What's New

INNOCENCE: Anthony Ray Hinton Exonerated After 30 Years on Alabama's Death Row

Posted: April 3, 2015

Anthony Ray Hinton (pictured, l.) has been exonerated after spending nearly 30 years on Alabama's death row. He will be released on April 3. Hinton was convicted of the 1985 murders of two fast-food restaurant managers based upon the testimony of a state forensic examiner that the bullets in the two murders came from a gun found in Hinton's house. The prosecutor, who had a documented history of racial bias, said he could tell Hinton was guilty and "evil" just by looking at him. Hinton was arrested after a victim in a similar crime identified him in a photo lineup, even though Hinton had been working in a locked warehouse 15 miles away when that crime was committed. Hinton's lawyer did not know the law and mistakenly believed that funding to hire a qualified firearms expert was not available.  Instead, he hired an expert he knew to be inadequate, and as a result failed to present any credible evidence to rebut the state's claim that the bullets were fired from Hinton's gun. In 2002, three top firearms examiners testified that the bullets could not be matched to Hinton's gun, and may not have come from the a single gun at all. Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that Hinton had been provided substandard representation and returned his case to the state courts for further proceedings.  Prosecutors decided not to retry him after the state's new experts said they could not link the bullets to Hinton's gun. Bryan Stevenson (pictured, r.), Hinton's lead attorney, said, “Race, poverty, inadequate legal assistance, and prosecutorial indifference to innocence conspired to create a textbook example of injustice. I can’t think of a case that more urgently dramatizes the need for reform than what has happened to Anthony Ray Hinton.” Hinton is the 152nd person exonerated from death row since 1973, the second in 2015, and the sixth in Alabama.

 

NEW VOICES: Warden Says Death Penalty Imposes "Immeasurable Burden" on Correctional Officers

Posted: April 2, 2015

Former prison warden, Frank Thompson, has urged repeal of Delaware's death penalty.  In an op-ed for The News Journal of Delaware, the former warden, who has personally overseen two executions, describes "the immeasurable burden that th[e execution] process places on correctional officers" and the trauma experienced by correctional officers who must carry out executions. Thompson says, "Many of us who have taken part in this process live with nightmares, especially those of us who have participated in executions that did not go smoothly. Correctional officers who carry out execution can suffer from post-traumatic stress, drug and alcohol addiction, and depression." He explains that capital punishment does nothing to "increase the safety of prison staff or inmates." "Every warden in America knows the established protocols that effectively keep prisons safe for corrections staff and inmates," he says. "These include programs to treat inmates with alcohol and drug dependency or mental illnesses, appropriate inmate-to-staff ratios for the proper supervision of prisoners, adequate activities and work programs, and effective classification systems that provide guidance on how to properly house and program inmates...I am not aware of and have not heard of a single prison administrator who would trade any of these programs or resources in order to keep the death penalty." Thompson concludes by calling on the Delaware legislature to "repeal its death penalty and lead the way on smarter crime prevention policy by reinvesting the millions of dollars that the state currently spends on capital punishment into programs that will actually improve public safety." Read the full op-ed below.

 

Amnesty International Reports Worldwide Decline in Executions

Posted: April 1, 2015

Executions around the world declined by 22% last year, according to Amnesty International's 2014 annual report on death sentences and executions.  The report -- released on April 1 -- indicates that an estimated 607 people were executed worldwide in 2014, compared to 778 in 2013.  The global totals do not include executions in China, where data on the death penalty is considered a state secret. On a regional level, Amnesty reported notable declines in Sub-Saharan Africa, where both the total number of executions and the number of countries carrying out executions dropped. The number of death sentences imposed worldwide increased compared to 2013, with 2,466 people sentenced to death. This increase was attributable to actions in Egypt and Nigeria, in which mass sentencings occurred and death sentences rose by more than 900. The total number of death sentences imposed in the rest of the world actually decreased compared to 2013. The United States was the only country in the Americas to carry out any executions, though the number of executions dropped to its lowest level in 20 years. The United States had the fifth most executions of any country, behind China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq. (Click image to enlarge.)

