- Educational Curricula
- Executions Database
- Law Review
- New Voices
- Public Opinion
- Related Web Sites
- State by State Database
- State Information
- Student Resources
- Testimony, Resolutions, Statements & Speeches
- Weekly Newsletter
- Death Penalty Quiz
- More Resources
VICTIMS: Murder Victim's Daughter Says "Broken" Death Penalty Doesn't Bring Closure and is "A Waste"Posted: January 25, 2016
Dawn Mancarella, whose mother, Joyce Masury, was murdered 20 years ago, called the death penalty "a waste of energy and money [that] doesn’t bring justice or closure." Sharing her views on the death penalty in a column for Connecticut's Register Citizen, Mancarella expressed support for the Connecticut Supreme Court's 2015 decision declaring the death penalty "incompatible with contemporary standards of decency in Connecticut." "It’s disappointing to see that the court is re-visiting this decision," she wrote, "but I hope they will affirm the original decision and leave the death penalty behind us." Mancarella said that the death penalty forces victims' family members to "go through the pain of reliving their loved one’s murder over and over again, year after year" through the lengthy appellate process. This, she says, "is the opposite of justice and closure — even if the convicted offender is put to death in one, ten or twenty years, the anguish of losing your loved one never goes away and a state appointed execution doesn’t make you feel any better." She contrasts the energy and money expended on the death penalty with the state's treatment of programs to help victims' families heal: "it is beyond frustrating to see millions of dollars invested into a single capital case," she says, "while victims’ services are perpetually underfunded." She concludes, "It is time to give back our misplaced time and energy to the survivors of homicide for their healing and truly honoring their loved one."
In a recent op-ed for The Denver Post, retired corrections officer and military veteran Pete Lister offered a critique of the death penalty, saying it fails as a deterrent, risks executing innocent people, and costs more than life without parole. "Capital punishment has not, in a single state, proven to be a deterrent to capital crime." Lister said. "Society consists of human beings who make mistakes. There are those who are, occasionally, negligent, and some who are even dishonest or unethical. We are faced with the troubling fact that if we, as a society, err in a capital case, the sentence is irreversible." Drawing on his experience as a corrections officer, Lister compared capital punishment to life without parole, saying, "involuntary incarceration is not the life of Riley that some would have you believe" and asking whether "life in prison without the hope of parole" may "actually [be] worse than a death sentence." Discussing the risk or error, he said, "When we, society, wrongfully convict someone, whether through malfeasance or neglect, or whether the technology extant at time of trial was insufficient to prove innocence, then we, society, have a responsibility to release him, to publicly acknowledge the error, and allow that citizen to move past the horror that we, society, have inflicted. How do we do that after we've put him to death?" Lister also noted that the cost of capital punishment, which he said "far exceeds the cost of incarcerati[on] even for life, ... is more than simply financial. It's been argued that voting for execution takes a terrible emotional toll on jury members." He concludes with a question: "Whether you believe the death penalty is justifiable, if you were the one being accused of a murder you had not committed, where would you stand on this issue?"
On January 17, 2006, California executed Clarence Ray Allen, who was 76 years old, legally blind, diabetic, and used a wheelchair. He was the last person the state has executed. A decade later, California's death row population has increased by 100 to 746, making it the largest in the nation. The state has executed 13 prisoners in 40 years at an estimated cost of $4 billion, while more than 100 other prisoners have died on death row. Prisoners wait 11-15 years to be appointed counsel, and the entire appeal process routinely takes 20-25 years. In November 2015, California proposed a new, one-drug lethal injection protocol, but the protocol cannot be implemented until it goes through a public vetting process, which may take years, and then survives legal challenges. This November, California voters may be presented with two competing ballot measures - one that aims to shorten the time between conviction and execution by speeding up the appeal process and another that would abolish the death penalty. A prior referendum to abolish the death penalty failed 48% to 52% in 2012. Commentators close to the issue say California's death penalty isn't working. Jeanne Woodford, who worked at San Quentin for over 25 years and oversaw executions, said that many of those who were sentenced to death were young men, "the very people whose behavior changes over time." Donald Heller, who wrote the initiative that expanded California's death penalty in 1978, said he did so based upon two assumptions about the death penalty that have proven to be false: "The first was that it would deter murders. The second: I assumed defendants would have competent representation." He also voiced concerns about the potential execution of innocent people: "If you have an imperfect system taking someone's life, it's a little bit frightening."
