Several States Abandon Death Penalty Because Of Cost

Facing huge budget deficits, eight states are considering repealing the death penalty to save money. Pennsylvania isn't one of them.

But there hasn't been an execution in Pennsylvania in nearly a decade, and that has critics questioning the program's cost.

Capital punishment has been debated in the nation's highest courts, fueled by political and moral arguments, with powerful influences from religion. But in some states, the death penalty is being abandoned for reasons that have nothing to do with right or wrong.

"This is the first time cost has taken center stage," said Richard Dieter.

Dieter is the executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C. He said studies show administering the death penalty is more expensive than keeping someone in prison for life.

"It's not that the execution costs much, but every step of a death penalty case is much more expensive than a typical trial," said Dieter.

Dieter said capital cases are expensive because the trials tend to take longer. They require more lawyers and more costly experts, and are far more likely to lead to multiple appeals.

"You've got to look at the cost of this," said Dieter. "What else could this be spent on?"

But in Pennsylvania, there is no central state agency that regulates or collects information about all capital punishment cases. As a result, it is nearly impossible to add up the cost of administering the death penalty in Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania has the 4th largest death row, housing 224 inmates.

Since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978, only 3 convicts have been executed, but all 3 waived their rights to appeal.

In more than 30 years, no one in Pennsylvania has been executed after exhausting their appeals. Every case has been overturned by a higher court.

"It's hard to know what to make of a state that has the death penalty and doesn't have executions," said Dieter.

"It's an incredibly specialized, complex area of law," said Jules Epstein.

A former Philadelphia defense attorney, Epstein has overseen more than 100 death penalty cases.

He said one of the reasons there hasn't been an execution in Pennsylvania for so long lies in how the state's judicial system is funded.

"When you don't have the lawyers who don't have the money, they don't have the training or resources and you have a very good question as to whether the result is reliable," said Epstein.

Pennsylvania is the only state in the country that does not provide any state funding for attorneys of capital defendants who can't afford one themselves.

That leaves counties with less money with no option but to appoint less experienced lawyers who are more prone to making mistakes when handling complex capital cases.

"And if you didn't get it right the 1st time, it gets overturned on appeal sometimes years or tens of years later," Epstein said.

More than 1/2 of Pennsylvania's death sentence reversals, 117 of 214, have been overturned because of mistakes attorneys made during trial.

And as the process repeats, the cost to taxpayers continues to rise.

"What you are doing is sentencing people to death, most of the cases are overturned and the second time around they get a life sentence," said Dieter. "So you have the revolving door where the death penalty is meaningless, yet still very expensive."

While Pennsylvania hasn't studied the cost of the death penalty other states have.

New Jersey estimates it spent $253 million on the death penalty without executing anyone for decades, before repealing it in 2007.

Earlier in March, lawmakers in New Mexico also abolished the death penalty after determining their death penalty cases cost 6 times more than murder trials involving life in prison without parole.

As long as Pennsylvania's cost remains unknown, the debate over whether the death penalty is worth the money will likely continue.

Supporters of the death penalty said the system is supposed to be complex, and expensive, because deciding whether someone should be put to death is a weighty issue.

They also said repealing the death penalty could result in a spike in crime, because it would remove the most serious form of punishment.

As the economy continues to struggle, it is becoming harder for states to ignore cost when it comes to capital punishment.

Source: WGAL News, March 31, 2009

Emirates: death sentence upheld

March 29, 2009: the Dubai Court of Appeal in the United Arab Emirates upheld the death sentence of a Pakistani national convicted of the premeditated murder of his 24 year old Nepali car showroom colleague in Deira, on March 7, 2008.

The death sentence was the first by the court since 2005. The Criminal Court of First Instance sentenced the Pakistani to capital punishment on January 27, 2009.

Presiding Judge Eissa Al Sharif justified the death sentence saying, “the accused planned the theft motivated murder and prepared the crime tools.

He bought a knife, gloves and a hammer to murder the victim.”

Sources: Khaleej Times, 30/03/2009

Saudi Arabia : two executions

March 27, 2009: two Saudi Arabian men were beheaded by the sword after being convicted of the manslaughter of a Chinese man they robbed, the Interior Ministry said in a statement carried by SPA state news agency.

Faisal bin Nasser al-Qahtani and Bandar bin Abdullah al-Ajmi were found guilty of a drive-by robbery in which they snatched a laptop-computer bag from the man as he walked in Riyadh.

The victim grabbed hold of their vehicle, lost his grip and hit the ground, fatally injuring his head.

Source: Khaleej Times, 27/03/2009

Montana to keep death penalty

Montana lawmakers decided Monday that the state will be keeping its death penalty, likely ending a strong push to ban the punishment this year.

A measure to end capital punishment had passed the GOP-controlled Senate, giving-death penalty opponents hope that it could clear the Legislature this year especially after New Mexico lawmakers passed a ban earlier this month.

But the Montana House Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 against the ban. It would be difficult, but not impossible, for those pushing the ban to bring the bill back this year.

Supporters of Senate Bill 236 argue that enforcing the death penalty costs more than mandatory life in prison without parole, and that the risk of executing an innocent man is too great. The supporters of a ban also said the death penalty is unethical and is hard on employees of the justice and corrections systems.

"We all have an obligation to make society safe, and I think life without parole does that," said Rep. Deborah Kottel, D-Great Falls. "I think it is too easy to take the life of a person under the guise of making society safe."

Those seeking to keep the death penalty say any problems with the current system can be fixed. They also argued the death penalty is for only the most heinous criminals, deters murderers, is used very rarely in Montana and then in only the right cases.

"I think you have people out there who are animals," said Rep. Ken Peterson, R-Billings. "If the crime justifies it, you execute them. If it doesn't, you put them in prison."

2 inmates are on death row in Montana. One is Canadian Ronald A. Smith, who has been the subject of some debate in his home country over whether to keep seeking clemency that would change his penalty to life in prison. In the early 1980s Smith was convicted of a double murder.

Montana has executed 3 people since reinstatement of the death penalty in the 1970s. The most recent execution, of convicted murderer David Dawson, occurred in 2006.

When New Mexico banned the death penalty this month, it became just the 2nd state after New Jersey to do so since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. 14 other states do not impose capital punishment.