 

American Pharmacists Association: Assisting Executions "Fundamentally Contrary to the Role of Pharmacists"

Posted: March 31, 2015

On March 30, the American Pharmacists Association (APhA) adopted a resolution discouraging pharmacist participation in executions. The House of Delegates of the 62,000 member organization passed the policy, which states, "The American Pharmacists Association discourages pharmacist participation in executions on the basis that such activities are fundamentally contrary to the role of pharmacists as providers of health care." William Fassett, professor emeritus of pharmacotherapy at Washington State University, drafted the policy and said that the policy only became necessary in the last few years as major pharmaceutical companies have blocked the use of their products in executions and states have turned to pharmacies to obtain lethal injection drugs. Fassett said, “It’s never been legal in the U.S. to write a prescription to execute a person. The basic federal law is that a prescription is to be used for medical proposes in the context of an established patient-physician relationship." Thomas E. Menighan, Executive Vice President and CEO of the APhA, said, "Pharmacists are health care providers and pharmacist participation in executions conflicts with the profession’s role on the patient health care team. This new policy aligns APhA with the execution policies of other major health care associations including the American Medical Association, the American Nurses Association and the American Board of Anesthesiology." The International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists adopted a similar resolution last week, stating, "While the pharmacy profession recognizes an individual practitioner’s right to determine whether to dispense a medication based upon his or her personal, ethical and religious beliefs, IACP discourages its members from participating in the preparation, dispensing, or distribution of compounded medications for use in legally authorized executions."

 

Supreme Court Grants Review in Three Kansas Cases; Hears Case on Intellectual Disability

Posted: March 30, 2015

On Monday, March 30, the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of three Kansas death penalty cases and heard oral argument in a Louisiana case that presented questions on the role of the federal courts in determining whether a state prisoner who faces the death penalty has intellectual disability. In the cases of Kansas v. Reginald Carr, Kansas v. Jonathan Carr, and Kansas v. Sidney Gleason, the Court granted review of the Kansas Supreme Court's decisions overturning the defendants' death sentences because their sentencing juries were not told that, unlike proof of other facts in the case, the defendant did not have to prove mitigating circumstances (reasons for life) beyond a reasonable doubt. It also granted review in the Carr cases of the state court's decision that the brothers should not have been tried together in the penalty phase of their capital trial because some of their mitigating evidence was mutually antagonistic and the jury should not have considered this evidence against the other brother. In Brumfield v. Cain, the Court heard argument in the case of a Louisiana man, Kevan Brumfield, sentenced to death before the Supreme Court ruling in Atkins v. Virginia banned the execution of defendants with mental retardation (now intellectual disability). (For more on the Brumfield case, click here.)  The Supreme Court will determine whether the federal courts must defer to a decision of the state courts that rejected his claim of intellectual disability based solely upon the evidence presented at his trial or whether to credit the federal district court's finding after a seven-day evidentiary hearing that Mr. Brumfield is intellectually disabled and may not be executed.

 

LAW REVIEW: "The American Death Penalty and the (In)Visibility of Race"

Posted: March 27, 2015

In a new article for the University of Chicago Law Review, Professors Carol S. Steiker (left) of the University of Texas School of Law and Jordan M. Steiker (right) of Harvard Law School examine the racial history of the American death penalty and what they describe as the U.S. Supreme Court's "deafening silence" on the subject of race and capital punishment. They assert that the story of the death penalty "cannot be told without detailed attention to race."  The Steikers' article recounts the role of race in the death penalty since the early days of the United States, including the vastly disproportionate use of capital punishment against free and enslaved blacks in the antebellum South and describes the racial and civil rights context in which the constitutional challenges to the death penalty in the 1960s and 1970s were pursued. The authors contrast the "salience of race" in American capital punishment law and practice through the civil rights era with the "relative invisibility [of race] in the judicial opinions issued in the foundational cases of the modern era."

 

States Struggle with Determinations of Competency to Be Executed

Posted: March 26, 2015

A recent article in Mother Jones examines lingering questions in the determination of which inmates are exempt from execution because of mental incompetency. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ford v. Wainwright that a person could not be executed if he or she was "unaware of the punishment they're about to suffer and why they are to suffer it." The 2007 ruling in Panetti v. Quarterman updated that decision, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing, "A prisoner's awareness of the State's rationale for an execution is not the same as a rational understanding of it." Scott Panetti (pictured), the inmate involved in the 2007 case, knew that the state of Texas planned to execute him for the murder of his in-laws, but also sincerely believed that he was at the center of a struggle between God and Satan and was being executed to stop him from preaching the Gospel. Even after the case with his name was decided, Panetti remained on death row, and the Texas courts found him competent to be executed based upon the testimony of a single psychiatrist who claimed Panetti was faking his mental illness. Panetti came within hours of execution on December 3, 2014, before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a stay. In Missouri, Cecil Clayton -- a brain-damaged man with an IQ of 71 -- was executed on March 17, 2015 without a hearing to determine his competency. By contrast, a recent mental competency hearing for Indiana inmate Michael Overstreet included four days of testimony from 13 witnesses and nearly 1,300 pages of medical records. In a 137-page opinion, the state judge concluded, "Delusions or other psychotic symptoms cannot simply be discounted because a petitioner has a cognitive awareness of his circumstances." Indiana's Attorney General said that the decision adhered so well to the Panetti ruling that there was nothing for the state to appeal.

