A recent editorial in Nebraska's Journal Star urged support for a bill to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life in prison. Among the reasons cited for its position was the risk of executing an innocent person. The editorial noted that advancements in DNA testing have shown the fallibility of the current system: “Seventeen people who were on death row have been set free after DNA testing proved they were wrongly convicted.” The editorial also pointed to more than 250 convictions that have been overturned nationwide because of DNA testing, including the Nebraska defendants known as the "Beatrice Six," who were wrongfully convicted of rape and murder but later exonerated through DNA testing. The paper cautioned against supporting the death penalty on the basis of one horrific case: “[E]ven if the system worked without flaw in that particular case, there can be no guarantee that it will work that way every time. And if the system cannot work without error - as the facts show - then the death penalty cannot be justified. Sooner or later, an innocent person will die at the hands of the state of Nebraska." Read full editorial below.
DPIC is collecting information on pending legislation related to the death penalty. For example, at least nine states will consider bills to repeal the death penalty in 2012. In California, a coalition called Taxpayers for Justice has been collecting signatures to place a death penalty repeal initiative on the ballot in November. On January 25, the Washington Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on a bill to repeal the death penalty. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Debbie Regala, cited high costs as a reason for the bill: “We can keep the public safe with putting people in prison for the rest of their life, as opposed to the costly expense of executing them… It's always important and valuable for us to look at public policy and see if it's actually getting us the results that we want. When you're facing an economic crisis, you add an extra lens." Other states considering repeal bills are Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. A few states, such as New Hampshire, have blls to expand the death penalty.
New Hampshire state representative Phil Greazzo, who has proposed a broad expansion of the death penalty, will also offer an alternative bill to abolish the death penalty entirely because it is so unfair. Rep. Greazzo, a Republican, previously introduced legislation to expand the state's death penalty to include any intentional murder, maintaining the law should protect all people equally. But he said he would rather have lawmakers do away with the punishment altogether than maintain the status quo. The current law restricts the death penalty to certain murders, such as killing a law enforcement officer. Greazzo pointed out the inconsistencies of the current statute saying, “If I hire someone to commit a murder for me, that would bring the death penalty. If I did it myself, there's no death penalty. So the law is a little bit askew in fairness.” In proposing both the expansion and repeal bills, Greazzo intended for lawmakers to consider a full range of possibilities for improving the current law. He said, “Why not just have the argument once? It's sort of a waste of time to have the conversation for years.”
On December 20, the European Commission announced tough new restrictions on the export of drugs that could be used for executions in the United States. The EC added pentobarbital and sodium thiopental - two drugs on which almost all American executions currently depend - to its list of restricted products that are tightly controlled on the grounds that they may be used for cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. "The decision today contributes to the wider EU efforts to abolish the death penalty worldwide," said the Commission's vice-president, Catherine Ashton. The United Kingdom's Business Secretary, Vince Cable, welcomed the new regulations, saying, "We have led the way by introducing national controls on the export to the United States of certain drugs, which could be used for the purpose of lethal injection. However we have always stated our clear preference for action at EU level and I am pleased that, following our initiative, these steps are now being taken." Last year, the sole manufacturer of sodium thiopental, Hospira, Inc., announced it would no longer produce the drug. In 2011, Lundbeck, Inc., the Danish manufacturer of pentobarbital, made efforts to block the sale of its product to any penal institution in the United States. All U.S. executions in 2011 were conducted by lethal injection.
On December 16, Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal rejected California’s new lethal injection protocols because corrections officials failed to consider a one-drug execution method now in practice in other states. Judge D’Opal also criticized the state for ignoring requirements of the law regarding the revision of official procedures. A federal court has also imposed a stay of executions while it is reviewing the state’s 3-drug lethal injection procedures. In 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel halted all executions because of concerns that executions in California could result in excessive and unnecessary pain. No executions have occurred since then. Natasha Minsker, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said, “The time has come to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole. Any attempt to devise new lethal injection rules will take an enormous amount of public employee time and cost hundreds of millions of dollars." A study published earlier this year by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell estimated that taxpayers have spent $4 billion to carry out the state’s 13 executions since 1978 and at least $184 million a year to maintain California’s capital punishment system.
On December 14, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer (pictured) testified before the state's House Criminal Justice Committee, urging lawmakers to overturn the death penalty law he helped write as a state senator 30 years ago. Justice Pfeifer said, “The death penalty in Ohio has become what I call a death lottery," citing factors such as the location of the crimes and the attitudes of individual county prosecutors as variables affecting whether the death penalty is pursued in a given case. He continued, “It's very difficult to conclude that the death penalty, as it exists today, is anything but a bad gamble. That's really not how a criminal justice system should work.'' As a sitting justice, Pfeifer has continued to issue decisions in death penalty cases and to set execution dates under the law. Of his role, he said, "I have a duty under the law to follow that law. At the same time, we are admonished under the rules that apply to judges that we have a duty to step forward and advocate for changes we think would lead to an improvement in the law.”
The Death Penalty Information Center is completely dependent on the generosity of individuals and organizations for its work. If you use this information and find our work valuable, please consider a donation. Contributions are tax deductible.
Thank you.