Source: Great Falls Tribune, March 31, 2009

Judge Keller's disclosures omit nearly $2 million in real estate, public records show

The presiding judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, while seeking state aid to defend herself against ethics charges, failed to abide by legal requirements that she disclose nearly $2 million in real estate holdings, according to an analysis of public records by The Dallas Morning News.

Sharon Keller has sought dismissal of the charges on grounds that it would be "financially ruinous" for her to pay private counsel to fight allegations brought by the state Commission on Judicial Conduct that she violated her duties in a death penalty appeal.

Keller, the state's highest criminal court judge, faces possible removal from office if a special master agrees that she blocked a condemned inmate's last-minute effort to stop his execution in 2007 by refusing to extend the court's 5 p.m. closing time to allow his lawyers to file their plea. The inmate, Michael Richard, was executed within hours.

Keller has denied any wrongdoing in the Richard case. She did not respond to several requests for comment on the property disclosures, made in 2 calls to her Austin office, as well as via her lawyer.

She has also argued that the charges violate her constitutional right to counsel because the state refuses to allow her current attorney, Chip Babcock, to represent her at taxpayer expense. Babcock has said he would represent Keller for almost nothing, but that he believes state ethics rules prohibit him from doing that. He said he asked the state Ethics Commission for a clarification in Keller's case, but the commission declined to give one.

Babcock, a partner in one of the largest law firms in Texas, said that the proceeding could cost Keller several hundred thousand dollars and that it could consume most if not all of her income and assets.

He said he based his prediction on the resources Keller listed on her latest personal financial report to the state and had not asked to see any other financial statements from his client, a member of a well-known Dallas family.

Sworn statement

The sworn statement Keller was required to file with the Texas Ethics Commission last April reflected income of more than $275,000, including her annual state salary of $152,500. It also showed that she owned at least 100 shares of airline stock, a home in Austin and one commercial
property in Dallas. County tax records valued the properties at about $1 million.

Keller's statement did not list her ownership interest in seven other residential and commercial properties in Dallas and Tarrant counties. Those properties are valued collectively by county appraisal districts at about $1.9 million.

Among Keller's unlisted properties are 2 homes valued together at just over $1 million in the family's compound across from the Dallas Arboretum. Keller is listed as sole owner under Sharon Batjer, her married name. She was divorced in 1982.

The other omissions include two Keller-owned properties valued at about $823,000: a vacant commercial site in Euless and an occupied commercial property next to Keller's Drive-In on East Northwest Highway, a landmark hamburger restaurant operated since 1965 by the judge's father, Jack. Also not disclosed are 3 properties valued at $114,000 and owned by Keller's 27-year-old son, a law student whom she claims as a dependent.

The Texas Government Code requires state officeholders to disclose "all beneficial interests in real property" held by the official, a spouse or any dependents. Failure to comply could subject the officeholder to civil and criminal penalties.

The Texas Ethics Commission does not routinely check the accuracy or completeness of financial disclosure reports, only that they have been filed, said Tim Sorrells, the commission's deputy general counsel.

The judge's assets

Keller's lawyer, Babcock, said he was not aware of the extent of her holdings until told about them by The News.

Babcock then acknowledged that Keller might be able to sell enough property to pay her legal bills. But he said the amount of Keller's assets should not alter their legal position that she should be allowed to benefit from reduced attorney's fees or be provided his legal services at state expense.

"The argument ought to be the same whether you came to the bench after having amassed substantial assets or you inherited it, or you don't have any assets," he said.

Keller's assets, including those she is not required to disclose to the state, could reveal that she is even wealthier.

Her 2008 statement to the ethics commission did not list about $3 million in real estate held by three family corporations or trusts, in which she has an interest. State law requires that officeholders list any corporations in which they are an officer or director. Keller did not do so for the three family-run entities, although she did acknowledge earning income of at least $25,000 from a trust in her father's name.

State law does not require asset disclosure if the officeholder does not have at least a 50 percent interest. Records do not show Keller's percentage holdings, and neither she nor her lawyer would comment on any details of The News' findings. Keller also did not list two properties worth about $796,000, owned by a family corporation in which her dependent son is an officer, as she is required by law to do.

Officeholders are also required to list outstanding debt over $1,000; Keller listed none on her latest report to the ethics commission.

Last year, Keller bought a residential property in Hunt County, valued on tax rolls at $251,000. She will not have to report that property until this year's filing.

'Extremely outrageous'

Andrew Wheat, research director of Texans for Public Justice, the Austin-based watchdog group that monitors officeholder finances, decried Keller's omissions as an "extremely outrageous" betrayal of the public trust.

"It leaves one speechless to see so much left out of her personal financial statements on the one hand and then on the other hand to see her making her claims that hiring a private attorney would be financially ruinous," he said.

While it is possible that some of the properties might be exempt from disclosure, Wheat said, the majority of omissions appear to fall within the law's requirements.

"Is this an insane amount of carelessness year after year, in which case should this person be our highest criminal judge?" he said. "Is it willful hiding of assets, in which case that person probably isn't fit to be our top criminal judge? I don't know."

The News compiled a list of properties owned solely by Keller, her son, Temple, or in partnership with her parents or siblings and compared them with the sworn financial statements she filed with the state ethics commission between 2005 and 2008.

Keller omitted the same seven properties in each of her sworn reports, the review showed.

Judges, like all other state officeholders, are required to disclose their personal finances to allow the public to know their backgrounds and spot conflicts of interest that may require them to be disqualified from participating in a particular case.

In 1999, Keller transferred her ownership of one commercial property near Keller's Drive-In to another family-run corporation after The Dallas Observer reported the judge was the landlord for a strip club that occupied her property. The property is now occupied by a pawn shop.

One of the commercial properties Keller did not disclose involves a lease to a gas drilling company. The 2nd property is leased to a rental car company. The family businesses in which she has an interest involve a bank in Arlington, a barbecue restaurant in Arlington and a medical clinic in Garland.

Chuck Herring, an Austin lawyer who specializes in legal ethics, said the ethics commission takes seriously the failure to comply with disclosure requirements.

"Sure, that's a problem," he said. "And it potentially can reflect upon the judge's performance of his or her duties and simply the openness of government that we require."