 

PUBLIC OPINION: Majority of Pennsylvanians Prefer Life Sentences, Support Moratorium on Death Penalty

Posted: March 25, 2015

According to a new poll by Public Policy Polling, a majority of Pennsylvanians find some form of a life sentence to be preferable to the death penalty, and more support the death penalty moratorium imposed by Governor Tom Wolf than oppose it. When asked what sentence they preferred for people convicted of murder, 54% of respondents selected some form of life sentence, while 42% preferred the death penalty. 50% were in favor of the Commonwealth's death penalty moratorium, including 29% who say they "strongly support" it. 44% said they opposed the moratorium. The poll, which was commissioned by Dr. Eric Ling, a criminal justice professor at York College, also asked respondents whether they thought the death penalty or life without parole was more expensive. 70% erroneously believed that life without parole was the more expensive punishment. Dr. Ling said, “This poll suggests that there is a really significant opportunity to explain to voters why the death penalty costs so much more than a sentence of life in prison without parole. Pennsylvania has spent $350 million on the death penalty over the past few decades while carrying out just three executions. Clearly, more information about how much the state is really spending on the death penalty and what taxpayers are getting in return would be helpful. This is the type of information the Advisory Committee on Capital Punishment should be able to shed some light on when they issue their report.” (Click image to enlarge.)

 

NEW VOICES: Lead Prosecutor Apologizes to Death Row Exoneree, Urges State to Offer Compensation

Posted: March 24, 2015

UPDATE: After Louisiana denied compensation to Mr. Ford — who is in hospice care, dying from Stage 4 cancer — Stroud gave an interview to the Huffington Post in which he says "death penalty prosecutions are a badge of showing how out-of-touch we are with other civilized societies. . . . We can’t trust the government to fix potholes. Why should we believe they can design a death penalty system that's fair?" PREVIOUSLY: In a letter to the Shreveport (Louisiana) Times, attorney A.M. "Marty" Stroud III (pictured), the lead prosecutor in the 1984 trial that sent Glenn Ford to death row until he was exonerated in 2014, offered his apologies to Ford, "for all the misery I have caused him and his family." Stroud voiced his full belief in Ford's innocence, saying "There was no technicality here. Crafty lawyering did not secure the release of a criminal...Pursuant to the review and investigation of cold homicide cases, investigators uncovered evidence that exonerated Mr. Ford. Indeed, this evidence was so strong that had it been disclosed during of the investigation there would not have been sufficient evidence to even arrest Mr. Ford!" Stroud takes responsibility for being "too passive" in prosecuting the case. "I did not hide evidence, I simply did not seriously consider that sufficient information may have been out there that could have led to a different conclusion," he said. "I was arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself. I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning." Now he is calling for compensation for Ford -- who is dying of stage 4 cancer that was untreated while he was in prison -- and a reconsideration of the death penalty. "Glenn Ford deserves every penny owed to him under the compensation statute. This case is another example of the arbitrariness of the death penalty.... No one should be given the ability to impose a sentence of death in any criminal proceeding. We are simply incapable of devising a system that can fairly and impartially impose a sentence of death because we are all fallible human beings."

 

Pope Francis Calls Death Penalty Inappropriate "No Matter How Serious the Crime"

Posted: March 23, 2015

In a letter to the President of the International Commission Against the Death Penalty, Pope Francis expressed the Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty, calling it "inadmissible, no matter how serious the crime committed." He continued, "It is an offence against the inviolability of life and the dignity of the human person, which contradicts God's plan for man and society, and his merciful justice, and impedes the penalty from fulfilling any just objective. It does not render justice to the victims, but rather fosters vengeance." He acknowledged society's need to protect itself from aggressors, but said, "When the death penalty is applied, it is not for a current act of aggression, but rather for an act committed in the past. It is also applied to persons whose current ability to cause harm is not current, as it has been neutralized -- they are already deprived of their liberty." He also addressed questions of methods of execution, saying, “There is discussion in some quarters about the method of killing, as if it were possible to find ways of 'getting it right'. … But there is no humane way of killing another person.” The pope had previously offered remarks in opposition to the death penalty when he spoke to the International Association on Penal Law in October 2014.

 

Pages