Today, DPIC is posting the first item in a new series: "50 Facts About the Death Penalty." Each weekday for the next 10 weeks, we will share a short but significant fact about capital punishment. These items, which have accompanying images, will cover topics including innocence, public opinion, deterrence, race, and more. This series is intended as a resource for anyone looking to learn more about the death penalty. Each of the individual 50 Facts is accompanied by a link to a source that provides more detailed information about that fact. Watch for daily updates on DPIC's Twitter account and the 50 Facts page, as well as a weekly 50 Facts video on Facebook.
Calling the death penalty "an instrument of imperfect justice," Governor Jack Markell (pictured) of Delaware announced on May 7 that he will sign the death penalty repeal bill under consideration in the state legislature if the bill reaches his desk. The Delaware Senate passed repeal in April by a vote of 11-9. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to hold a hearing soon. Markell had not previously taken a stance on abolishing the death penalty. Upon announcing his decision, he said, "This is not an easy issue. My thinking has changed and I just wanted to give it very careful consideration." The Governor cited recent exonerations and flawed testimony in capital cases as reasons why he believes repeal should pass. "I know this is a really difficult issue for members of the General Assembly," the governor said. "I hope that after considering the arguments as I have, they will reach the same conclusion that I have." Recent studies of Delaware's death penalty have revealed significant racial disparities in capital sentencing in the state. More than three-quarters of Delaware's death-row inmates are black or Latino. No state with more than one death-sentenced defendant has a higher percentage of racial minorities on its death row.
Tennessee Supreme Court Contemplates Electric Chair Appeal on 25th Anniversary of Botched Florida ElectrocutionPosted: May 7, 2015
The week of the 25th anniversary of Florida's gruesome botched electric chair execution of Jesse Tafero (pictured), the Tennessee Supreme Court began hearing a challenge to the administration of a state law that would resurrect the use of that State's electric chair if lethal injection drugs are unavailable. On May 6, 2015, the Tennessee justices heard argument on death-row inmates' right to know which method of execution will be used in their cases. The Justices voiced concerns about the secrecy that the law allows to shield the execution process and the decision about which method to use. "How are the defendants supposed to know?" Justice Cornelia A. Clark asked, offering a hypothetical situation in which an inmate expects to be executed by lethal injection until he sees the electric chair set up in the execution chamber. Deputy Attorney General Jennifer Smith argued that execution by electric chair is "just not going to happen," but Chief Justice Sharon Lee said that the inmates' evidence regarding the unavailability of execution drugs suggests, "execution (by the electric chair) is very probable." On May 4, 1990, witnesses to Tafero's execution reported that a problem with Florida's electric chair caused foot-high flames to shoot from Tafero's head. Current had to be applied three times because the first two shocks failed to kill him.
In an interview with Salon, Anthony Ray Hinton (pictured, l.), the 152nd death row exoneree, spoke about his wrongful conviction and spending 30 years on Alabama's death row for a crime he did not commit. "They had every intention of executing an innocent man," Hinton said. "If you’re poor and black you don’t stand a chance." Hinton spoke about the inadequate representation he received at his trial: "My ballistics expert was blind in one eye. He was paid $500. It came down to, 'Who do you believe? The expert with one eye, or the state?' The district attorney cross-examined my expert -- he chewed him up and spit him out." Hinton described conditions on death row as "a second hell," adding, "[i]t’s not a place I would wish on my worst enemy." Prosecutors in his case continued to push for death, even after national ballistics experts had exposed the invalidity of the forensic testimony they had presented against Hinton. "The DA that we have now seems like he doesn’t give a damn about a man being innocent," Hinton said. "When you have a death row case, you have to make 100 percent sure you have the right person."
The number of people sentenced to death in Virginia has plummeted from 40 in the years 1998-2005 to only 6 from 2006 through April 2015. A recent study suggests that improvements in capital representation in the state may have played a significant role in that dramatic change. In 2004, Virginia established four regional capital defender offices, which are completely devoted to handling death penalty cases. The year before the defender offices opened, Virginia juries imposed 6 death sentences, but have not imposed more than 2 in any year since. This mirrors the experience in other jurisdictions in which defendants have been represented by institutional capital defenders. In addition to better outcomes at trial, "[a] capable and vigorous defense no doubt accounts — at least in part — for the increased willingness of prosecutors to resolve capital cases short of death," University of Virginia law professor John G. Douglass said in his study.
