News Update 3.30.07

North Carolina

Even the warden has admitted that North Carolina does not carry out executions in compliance with a federal judge’s orders. No word on consequences for the State’s failures and deceptions.

Elsewhere

“I charge each and every one of you with the murder of an innocent man…if my murder makes it easier for everyone else, let the forgiveness be part of the healing.” – The last words of Roy Lee Pippin, executed last night in Texas.

News Update 3.29.07

North Carolina

Dr. Death – a bombshell interview from the doctor charged with overseeing North Carolina’s executions. Dr. Obi Umesi comes forward and reveals that the State has not been complying with court-ordered execution standards. Indeed, he says, medical ethics would require him to refuse to participate in executions as the State claims they are performed.

Durham assistant district attorney appointed to head the Innocence Inquiry Commission.

NAACP calls for an end to the death penalty.

Elsewhere

Mentally ill Oregon defendant claims innocence, then tells jury, “Sentence me to death, because if you don’t, you’re suckers.”

News Update 3.28.07

North Carolina

In a party-line vote, the House Judiciary Committee I voted to move House Bill 341 (previously discussed here) to the floor of the General Assembly. Reports here and here. (For: Alexander, Bryant, Goodman, Hall, Harrison, Insko, Martin, Mobley, Ross. Against: Blust, Clary, Stam, Stiller, West. Absent: Holmes.)

People of Faith Against the Death Penalty, an interfaith organization opposed to capital punishment, is reaching out to small communities across North Carolina.

Elsewhere

Due in part to the recent killing of a police officer, the New Hampshire House voted not to repeal the death penalty. No one has been executed in New Hampshire since 1939, there is no one on death row, and the state doesn’t have a death chamber of any kind.

News Update 3.27.07

North Carolina

Nothing to report.

Elsewhere

In Georgia, jury votes for life in case of woman convicted of poisoning two men with antifreeze.

Tennessee drags its feet, innocent man may die on death row.

In Virginia, Governor Tim Kaine vetoed five bills which would have expanded the scope of the death penalty in a state that is second only to Texas in the number of executions.

In Taiwan, inmate attempts suicide (again) because he cannot bear waiting to be executed.

Justice Talking asks whether justice is served by the death penalty. Hear a debate between leading scholars on both sides of the issue, as well as an interview with an exonerated man and discussions on methods of execution, recent court developments, and the role of race in capital punishment.

News Update 3.26.07

North Carolina

Defense attorney Kirk Osborn passed away this weekend at the age of 64. Kirk represented over a dozen capital defendants, and through his efforts, all of their lives were spared.

Elsewhere

Amnesty International on the impending execution of Vincent Gutierrez.

The Associated Press on corruption and error in state crime labs.

The Chicago Tribune changes its position and calls for the abolition of the death penalty.

The Nation on the death penalty’s role in the U.S. Attorney scandal.

For NYT Select subscribers, an article on Alabama, the only state that does not provide counsel to inmates on death row.

Senate Bill 295 – Protecting Fetuses, Killing Adults

The death penalty news coming out of the General Assembly this session is not all good. Senator Brock (R-Davie and Rowan) has proposed a bill which would make it a capital offense to kill a pregnant woman. At a time when so many are calling for the narrowing of the capital statute, Senator Brock (and his co-sponsors Allran (R-Catawba and Iredell), Apodaca (R-Buncombe, Henderson, and Polk), Berger (R-Guilford and Rockingham), Blake (R-Harnett and Moore), Brown (R-Jones and Onslow), East (R-Alleghany, Stokes, Surry, and Yadkin), Goodall (R-Mecklenburg and Union), Hunt (R-Wake), Jacumin (R-Burke and Caldwell), Pittenger (R-Mecklenburg, Preston (R-Carteret, Craven, and Pamlico), and Smith (R-Johnston and Wayne)) are trying to expand the statute in a way that is both unnecessary and unfair.

Senate Bill 295 would change North Carolina’s murder statute as follows:

“§ 14‑17. Murder in the first and second degree defined; punishment.

