georgia’s 65 year old Robert Newland, and the youngest was Texas’ Derrick Johnson, who died at age 28. : ALABAMA Danny Joe Bradley, 49 , by Lethal Injection James Callahan, 62, by Lethal Injection Jimmy Lee Dill, 49, by Lethal Injection Willie McNair, 44, by Lethal Injection Max Payne, 38, by Lethal Injection Jack Trawick, 62, by Lethal Injection FLORIDA John Richard Marek, 45, by Lethal Injection Wayne Tompkins, 51, by Lethal Injection GEORGIA Mark McClain, 42, by Lethal Injection William Mark Mize, 52, by Lethal Injection Robert Newland, 65, by Lethal Injection INDIANA Matthew Eric Wrinkles, 49, by Lethal Injection MISSOURI Dennis Skillicorn, 49, by Lethal Injection OHIO Kenneth Biros, 51, by Lethal Injection – SINGLE DRUG John Fautenberry, 46, by Lethal Injection Jason Getsy, 33, by Lethal Injection Marvallous Keene, 36, by Lethal Injection Daniel Wilson, 39, by Lethal Injection OKLAHOMA Darwin Brown, 32, by Lethal Injection Michael DeLozier, 32, by Lethal Injection Donald Gilson, 48, by Lethal Injection SOUTH CAROLINA Thomas Ivey, 34, by Lethal Injection Luke Williams, 56 , by Lethal Injection TENNESSEE Steve Henley, 55, by Lethal Injection Cecil Johnson, Jr., 53, by Lethal Injection TEXAS Reginald Blanton, 28, by Lethal Injection Christopher Coleman, 37, by Lethal Injection Terry Hankins, 34, by Lethal Injection Derrick Johnson, 28, by Lethal Injection Johnny Johnson, 51, by Lethal Injection David Martinez, 36, by Lethal Injection James Edward Martinez, 34, by Lethal Injection Virgil Martinez, 41, by Lethal Injection Stephen Moody, 52, by Lethal Injection Curtis Moore, 40, byLethal Injection Frank Moore, 49, by Lethal Injection Kenneth Morris, 38, by Lethal Injection Khristian Oliver, 32, by Lethal Injection Ricardo Ortiz, 46, by Lethal Injection Reginald Perkins, 53, by Lethal Injection Willie Pondexter, 34, by Lethal Injection Michael Lynn Riley, 51, by Lethal Injection Michael Rosales, 35, by Lethal Injection Luis Salazar, 38, by Lethal Injection Dale Scheanette, 35, by Lethal Injection Danielle Simpson, 30, by Lethal Injection Robert Thompson, 34, by Lethal Injection Yosvanis Valle , 34, by Lethal Injection Bobby Wayne Woods, 44, by Lethal Injection VIRGINIA Edward Bell, 44, by Lethal Injection Larry Bill Elliot, 60, by Electric Chair John Allen Muhammad, 48, by Lethal Injection

Recently, Representative Henry Johnson (D- Ga.) introduced House Bill 3986, the Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act.  This proposed law would make sure that defendants who have been sentenced to death at trial have the chance to have those death sentences reviewed as federal habeas corpus relief when they are able to provide evidence that they are not guilty of the crime — especially when that evidence was not presented at their trial.  The summary written by the Congressional Research Service (a nonpartisan part of the Library of Congress) provides:

11/3/2009–Introduced.
Effective Death Penalty Appeals Act – Amends the federal judicial code to make federal habeas corpus relief available to a person sentenced to death if adjudication on the merits in state court proceedings of the claim cited in the writ application resulted in, or left in force, a death sentence imposed without consideration of newly discovered evidence which, in combination with the evidence presented at trial, demonstrates that the applicant is probably not guilty of the underlying offense. Allows presentation of such a claim in a second or successive habeas corpus application. Allows a second or successive court motion to vacate, set aside, or correct a death sentence based on such a claim.