On April 21, Oktibbeha County (Mississippi) District Attorney Forrest Allgood announced that he would drop charges against death row inmate Willie Manning. In February, the Mississippi Supreme court granted Manning a new trial, saying that key evidence was withheld. Justice Michael K. Randolph wrote, "The State violated Manning's due-process rights by failing to provide favorable, material evidence." A witness testified that he saw Manning enter the victims' apartment, but police records that were withheld from the defense show the apartment from which he claimed to have seen Manning was vacant at the time, and records from the apartment complex did not list the witness as a tenant. The witness later recanted his testimony, saying he feared he would be charged with the crime if he didn't testify. Manning remains on death row for a separate crime, but the evidence against Manning in that case is hair and ballistics analysis from the FBI that was recently identified as seriously flawed. Manning came within hours of being executed in that case, receiving a stay of execution only after the FBI sent separate letters disclosing flaws in its ballistics and hair comparison testimony.
NEW VOICES: Citing Innocence, Misconduct, Creator of Lethal Injection Protocol Calls Death Penalty "Problematic"Posted: May 1, 2015
Dr. Jay Chapman, the Oklahoma medical examiner who created the three-drug lethal injection protocol that was used from 1982 to 2010, recently told The Guardian that he has doubts about the death penalty.“I am ambivalent about the death penalty – there have been so many incidents of prosecutorial misconduct, or DNA testing that has proved a prisoner’s innocence. It’s problematic," Chapman said. He said he believed lethal injection would be a more humane method of execution, "At that time we put animals to death more humanely than we did human beings – so the idea of using medical drugs seemed a much better alternative.” He found it odd that his name has become so closely associated with lethal injection, saying, “This wasn’t my field, and it wasn’t my purpose in life – I’m a forensic pathologist and my main purpose was to set up a medical examiner’s system for Oklahoma, which is what I did.” Ultimately, concerns about wrongful convictions have given him qualms about capital punishment: “I’ve done autopsies for 50 years and I know what people are capable of doing to others. There are some criminals who have no redeeming features and who will never be rehabilitated – in those cases I would support the death penalty. But I’ve also seen the misconduct that can occur, and the problem is: how do you sort out one from the other?”
In an article for the University of Richmond Law Review, Stephen Bright (pictured), President and Senior Counsel at the Southern Center for Human Rights, describes the arbitrary factors that continue to influence the death penalty. Bright first describes the historical context that led the Supreme Court to strike down the death penalty in 1976. He draws comparisons between lynchings, which he says were "used to maintain racial control after the Civil War," and capital punishment, which in 1976 "was very much tied to race - the oppression of African Americans, carried out by this country's criminal courts." He then explains how this legacy of racial bias continues today, saying, "The race of the defendant and the race of the victim continue to influence the imposition of the death penalty. The courts remain the part of American society least affected by the civil rights movement of the mid-twentieth century." Bright also addresses bias against the poor, and those with mental illness and intellectual disabilities. He concludes, "What purpose is the primitive penalty of death serving in a modern society? When we look closely at the issues - race, poverty, arbitrariness, conviction of the innocent, mental illness, and intellectual disability - from both a moral and practical standpoint, it will not be long before we join South Africa and the rest of the civilized world in making permanent, absolute, and unequivocal the injunction: 'Thou shall not kill.'"
On April 29, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in Glossip v. Gross, a case challenging the use of midazolam in lethal injections. Midazolam was used as the first drug in three botched executions in 2014, including the execution of Clayton Lockett in Oklahoma exactly one year ago. Prisoners on Oklahoma's death row argued that midazolam should not be used in executions because it could not reliably anesthesize the prisoner to prevent him or her from experiencing extreme pain when the second and third drugs in Oklahoma's execution protocol were injected. The Justices questioned both sides intensely, with the more conservative justices generally favoring the state's arguments and the more liberal justices favoring the prisoners' arguments. Justice Elena Kagan compared the effects of potassium chloride, the third execution drug, to being burned alive, saying, "Suppose that we said we’re going to burn you at the stake, but before we do, we’re going to use an anesthetic of completely unknown properties and unknown effects." Conservatives on the Court criticized the case as a veiled attacked on the death penalty itself. The Court is expected to decide the case before the current term ends in June.
In a case spotlighting issues of mental illness and the death penalty, the Florida Supreme Court on April 23 unanimously overturned the death sentence imposed on a severely mentally ill death-row inmate, Humberto Delgado (pictured). Delgado, who was convicted of killing a Tampa police officer, will be resentenced to life without parole. The court said, "We do not downplay the fact that Corporal Roberts lost his life as a result of Delgado's actions. However … we are compelled to reduce Delgado's sentence to life imprisonment because death is not a proportionate penalty when compared to other cases." Delgado had a history of delusions and psychotic behavior before the crime, including believing that police were out to kill him and that people were following him and sitting in trees outside his home. Delgado's attorneys pointed out that, because Delgado shot the police officer only after the officer had used a Taser, there was a lack of premeditation. Tampa police Chief Jane Castor released a statement in response to the decision, saying, "We respect the justice system and those who have to make tough decisions. Regardless of the conclusion, it doesn't bring Mike back and it doesn't relieve the pain that his wife, son and his TPD family feel. His life sentence will still ensure he is held accountable for his actions."