It Can Happen Here, Too.

New Jersey Abolishes the Death Penalty!!!

In an extended and often passionate speech from his office at the state capitol, NJ Governor Corzine declared an end to what he called “state-endorsed killing,” and said that New Jersey could serve as a model for other states.

“Today New Jersey is truly evolving,” he said. “I believe society first must determine if its endorsement of violence begets violence, and if violence undermines our commitment to the sanctity of life. To these questions, I answer yes.”

What We Can Learn from the National Moratorium

John Holdridge, DIRECTOR, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION'S CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PROJECT

Executions in the United States have essentially been put on hold in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's announcement in late September that it would decide the constitutionality of the lethal injection protocol used by almost all death-penalty states. With Texas leading the way, there is a good chance that few if any executions will take place until the Court issues a decision next spring.

This historic suspension of capital punishment across the nation presents a unique opportunity to ask ourselves a few simple questions: Why does this matter? What does this de facto moratorium mean for our society? And what is wrong with the nation's most severe sanction?
For starters, the moratorium means that, for the time being, we can rest assured knowing that no innocent people will be executed by our government; It means that, between now and next spring, the U.S. will at long last be sending the right message to the world – that cool, deliberate and lethal violence cannot be justified and that the condemned are human beings capable of reformation.

Finally, the moratorium offers some simple truths that illustrate why the government must not have the power to decide who lives and who dies:
We do not need the death penalty to keep us safe. The inmates whose lives are now at least temporarily spared do not pose any danger to society - they will remain in prison, many in solitary confinement. Furthermore, the moratorium will not increase the murder rate based on credible studies showing the death penalty has no deterrent effect. That's why a 1995 survey of U.S. police chiefs found that a majority does not believe that the death penalty is an effective law enforcement tool.

We don't need capital punishment to exact retribution against offenders. Life imprisonment without the possibility of release is clearly retributive. More than half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty in law or practice; 12 states in the U.S. do not have capital punishment; and more than two-thirds of the counties in U.S. have never returned a death sentence. The people living in these places have accepted that life imprisonment constitutes sufficient retribution.

Capital punishment is an extraordinary waste of taxpayer dollars. An act of state-sanctioned killing costs far more than life without the possibility of parole. And that is true even though society is getting the death penalty on the cheap as a result of woefully underfunded public defender programs in almost all death-penalty states. Tragically, the death penalty is often imposed not on the worst defendants, but on the defendants with the worst lawyers.
Capital punishment is a failed government program and a colossal stain on our criminal justice system. The administration of capital punishment in this country is fraught with error. Since 1973, more than 123 innocent death-row inmates have been exonerated; in addition, eight men have been executed even though there is a very good chance they were innocent. Moreover, despite popular myths, DNA testing cannot ensure that only the guilty are executed because DNA evidence is available in only 10 percent of murder cases.

The death penalty is arbitrary and capricious. Receiving a death sentence is like being struck by lightning - only 2% of all murders are punished with the death penalty, even in death-penalty states. Furthermore, the use of capital punishment is tainted by racial, economic and geographic discrimination. In general, a defendant is four and a half times more likely to get the death penalty if he kills a white person than if he kills a black person. And virtually everyone on death row is poor.

The current de facto moratorium on the death penalty presents a rare opportunity to reflect on why we remain the only advanced Western democracy to retain this punishment. If we seize this moment, we will reach only one conclusion: there is no good reason to have capital punishment and many good reasons not to.

Good Enough for Govt Work--Even if a Life is at Stake

There are many reasons to be disappointed by the Washington Supreme Court's opinion affirming Robert Yates' death sentence. After a 5-4 split in Cross where the four justices described Washington's death penalty scheme as broken and beyond repair, in Yates all but one justice somehow found that the death penalty was now working properly. I defy anyone to show me where, when, and how the machinery of death was fixed.

Just as disappointing was the court's discussion about the database used in conducting proportionality review. This database consists of reports--required in every aggravated murder conviction, whether or not death is sought or imposed--designed to enable the court to compare both the crime and the mitigation. Yates argued that the database was insufficient and incomplete, something you'd think a Supreme Court justice would care about--given that a life is at stake.

Here's how the Court summarized the issue: Finally, Yates argues that this court cannot meaningfully engage in the proportionality review mandated in RCW 10.95.130(2)(b) because of the incompleteness and inaccuracy of the trial judge reports. In Yates's view, the defects in the set of reports result in a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. This argument was punctured in this court's Cross opinion. There, describing the trial judge reports database as "now overwhelmingly complete," the court rejected the claim that the state of the database precluded meaningful proportionality review: "There is an ample amount of detail we can use to compare this case with the others collected, and we have no reason to think that the omitted reports would not be consistent with the completed ones."

The Court's stamp of approval is stunning. Certainly, the Court would be correct if proportionality review focused only on the crime. The reports do describe the crimes of conviction with detail.

However, there is virtually no information about the person--the other half of the equation--in any of the reports. Most reports just leave those sections blank. In other words, we don't know in those other cases if the mitigation that made the difference between life and death was mental illness, childhood trauma, the use of drugs, a desire to plead guilty, or any other factor.

What's going on here? Nationally, two mitigating factors--juvenile status and mental retardation--are now complete bars to the death penalty as part of the 8th Amendment's evolving standards of decency review. The United States Supreme Court reviewed the history of how legislatures, prosecutors, and juries viewed this type of information and determined it was cruel and unusual to execute anyone in either of these two categories--regardless of the facts of the crime.

Doesn't the Washington Supreme Court want to know what prosecutors and jury's in this state view as mitigating? What are they afraid of finding out? Or, is the court saying that it would be too hard to compile this information--as long as the report has some information in it, the report is good enough for government work. That position fails us all.

Lethal Incompetence

The doctor had more than twenty malpractice suits filed against him.
Two hospitals had revoked his privileges. He testified that he had dyslexia
and sometimes confused drug dosages. This same doctor also supervised
the lethal injections of fifty-four inmates in Missouri over a decade.
For ten years, the public, the press, and the condemned inmates
themselves did not know about the supervising executioner’s qualifications
in Missouri.

Don't we deserve to know who's on the killing team here, too?

Annual Meeting this Saturday!!!

This year's WCADP conference will be on October 27th at Seattle University Law School, Room 109.

Doors will open at 9:00AM (with beverages and a small selection of breakfast items). Conference will run from 9:30AM to 11:30AM. This year's focus will be on constitutional challenges to the methods of execution--focusing on hanging and lethal injection, the two methods used in Washington.

Our faculty features Todd Maybrown, an experienced capital defense attorney who has undertaken an extensive investigation into our state's methods of execution. This subject is particularly timely given the United States Supreme Court's recent decision to decide teh legality of lethal injection.

In addition, we will have an opportunity to disscuss ways that we can mobilize to prevent another killing in our name.

The annual meeting will follow the conference. All our invited to attend--we'll be electing officers and selecting members of the steering committee.

Rumors of the Death of the Death Penalty in Washington

Rumors of the Demise of the Death Penalty Are Greatly Exaggerated.