Many may assume that this type of federal judicial review already exists for those individuals facing a sentence of death. After all, isn’t the cost of appellate review one of the big chunks of Capital Punishment expense that is being used as an monetary argument to abolish the death penalty? Right now, federal courts are limited in their ability to review state court decisions in Death Cases —  Troy Davis is one big example While death penalty appeals are expensive in both time and money, the fact is that the innocent men and women on Death Row — and they’re there, don’t think they’re not — may not have as easy of a time taking evidence proving their innocence before a tribunal in order to gain their freedom as the public might assume. Continue Reading House Bill 3986 – The Proposed Death Penalty Appeals Act and the Need to Include Adequate Funding for Indigent Defense Counsel

Earlier this month, the United States Supreme Court heard argument in the case of Beach Renourishment v. Florida (08-1141), a controversy surrounding the application of the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition that “…private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation,” otherwise known as the “takings clause.” It’s an interesting situation because the real issue before the highest court in our land is whether or not the highest court in our state can essentially impose a judicial taking of some beautiful beach property. It seems that the beautiful beach property was created when the State of Florida literally pumped tons of sand onto existing beaches in an effort to stop erosion and to protect the pretty beachfront vacation homes that dotted the shoreline. The big brouhaha started when that land – the newly created beach formed by the pumped-in sand – was claimed by the State of Florida as Florida land. Voila! A takings clause argument argued by the landowners that’s gone all the way to the Supreme Court. And that’s good. Having the Florida Supreme Court’s papers graded by the United States Supreme Court on whether or not federal constitutional provisions are being respected is how our system is supposed to work. Eminent domain cases are expensive to litigate, and they’re expensive to appeal – and that makes sense, because usually there is a significant amount in controversy. That strip of Florida beach being fought over in Beach Renourishment isn’t cheap, and its impact on neighboring property values isn’t cheap, either. Bottom line, our nation is governed by laws originating from only four different sources: the Constitution; statutes enacted by either the U.S. Congress or the state legislatures; administrative decisions established by agencies within the executive branch; and finally, case law precedent arising out of federal and state courts. It’s extremely important to have a hierarchy within this system of laws, as well as within this system of governing – and having the U.S. Supreme Court decide whether or not the Florida Supreme Court is correct regarding the taking of this pumped-in sandy beach under the takings clause of the federal Constitution is right and just and proper. Which brings us to the question for today: does our nation value the taking of property more than the taking of human life? In 1972, the United States Supreme Court halted all executions in this country with the case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). The High Court ruled that the death penalty was “arbitrary and capricious,” violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution because of a variation between state laws and the application of the punishment itself. Four years later, Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976) changed all that; the Supreme Court once again allowed United States citizens (as well as foreign nationals) to be killed by the government as punishment for the commission of certain crimes. The death of the death penalty was short lived. The Cost of the Death Penalty On its website, the Florida Bar provides the following as public information:

Florida state courts are in crisis. Two years of budget cuts have undermined adequate and equitable funding of the court system, forcing layoffs and hiring freezes. In addition, by legislative formula, filing fees paid by court users do not directly go to fund the courts. On top of budget cuts and restricted revenue, caseloads have ballooned as the economy faltered.

A lot of additional information is provided at the Florida Bar’s site, and it’s periodically updated. However, the Florida Bar website appears to be primarily concerned with civil disputes, and the delays that civil litigants are experiencing in getting into a courtroom and achieving resolution of their lawsuits. Still, the financial crisis in Florida’s state courts is not in dispute, nor is the tremendous expense that each state undertakes when it chooses to punish a citizen with death. Indigent defense of those accused of capital crimes is in particular crisis in this state. This week, the Death Penalty Information Center published an opinion piece that initially appeared in the Virginian-Pilot. There, the argument is made that it makes economic sense to end capital punishment in this country, as the authors explain (quoting from the DPIC site):

“Doing away with the option of a death sentence makes sense on several levels….It would save the state from having to pay fees associated with lengthy trials and years of appeals. It would end the agony of repeated court hearings for the families of victims. It would eliminate the four perpetually understaffed capital defender’s offices, whose attorneys handle appeals automatically generated when people are sentenced to death row…. Is the cost of an execution really worth it when, for less than half the price, we could put a killer in a prison cell, locked away from society for life?”

