Arbitrariness

MULTIMEDIA: Interview with Michael Selsor-Served Longest Time Between Conviction and Execution

Al Jazeera recently released a video of an interview with former Oklahoma death-row inmate Michael Selsor (pictured). Selsor was the most recent person executed in the U.S. and probably the inmate who served the longest time between conviction and execution of anyone in U.S. history.  He was first sentenced to death in 1976 for murder and was imprisoned over 36 years prior to his execution on May 1, 2012.  Although his sentence was reduced to life when Oklahoma's death penalty was overturned in 1976, he was re-sentenced to death for the same crime in 1998.  The interview was conducted in 2010 and was the only interview Selsor granted. When asked about the difference between the death penalty and life without parole, Selsor said, “The only difference between death and life without parole is one you kill me now, the other one you kill me later. There's not even a shred of hope. There's no need to even try to muster up a seed of hope because you're just gonna die of old age in here....With the death penalty sentence I'm entitled to more appeals - the government's gonna pay for it. I don't have to do it myself if I don't have the money for a lawyer which I don't have. Instead I'm relying on public defenders to do my appeals."  Selsor was also asked about how he was handling his inevitable execution: “I'm not gonna beg 'em to spare my life. I'll try to keep my head up with a little bit of dignity, and I'm gonna be buried out on Periwood Hill.”   See the video of the interview.

BOOKS: "The Death Penalty Failed Experiment: From Gary Graham to Troy Davis in Context"

A new book published in electronic format, The Death Penalty Failed Experiment: From Gary Graham to Troy Davis in Context by Diann Rust-Tierney, examines the problem of arbitrariness in the death penalty since its reinstatement in 1976. Through an analysis of the cases of Gary Graham and Troy Davis, the author argues that race, wealth and geography play a more significant role in determining who faces capital punishment than the facts of the crime itself. Both defendants had significant claims of innocence; both were black defendants who were ultimately executed in the South; in both cases, the victim in the underlying murder was white.  Graham was executed in Texas in 2000 and Davis was executed in Georgia in 2011.  Rust-Tierney writes, “How do you administer the most severe punishment imaginable in a manner that is accurate, free from bias and demonstrably fair? Until we are all seen and treated as equal, we cannot afford to keep capital punishment.”  Ms. Rust-Tierney is an attorney and Executive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.  Download a copy of the ebook here.

CLEMENCY: Georgia Board Commutes Death Sentence of 'Model Prisoner'

On April 20, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles reduced the death sentence of Daniel Greene (pictured) to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The Board had stayed Greene's execution, which was set for April 19, in order to further consider his clemency petition. Greene's petition included letters from several members of the Taylor County community, where the murder occurred, urging the Board to spare Greene's life. Among the letters was one from a former correctional officer, Randy Foster, who called Greene "as fine a man as I have ever met in my life," and said, "He is not like anyone else on death row. Daniel Greene is the type of person you want for an inmate. He has never given me (or anyone else as far as I know) even the hint of a problem." In his own letter to the Board, Greene apologized for the pain he caused the victim's family and said, "I was on drugs at the time, but I took the drugs with my hands, and I take the responsibility. That choice to do drugs and what I did after were the worst mistakes of my life. I do not blame the drugs. I blame myself for everything." This was the second clemency granted nationally in 2012 and the eighth granted in Georgia since 1976.

EDITORIALS: New York Times Recommends All States to Follow Connecticut's Lead

A recent editorial in the New York Times called Connecticut's decision to repeal the death penalty part of "a growing movement against capital punishment." The editorial attributed the trend away from the death penalty to new research that shows "gross injustice in its application and enormous costs in continuing to impose it." The problem of arbitrariness recently came to light in Connecticut, where "a powerful, comprehensive study provided evidence that state death sentences are haphazardly meted out, with virtually no connection to the heinousness of the crime." The Times also cited racial bias, inadequate representation, and wrongful convictions as problems inherent to the death penalty, saying that "the system cannot be fixed. It is practically impossible to rid the legal process of biases driven by race, class and politics." Ultimately, the paper concluded, it would be better to abolish the death penalty entirely.  Read the full editorial below.