In Spring 2002, I was meeting with a number of young men sentenced to death awaiting their fate in the state prison located in Livingston, Texas. While waiting for guards to transport my next client, a young man wearing the prison-issued, white jump-suit with the large, unmistakable “DR” (death row) on the back waved me over to ask me a question. “Do you think the United States Supreme Court will prevent the execution of juveniles this term? I heard that they were going to let Napoleon Beazley die because his case is too political, but then they were going to take a case right after he’s killed.” I told him that I hoped they would take a case--any case--immediately. “I hope so, too. I was only 17 when I was convicted of murder. Your guy is here. Thanks for talking to me. My name is Toronto Patterson.”

Next Term, the United States Supreme Court accepted Christopher Simmons’ case and later held that the U.S. Constitution prohibited the execution of juveniles.

For some time now and from various sources (politicians, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and fellow abolitionists), I have heard that we have achieved a de facto abolition of the death penalty in Washington. I hope so, but for the sake of eight men currently living in Walla Walla under a sentence of death, I do not believe we can rest so easy.

There are, of course, reasons to be optimistic. No new person has been sentenced to death since 2000. The state penitentiary has not carried out an execution since James Elledge volunteered in 2001--and it has been since 1984 when the last person who did not volunteer for a death sentence (Charles Campbell) was hung in our names.

However, there are danger signals. After the 9th Circuit vacated Cal Brown’s death sentence, the United States Supreme Court reversed that decision and reinstated death—one of several cases coming out of the 9th Circuit where the increasingly conservative Supreme Court took the lower appellate court to task for being too liberal. It seems to have worked. Just last week, the 9th Circuit found no error with Darold Stenson’s trial or death sentence. Trust me, there were many worthy errors to choose from.

After the Washington Supreme Court narrowly affirmed Davya Cross’ death sentence in 2006, last week they affirmed Robert Yates’ by an 8-1 margin. What’s most concerning is that the four justices who in Cross’ case argued that the death penalty was arbitrary, capricious, and broken appear to have given up the fight.

Despite control of both the legislative and executive branches in Olympia, very few officials in Olympia have the courage to speak of abolition—not when we issues like the future of the viaduct and the Sonics command attention.

At the end of the day, we know that rumors of the death penalty’s demise mean nothing. We cannot wait and hope that the arbitrariness which defines the death penalty continues to work in our favor. Because sometimes it does not. I’d tell you to ask Napoleon or Toronto, but you can’t. They are dead.

A Failure of Vision--The Upcoming King Co. Prosecutor's Election

In 2003, Kamala D. Harris ran for the San Francisco District Attorney position and promised never to seek the death penalty. Shortly after her election, she kept her promise, deciding not to seek the death penalty in a high profile case involving the murder of a police officer, Isaac Espinoza. Instead, she sought and received a life without parole sentence for killer, David Hill.

This November, Harris is seeking re-election. Once again, she is promising not to seek a death sentence in any case that crosses her desk. Harris is instead running on a platform that involves balancing prosecutions of violent crimes with rehabilitation for lesser offenders. She is unopposed. The citizens of San Francisco have learned that they can live without the death penalty, despite the fact that California has the largest death row in the country.

Here, in King County, a new prosecutor will be elected in November. Unfortunately, both candidates support the death penalty although they each promise to be careful in deciding who should live and who should die.

This election could have been an opportunity for a candidate to step up and promise to take the money used to seek the execution of a fellow human being and use it instead for crime prevention efforts and to assist the family of victims of violent crime. This election could have been an opportunity to explain why not seeking the death penalty is good public policy and the only decent way to administer justice.

Perhaps, the candidates felt that the public would not support such a position. If so, they should have looked to San Francisco DA Harris. She could have told them that the people will support a true leader.

Is this the 21st Century?

Tennessee used its electric chair for the first time in 47 years on Wednesday to execute a man who killed his three sons and their half-sister.

Electrocution was first introduced in New York in 1888 as a more humane method of execution than hanging, but there have been horrific instances of inmates catching on fire, multiple jolts being needed to kill, and bones being broken by convulsing limbs.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976 there have been 153 inmates executed in the electric chair, most recently a condemned murderer in Virginia in July 2006. Holton's was the 1,097th U.S. execution since 1976.

Holton was the second person executed by Tennessee this year and the 40th U.S. execution so far in 2007.

The electric chair is now the sole method of execution only in Nebraska, while nine other states have it as an option or for crimes committed before a certain date.

How can it be that this nation was shocked and outraged when we learned that Michael Vick electrocuted dogs, but we turn around and do the same thing to a human being in our names?

Did Texas Execute Innocent Men?

Dan Rather recently did a story on the execution of two men in Texas and the compelling proof of their innocence. You can view it here: http://www.hd.net/danrather.html

Did Texas execute innocent men? Yes.

Can any state using the death penalty make that same mistake? Absolutely.

Photos from Robbie Sings for Abolition

A good time was had by all. We raised a little money and a lot of consciousness.

An Open Letter to the King Co Prosecutor Candidates

Agree that, if elected, you will never seek a sentence of death.

Make the promise at every meeting, rally, or event.

Tell us how the money saved by abolishing the death penalty in King County can be used to fund measures to prevent crime and to aid the victims of crime.

Explain that it is time for a change and that King County can become a model for the state--that we are all better off without the machinery of death.

King County is better than the death penalty. We don't need it. It's a human rights abuse.

And, you will have our vote. We will work for you. You can take all of the credit when abolition is a reality in this state. We'll be the ones applauding you the loudest.

Robbie Fulks to Perform a Benefit Concert on August 12

America's answer to Elvis Costello, Robbie Fulks is playing a benefit for the Washington Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty (the hippest Coalition in the nation) on August 12 at 6 pm at Zeitgeist Coffee in Seattle.

Robbie Fulks is one of the most accomplished songwriters of his or any generation, but he's also a virtuoso guitar player and an unforgettable performer. This promises to be a night to remember.

RSVP at http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/ Do it now, we expect a capacity crowd.

Robbie Fulks--Musical Genius? Decide for Yourself on August 12th

Now the hour draws nigh, the last bell tolls

How heavy my chains, how still my soul

But somewhere in the dark, a newborn cries

And a mother looks down with love into a killer's eyes.

Turn away young man, from the siren's spell

Turn back from the path where only torment dwells

Heed well the tale of William Hayes

Born 35 years ago, and he'll hang today

Lyrics from "Cold Statesville Ground," a song that we'd appreciate more if it was an historical tale, rather than an assessment of our current community.

A Big Win in the US Supreme Court!

A divided Supreme Court on Thursday blocked the execution of a Texas killer whose lawyers argued that he should not be put to death because he is mentally ill.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case of Scott Louis Panetti, who shot his in-laws to death 15 years ago in front of his wife and young daughter.

The convicted murderer says that he suffers from a severe documented illness that is the source of gross delusions. "This argument, we hold, should have been considered," said Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion.

Panetti's lawyers wanted the court to determine that people who cannot understand the connection between their crime and punishment because of mental illness may not be executed.

The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution bars "the execution of a person who is so lacking in rational understanding that he cannot comprehend that he is being put to death because of the crime he was convicted of committing," they said in court papers.

Politicians Lag Behind the Public--A Majority Supports Moratorium

From the Death Penalty Information Center:

According to a national public opinion poll conducted in 2007,the public is losing confidence in the death penalty. People are deeply concerned about the risk of
executing the innocent, about the fairness of the process, and about
the inability of capital punishment to accomplish its basic purposes.
Most Americans believe that innocent people have already been executed, that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime, and that a moratorium should be
placed on all executions.