(a) [current definitions of first and second degree murder]

(b) Any person who engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this section with respect to the death of a pregnant woman, and who thereby causes the death of a child who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this subsection. Except [in cases of death during a lawful abortion or other medical procedure], the punishment for that separate offense [will be either the death penalty or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole]. An offense under this subsection does not require proof that the person engaging in the conduct had knowledge or should have had knowledge that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant or that the defendant intended to cause the death of the unborn child.

As used in this section, the term ‘unborn child’ means a child in utero, and the term ‘child in utero’ or ‘child, who is in utero’ means a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb.”

It is often said that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States. The statement misrepresents the findings of the study on which it was based. Homicide is the leading cause of injury deaths among pregnant and postpartum (up to one year after birth) women in the United States. (Chang, Jeani; Cynthia Berg; Linda Saltzman; and Joy Herndon. 2005. Homicide: A Leading Cause of Injury Deaths Among Pregnant and Postpartum Women in the United States, 1991-1999. American Journal of Public Health. 95(3):471-77.) It is important to have a realistic grasp on the scope of the problem – pregnant women are not being killed in large numbers, and statistics about such killings (the Chang study found 617 homicides in nine years) include women who have already given birth (and would therefore not fall under the statute). For the record, the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the United States is thromboembolic disease (blood clots that can lead to pulmonary embolism, stroke, or complications during delivery).

It is fair to assume that the bill was proposed, at least in part, as a response to the murder of Michelle Young. Young, four months pregnant, was found beaten to death in her home in late 2006. Although no charges have been filed, many believe that Young’s husband is responsible. Sheerly for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Jason Young did kill his wife. Even without Senate Bill 295, it could still be a capital offense. It has been reported that the Youngs were having financial trouble, and that there was a substantial life insurance policy for Michelle. If she was killed for the money, the murder would fall under the “pecuniary gain” category of capital-eligible homicides. It is unknown exactly how the murder occurred, but it is possible that it would also fall under the “especially heinous, atrocious, and cruel” category. If the goal is to execute Jason Young, it is unnecessary to redefine the legal status of a fetus to do so.

There are myriad implications for such a redefinition, which I will leave aside for now. I argue that the definitions provided by the bill are overly broad. First, the statute does not require that the assailant be aware of the victim’s pregnancy. I think it fair to assume that this bill’s sponsors believe the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, and that this particular bill will discourage the murder of pregnant women. A potential assailant cannot be deterred from something s/he is unaware they are doing. Second, the bill defines an “unborn child” as a “homo sapiens at any state of development.” It would be a capital felony to kill a woman two days after conception – before even she was aware of the pregnancy. Any argument for deterrence at this point is entirely preposterous. As for retribution, given the absence of a requirement for the intent to kill, such a murder cannot be said to be “the worst of the worst” that the death penalty is intended to punish. As written, this statute serves none of the penological objectives of capital punishment, and is therefore questionable on both moral and Constitutional grounds.

Violence against women, pregnant or otherwise, is a serious problem. Capital punishment will do nothing to stop it. If the legislature really wants to protect women, it should do so while they’re still alive. Providing education and resources for women at risk of battering may not win legislators as many votes, but it will help save lives.

News Update 3.23.07

North Carolina

A letter to the editor from Cas Shearin, who was recently honored by the NC-ACLU for her work in opposition to the death penalty.

Elsewhere

In Nebraska, state Supreme Court sets an execution date one day after a bill to abolish the death penalty failed by a single vote in the legislature. Lawmakers respond by proposing a bill that would limit the death penalty to only those offenders who pose a significant risk of further violence in prison.

The State Department has declined to intervene on behalf of a 24-year-old American who has been held incommunicado in Ethiopia for over five weeks, even though no charges have been filed against the young man and he may be facing the death penalty. I suppose that would be hypocritical…

The US Ambassador to Trinidad and Tobago said in a recent speech that there is no evidence that the death penalty deters crime – in the United States or anywhere else.

News Update 3.22.07

North Carolina

After being acquitted of murder in state court in 1989, Timothy Hennis went on to retire from the US Army in 2004. So why has the Army recalled him to duty just so they can try him again for the same murder?