Source: Dallas Morning News, March 30, 2009

In China, a quiet push against executions

Nie Shubin (family picture)

Killed in 1994, Nie Shubin has become the face of a growing movement to ban the death penalty

BEIJING – Everyone knew Nie Shubin as a quiet young man, just 20 – gentle, shy, even introverted – the only son of Zhang Huanzhi and husband Nie Xuesheng.

He had a slight stutter when he spoke.

He was a welder at a factory near Shijiazhuang, an industrial town about a three-hour drive south of Beijing. And he owned a blue bicycle – which proved to be his undoing.

After a 38-year-old woman was raped and murdered in a local cornfield, children spoke of seeing a blue bike near the scene.

Police came for Nie, arrested him and beat him until he confessed.

He was convicted after a two-hour trial and executed in customary Chinese fashion: kneeling on the ground, with a single bullet to the back of the head fired at close range.

Nie Shubin's is an old case – the incident took place in 1994.

But what keeps the case current in Chinese legal circles is this: in 2005, another man confessed to the murder in painstaking and convincing detail. Police admitted they believed him.

But Nie's name has never been cleared.

His family grieves still.

Ask lawyers in China why there should be an end to the death penalty – here in a country that executed more people last year than all other countries in the world combined – and the first case they'll mention is Nie Shubin's.

In a society where government control over public information is supreme, the leaked details of Nie's case offer a rare glimpse into the miscarriage of justice in China.

Lawyers and legal scholars fear there may be many more like it. But verifiable information is hard to come by.

That's because the shroud of secrecy that prevails over the use of the death penalty in China is so thick that even the number of people who are executed each year is a state secret.

Amnesty International says a minimum of 1,718 people were executed in China last year.

But the San Francisco-based Dui Hua Foundation, run by business executive-turned-human-rights advocate John Kamm – who still maintains good relations with government officials – estimates the actual figure is even higher.

"We estimate that the number of executions in 2008 exceeded 5,000 and may have been as high as 7,000," he says.

Most, it is believed, still die as Nie did – by gunshot.

In previous decades, it was customary for the state to charge the family of the executed a "bullet fee," that is, the actual cost of the bullet, a practice now said to have ceased.

State officials announced in 1997 that lethal injection was being introduced as a "more humane" means of execution.

And in 2004, a criminal known as Zhang "Nine-Fingered Devil" Shiqiang, was among the first to die by lethal injection in one of China's newly minted mobile death vans.

Officials explained the vans were introduced to promote the greater use of injections as the vehicles could move efficiently through a province from one detention facility to the next, as needed.

But it's not efficiency that rights advocates, senior lawyers and legal scholars hope for. It's the abolition of the death penalty. Achieving it in China won't be easy.

The reasons to end to capital punishment are well known, says veteran Beijing lawyer Mo Shaoping.

"It's a barbaric practice. Once it's done, it can't be undone. And scientific research shows it has very little deterrent effect on the commission of lethal crimes."

But the obstacles to overturning it are huge.

"The idea of paying for a life with a life is just deeply rooted in the culture," says Mo. "Public opinion polls have shown that Chinese people don't support the idea of abolishing the death penalty."

Liu Renwen, a law professor at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, knows all about that.

In 2003, he gave an interview to a state-run magazine in which he raised the idea of abolishing the death penalty.

The online reaction from netizens was "fierce," "offensive" and "even abusive," he says. "More than 90 per cent opposed the idea."

He gave an interview to a different state-run publication last year.

"This time, the majority was still against it. But there were no personal attacks – and the tone wasn't as strong.

"What's more, deeper questions were raised, like whether the abolition of the death penalty might solve the problem of miscarriages of justice."

Other hopeful signs have emerged.

For nearly 25 years, beginning in 1982 when the Supreme People's Court granted lower courts the right to issue death penalties without review, China may have experienced executions on an almost industrial scale.

Some scholars estimate as many as 10,000 people may have been executed in some years.

But on Jan, 1, 2007, the court reasserted its right of review with immediate effect, overturning 15 per cent of all death sentences in that year, many for lack of evidence.

And something else: at the same time executions dropped, so did violent crimes.

"Fewer executions, but a drop in crime. What does this tell us?" Liu Renwen wrote in a scholarly paper. "That the death penalty does not safeguard social order ... that social order could still be maintained with fewer or even zero sentences."

So, if you build a set of persuasive arguments for the abolition of the death penalty, will it come?

Lawyer Mo thinks abolition of the death penalty in China will come, eventually.

But there are practical improvements that can be encouraged in the meantime, he says: that the government should be encouraged to end the secrecy and publish the numbers of those executed and that the array of offences for which a person can be put to death should be reduced from the current 68.

Liu Renwen hopes the day executions end comes during his lifetime.

"Changes are taking place in Chinese people's minds. I think they tend to be more respectful of human life."

In China, 68 crimes can carry the death penalty, including murder, rape and the kidnapping of women and children. "Plotting to jeopardize the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of the country," can also carry the death penalty. But there are many non-violent crimes on the list, too. These include:
• Breaching dikes
• Looting graves
• Running a house of prostitution
• Sabotaging electrical power
• Smuggling cultural relics
• Taking bribes
• Fraudulent fundraising
• Counterfeiting money
• Credit card fraud
• Smuggling rare plants


Source: The 1997 Criminal Code of the People's Republic of China

Source: The Star, March 29, 2009

Pope might back Jindal on death penalty

New Mexico's Roman Catholic governor last week signed legislation that abolished the death penalty after discussing the issue with a Roman Catholic archbishop.

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley also a Catholic marched against capital punishment in a failed attempt earlier this month to eliminate executions in his state.

Gov. Bobby Jindal, who converted to Catholicism as a young man, said that despite efforts in other states to abolish capital punishment, he has no qualms about the death penalty, which is law in Louisiana. He wants to extend capital punishment to perpetrators who rape young children.

The issue of religion surfaced recently in an interview with Jindal after some church officials urged several other Catholic governors to support abolition of the death penalty in their states.

Jindal said the Catholic Church deems the death penalty to be permissible.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops disagrees with Jindal. But Pope Benedict may be in his corner.