The public's lack of confidence in the death penalty is being echoed by representatives of victims' groups, by former supporters of the death penalty,
and in the editorial pages of the nation's newspapers. Although the dissatisfaction with capital punishment has many roots, the common and principal concern
heard throughout the country is the risk that innocent people may be caught up with the guilty.

It is time that our elected representatives instituted our collective will--abolition now!

Lagging Behind Florida? Shame on Us!

The Florida Supreme Court recently reversed the Christopher Offord's death sentence based on his severe mental illness. Here's an excerpt from the opinion:

Offord's case is notable because it is one of the most documented cases of serious mental illness this Court has reviewed. Through the uncontradicted medical records, a picture emerges of an individual with two serious mental illnesses-schizophrenia and bipolar disorder-who has been in and out of institutions since he was just five or six years old. During a 2001 hospitalization in Texas, the staff considered Offord's prognosis poor and predicted that he would be unable to function well outside of a facility. This proved to be an accurate assessment because Offord was admitted to hospitals numerous times during 2002, 2003, and 2004. After coming to Florida, he was admitted to Bay Behavioral four times, the last on July 4, 2004, only weeks before the murder. In addition, Offord was receiving permanent social security disability payments because of his mental illness. Although Offord also has a substance abuse problem, his medical history indicates that his mental health significantly contributed to the murder.

As this Court observed over 34 years ago in Dixon:

It is necessary at the outset to bear in mind that all defendants who will face the issue of life imprisonment or death will already have been found guilty of a most serious crime, one which the Legislature has chosen to classify as capital. After his adjudication, this defendant is nevertheless provided with five steps between conviction and imposition of the death penalty-each step providing concrete safeguards beyond those of the trial system to protect him from death where a less harsh punishment might be sufficient.

The final step is the mandatory review by this Court, which we found was one indication of “legislative intent to extract the penalty of death for only the most aggravated, the most indefensible of crimes.” Id. at 8. For all the reasons we have explained, we conclude that this is not among “the most aggravated and unmitigated of most serious crimes” for which the death penalty is reserved. Id. at 7. Imposition of the death penalty would thus be a disproportionate punishment. We therefore vacate the death sentence and remand for the imposition of a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Come on Washington--if our evolving standards of decency lag behind Florida, we've got some catch up to do.

Lethal Injection--Not in My Name

Some Recent Examples of Botched Executions:

December 7, 2000. Texas. Claude Jones.
Jones was a former intravenous drug abuser. His execution was delayed 30 minutes while the execution "team" struggled to insert an IV into a vein. He had been a longtime intravenous drug user. One member of the execution team commented, "They had to stick him about five times. They finally put it in his leg." Wrote Jim Willett, the warden of the Walls Unit and the man responsible for conducting the execution, "The medical team could not find a vein. Now I was really beginning to worry. If you can't stick a vein then a cut-down has to be performed. I have never seen one and would just as soon go through the rest of my career the same way. Just when I was really getting worried, one of the medical people hit a vein in the left leg. Inside calf to be exact. The executioner had warned me not to panic as it was going to take a while to get the fluids in the body of the inmate tonight because he was going to push the drugs through very slowly. Finally, the drug took effect and Jones took his last breath."

June 28, 2000. Missouri. Bert Leroy Hunter
Hunter had an unusual reaction to the lethal drugs, repeatedly coughing and gasping for air before he lapsed into unconsciousness. An attorney who witnessed the execution reported that Hunter had "violent convulsions. His head and chest jerked rapidly upward as far as the gurney restraints would allow, and then he fell quickly down upon the gurney. His body convulsed back and forth like this repeatedly. ... He suffered a violent and agonizing death."

November 7, 2001. Georgia. Jose High.
High was pronounced dead some one hour and nine minutes after the execution began. After attempting to find a useable vein for 39 minutes, the emergency medical technicians under contract to do the execution abandoned their efforts. Eventually, one needle was stuck in High's hand, and a physician was called in to insert a second needle between his shoulder and neck.


May 2, 2006. Ohio. Joseph L. Clark.
It took 22 minutes for the execution technicians to find a vein suitable for insertion of the catheter. But three or four minutes thereafter, as the vein collapsed and Clark's arm began to swell, he raised his head off the gurney and said five times, "It don’t work. It don’t work." The curtains surrounding the gurney were then closed while the technicians worked for 30 minutes to find another vein. Media witnesses later reported that they heard "moaning, crying out and guttural noises."56 Finally, death was pronounced almost 90 minutes after the execution began. A spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Corrections told reporters that the execution team included paramedics, but not a physician or a nurse.


December 13, 2006. Florida. Angel Diaz.
After the first injection was administered, Mr. Diaz continued to move, and was squinting and grimacing as he tried to mouth words. A second dose was then administered, and 34 minutes passed before Mr. Diaz was declared dead. At first a spokesperson for the Florida Department of Corrections claimed that this was because Mr. Diaz had some sort of liver disease. After performing an autopsy, the Medical Examiner, Dr. William Hamilton, stated that Mr. Diaz’s liver was undamaged, but that the needle had gone through Mr. Diaz’s vein and out the other side, so the deadly chemicals were injected into soft tissue, rather than the vein. Two days after the execution, Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in the state and appointed a commission “to consider the humanity and constitutionality of lethal injections.”

May 24, 2007. Ohio. Christopher Newton.
According to the Associated Press, “prison medical staff” at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility struggled to find veins on each of Newton’s arms during the execution. Newton, who weighted 265 pounds, was declared dead almost two hours after the execution process began. The execution “team” stuck Newton at least ten times with needles before getting the shunts in place were the needles are injected.

Death Penalty (Temporarily) Reinstated for Cal Brown

A deeply split Supreme Court in Uttecht v. Brown reversed the Ninth Circuit on the issue of juror death qualification. The ruling grows out of the murder trial of Cal Coburn Brown, who was convicted and sentenced to death for first degree murder. Brown was prosecuted for raping and torturing a woman for two days before killing her and dumping her body in a parking lot. During jury selection, one potential member of the panel — his name was Richard Deal, although the Supreme Court refers to him throughout only as “Juror Z” — repeatedly said that he could impose the death penalty in circumstances that he thought appropriate. But some of his answers (recounted in an appendix to the majority opinion) show some misunderstanding of Washington state law on punishment for murder, and some ambiguity about just when Mr. Deal would be willing to vote for a death sentence.

The Supreme Court granted cert this Term in nine capital cases. One of the nine remains to be decided (Medellin). The Court ruled in favor of death four times (Ayers, Schriro, Lawrence, Uttecht) and in favor of the defendant four times (Abdul-Kabir, Brewer, Smith, Weaver). Only one case was not decided by how Justice Kennedy aligned himself (Weaver). Justice Kennedy’s vote, to repeat the obvious, governs the Court’s capital jurisprudence. He doesn’t seem to be in favor of dismantling it, but rather slowly modifying it.

We say move faster--we're waiting for you.

A New Death Sentence and a New Reason for Abolition, Now!