Systemic Flaws in Capital Representation Cited for Recent Pennsylvania Death Sentence

Following the recent handing down of a death sentence in Philadelphia, the Executive Director of the Atlantic Center for Capital Representation blamed the outcome on an inadequate indigent-defense system.  Marc Bookman (pictured), writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reviewed the case and found, "There isn't a single motion filed by the attorneys in defense of their client. Nor is there a request for a jury questionnaire, which is standard in most jurisdictions that regularly handle capital cases, or for a mitigation specialist to prepare a case against the death penalty. Indeed, the only motion in the record was handwritten by the defendant. Prison logs indicate that his lawyers visited him a total of three times."  Bookman said that such ineffective representation is the norm in Philadelphia capital cases because of "grossly inadequate" pay for court-appointed lawyers.  "In other words," he wrote, "if we're asking attorneys to work for next to nothing, we are likely to get next to nothing from them." Read the full op-ed below.

Oklahoma Execution Imminent Despite Board's Recommendation of Clemency

Oklahoma inmate Garry Allen (pictured) is scheduled for execution on April 12, despite a Pardon and Parole Board's 4-1 recommendation that his sentence be reduced to life without parole. In an unusual move, Mr. Allen originally pleaded guilty to murdering his girlfriend without receiving any benefit in sentencing, and has testified that he did so to spare his family and the victim's family the trauma of a trial. Allen was shot in the head at the time of his arrest.  His lawyers have argued that he is not sane and should not be executed because of his history of mental illness and alcoholism. His court records indicate "probable diagnosis is Schizophrenic Disorder, or Anxiety Disorder in a Paranoid Personality," but in 2008 a jury found him sane enough for execution. Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin has said she has reviewed the case and does not intend to grant clemency.  UPDATE: A federal judge has granted Allen a stay to explore issues of mental competency.  Oklahoma is appealing the stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit (April 12, 2012).

STUDIES: Research Finds Lack of Accountability in Texas Misconduct Cases

A recent study released by the Prosecutorial Oversight Coalition and conducted by the Veritas Initiative of California found that although Texas prosecutors committed error in 91 cases between 2004 and 2008, none of those cases resulted in disciplinary action against the prosecutor. Misconduct was found most often in murder cases. Courts upheld the conviction in 72 of the cases and reversed it in 19. At a symposium discussing the research, two men who were wrongfully convicted because of prosecutorial misconduct, Michael Morton of Texas and John Thompson of Louisiana, called for increased accountability in such instances. Thompson spent 16 years on death row and was eventually freed, but a financial judgment he had won against the District Attorney's office was reversed.  In Morton's case, a court of inquiry scheduled to begin in September will investigate whether the prosecutor (who is now a judge) committed criminal misconduct in withholding evidence, resulting in Morton's being wrongly imprisoned for 25 years. Cookie Ridolfi, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and one of the researchers for the study, said, “Most prosecutorial misconduct is not intentional, but we know from John Thompson’s and Michael Morton’s cases that when it happens, the consequences can be devastating. What’s clear from this data is that we’re not doing nearly enough to document the scope of the problem and the disciplinary systems as they currently exist are vastly inadequate.”

NEW VOICES: Former Judges and Law Enforcement Officials Criticize Death Row Inmate's Conviction

Thirty-four high-profile former judges and law enforcement officials recently filed an amicus brief arguing against Virginia's efforts to reinstate the conviction of Justin Wolfe (pictured).  Wolfe's attorneys maintain he was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death in a 2002 murder-for-hire case because of false testimony from the actual shooter, Owen Barber. In 2005, Barber admitted to lying under oath, saying, “The prosecution and my own defense attorney placed me in a position in which I felt that I had to choose between falsely testifying against Justin or dying.”  In July 2011, a federal District Court overturned Wolfe’s conviction, citing the state’s use of Barber’s false testimony. Among those urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit to affirm the District Court ruling are J. Joseph Curran Jr., who served as attorney general of Maryland; Gerald Kogan, former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Florida; and former attorneys general from Tennessee and New Jersey.

Syndicate content