"The catechism opposes the death penalty. The catechism is pretty clear," said Kathy Saile, director of domestic social development for the Washington, D.C.,-based bishops conference, referring to the handbook of Catholic principles.

The conference's fact sheet titled "What Every Catholic Should Know About the Death Penalty" states that Catholics should comfort victims' families while acknowledging "the God-given dignity of every human life, even those who do great harm."

15 states prohibit the death penalty.

Saile concedes that the conference has not taken a position on whether Catholic politicians such as Jindal should be denied Communion for supporting capital punishment.

Some Catholic politicians who call themselves abortion-rights advocates have faced that.

Former Gov. Kathleen Blanco, a Catholic, declined to discuss whether she wrestled with the issue of possibly having to sign a death warrant. No one was executed while she was governor.

Pope Benedict's predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was on record as opposing capital punishment.

In 1999, Pope John Paul II made an appeal "for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary." A year earlier, the pope urged then-Texas Gov. George W. Bush to grant clemency to Karla Faye Tucker, an alleged pickaxe murderer who found religion behind bars. Bush refused the request.

Shortly before becoming Pope Benedict, Cardinal Ratzinger weighed in on one of the most important issues to a Catholic: the receiving of Holy Communion.

Communion can be denied to those considered unworthy.

Ratzinger concluded in a letter that capital punishment and warfare do not carry the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia and that there may be "a legitimate diversity of opinion among Catholics" on the death penalty and war but not on the latter 2 issues.

Saile said she is not aware of the former cardinal speaking about the death penalty since becoming pope.

Across the United States, at least 13 governors are Catholic. Only one of those governors, New Mexico's Bill Richardson, is in a state that does not permit executions.

Colorado's Bill Vitter, a practicing Catholic, said before becoming governor that he would not impose his personal beliefs on public policy.

"No doubt, there will be times when my decisions on some issues may be at odds with the orthodoxy of the Catholic Church," he said in an interview.

Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C., said Pope John Paul II forced Catholic officials in the U.S. to take a stance on capital punishment.

There was a time when being a Catholic governor would not raise any questions on the death penalty, Dieter said in an interview. "Today, that is no longer true."

However, Dieter said, church officials, including the current pope, do not seem to be giving the death penalty the same focus it had 10 years ago.

"I believe the opposition is still there, but it is not as pronounced or public as it was," Dieter said. "This probably eases the pressure on Catholic officials who represent a broad diversity of constituents on this issue."

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops keeps a tally of the number of Catholics in each state. Among the top 5 states with the largest percentage of Catholics, only Connecticut allows executions. New Jersey, where 41 % are Catholic, repealed the death penalty 2 years ago. Connecticut has executed 1 person since 1976.

"For the longest time, we were a state that only had the death penalty in name," said Ben Jones, executive director of Connecticut Network to Abolish the Death Penalty.

That changed, Jones said, after Michael Ross admitted raping and killing 8 women. Ross refused to fight his execution, and Connecticut put him to death in 2005.

His death marked the 1st execution in New England in 45 years.

As Ross' execution approached, Catholic church leaders in Connecticut spoke out against the death penalty. They directed an anti-death penalty stance to be explained to parishioners at Mass.

Connecticut Bishop William Lori told National Catholic Reporter in 2005 that the death penalty "offers the tragic illusion that we can defend life by taking life."

Earlier this year, Catholic officials urged Richardson to support legislation repealing the death penalty in New Mexico and hailed him when he signed the bill into law on March 18.

News reports claimed that talks with Archbishop of Santa Fe Michael Sheehan helped sway Richardson, who previously was opposed to abolishing the death penalty.

However, Richardson made clear last week that it was the possibility of executing an innocent person that weighed heaviest on his conscience.

"In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings," he said.

Source: The Advocate, March 30, 2009

Former Florida Warden Haunted by Botched Execution

During my tenure as Warden at Florida State Prison it was my duty to oversee the executions of three men: John Earl Bush, John Mills Jr. and Pedro Medina. Remembering every gruesome detail of their deaths is haunting.

The flames that consumed Pedro Medina's head when the execution went seriously awry, the smoke, the putrid odor, and his death by inferno is deeply embedded in my brain.The memory of telling the executioner to continue with the killing, despite the malfunctioning electric chair, and being at a point of no-return, plagues me still.

When I became warden I learned that it was tradition for the "death team" to go out for breakfast the morning after an execution. On the early morning after John Bush's execution the 'traditional breakfast' was held 15 miles south of the death chamber at a Shoney's in Starke, Florida. This was my first execution and I felt that tradition was important and moreover, the well being of the 'team' was my responsibility. In this small town of 5,000 most everyone works at the prison, is retired from the prison or has a family member in the business. Everyone in the restaurant knew who we were and what we had just done... there were even a few 'high five signs.' While stirring my scrambbled eggs into hot grits, I began to realize the full import of the spectacle around us. Looking across the room, I could see the female attorney who had represented Bush. I saw my own sickness on her sad face and decided that breakfast after executions just didn't fit. It was my first and my last traditional death breakfast. It simply appeared celebratory from too many angles.

Minutes before an execution it's the warden's responsibility to sit with the prisoner and read the death warrant aloud after explaining that it is a state law requirement. I asked the condemned men if there was anything that could be done for them or if there was anyone I could call or if they had something very personal and confidential they'd like me to pass on...following of course, their imminent death. While I shall never share any of the words passed to me during those quiet moments it can be said that the whispers were sincere and promises were kept.

Searching my soul for answers that would satisfy the question on just why were we killing people and why our governor and politicians would do their 'chest pounding' over these ghastly spectacles was difficult. I began to remember myself as the person who went to Florida State Prison with a firm belief in the death penalty. And even though I still professed this belief, the questions of why we were doing this and if it were necessary, would not leave my mind. While appalled by the physical act of tying a person to a chair and burning him to death, I did not deny the reasons for the act.

Here I want to say that one must be careful in searching his soul…one may just find that God is there and that He does not support the barbaric idea that man should execute man.

During the renewal of my faith and my conversion to the Catholic Church, I was asked to speak out about my feelings on the death penalty.