Second jury, same verdict
ADAM LYNN; The News Tribune
A jury deliberated less than a hour Tuesday before deciding that one of Pierce County’s most ruthless killers should be sentenced to death for raping, robbing and murdering a Tacoma grandmother a decade ago.
It was the second time a Pierce County jury has said Cecil Emile Davis should die for killing Yoshiko Couch, 65, in her East Side home in January 1997, a crime that shocked the community with its appalling brutality.

Another jury convicted Davis, now 47, of aggravated first-degree murder in the case in 1998. It took that jury barely 90 minutes to conclude that Davis should be executed.

A judge formally imposed the death sentence, but the state Supreme Court overturned it three years ago, saying a juror might have been predisposed to send Davis to death row because he saw the defendant in shackles during trial.

The high court left Davis’ conviction intact but sent the case back to Pierce County so another jury could decide if he should be executed.

It took the second jury about 45 minutes Tuesday to say that he should.

“We’re pleased,” said deputy prosecutor John Neeb, who along with special deputy prosecutor John Hillman made the state’s case. “We thought the first death sentence was legitimate, and we’re glad this jury re-imposed it.”

Davis showed little emotion Tuesday when the jury’s verdict was announced.

Defense attorney Ronald Ness, who along with John Cross represented Davis, said they all were disappointed with the outcome.

“I’m not sure there’s much more that needs to be said,” Ness said.

The nine women and three men of the jury declined to comment as they left court.

But their swift decision showed they agreed with Neeb’s contention that Davis is the “worst of the worst” and “richly deserves” the death sentence.

Couch is not the only woman Davis has been convicted of killing. In November, a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder for stomping to death Jane Hungerford-Trapp, in April 1996.

“The truth is the defendant has left pain and misery wherever he goes,” Hillman said.

In the Couch case, evidence showed Davis raped the woman with an object of some kind before throwing her into a partially filled bathtub and smothering her with towels soaked in a toxic solvent.

He then tried to clean up the crime scene and Couch’s body with a household cleanser before stealing the wedding ring from her finger, the cash from her purse, and meat and beer from her kitchen, Neeb said during his closing argument a few hours before Tuesday’s verdict.

Her disabled husband was in the house the whole time, unable to help her.

“This crime is as bad, as horrifying, as awful as it can get,” Neeb said. There is no punishment appropriate for Davis but death, the deputy prosecutor added.

“There are some crimes so bad, some people so bad, that anything less just wouldn’t be right,” Neeb said.

Ness disagreed.

The defense attorney told the jury that his client was beaten as a child and pointed out that three psychiatrists who testified during trial diagnosed Davis with a host of mental troubles, including post traumatic stress disorder and a cognitive disorder with psychotic features.

Davis also has an IQ in the low 70s, which is close to the “retardation line,” Ness said.

“Are those mitigating circumstances? Of course they are,” the attorney said in arguing for a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Ness also asked jurors to show mercy on Davis.

He read a line from Shakespeare’s play, “The Merchant of Venice,” where the character Portia says, “Earthly power doth then show likest God’s when mercy seasons justice.”

“We ask you to do the right thing,” Ness said. “Consider mercy. Consider the mitigating circumstances.”

Given a chance to rebut Ness’s closing argument, Hillman reminded jurors what happened to Couch and to see Davis for who he really is.

“He killed her because he wanted to, because he felt like it,” Hillman said. “That’s who Cecil Davis is.”

Superior Court Judge Frederick Fleming is scheduled to formally impose the death sentence Friday.

Langford and Co on the radio (on the internet)

Relive that glorious night of abolition in song:
http://kexp.org/aspnet_client/KEXPViewMediaGroup.aspx?rID=3898&pID=528&fID=1169&date=1168

We Grow These in Texas...and Washington, too.

 

Jon Langford & Co Arrive--Leaving a Trail of Abolition in Their Wake

Jon Langford and his amazingly talented band performed "The Executioner's Last Songs" before a capacity house at the Triple Door on March 5.

Best known as the front man for the Mekons, Jon Langford created and performed a mordantly beautiful performance work--a compelling collection of tales and songs on the themes of murder, mob law, and cruel, cruel punishment. Langford took us on a twisting and witty autobiographical ride that looked unflinchingly at the promises of life and the penalty of death. The performance combined live music, spoken word, his own visual art, and recordings of American roots music.

Prior to his appearance in Seattle, Langford and his mates produced an series of two CD's raising money for the Illinois Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, while simultaneously raising awareness around the globe. Within a year, Gov. Ryan cleared death row in Illinois.

Just before arriving in Seattle, Langford performed the show and spoke to Montana law-makers. While he was there, the Montana senate voted to abolish the death penalty.

A Welsh-born, country music playing punk rocker convincing the Montana senate to abolish the death penalty after rubbing the nose of the Lt. Gov's stuffed buffalo head? I honestly never thought I'd write those words, but maybe it is high time for a change to come.

The Demise of our Bills

Remember "I'm Just a Bill" from Schoolhouse Rock:

Well, it's a long, long journey

To the capital city.

It's a long, long waitWhile I'm sitting in committee,

But I know I'll be a law some dayAt least I hope and pray that I will

But today I am still just a bill.

Well, we waited and waited, but never got out of committee--we actually made it out of the first committees on our study bill, but then couldn't get out of Ways and Means and Appropriations. Our modest proposal to ban the execution of individuals who are severely mentally ill never made it out of the judiciary committees, despite the overwhelming show of support.

On the other hand, thre were more important things for the Legislature to consider than preventing the execution of individuals who suffer from the most serious of mental illnesses or taking the time and spending the money to discover whether our death penalty laws are in greater need of repair than the Seattle Viaduct. Like, creating a state climatologist or setting up a gift shop in the legislative building---and, no, I am not making this up. And, let's not forget the important debate on the future of the viaduct.

Tell you what, while we are tearing down that structure why don't we dismantle the machinery of death. I think the view will be better--for all our citizens.

We will be back, no reference to The Terminator intended. Our passion for justice runs very, very deep.

Political Courage--Calling Gov. Gregoire

The following was written by Michael Tackett published in PostBulletin.com.:

While Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama were engaged in the first official hissy fit (the technical term) of the 2008 presidential campaign, another Democrat was actually engaged in a matter of important public policy.

Just to recap: Clinton was furious because Hollywood mogul David Geffen ridiculed her and former President Bill Clinton in an interview with Maureen Dowd of The New York Times on the very day that Geffen was hosting a fundraiser for Obama that reportedly brought $1.3 million to his campaign. Before his conversion to Obama, Geffen had raised about $18 million for the former president.

The spat led to several days of coverage in a not-so-deep search for deeper meaning about the state of the race and the state of the Clintons, which, by the way, undoubtedly will be the campaign's ongoing soap opera subtext.

Meanwhile, across the country in Annapolis, Md., another public drama was playing out, and in this case, the stakes were not money, but life and death.

Martin O'Malley, the youthful new governor, made an emotional plea to a state Senate committee to repeal the death penalty in Maryland.

That is one long march from the scene at a 1988 presidential debate when Michael Dukakis was pilloried for giving a lawyerly answer to a hypothetical question about whether he would impose the death penalty on a man who had raped and murdered his wife. Dukakis' dispassionate rejection of capital punishment became a ready emblem for the Republican narrative that Democrats were soft on crime.