In an 8-1 decision in Kansas v. Carr, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decisions of the Kansas Supreme Court granting new sentencing hearings in three capital cases, restoring the death sentences of Jonathan Carr, Reginald Carr, Jr., and Sidney Gleason pending further appellate review. The Kansas Supreme Court had vacated the men's death sentences because the jury had not been informed, as required by the Kansas Supreme Court, that mitigating factors presented during the sentencing proceeding to spare a defendant's life do not need to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that such an instruction was not constitutionally required. "Jurors," he said, "will accord mercy if they deem it appropriate, and withhold mercy if they do not." He wrote that on the facts of these cases, there was little possibility that the jury was confused about its role in finding and giving effect to mitigating evidence. The Court also rejected an argument that the Carr brothers should have had separate sentencing proceedings, saying that even if any evidence against the brothers had been improperly admitted, it did not affect the fundamental fairness of their penalty trial. The lone dissenter in the case, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the case should not have been reviewed, saying, "Kansas has not violated any federal constitutional right. If anything, the State has overprotected its citizens based on its interpretation of state and federal law." The decision leaves open the possibility that the Kansas courts could revisit these issues under state law.
Florida's death row would be three-quarters smaller if the state followed the practice of all but two other states and required that a jury unanimously agree that a death sentence can be imposed before a defendant can be sentenced to death. Alabama and Delaware also permit judges to impose death sentences following non-unanimous jury recommendations for death. After an 18-month investigation into the cases of Florida's 390 death-row prisoners, The Villages Daily Sun found that judges had imposed death sentences 287 times (74%) after jurors had split on whether to recommend death. The paper found that 43% of the state's death-row prisoners would have received life sentences if, as is required in Alabama, the state required a "supermajority" vote of jurors (10 or more) before the jury could recommend death. Florida's high rate of death sentencing has driven up the costs of housing the state's death row, which state officials have estimated at between $8.7 and $9.6 million annually. The state's sentencing scheme was recently struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in Hurst v. Florida because its statute permitted the judge, rather than the jury, to determine whether the prosecution had proven "aggravating circumstances" that make a capital defendant eligible for a death sentence. Although Delaware, like Florida, allows a recommendation for death by a simple majority of the jury (7 out of 12), it first requires the jury to unanimously find the aggravating factors that justify a death sentence. Florida's next scheduled execution is that of Michael Ray Lambrix, set for February 11. The Florida Supreme Court has ordered briefing in Lambrix's case on how the Hurst decision affects his case and whether it should be applied retroactively to other cases. The Court has scheduled oral argument for February 2.
On Martin Luther King Day, DPIC looks at the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King's views on capital punishment. In a November 1957 article in Ebony, Dr. King was asked "Do you think God approves the death penalty for crimes like rape and murder?" He responded, "I do not think that God approves the death penalty for any crime, rape and murder included.... Capital punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of God." Several months later, Alabama executed Jeremiah Reeves, a young black man who was 16 years old when he was charged with raping a white woman. Tried before an all-white jury, Reeves was convicted and sentenced to death. In April 1958, Dr. King stood on the state capitol steps during a prayer pilgrimage protesting what he called "a tragic and unsavory injustice." Dr. King said: "A young man, Jeremiah Reeves, who was little more than a child when he was first arrested, died in the electric chair for the charge of rape. Whether or not he was guilty of this crime is a question that none of us can answer. But the issue before us now is not the innocence or guilt of Jeremiah Reeves. Even if he were guilty, it is the severity and inequality of the penalty that constitutes the injustice. Full grown white men committing comparable crimes against Negro girls are rare ever punished, and are never given the death penalty or even a life sentence. It was the severity of Jeremiah Reeves penalty that aroused the Negro community, not the question of his guilt or innocence." Later, in his sermon "Loving Your Enemies," Dr. King preached a philosophy that had no room for capital retribution: "Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction."
As Texas readies itself to execute Richard Masterson (pictured), his lawyers have filed new pleadings questioning whether any murder occurred at all and are seeking a stay of execution based on what they say is "evidence of State fraud, misconduct, and his actual innocence." Masterson's filings challenge the forensic testimony presented by the prosecution in the case, the accuracy of instructions given to jurors, and the constitutionality of Texas' lethal injection secrecy law. Masterson is scheduled to be executed on January 20 for the death of Darrin Honeycutt, which medical examiner, Paul Shrode, testified had been caused by strangulation. His attorneys argue in a new federal court filing that prosecutors concealed evidence that their expert witness and attending medical examiner was unqualified to perform Mr. Honeycutt’s autopsy, botched the autopsy, falsified his credentials, and gave false testimony in this case and other capital murder trials. Two pathologists who examined autopsy data say that the Shrode was unqualified and incorrectly ruled Honeycutt's death a homicide, when it was most likely caused by a heart attack. In 2010, Ohio Governor Ted Strickland commuted the death sentence of Richard Nields based upon concerns about Dr. Shrode's assertion that the victim in that case had been strangled. Shrode was subsequently fired as chief medical examiner in El Paso County, Texas, after discrepancies were found in his resume and revelations were made about his unsupported testimony in the Ohio case.