After twenty-three years in Corrections, I have come to the conclusion that killing people is wrong. We have no business doing it, except in self-defense, in defense of someone else or in defense of the nation. And it's wrong for us to ask others do it for us. Looking back I wish I had never been involved in carrying out the death penalty. We have an alternative that doesn't lower us to the level of the killer: permanent imprisonment. It is cheaper, keeps society safe and offers swift justice to the victims.

I have found that my experience and notoriety as a warden who carried out executions provides a good platform to reach the public. I say to the many groups I've spoken to in the past few years that I'll 'tell my story to anyone who'll stand in front of me long enough to hear it.'


Ron McAndrew (pictured) is a 22-year veteran with the Florida Department of Corrections. He also served as Director of the Orange County Jail in Florida for one year. For the last three years he has worked as a prison and jail consultant, and as an expert witness He is a member of Saint John the Baptist Catholic Community in Dunnellon, Florida. To learn more about McAndrew's journey, visit: www.RonMcAndrew.com

Source: Death Penalty Focus, March 28, 2009

It is time to end the sentence of shame for family members of the executed

Imagine you are ten. Imagine your father. A black hood covers his head. A rope around his neck. His arms, tied behind his back. The floor opens. The rope snaps. He's dead. Period.

But not the end of the sentence.

It was just the beginning of the sentence for my mother. She was that ten years old. She never actually saw her father's execution in Folsom Prison, in 1924, but she never stopped seeing it. The vision grew larger and larger until it blotted out the obvious-her art, her family, her life.

My beautiful mother was so intelligent and had such an imagination--she was capable of writing a best selling novel. But she only published two books. Her implosion began when I was 10, the same age that she was when her father was executed.

The rope snapped, the sentence continued.

When I was an adolescent, I would often find my mother, after my brother and father went to bed, in her rocking chair in the darkened living room, drinking Ancient Age, smoking Merits. The red coals swung in the dark.

It was my 21st summer, 1968, before my senior year at Berkeley, when my mother told me about my grandfather's execution. My older brother was told when he was 18. The story of our grandfather's death sentence was our rite of passage into adulthood.

Strangely, two of my acquaintances at school were related to characters in my grandfather's story---the judge's granddaughter and the district attorney's grandson. I came close to sharing my family's secret with the judge's granddaughter, but held back. I felt apart and fearful, yet I told myself that my grandfather's murder and execution had nothing to do with me.

I had my first bout with depression during the middle of my senior year -- just months after my mother had confided in me. The sentence continued.

My mother and I spoke of my grandfather less than a dozen times before her death in 1997. Most of the conversations were bleak and conspiratorial. Stay away from finding out about him, from assuming the shame, she warned.

It was obvious from my mother's warnings that she still carried the burden of shame and had not reached reconciliation with her father's deed or death. After her death, I spoke with several of her closest friends about my grandfather, but no one knew what had happened to him.

I was 40 when I began therapy. With my therapist's support I began the exhausting process of learning about my grandfather. The crime had created a media frenzy, so there were plenty of old newspaper accounts of what had happened.

As I delved deeper into my grandfather's story I kept picturing my 10 year old mother in the middle of the storm; sitting in Governor Richardson's office as my grandmother begged for clemency. I imagined the teasing and taunting that she must have endured. (I taught middle school for 29 years, so I know how innocently cruel children can be to each other at that age.) Knowing my mother's imagination, I am sure she struggled to block out the image of her beloved father hanging at the end of the rope.

Until my research, I had always felt uncomfortable being against the death penalty. Our government said we needed executions to be safe. Murders would increase if we did not kill the killers. We shouldn't waste our money keeping them alive. It's justice.

When I read the petitions and letters to Governor Richardson asking for clemency on behalf of my grandfather, I began to wonder about executions as a punishment. Reading the creepy letters requesting to witness the execution, and the doctor's report of my grandfather's expiration in the gallows pushed me to explore the issue further.

In November 2000, I attended Committing to Conscious, a conference in San Francisco sponsored by Death Penalty Focus. It was a national gathering of anti-death penalty groups.

It was there that I became a member of Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation (MVFR).

MVFR is an organization made of people whose family members have been murdered or executed and who oppose the death penalty in all cases. MVFR advocates for programs and policies that promote crime prevention, alternatives to violence and addresses the needs of victims, helping them to rebuild their lives.

I also discovered that family members of the executed share many characteristics: drug abuse (my brother died of alcoholism), family disintegration (my grandfather had 7 brothers and sisters-I know no one from that family), depression, violence, shame and silence.

Through MVFR I have gained support and recognition-and most importantly, I have learned that my grandfather's execution, his sentence, does not have to end my story.

MVFR gave me a community and recognized my legitimacy. They introduced me to others who opposed the death penalty. Most importantly, they made me realize that I did not have to deny my family's past. My grandfather murdered another human being, but he is still my grandfather. His heinous act and the government's mutual participation in the cycle of killing sent my mother into an emotional exile.

But now I know I do not have to follow in her footsteps. With the support of organizations like DPF and MVFR, I have become empowered to speak out against the death penalty and the cycle of violence it perpetuates.

Janis Gay (pictured), a third generation Northern Californian, taught middle school in St. Helena for 29 years and is now the receptionist for a Napa Valley accounting firm. She serves on the Board of Directors for Murder Victims' Families for Reconciliation. Janis is the MVFR liaison for California Crime Victims for an Alternative to the Death Penalty, a coalition project with MVFR, Death Penalty Focus and the ACLU Northern California.

Abolish the Federal Death Penalty: Support S.650

As momentum builds in states to abolish the death penalty, U.S. Senator Russ Feingold reintroduced legislation on March 19, 2009 to abolish the death penalty at the federal level. Feingold's Federal Death Penalty Abolition Act of 2009 would put an immediate halt to federal executions and forbid the use of the death penalty as a sentence for violations of federal law. The use of the death penalty has been questioned by a range of prominent voices across the country, recently repealed in New Mexico and New Jersey. Feingold's bill would stop executions on the federal level, which are part of a death penalty system that has proven to be ineffective, wrought with racial disparities, and alarmingly costly.

"I oppose the death penalty because it is inconsistent with basic American principles of justice, liberty and equality," Feingold said. "Governor Bill Richardson and the New Mexico legislature's action to abolish the death penalty in that state adds to the growing momentum behind ending the death penalty in this country. It is truly unfortunate that we are in a shrinking minority of countries that continue to allow state-sponsored executions."