From that point on, most Democrats with higher ambitions rushed to be seen as state-sanctioned Grim Reapers. None did it with as much flourish as then-Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, who jetted back to his state just before the New Hampshire primary to preside over the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a brain-damaged man who told prison officials he wanted to save the dessert from his last meal until after his execution.

Few Democrats since have been willing to take forceful public action that would make it appear as if they were not tough on criminals. In fact, it was not until a Republican, former Illinois Gov. George Ryan, imposed a moratorium on the death penalty that any movement to repeal capital punishment statutes gained significant traction. In fact, O'Malley cited during his testimony the 18 Death Row inmates who have been released in Illinois after their innocence was proved.
O'Malley has been on the short list of rising Democratic stars for several years. Telegenic, smart and the leader of his own Irish band, O'Malley's March, he was mayor of Baltimore before being elected governor last November. Before that, he had been chosen to speak at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 and fortunately for him, in a very forgettable time slot, given a delivery that dripped with emotion far more than sincerity.

His push to repeal the death penalty is perhaps his highest-profile move since taking office, and one that carries abundant political risk, particularly because he is seen as a politician with national ambitions.

But on this issue, O'Malley is resolutely righteous, making a moral and theological argument as much as a political or legal one to support his thesis that the death penalty is neither a "just punishment" nor an "effective deterrent" to murder.

"Notwithstanding the executions of the rightly convicted, can the death penalty ever be justified, then, as public policy when it inherently necessitates the occasional taking of a wrongly convicted and innocent life?" he said. "Is any one of us willing to sacrifice a member of our own family -- wrongly convicted, sentenced and executed -- in order to secure the execution of five rightly convicted murderers? And even if we were, could that public policy be called 'just'? I believe it cannot."

He was just getting wound up.

"Individual human dignity is the concept that leads brave individuals to sacrifice their own lives for the lives of strangers," O'Malley said. "Individual human dignity is the truth universal that is the basis of all ethics. Individual human dignity is the fundamental belief upon which all laws of this state and this republic are founded. And absent a deterrent value, I truly believe that the damage done by our conscious communal use of the death penalty to the concept of human dignity is greater than the benefit of even a justly drawn retribution."

It was a gutsy approach, even in a heavily Democratic state. And O'Malley will find out if his risk is rewarded. Maybe Geffen would bankroll the movie.

Action People take to Your Phones!!

From Coalition Member Amy Luftig:

Hello! It is with great excitement that I report that BOTH of our Task Force Study Bills (HB 1518 and SB 5786) have **passed out of their respective Judiciary Committees in both Houses!** In both houses, all Democrats voted yes and all Republicans voted no.

Unfortunately, neither of the mental illness bills will be voted on this year (committee cutoff is tomorrow). In the Senate, this is because we did not have the votes to pass it (all Repubilcans and Senator Hargrove (D-24) did not support.) We DO believe that we had the votes to pass it in the House Committee. However, it is our understanding that leadership in the House did not want this bill to move this year. Such is way of politics. We are well-poised to introduce it again next year (and we will). Do not despair - remember that it takes about 5 years for bills like this to pass. Much work and education needs to be done, member by member. We'll get this one done.

NEXT STEP FOR THE TASK FORCE BILLS:THESE BILLS MUST BE HEARD AND VOTED OUT OF THE SENATE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE/HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE by MONDAY, MARCH 5TH.

Please call AND email the Chairs of these Committees and Urge a Heairng and a Vote by Monday. Chair of Senate Ways and Means: Senator Margarita Prentice. prentice.margarita@leg.wa.gov. 360-786- 7616. (Bill Number: 5786) Chair of House Appropriations: Rep. Helen Sommers. sommers.helen@leg.wa.gov. 360-786-7814.(Bill Number: HB 1518). It is very important that we call the chairs of these committees (even if you already have!)

Here are a couple of quick talking points: *Very significant questions about the application in the death penalty in Washington were raised by the Washington Supreme Court in the July 2006 Washington Davya Cross Case. Four dissenting justices said that the death penalty in Washington was as random as lightning striking -- defying rational explanation. * It is the responsibility of the legislature to pass laws and ensure that they are applied fairly. * This bill has a small fiscal note - $122,000 -- but could have an enormous positive fiscal impact in terms of ensuring that the death penalty does not unecessarily waste taxpayer dollars.

GOOD LUCK AND PLEASE CALL SOON!

AP Story on Hearings in the House

By Associated Press

OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - Bill Babbitt held up photos of his decorated Vietnam War veteran brother Wednesday as he asked lawmakers to pass a bill that would allow defendants to avoid the death penalty by showing they were severely mentally impaired.Babbitt's brother Manny was executed in California in 1999 for the 1980 murder of 78-year-old Leah Schendel. Babbitt was sentenced to death for breaking into Schendel's apartment and beating her. She died of a heart attack.Babbitt said his brother, who received a Purple Heart in prison for wounds suffered at the siege of Khe Sanh, suffered from mental illness and had spent time in a mental hospital."I supported the death penalty until 1980 when it came knocking on my door," Bill Babbitt, who traveled from Elk Grove, Calif., told members of the House Judiciary Committee. "My brother went to Vietnam and came back severely mentally ill, he never would have killed without the war wounds that tormented him."

The bill would bar the state from executing mentally ill defendants whose appreciation for their acts is "significantly impaired." Mentally retarded defendants already are barred from execution. Under the measure "severe mental disorder" does not include mental illness or defects due to alcohol or drug abuse, or repeated criminal conduct.Rep. Brendan Williams, D-Olympia and the bill's sponsor, said that the bill would make a "necessary change to the law.""If someone lacks the full capacity to make the conscious choice to do wrong, I believe that in a just society, they should not be subjected to the retribution of the death penalty."Under the measure, the defendant must prove that he does indeed have a severe mental disorder, and if a judge or jury agrees, the defendant must be sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

But Tom McBride, executive secretary of the Washington Association of Prosecuting Attorneys, said that the definition is too broad, and that if the bill passes as worded, "It's close to an effective repeal of the death penalty."Won't the average juror say, 'of course there's something wrong with this person because a normal person doesn't do that?"' he asked. "This is the broadest definition you could pick. It's going to be wide open."The committee also heard testimony on another measure sponsored by Williams that would put a moratorium on executions until July 2008 - though none are expected by then - while a task force studies the application of the death penalty in Washington.

The task force bills in the House and Senate call for a 14-member commission to review the application of the death penalty, including whether race, gender or economic status play roles in who gets it, and whether prosecutors uniformly charge aggravated first-degree murder, the only crime that can carry the death penalty in this state. The proposed commission would also review the costs associated with trials and appeals, and whether the death penalty is applied randomly, as four dissenting state Supreme Court justices have said.Williams said it's important for the Legislature to take up the death penalty issue, since the state Supreme Court upheld Washington's capital punishment law 5-4 last year and invited lawmakers to reconsider the death penalty's fairness in light of King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng's decision in 2003 to spare the life of the Green River Killer, Gary Ridgway. Ridgway pleaded guilty to killing 48 women, and helped authorities find remains, in exchange for life in prison without release."There is no other branch of government to whom we can in turn delegate this task to," Williams said. "The buck stops here."