Elsewhere

In Georgia, is the chance to execute one man really worth millions of dollars?

In Missouri, state Supreme Court orders new trial after prosecutor keeps minorities off the jury…again.

Yesterday, the US Supreme Court heard arguments on whether it is inflammatory for a prosecutor to tell the jury that they are “soldiers” whose “duty” is to sentence the defendant to death.

There has been some speculation that Texas may have botched last night’s execution of Charles Nealy. I will update as necessary.

Proportionality

Common sense isn’t sexy. It’s hard to get all worked up over something that seems perfectly reasonable. Maybe that’s why so little attention has been paid to House Bill 341. That, and explaining the death penalty appeals process in a soundbite is about as easy as carrying a rhinocerous in your purse.

For right now, let’s just focus on the direct appeal. After a defendant has been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death, his or her case is automatically appealed to the North Carolina Supreme Court. The purpose of this review is to ensure that the death penalty is administered consistently from case to case. Nothing wrong with that, right? Whether or not you believe that the death penalty is influenced by arbitrary factors like race and geography, you probably don’t want capital punishment to depend on passion, prejudice, and chance. Hence proportionality review.

Moving on to the ‘sense to come in out of the rain’ portion of our lesson. At present, the relevant statute directs the Supreme Court to compare the result in a given case to “the penalty imposed in similar cases, considering both the crime and the defendant” to ensure that the death sentence is not “excessive or disproportionate.” N.C. Gen. Stat. 15A-2000(d)(2). What that statute says to me is, “If you’ve got a case involving a guy with a prior robbery conviction who shoots a convenience store clerk during a stick-up at 2 AM, you should check to see if there are any other murder cases involving a guy with a prior robbery conviction who shoots a convenience store clerk during a stick-up at 2 AM.” Call me crazy.

Call the North Carolina Supreme Court…something else. The Court has interpreted “similar cases” to mean “cases in which the same sentence was imposed,” thereby ignoring the 97% of homicide cases in which the defendant is not sentenced to death. Consideration of similar crimes and similar defendants is only secondary, and the Court often cobbles together its justification piecemeal. Rather than looking at the ten cases with identical facts which resulted in life sentences, the Court will reach back in time to find a death case – any death case – involving a prior felony OR a convenience store OR a killing in the middle of the night. Similar enough.

In applying such blinders, the Court has virtually ensured that no death case will be found excessive or disproportionate. When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. The Supreme Court has failed to meet its obligation to consider each case individually. It’s as if they cut and paste reasoning from past decisions without any further thought; the Court continues to cite cases that have long been overruled. In the last twenty-four years, over two hundred death-sentenced defendants have come before the Supreme Court for proportionality review. Relief has been granted in only eight cases, and every death sentence has been upheld since 2002.

The Court has utterly failed to protect against excessive and disproportionate sentences. Even supporters of the death penalty, like former North Carolina Supreme Court Chief Justice Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., recognize that being sentenced to death in North Carolina is, “like being picked in a lottery…it’s totally arbitrary.”

Representatives Earle (D-Mecklenburg), Glazier (D-Cumberland), Parmon (D-Forsyth), and Wainwright (D-Craven and Lenoir) are the primary sponsors of House Bill 341, which would return common sense and judicial responsibility to direct appeals in North Carolina. The bill makes explicit the Supreme Court’s obligation to consider the full range of first-degree murder cases:

In determining whether a sentence of death imposed under this section is disproportionate, the Supreme Court shall consider and compare factually similar cases that have been reviewed on appeal by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals. The reported cases compared by the Supreme Court shall include both those in which the jury recommended life imprisonment, with or without parole, and those in which the jury recommended the death penalty.

Nothing outrageous about that. Contact your representative and let them know that when someone’s life is at stake, the Supreme Court owes them – and all of us – more than just a rubber stamp.

News Update 3.21.07

North Carolina

Nothing to report.

Elsewhere

An article on the doctors/lethal injection controversy nationwide.

In China, man sentenced to death for selling overpriced ant farms.

In Iran, the story of a seventeen-year-old sentenced to death for a killing done in self-defense.