Feingold is not alone in his opposition to the death penalty. A range of prominent voices have questioned the system in recent years, including former FBI Director William Sessions, former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, law enforcement officials and many others across the political spectrum. In 2007, only China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan executed more people than the United States.

In 2007, Feingold chaired a Senate Judiciary Committee, Constitution Subcommittee hearing on oversight of the federal death penalty that highlighted the lack of transparency at the Department of Justice in the decision-making process about the death penalty and continuing problems of racial disparities in the federal system. Also in 2007, the American Bar Association called for a nationwide moratorium on capital punishment based on its detailed study of state death penalty systems, which found racial disparities, convictions based on bad evidence, grossly inadequate indigent defense systems, and a host of other problems with the implementation of capital punishment in this country. Click here to take action NOW!

Source: Death Penalty Focus, March 26, 2009

Death penalty drains justice system resources

I served as chief special prosecutor for the state of Montana for 21 years. During that time I was involved with the prosecution of many homicide cases, including five death penalty cases involving homicides committed by prison inmates against other inmates. I also managed the prosecution of 14 inmates for the 1991 prison riot homicides.

I believed at the time that the death penalty was needed to keep correctional officers safe from inmates serving a sentence of life without parole. Without the threat of execution, I thought, there would be no deterrent to prevent such inmates from taking the life of a correctional officer.

But my direct experience prosecuting prison homicides changed my mind. I have come to believe that the death penalty is an incalculable drain on our limited criminal justice resources. It makes bizarre celebrities of the sentenced inmates while essentially ignoring the suffering that victims' families must endure through decades of legal scrutiny. And frankly, it lessens our own humanity. It is time for Montana to repeal it.

I would never advocate for repealing the penalty if I thought it placed our correctional personnel at risk. During the years I prosecuted cases of violence in the prison, I learned to greatly admire and respect the dedicated corrections professionals that care for and manage the inmate population in all of our state and county detention facilities. Theirs is a thankless, stressful responsibility for which they are paid very little, especially given the demands of their jobs. Nonetheless, they continue to labor in the most difficult of environments for Montana's citizens.

But the best way to protect our correctional professionals is to recognize the need for a well-trained staff, for the commitment of adequate resources to operate the institutions safely, and for innovative management incentives that serve to reduce the opportunity for prison violence.

After the 1991 riots in the Montana State Prison's maximum-security unit, prison officials examined their protocols and made many positive changes to heighten security and ensure safety. As a result of those changes, there have been no homicides in the maximum security unit since the riot. The drop in homicides is not because of the death penalty - which existed in Montana both before and after 1991 and did nothing to deter the riots - nor because there are fewer dangerous people in the prison now than there once were. The decrease in homicides is a result of better procedures and other positive changes to the management of the prison.

The truth is that inmates serving sentences of life without the possibility of parole are not the primary threat to corrections officers' safety. Studies have shown that inmates serving life sentences are actually very manageable because they do not want to jeopardize the limited privileges they can earn in the system. A well-managed prison with proper classification and staffing can create incentives for lifers to behave while segregating and punishing those who are a threat before violence ever occurs. Our prison system already knows how to do this.

The reality is that the death penalty is not, and never has been, a deterrent. Prison safety depends on proper staffing, equipment, resources and training. Certainly the money spent on trying to put someone to death for over 20 years could find better use in addressing those practical needs of our correctional system.

by John Connor. J. Connor practices law in Helena

Source: BillingsGazette.com, March 26, 2009

Kazakhstan: amendments to legislation on capital punishment

March 25, 2009: the Majilis of Kazakhstan’s Parliament approved the draft law “On amendments to some legislative acts of the Republic of Kazakhstan on the issues of capital punishment”.

According to Kazakh Vice Minister of Justice Dulat Kustavletov, it proposed to outlaw capital punishment and replace it with life imprisonment.

The death penalty will be imposed only for terrorist crimes causing people's death and for heavy and especially grave crimes committed in time of war, with granting a sentenced person the right to intercede for mercy.

At present 18 crimes carry the death penaly, this will be reduced to 8 after the amendments are passed.

Sources: inform.kz, 24/03/2009

Belarus closer to moratorium on death penalty

March 25, 2009: Belarus is moving closer to a moratorium on the death penalty, a senior judicial official said.

"We have in essence come closer to a moratorium on the death penalty," said Valery Kalinkovich, deputy chairman of the Supreme Court. "The death penalty was carried out on two people in 2008."

Amnesty said in a report that four people were executed last year.

Sources: Reuters, 25/03/2009

Iran considering the death penalty for 'offensive' bloggers

Al Jazeera's Nazanin Sadri reports that Iran is considering a new law that would allow the death penalty for "offensive" bloggers:

Under a strict interpretation of Islamic law, individuals can be sentenced to death for two main categories of crime. The 1st is murder. The 2nd is known as 'fasad,' which means spreading mischief or undermining the authority or stability of the state. What that constitutes is open to interpretation.

In the past it has been applied to rape, adultery, drug-related offenses, and homosexual behavior. Iran now wants to introduce the death penalty for bloggers who write about and promote illegal activities.

Source: ThinkProgress, March 26, 2009

Montana Death Penalty Ban Heads Toward Crucial House Votes

The debate over the death penalty is ramping up as a proposed ban heads toward crucial votes in the Montana House.

The death penalty ban has already cleared the Republican-controlled state Senate. On Wednesday it came before a House committee split between the parties.

Gov. Brian Schweitzer has not ruled out signing the bill.

The ban would replace the death penalty with a mandatory sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

A long line of people advocating the ban included judges, former prosecutors, the Catholic church and other clergy, families of murder victims and others.

They argued, as they did in earlier Senate hearings, that it is more expensive to enforce a death penalty than it is to pay for life in prison, that the risk of accidentally executing an innocent man is too great, that it is unethical and is tough on justice and corrections system employees.

"We just don't need to do this. We are better than this," said John Connor, who successfully prosecuted death penalty cases when he was the Justice Department's chief prosecutor.

Those seeking to keep the death penalty in place say any problems with the system can be fixed. They argued the death penalty is just and deters criminals.