The appointment of such a commission was called for by the state bar association's death penalty subcommittee following an 18-month study that concluded last December.The subcommittee's report raised questions about the wisdom of continuing to seek execution, given the exorbitant costs of such trials and the overwhelming likelihood of reversal by appeals courts. The state has spent millions of dollars pursuing death in 79 cases over the last 25 years, with four executions to show for it. Three of the convicts executed had waived their appeals and volunteered to be killed.

McBride said the state doesn't need another study on the death penalty.He said the main problem with the task force proposal is that it "avoids the moral and ethical question about the death penalty."He said the recent Supreme Court ruling said that the moral question was up to the Legislature."If you want to debate the moral question, we would welcome that," he said. "Because quite frankly prosecutors are not unanimous on that issue. The problem with this study is it avoids the moral question.""It's disappointing to me that this is more of the same of what we've done for 25 years," he said. "Really what we need to talk about is, is it moral to impose the death penalty or not?"Last month, Maleng announced he would seek the death penalty in the slaying of a soldier's family, the first case in which he has sought the death penalty since Ridgway.The Senate Judiciary Committee also heard public testimony on the bills Wednesday.Rep. Pat Lantz, D-Gig Harbor and chairwoman of the House committee, said she wasn't certain sure that either measure would have the votes to pass her committee.

A National Legislative Update

From our Friends at Capital Defense Weekly:
Theme of the week? Politics & the death penalty
Some weeks there are there are themes or trends that seem to develop or are highlighted. This week, amidst what appears to be a relatively slow week for new appellate case law, it seems that seems to be politics and the death penalty.
For example a “state lawmaker filed a bill Thursday that would protect doctors who take part in executions, joining a debate that has effectively shut down capital punishment in North Carolina. The bill filed by state Sen. Phil Berger came a day after a longtime death penalty opponent in the chamber asked for a moratorium while the lethal injection process is studied.” Press accounts here. ODPI is keeping up with developments, & People of Faith Against the Death Penalty is helping advocatea for many of those change in the Tar Heel state.
In the midwest, as DPIC notes, “Missouri Rep. Bill Deeken, a Republican death penalty proponent, has introduced legislation that would halt executions in the state until 2011 and would create a capital punishment commission to examine the fairness and accuracy of Missouri’s death penalty. Deeken stated that his motivation for the bill came after realizing that the state’s death penalty has not been implemented fairly in all cases and it does not adequately prevent wrongful convictions. He noted, ‘ am not against the death penalty. But what I am for is to make sure that any person that is sentenced to death is the right person. If I was on a jury, and I found out that I had put someone to death that was not guilty, it would bother me for the rest of my life’.”
Further west, “[f]or the first time in nearly two decades, members of the Nebraska’s unicameral legislature will have an opportunity to debate a bill that would repeal the state’s death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life without parole and an order of restitution. Members of the legislature’s Judiciary Committee unanimously advanced the bill, noting that their colleagues in the full senate should have a chance to debate the measure. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Ernie Chambers, introduced similar measure in 1979 that won approval by the legislature, but was vetoed by then-Governor Charles Thorne.” DPIC, from which the quote is taken, has more.
In Colorado, the AP notes a key committee vote of 7-4 to abolish the death penalty in Colorado and use the money from death penalty cases to try to solve cold case files.
In Montana, press accounts note, the Senate Judiciary Committee heard from proponents of a billl, that would make life in prison without parole the “the most severe punishment available to prosecutors and juries in the state.”

Before It's Too Late....

This is Bill Babbitt. He is holding a picture of his brother, Manny.

Bill Babbitt was present at San Quentin prison when at one minute after midnight on May 4th, 1999 the state of California executed his brother, Manny Babbitt.

Manny, the recipient of a Purple Heart for his service in Vietnam, was a paranoid schizophrenic who suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. He had been tried and convicted for the murder of an elderly woman who had died of a heart attack after a break-in and beating.

When Bill realized that his brother could possibly be involved in the woman’s death, he contacted the police and helped them arrest his brother. In return, the police promised Bill that Manny would receive the psychological help that he needed and that they would help see that Manny would not receive the death penalty. Bill felt certain that when confronted with the reality of Manny’s mental illness, the justice system would hand down a fair sentence but avoid death. He was wrong.

Manny was sentenced to death and then executed, despite his severe mental illness and despite the promises made to Bill.

A death sentence for someone like Manny is exactly what we seek to prevent by HB 1707 and SB 5787. Bill Babbitt is travelling from California to Olympia to tell his and his brother's story. Please join us on February 14th. We need to act now, before its too late for someone else's brother.

HEARING DATES!!

Our bills are set for hearings on February 14th at 1:30 in the House and 3:30 in the Senate. The exact location will be posted here, as soon as we get it.

Please come to the hearings, bring a friend (or two or three), and let's make democracy happen.

March 5th Annual Award Dinner

Featuring Jon Langford performing "The Executioner's Last Songs."

March 5 at 7 pm at the Triple Door.

This is going to be great. Get your tickets at: http://www.abolishdeathpenalty.org/AbolitionDayDinner.htm

Feb. 14th Hearings on Our Bills!!!

Our bills are getting committe hearings!! They will (very likely) be heard on the afternoon of February 14. We need you to come out in support.

Watch this blog for more news, or you can go to: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=death+penalty&year=2007

Why Severely Mentally Ill Persons Should be Exempt from the Death Penalty

Those who support the death penalty promise us that it is reserved for the "worst of the worst."

The US Supreme Court has held that juveniles (anyone under 18) and those suffering from mental retardation are by defintion never the worst of the worst. For that reason, they can never face the death penalty.

In Atkins, the US Supreme Court said: Because of their impairments, however, by definition [the mentally retarded] have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct than others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan, and that in group settings they are followers rather than leaders. Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish.

In Simmons, the Court added: "The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means “their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. "

As a result, retribution is not proportional if the law’s most severe penalty is imposed on one whose culpability or blameworthiness is diminished, to a substantial degree, by reason of immaturity or intellectual limitations.

These same arguments apply with greater force to persons who are sevrely mentally ill. The relative culpability of individuals whose ability to know right from wrong or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law is substantially imparied is, by defintion, less than what is required for the "worst of the worst."

If we are to continue with the death penalty in this state, we must prohibit the execution of the severely mentally ill and we must do so, now. As former Chief Justice Warren said, at stake here is "nothing less than the dignity of man."

Before its too late...

This is Wanda Jean Allen. Wanda Jean was executed in January 2001, after spending nearly 12 years on death row in Oklahoma for murdering her former girlfriend, Gloria Leathers and despite strong evidence that Wanda Jean was mentally retarded.

No evidence of Wanda's mental impairments was presented during her trial. In a 1991 affidavit, her attorney stated that it was not until after the trial that he learned when Wanda was 15 years-old her IQ had been measured at 69 and that the doctor who examined her had recommended a neurological assessment because she manifested symptoms of brain damage. The attorney stated, "I did not search for any medical or psychological records or seek expert assistance" for use at the trial.

A psychologist conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Wanda in 1995 and found "clear and convincing evidence of cognitive and sensory-motor deficits and brain dysfunction" possibly linked to an adolescent head injury. At the age of 12, Allen had been hit by a truck and knocked unconscious, and at 14 or 15 she had been stabbed in the left temple. He found "particularly significant hemisphere dysfunction" impairing "her comprehension, her ability to logically express herself, her ability to analyze cause and effect relationships." He also concluded that Allen was "more chronically vulnerable than others to becoming disorganized by everyday stresses-- and thus more vulnerable to a loss of control under stress."