Elephant in the Room and on the Beach: Lack of Funding for Indigent Capital Defense Counsel in this Country Still, within thirty days before the United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Florida eminent domain case, it had issued its opinion in Bobby v. VanHook, (09-144, November 9, 2009), finding that there was no legal grounds for stopping the execution of Mr. VanHook although they did stop the execution of an elderly Florida man, 77 year old veteran George Porter in Porter v. McCollum (08-10537, November 30, 2009). While Professor Linda Greenhouse opined in the New York Times, questioning the “selective empathy” of the High Court in the reading of VanHook and Porter side by side, it is clear that the opinions were founded upon the summary conclusion that one man had effective assistance of counsel and the other did not. When Will the Reality of Money Be Considered in Capital Punishment Cases? All of which leads us to this: men (and women) die in this country at the hands of state and federal government because the death penalty is recognized as a valid form of punishment. Floridian George Porter can attest that this ultimate punishment in all likelihood depends upon the abilities and efforts of defense counsel at trial. Even the most avid supporter of capital punishment has to acknowledge the financial expense of the death penalty in this country. It is extremely expensive to execute someone in this country, as the Virginian-Pilot estimates $2,000,000/inmate for Virginia. DPIC studies show that this country has spent two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000.00) executing people since 1976.  The Palm Beach Post has estimated that Florida has paid $51 million since 1976 for the luxury of having the death penalty. Still, the crisis in criminal defense of the indigent accused of capital crimes escalates each year. The American Bar Association has an online collection on studies done by the various states on the extent of this crisis going back 15 years. There is not enough money to properly finance capital defense cases for indigent defense counsel. Yet millions of dollars are spent each year in the prosecution of capital punishment cases – nationally, the total is in the billions. And while the United States Supreme Court sends its message that because of the effectiveness of defense counsel or lack thereof, Porter lives and VanHorn dies, with the Court moving on to decide who gets paid what for some sandy oceanfront beaches, we have to ask — do we value the taking of property more than human life in this country? Sadly, it appears that we do.

The Death Penalty Information Center has tallied its numbers and released its annual report on the state of Capital Punishment in America this week.  Its eight (8) page report can be downloaded and printed in a pdf format from the DPIC site at no charge. 

There’s some good news here.

When you’re against the death penalty and both the federal government and a majority of states allow capital punishment, you have to find your encouragement where you can until the goal of abolishing the Death Penalty arrives.  Luckily, almost like a holiday gift and definitely as a shot in the arm after the recent Ohio activity, the research center’s release arrives …

And the DPIC report tells us that once again, there is a decline in the number of executions in this country.

For the past seven (7) years, there has been a downturn in capital punishment.  In 2009, the DPIC reports our country will have the lowest number of executions since 1976, when the United States Supreme Court reinstituted the death penalty with  Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153  (1976).    That’s great news!  Even more so, when you consider that this year’s executions will total one-third of those undertaken in this country in 1994 (where the United States hit its record number of executions, 328). 

Additionally, death sentences have dropped sixty-three percent (63%) over the past decade — so not only are fewer individuals being executed, fewer juries are sentencing people to die in the first place.  That’s very encouraging, right?

Of course, the Death Penalty Information Center delves into the reasons why these numbers exist.  Considerations of the economic costs are believed to be contributing.  An availability for alternative sentences is another contributing factor that the DPIC explores.

For those of us dealing with the cold reality of the government ending the life of a citizen, the DPIC Annual Report is most welcome.  We encourage you to read it, in its entirety.