Karla Gray, recently retired Montana Supreme Court chief justice, said she did her part on the job to uphold the law in death penalty cases; but she said each case took a toll.

"Did I and others purposely and knowingly cause the death of another human being? We did. And we have to live with it," Gray said. "Please, get Montana out of the state-sanctioned homicide business."

Supporters of maintaining the death penalty included religious groups, families of murder victims and legislators.

Stephanie Hoskinson-Brandt of Kalispell said her 8-year-old sister was kidnaped, raped and killed in Arizona in 1984. She said the killer is still on death row in that state.

Hoskinson-Brandt, arguing in favor of the death penalty, said a more efficient and cost-effective system is needed to handle such cases.

"I think what we need to be doing is standing here talking about toughening our judicial system," she told the panel.

The House panel did not set a date to vote on the measure. If successful, the ban would face a vote on the full House floor.

Recently, New Mexico became just the second state after New Jersey to ban executions since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Fourteen other states do not impose capital punishment.

Source: Associated Press, March 26, 2009

New Mexico: Roosevelt farmer still faces death penalty

Even though the death penalty was repealed in New Mexico, a Roosevelt County farmer accused of arranging a murder-for-hire still faces possible execution.

Prosecutors filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty against William "Billy Joe" Watson last August.

Watson is accused of conspiring with the Aryan Brotherhood in the 2005 shooting death of Jimmy Bo Chun.

And though the governor signed a repeal of the death penalty Thursday, Watson is still facing possible execution because of a grandfather clause that allows the death penalty for crimes committed prior to July 1.

Chun, 71, was shot in his home around July 4, 2005.

The issue has set the stage for a debate over Watsons life between defense attorney Gary Mitchell and the state.

A hearing is scheduled for April 8 and 9 in district court in Portales, to determine if probable cause exists that 1 of 7 aggravating circumstances occurred to justify seeking the death penalty against the 44-year-old.

Murder-for-hire is a qualifying factor for the death penalty.

Mitchell said Tuesday he was already arguing against the constitutionality of the death penalty and that it was inappropriate to use against Watson, who even the state acknowledges was not the trigger man in the shooting.

But with the repeal of the death penalty, to exercise it against Watson would amount to selective execution, he said.

Mitchell said he plans to file a motion arguing his objection to the clause in the repeal within the next few days. He said he hopes the district attorney's office will see the moral contradiction and decide not to seek the death penalty in Watsons case.

"When you do a repeal of the death penalty, you can't repeal it for some and not for others, so it's all encompassing," Mitchell said.

"We have never said that the death penalty applies only to a segment of the community and right now we're saying that ... If it were based on race, creed or religion, the public would find this outrageous. You have it for all or you have it for no one."

Watson is charged with conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder.

Prosecutors have said he conspired with another Roosevelt County man, Donald Taylor, who they allege was a member of the Aryan Brotherhood.

Taylor is accused by federal authorities of carrying out the shooting and is also facing the death penalty under federal laws that remain in force.

Taylor was among a group of individuals allegedly connected to the Aryan Brotherhood and arrested by federal agents on racketeering and drug charges.

Prosecutors have alleged Watson and Taylor conspired to have Chun killed in exchange for 500 pounds of anhydrous ammonia, an ingredient frequently used in farming as a fertilizer, but also used to manufacture methamphetamine.

"(Watson) paid the bill by providing the anhydrous ammonia to federal agents. That is a contract from beginning to end that resulted in the death of Mr. Chun... We believe this is the classic case that the Legislature had in mind when they added murder for hire to the death penalty," District Attorney Matt Chandler said.

"We're certainly prepared to exercise the system to do what we can to bring the justice that the victim's family feels is warranted in this case."

Chandler said he, along with other prosecutors throughout the state lobbied against the legislature and the governor's repeal of the death penalty because it is an important tool for prosecutors.

Chandler believes the death penalty finds justice for families. He also said it acts as a deterrent, providing safety to police and detention officers from inmates serving life sentences, who might otherwise have nothing to lose by committing another murder.

"This is an issue that I have questioned internally," Chandler said. "I've talked to many law enforcement officers and many victims. And I've prayed over this issue and I firmly believe after speaking to those that have lost a loved one to a heinous, egregious murder that the death penalty should at least be an option for those families to exercise.

"My opinion comes after much thought and prayer and I feel very strongly about the way the law was on the books for the death penalty," Chandler said.

Mitchell said the death penalty is nothing more than a tool prosecutors use to coerce defendants into plea bargains out of fear for their lives.

"The deep dark secret of the death penalty that nobody wants to talk about is it gives tremendous bargaining power to the government and it holds a gun to your head," Mitchell said.

"My client is innocent of these charges and we intend to fight that, but it's always a dangerous fight when the state says 'if you lose we're going to execute you.' You've got to have a lot of willpower to proceed with your life on the line."

Chandler said the 9th Judicial District Attorney's office has, including Watson's case, pursued the death penalty against four men since 2004.

2 of the men, James Smith and Jerry Fuller, pleaded guilty, and Stanley Bedford was convicted by a jury. All 3 are serving life sentences of more than 100 years in prison.

Having the death penalty as an option was highly instrumental in obtaining the high sentences against Smith and Fuller, Chandler said.

Executions in New Mexico: Since 1933, New Mexico has executed 9 men. The most recent execution, in 2001, was the state's 1st since 1960.

The death penalty's repeal will not affect the 2 men currently on New Mexico's death row or those convicted of qualifying crimes that occurred prior to July 1.

Source: Clovis News Journal, March 25, 2009

Japan under fire for 'secretive, inhumane' death penalty

Amnesty International has renewed its calls for Japan to abolish its use of the death penalty, accusing the country of shrouding the practice in secrecy.

The calls come as the human rights organisation releases its annual report card on the death penalty around the world.

Amnesty said there were 15 executions in Japan last year - the highest known number since 1975. The group says 100 people are estimated to be on death row in the country, which performs executions in secret, usually by hanging.

Amnesty's Asia-Pacific director, Sam Zafiri, says people in Japan are not well informed about the capital punishment system, under which inmates are not told of their impending execution until the morning of their death, and their family is not told until after the execution.