Just one year later, the Supreme Court outlawed executions of mentally retarded individuals.

But, that was one year late for Wanda Jean's family. Let's pass a prohibition on executing the severely mentally ill before it's too late for someone else's daughter....

Free Movie!! NW Film Forum

NW Film Forum
1515 12th Ave, Seattle WA 98122
Phone: (206)329-2629

FEB 24 Sat at 4pm

ITVS Community Cinema and Northwest Film Forum Present:
RACE TO EXECUTION
(Rachel Lyon & Jim Lopes, USA, 2006, DVD, 53 min.)
Sponsored by KBCS
Co-presented by KCTS, The City of Seattle Office for Civil Rights, The Central District Forum for Arts & Ideas, and the Langston Hughes African American Film Festival .


This compelling investigation of America's death penalty traces the fates of two Death Row inmates, revealing how race discrimination infects the capital punishment system. Neither for nor against the death penalty, RACE TO EXECUTION explores how the media's racially charged portrayal of victims and perpetrators is internalized by potential jurors and carried into the courtroom. Admission free with RSVP to mailto:rsvp@communitycinemaseattle.org?subject=rsvp_Twisted! or (800) 930-6060.

HB 1707 and pending cases

One question that comes up frequently during discussions regarding HB 1707 is: "what would happen with pending cases, either individuals facing trial or those on death row?"

The short answer is that HB 1707 would give those persons a chance to prove that they were severely mentally ill at the time of the crime. If a prosecutor agreed with the claim, the defendant would be sentenced to life in prison. If a prosecutor disagreed, then both the defense and the prosecution would present their respective evidence to a trier of fact (judge or jury) for a decision whether the defendant fell within the statute's narrow defintion. The same process applied after passage of the prohibition on executing persons who were "mentally retarded."

For example, the King County Prosecutor recently announced his decision to seek a death sentence for Connor Schierman, who is charged with four murders. If HB 1707 is passed, Prosecutor Maleng could reconsider his decision, but would not be required to do so under the new law. If Mr. Schierman claims that he was severely mentally ill and, as a result, was substantially imparied in his ability to know right from wrong or to control his actions, he could then file a motion asking for dismissal of the death penalty. A judge would then hear the evidence, giving both sides an opportunity to present their case. If the judge decided that Schierman was severely mentally ill, then the death penalty would be dismissed, although Schierman would still face four murder charges and four life sentences. If the judge disagreed, then Mr. Schierman could present his claim to his jury during the penalty phase, who would decide either life or death.

I should note that I do not have any personal knowledge, beyond what I have read in the newspapers, about Mr. Schierman. I do not know whether he is severely mentally ill. Instead, I am simply using Mr. Schierman's case to illustratae how HB 1707 would work, if passed.

In the end, HB 1707 gives both the prosecution and the defense an equal and fair opportunity to present their cases. However, if a judge or jury determines that a defendant facing a death sentence was, in fact, severely mentally ill at the time of the crime, the result is to preclude a death sentence.

A Modest Proposal (HB 1707 and SB 5787)

The proposed legislation to prohibit death sentences for persons whose actions are the result of a severe mental illness is very modest proposal.

First, the definition of "severe mental illness" used in the bill is narrower than the current definition used in the approved list of mitigating factors. In other words, it is tougher to prove "severe mental illness" as a complete defense to the death penalty than it was to prove severe mental illness as a mitigating factor.

Next, our definition of "severe mental illness" constitutes insanity in seventeen states. In those states, a finding of severe mental illness would shield the defendant from any criminal liability, not just a possible death sentence.

In at least six additional states--Arizona, Florida, Indiana, Mississippi, Ohio and Nevada--proportionality review has served to remove many mentally ill offenders (where the existence of serious mental illness is not disputed) from the ranks of the condemned despite the apparent availability of capital punishment in such cases.

The current trend is to extend this prohibition. Like Washington State, Indiana does not recognize "severe mental illness" as a complete defense to murder. However, like us, Indiana is currently considering similar legislation to ban death sentences for the severely mentally ill.

If you add the states that have abolished the death penalty completely, it is clear that an overwhelming number of states have repudiated death sentences for persons who are severely mentally ill.

I hope that the time has come to add our great state to this list.

The Conversation

KUOW, local public radio, aired a discussion about the future of the death penalty in Washington State. You can listen to it here: http://www.kuow.org/programs/theconversation.asp

We're in the Senate!!

Our two bills (creating a task force to study the (mis)-use of the death penalty in this state and to prohibit the execution of severely mentally ill individuals) have been introduced in the Senate.

SB 5786 and 5787 are the same their counter-parts in the House.

You can find them here:http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/search.aspx?term=death+penalty&year=2007

Lethal Injection and National Death Penalty Trends

Stateline.org's report on national trends, includes an interesting section on the death penalty (beginning on p. 35). It also addresses problems state face in funding public education.

Hey, maybe if we got rid of the death penalty we could use that money for education....just a thought.

You can download the report here: http://www.stateline.org/live/publications/pdf-request

Reflections on a Maturing, Moral Society

Dan Rodricks, from the Baltimore Sun, has written a brilliant editorial, which includes this passage:

If an American ideal is that our society be less violent -- and I think we still want that, right? -- then we can't be authorizing executions.

Period.

Paragraph.

That's the moral burden of calling ours a civilized society.

If we all know and believe that violence begets violence, why do we give it our official approval? The death penalty makes hypocrites of us all.

You can read the entire editorial here: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/bal-md.rodricks28jan28,1,2012226.column?coll=bal-local-storyutil&ctrack=1&cset=true

A Shout Out...

...to our friends at Capital Defense Weekly, who kindly said "hello" and promoted our bills (and blog) here: http://capitaldefenseweekly.com/

There is strength in our shared knowledge, resolute opposition to capital punshment, and the ever growing number of abolitionists.

A colossal waste....

In 1991, James Brett killed Kenneth Milosevich.

In 1992, James Brett was convicted of murder and sentenced to death here in the State of Washington. Three years later, in 1995, his conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Then, counsel was appointed to represent Brett in his Personal Restraint Petition. Here's what was discovered:

Dr. Julia T. Moore, a licensed, board-certified child and adult psychiatrist, reviewed Brett's Department of Juvenile Rehabilitation and school records, as well as other medical reports and records and affidavits from family members. She performed a clinical interview of Brett and concluded to a reasonable medical certainty that Brett suffered from bipolar disorder, fetal alcohol effect or alcohol-related neurodevelopmental disorder, and a psychiatric sequela as a consequence of poorly controlled diabetes. She further testified that Brett had suffered from bipolar disorder since at least age nine.

Dr. Robert A. Olsen, a board-certified medical doctor of internal medicine, psychiatry, and geriatric psychiatry, diagnosed Brett with "brittle" type 1 diabetes, a rare form of the disease, with severe medical and psychiatric consequences. Dr. Olsen testified that, in the short term, the disease could create wild fluctuations in blood sugar and could impair cognitive functions. In the long term, the disease could cause brain and heart damage, such as cognitive problems, dementia, coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease, and autonomic neuropathy. Brett's diabetic symptoms could have been aggravated by exposure to alcohol in childhood and throughout his adult life. Dr. Olsen concluded that the diabetes manifested itself when James Brett was nine years old.

