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."
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.
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."
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 PenaltyPosted: 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.)
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."
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.
Mamie Norwood, whose husband, Amos, was killed by Pennsylvania death row inmate Terry Williams (pictured), recently wrote a letter to two state officials asking them to, "stop trying to execute Terry Williams." Norwood's letter was addressed to Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams and State Representative Mike Vereb, who oppose the death penalty moratorium imposed by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf. Vereb recently introduced a legislative resolution stating that the moratorium "exhibits astounding disregard for the additional and unnecessary heartache he has now caused to the family and loved ones of Terrance Williams' victims." Norwood said, "I have forgiven Terry Williams and I don't want him executed and I have said this many times...[Y]ou have never spoken to me and you do not speak for me." In 2012, Norwood joined dozens of child advocates, former prosecutors and judges, mental health professionals, and five of Williams' jurors in calling for clemency. She concluded her recent letter by saying, "I am asking that you please stop trying to execute Terry Williams. And please don't use me for your own political gain or to get your name in the news. You should be truly ashamed of yourselves." Read the full text of Mamie Norwood's letter here. UPDATE: Family members of other victims have also publicly responded to statements by other Pennsylvania prosecutors in opposition to Governor Wolf’s moratorium that falsely suggested that they supported seeking the death penalty for their family member’s murder.
UPDATE: On March 23, Judge Rosa Mroz officially dismissed the charges against Milke. Milke has been added to DPIC's exoneration list. See Milke's statement on her exoneration. PREVIOUSLY: On March 17, the Arizona Supreme Court denied a request by prosecutors that it review a lower court's order that dismissed the charges against Debra Milke as a result of "egregious" police and prosecutorial misconduct and barring her retrial. The court's decision effectively ends prosecutorial efforts to reinstate murder charges against Milke. Milke spent 23 years on death row for allegedly arranging for two men to kill her 4-year-old son so she could collect an insurance payout. The two men who were convicted of committing the killing remain on death row. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit overturned Milke's conviction because the prosecutor had withheld evidence that undermined key testimony in the case. Arizona's prosecutors have been accused of misconduct in more than half of all cases in which the state has imposed death sentences. In this case, Detective Armando Saldate testified that Milke had confessed to him, but there was no recording, nor any witnesses to the confession, and Milke steadfastly denied having confessed. Saldate's personnel record, which prosecutors withheld from the defense, revealed that the detective had committed serious misconduct in prior cases, including lying under oath. In December 2014, the Arizona Court of Appeals barred prosecutors from retrying Milke. The state sought to appeal that decision to the Arizona Supreme Court, which the court rejected on Tuesday. The trial court is expected to formally dismiss the charges next week, which would make Milke the 151st person exonerated from death row since 1973 and the first in 2015. She will be the ninth person exonerated from death row in Arizona and the second female death row exoneree in the U.S.
A new study from researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill finds that the most likely outcome for a capital case once a death sentence has been imposed is that the defendant's conviction or sentence will be reversed on appeal. Execution is only the third most likely outcome. Of the 8,466 people sentenced to death from 1976-2013, 3,194 (38%) had their sentence or conviction overturned. 2,979 (35%) remained on death row at the time of the study. Fewer than 1 in 6 defendants - 1,359 (16%) - were executed. The rest died on death row of suicide or natural causes, had their sentence commuted, or were removed from death row for miscellaneous reasons. The study also notes that these rates vary dramatically from state to state, with states averaging about a 13% likelihood of executing a death sentence, and only one state - Virginia - executing more than half of those sentenced to death. "Regardless of one’s view of the death penalty in principle, these numbers raise questions about how the death penalty is applied in practice," the authors note. "The wide differences across states in the odds of carrying out a death sentence are potentially troubling from an equal protection standpoint." They conclude, "A system that ensures prolonged court time, automatic appeals for the convicted inmate – most of whom are eventually successful – and only a small chance of actual execution is a system built on false promises for everyone, and indeed one that seems to verge on torture." (Click image to enlarge)