A recent editorial in Nebraska's Journal Star urged support for a bill to replace the death penalty with a sentence of life in prison. Among the reasons cited for its position was the risk of executing an innocent person. The editorial noted that advancements in DNA testing have shown the fallibility of the current system: “Seventeen people who were on death row have been set free after DNA testing proved they were wrongly convicted.” The editorial also pointed to more than 250 convictions that have been overturned nationwide because of DNA testing, including the Nebraska defendants known as the "Beatrice Six," who were wrongfully convicted of rape and murder but later exonerated through DNA testing. The paper cautioned against supporting the death penalty on the basis of one horrific case: “[E]ven if the system worked without flaw in that particular case, there can be no guarantee that it will work that way every time. And if the system cannot work without error - as the facts show - then the death penalty cannot be justified. Sooner or later, an innocent person will die at the hands of the state of Nebraska." Read full editorial below.
DPIC is collecting information on pending legislation related to the death penalty. For example, at least nine states will consider bills to repeal the death penalty in 2012. In California, a coalition called Taxpayers for Justice has been collecting signatures to place a death penalty repeal initiative on the ballot in November. On January 25, the Washington Senate Judiciary Committee held a public hearing on a bill to repeal the death penalty. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Debbie Regala, cited high costs as a reason for the bill: “We can keep the public safe with putting people in prison for the rest of their life, as opposed to the costly expense of executing them… It's always important and valuable for us to look at public policy and see if it's actually getting us the results that we want. When you're facing an economic crisis, you add an extra lens." Other states considering repeal bills are Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, and Pennsylvania. A few states, such as New Hampshire, have blls to expand the death penalty.
New Hampshire state representative Phil Greazzo, who has proposed a broad expansion of the death penalty, will also offer an alternative bill to abolish the death penalty entirely because it is so unfair. Rep. Greazzo, a Republican, previously introduced legislation to expand the state's death penalty to include any intentional murder, maintaining the law should protect all people equally. But he said he would rather have lawmakers do away with the punishment altogether than maintain the status quo. The current law restricts the death penalty to certain murders, such as killing a law enforcement officer. Greazzo pointed out the inconsistencies of the current statute saying, “If I hire someone to commit a murder for me, that would bring the death penalty. If I did it myself, there's no death penalty. So the law is a little bit askew in fairness.” In proposing both the expansion and repeal bills, Greazzo intended for lawmakers to consider a full range of possibilities for improving the current law. He said, “Why not just have the argument once? It's sort of a waste of time to have the conversation for years.”
On December 20, the European Commission announced tough new restrictions on the export of drugs that could be used for executions in the United States. The EC added pentobarbital and sodium thiopental - two drugs on which almost all American executions currently depend - to its list of restricted products that are tightly controlled on the grounds that they may be used for cruel and inhuman treatment or punishment. "The decision today contributes to the wider EU efforts to abolish the death penalty worldwide," said the Commission's vice-president, Catherine Ashton. The United Kingdom's Business Secretary, Vince Cable, welcomed the new regulations, saying, "We have led the way by introducing national controls on the export to the United States of certain drugs, which could be used for the purpose of lethal injection. However we have always stated our clear preference for action at EU level and I am pleased that, following our initiative, these steps are now being taken." Last year, the sole manufacturer of sodium thiopental, Hospira, Inc., announced it would no longer produce the drug. In 2011, Lundbeck, Inc., the Danish manufacturer of pentobarbital, made efforts to block the sale of its product to any penal institution in the United States. All U.S. executions in 2011 were conducted by lethal injection.
On December 16, Marin County Superior Court Judge Faye D’Opal rejected California’s new lethal injection protocols because corrections officials failed to consider a one-drug execution method now in practice in other states. Judge D’Opal also criticized the state for ignoring requirements of the law regarding the revision of official procedures. A federal court has also imposed a stay of executions while it is reviewing the state’s 3-drug lethal injection procedures. In 2006, U.S. District Court Judge Jeremy Fogel halted all executions because of concerns that executions in California could result in excessive and unnecessary pain. No executions have occurred since then. Natasha Minsker, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, said, “The time has come to replace the death penalty with life in prison with no chance of parole. Any attempt to devise new lethal injection rules will take an enormous amount of public employee time and cost hundreds of millions of dollars." A study published earlier this year by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur L. Alarcon and Loyola Law School professor Paula M. Mitchell estimated that taxpayers have spent $4 billion to carry out the state’s 13 executions since 1978 and at least $184 million a year to maintain California’s capital punishment system.
On December 14, Ohio Supreme Court Justice Paul Pfeifer (pictured) testified before the state's House Criminal Justice Committee, urging lawmakers to overturn the death penalty law he helped write as a state senator 30 years ago. Justice Pfeifer said, “The death penalty in Ohio has become what I call a death lottery," citing factors such as the location of the crimes and the attitudes of individual county prosecutors as variables affecting whether the death penalty is pursued in a given case. He continued, “It's very difficult to conclude that the death penalty, as it exists today, is anything but a bad gamble. That's really not how a criminal justice system should work.'' As a sitting justice, Pfeifer has continued to issue decisions in death penalty cases and to set execution dates under the law. Of his role, he said, "I have a duty under the law to follow that law. At the same time, we are admonished under the rules that apply to judges that we have a duty to step forward and advocate for changes we think would lead to an improvement in the law.” 