Dr. Robin A. LaDue, a licensed clinical psychologist with a specialty in neuropsychology and renowned expert on fetal alcohol exposure, testified as to the impact of Brett's fetal alcohol condition. Dr. LaDue testified that Brett's fetal alcohol effect revealed "a pattern of brain damage most likely related to prenatal alcohol exposure." In her opinion, this brain damage had a "significant impact" on Brett's mental abilities, including his impaired judgment, his inability to understand cause and effect, and his difficulty controlling impulses.

None of this evidence was contested by the State.

None of this evidence had been presented to the jury that sentenced Brett to death.

So, in 2001, a decade after the crime, Brett's death sentence was overturned. He was later sentenced to life in prison.

While Brett's original trial attorneys should certainly be blamed for their negligence, you have to wonder if all of this could have been avoided if a law existed that made individuals, likes James Brett, who suffer from severe mental diabilities ineligible for a death sentence.

If we had such a law in 1991, could we have saved hundreds of thousands of dollars, avoided much anguish, and reached justice quicker? I think the obvious answer is "yes."

Before It's Too Late....

This is Robert "Eagle" Clayton, a Native American who was convicted of murder in the State of Oklahoma.

Clayton was also mentally retarded. A psychologist, who testified at the trial, assessed that he had an IQ of 68 (indicating a learning disability), a tendency to be dependent and submissive, and was emotionally immature. The son of alcoholic parents, Robert Clayton had dropped out of school when he was about 12 years old.

At the time of Robert's trial, there was no prohibition against the execution of individuals suffering from mental retardation. However, that changed on June 20, 2002, when the United States Supreme Court ruled (in a case entitled Atkins v. Virginia) that it violates our constitutional protections to execute someone who is "mentally retarded."

The Supreme Court ruling came too late for Clayton and those who knew him. Clayton was executed by the State of Oklahoma on February 2, 2001.

We need to pass a law preventing death sentences for the severely mentally ill before it's too late for someone else.....

Before It's Too Late...

This is Napoleon Beazley. Napoleon was 17 years old when he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

In 2004, the US Supreme Court accepted review and in 2005 ruled (in Roper v. Simmons) that the constitution prohibits death sentences for individuals who were juveniles at the time of their crimes.

Beazley made this same argument to the Supreme Court only two years earlier.

The decision in Roper v. Simmons came too late for Beazley. He was executed on May 28, 2002.

Let's pass a bill prohibiting death sentences for persons who are severely mentally ill before its too late for somebody else's son, brother, father, cousin, friend....

Indiana's Bill to Prohibit Death Sentences in Cases Involving Severe Mental ilness

The Indiana Legislature has introduced a bill similar to ours. You can read the text of the bill and follow its progess here:
http://www.in.gov/apps/lsa/session/billwatch/billinfo?year=2007&session=1&request=getBill&docno=24

The accompanying fiscal impact statement sets forth the savings that would result, if such a bill became law: http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2007/PDF/FISCAL/SB0024.001.pdf

A Gap in the Evolving Standards of Decency

The underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency.

A landmark decision in June 2002 finally outlawed the death penalty for people with mental retardation. In Atkins v. Virginia, the Supreme Court held by six votes to three that the execution of such offenders is an excessive sanction, violating the Eighth Amendment ban on "cruel and unusual punishments". The Court reasoned that mental retardation diminishes personal culpability, and renders the death penalty in the case of this category of offenders difficult to justify on deterrence and retribution grounds.

The Atkins ruling overturned a 1989 decision, Penry v. Lynaugh, by finding that "standards of decency" in the USA had evolved in the intervening years to the point at which a "national consensus" had emerged against such executions – primarily reflected in state-level legislation banning the execution of the mentally retarded. From an international human rights perspective, an encouraging footnote attached to the Atkins opinion acknowledged that "within the world community, the imposition of the death penalty for crimes committed by mentally retarded offenders is overwhelmingly disapproved."

On 1 March 2005, the US Supreme Court removed another category of defendant from the reach of the death penalty, namely children. In Roper v. Simmons, a majority of five Justices to four brought the USA into compliance with "the overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty."

The Court "affirmed the necessity of referring to the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society to determine which punishments are so disproportionate as to be cruel and unusual". In finding that the death penalty against offenders who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime was indeed excessive, the Roper majority quoted the Atkins decision: "Capital punishment must be limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution".

The Atkins and Roper decisions cannot but leave a question mark over another category of offender, namely the mentally ill. If the diminished culpability associated with youth and mental retardation render the death penalty an excessive punishment when used against offenders from those categories, what about people suffering from serious mental disorder other than retardation, such as serious brain damage, at the time of the crime? Should they not also be ineligible for execution? Justice Stevens, writing for the Supreme Court majority in Atkins, concluded that:

"Mentally retarded persons… have diminished capacities to understand and process information, to communicate, to abstract from mistakes and learn from experience, to engage in logical reasoning, to control impulses, and to understand the reactions of others. There is no evidence that they are more likely to engage in criminal conduct that others, but there is abundant evidence that they often act on impulse rather than pursuant to a premeditated plan…Their deficiencies do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability."

While mental retardation and mental illness are not the same, the analysis given in the Atkins ruling nevertheless could be applied to the latter. For example, a mentally ill person’s delusional beliefs may cause them to engage in illogical reasoning and to act on impulse. A former President of the American Psychiatric Association wrote following the Atkins decision that:
"… the mentally ill suffer from many of the same limitations that, in Justice Stevens’ words, ‘do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but they do diminish their personal culpability".

Some judges in the USA have already recognized this fundamental inconsistency. In July 2003, for example, Judge Robert Henry on the US Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit noted the Atkins ruling, and concluded that the imposition of the death penalty against Robert Bryan, a mentally ill Oklahoma death row inmate, "contributes nothing" to the goals of retribution and deterrence. Although Judge Henry was joined by three other judges on the court, it was not enough to stop Robert Bryan going to his execution in June 2004. In similar vein in September 2002, Justice Robert Rucker of the Indiana Supreme Court dissented against the death sentence of Joseph Corcoran, an Indiana inmate suffering from mental illness including schizophrenia. Justice Rucker drew attention to the Atkins decision:

"I respectfully dissent because I do not believe a sentence of death is appropriate for a person suffering a severe mental illness. Recently the Supreme Court held that the executions of mentally retarded criminals are ‘cruel and unusual punishments’ prohibited by the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. There has been no argument in this case that Corcoran is mentally retarded. However, the underlying rationale for prohibiting executions of the mentally retarded is just as compelling for prohibiting executions of the seriously mentally ill, namely evolving standards of decency".

Washington State Bar Assocication's Death Penalty Subcommittee's Report

Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense Final Report
The Death Penalty Subcommittee of the Committee on Public Defense has issued its Final Report. It will be submitted to the WSBA Board of Governors along with the full report of the Committee on Public Defense at the Board meeting on March 2 – 3, 2007. The Death Penalty Subcommittee Report discusses how the death penalty has operated in Washington, the costs of death penalty cases, and compensation of attorneys in death penalty cases. It makes nine recommendations regarding the death penalty in Washington.

Read Full Report: http://www.wsba.org/lawyers/groups/finalreport.pdf