Florida executions are plagued by stark racial, gender, and geographic disparities, according to a new University of North Carolina study, with executions 6.5 times more likely for murders of white female victims than for murders of black males. (See graph, left. Click to enlarge.). UNC Chapel Hill Professor Frank Baumgartner examined data from the 89 executions conducted in Florida between 1976 - when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Florida's use of the death penalty - and 2014. Baumgartner found that executions occurred disproportionately in cases involving white victims and victims who were female. While 56% of all Florida homicide victims during that period were white, 72% of all executions involved white victims. Similarly, 26% of all murder victims were female, but 43% of executions involved female victims. 71% of the black defendants executed in Florida had been convicted of murdering white victims. On the other hand, no white person had been executed in Florida for killing a black victim. Baumgartner also found that the state's use of the death penalty was geographically concentrated, with just 6 of Florida's 67 counties accounting for more than half of all executions. More than half of Florida's counties (36) have not produced any executions, and homicide rates were 31% lower in those counties. The study concludes that "factors such as the victims’ race and gender, as well as the county in which the offender was convicted, inappropriately influence who is executed in Florida....These disparities are not measured by a few percentage points of difference. Rather, they differ by orders of magnitude, clearly demonstrating that vast inequities characterize the implementation of capital punishment in Florida."
On Sunday, January 10, 60 Minutes aired an interview with Anthony Ray Hinton, who was exonerated on April 3, 2015 after spending nearly 30 years on Alabama's death row. In the interview, Hinton described how issues of race permeated his case. Hinton told 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley about a conversation he had with a police lieutenant after having been arrested: "I said, 'You got the wrong guy.' And he said, 'I don't care whether you did it or don't.' He said, 'But you gonna be convicted for it. And you know why?' I said, 'No.' He said, 'You got a white man. They gonna say you shot him. Gonna have a white D.A. We gonna have a white judge. You gonna have a white jury more than likely.' And he said, 'All of that spell conviction, conviction, conviction.' I said, 'Well, does it matter that I didn't do it?' He said, 'Not to me.'" Hinton went on to explain how he felt about the racial bias in his case: "I can't get over the fact that just because I was born black and someone that had the authority who happened to be white felt the need to send me to a cage and try to take my life for something that they knew that I didn't do." Bryan Stevenson, Hinton's attorney and the executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative, joined Hinton for the interview, and spoke about the systemic issues surrounding the case. "This isn't luck, this was a system, this was actually our justice system, it was our tax dollars who paid for the police officers who arrested Mr. Hinton. Our tax dollars that paid for the judge and the prosecutor that prosecuted him. That paid for the experts who got it wrong. That paid to keep him on death row for 30 years for a crime he didn't commit. This has nothing to do with luck. This has everything to do with the way we treat those who are vulnerable in our criminal justice system."
In an 8-1 decision in Hurst v. Florida released on January 12, the U.S. Supreme Court found Florida's capital sentencing scheme in violation of the 6th Amendment, which guarantees the right to trial by jury. "The Sixth Amendment requires a jury, not a judge, to find each fact necessary to impose a sentence of death," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the opinion of the Court. The jury and judge in Hurst's case followed Florida's statutory sentencing procedure, which requires only an "advisory sentence" from a jury. Florida does not require the jury to specify the factual basis of its sentencing recommendation. The sentencing judge must give "great weight" to the jury's recommendation, but only the judge ever provides written reasons why a case is eligible for a death sentence. The Court based its decision largely on Ring v. Arizona, a 2002 decision in which it struck down Arizona's sentencing scheme because a judge, rather than a jury, determined the facts necessary to impose a death sentence. While Florida's procedure adds the advisory recommendation that Arizona's lacked, the Court found the distinction, "immaterial." "As with Timothy Ring, the maximum punishment Timothy Hurst could have received without any judge-made findings was life in prison without parole. As with Ring, a judge increased Hurst’s authorized punishment based on her own factfinding. In light of Ring, we hold that Hurst’s sentence violates the Sixth Amendment."