"I think people would be surprised to hear that Japan, one of the most industrialised nations in the world, is still carrying out executions in this way," he told ABC's Radio National Breakfast.

"People on death row are kept in solitary confinement, sometimes for decades.

"Literally every day you wake up thinking that this could be the last day, which is a form of ill treatment that the UN and other bodies have frowned upon."

He provides the example of Hakamada Iwao, a prisoner who has been on death row since 1968, having spent the last 28 years in solitary confinement.

He says the treatment of Hakamada has been inhumane.

Mr Zafiri says Hakamada confessed to murder after 20 days of interrogation by police, without a lawyer present. In 2007, one of his trial judges publicly stated that he had always believed Hakamada was innocent.

Amnesty holds some hope that the situation in Japan could change, but acknowledges it is difficult to reform the system without more knowledge in the community.

"Some polls indicate that there is support for the death penalty among the Japanese public," Mr Zafiri said.

"What is interesting is that Japan is moving towards something akin to a jury system, with lay judges that can vote on sentences.

"I think this will lead to a debate, because the death penalty is something that is quite secret in Japan, not many people are aware of just how it's carried out.

"I think if they are forced to come face to face with the harsh reality... it will prompt a debate and a review of Japan's policy."

Global picture

Amnesty's latest snapshot of the death penalty presents grim reading. It says at least 8,864 people were sentenced to death in 52 countries during the year. Of those, 76 % were in Asia.

China carried out more executions than the rest of the world's nations put together, according to the report. An estimated 1,718 people were executed and it is estimated that a further 7,003 sentenced to death in China in 2008.

Mr Zafiri says it is hard to accurately report a figure due to secrecy in the Chinese Government.

The report says a feature of the death penalty around the world is an apparent discrimination against poor people and minorities.

"This is a problem from the wealthiest nations like the US to the poorest countries," Mr Zafiri said.

"In India for example, which hasn't carried out a death sentence but still has a death row, it discriminates against the poor and minorities."

There is a degree of optimism in the report, which notes that there are only a small number of countries around the world that use the death penalty.

"By contrast, the bad news is that hundreds of people continue to be sentenced to death and suffer in the many countries that have not yet formally abolished the death penalty," said Amnesty International secretary-general Irene Khan.

The report says most of the world is moving towards an end to capital punishment, with only 25 out of the 59 countries that use the death penalty reported to have executed people in 2008.

Last year the UN General Assembly adopted a landmark resolution calling for a global moratorium on the use of the death penalty. The vote was 104 in favour and 54 against.

Australia has not used the death penalty since 1967, when Ronald Ryan was hanged in Pentridge Prison, Victoria.

Source: ABC News, March 25, 2009

Amnesty: Almost 2,400 executed in 2008

Amnesty: China, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, U.S. account for nearly all executions.

Stoning, hanging often used in Iran's executions, Amnesty report finds.

United States carried out 37 executions, lowest since 1995, report finds.

Almost 2,400 people worldwide were executed last year, but most countries moved a step closer toward abolishing the death penalty, Amnesty International said Tuesday.

China carried out more executions than the rest of the world combined, with 1,718 people put to death, the human-rights group said.

With China, 4 other nations -- Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United States -- accounted for 93 percent of the 2,390 executions, according to the group's report "Death Sentences and Executions in 2008."

"The good news is that executions are only carried out by a small number of countries, which shows that we are moving closer to a death-penalty free world," Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary general, said in a statement.

"By contrast, the bad news is that hundreds of people continue to be sentenced to death and suffer in the many countries that have not yet formally abolished the death penalty."

59 countries retain the death penalty. But only 25 of them carried out executions in 2008. In Europe, only 1 country carried out the death sentence: Belarus, where 4 people were executed last year.

Among the report's findings:

Iran executed at least 346 people, including 8 juveniles. Stoning and hanging were methods often used.

Saudi Arabia put to death 102 people. It often publicly beheaded the condemned, and sometimes followed that by crucifying them.

The United States carried out 37 executions, but the number was the lowest since 1995.

A disproportionate number of death sentences were handed down to the poor and minorities in Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.

Many death row inmates face harsh detention conditions and psychological hardships. In Japan, for example, inmates are notified of their hanging on the morning of the execution; their families are informed after the inmates have been put to death.

Source: CNN, March 25, 2009

Report Says Executions Doubled in 2008

The number of executions worldwide nearly doubled last year compared to 2007, according to Amnesty International, and China put to death far more people than any other nation.

Amnesty International: Death Sentences and Executions in 2008 in Asian countries accounted for more executions than the rest of the world put together, the rights group said Tuesday in its annual report on the death penalty.

The group chronicled beheadings in Saudi Arabia; hangings in Japan, Iraq, Singapore and Sudan; lethal injections in China; an electrocution in the United States; firing squads in Afghanistan, Belarus and Vietnam; and stonings in Iran.

In all, 59 countries still have the death penalty on their books, but only 25 carried out executions last year. Two nations, Uzbekistan and Argentina, banned the death penalty last year. Amnesty said at least 2,390 people were executed worldwide in 2008, compared to its 2007 figure of at least 1,252.

With at least 1,718, China was responsible for 72 % of all executions in 2008, the report stated. After China were Iran (346), Saudi Arabia (102), the United States (37) and Pakistan (36), according to the group.

"Together they carried out 93 % of all executions worldwide," the report said.

Chinese authorities also handed down at least 7,003 new death sentences last year, although the report said the true total of both executions and death sentences "remains shrouded in secrecy." Some countries, China and North Korea among them, do not disclose the number of executions they carry out.

In China's case, "real figures are undoubtedly higher," the report stated.

Although admittedly incomplete, the figures from Amnesty International are widely accepted as authoritative. The United States State Department, for example, cited the group's statistics and findings in its recent report on human rights.

Amnesty International, which has long opposed the death penalty, said Europe and Central Asia have become "virtually a death-penalty-free zone" with only Belarus, the former Soviet republic, continuing to execute prisoners.

"In the Americas, only 1 state the United States consistently executes," the group said, noting that the number of U.S. executions last year, 37, was the lowest since 1994.

Source: New York Times, March 25, 2009

Amnesty International: Call for end to death penalty as global execution rate soars

THE number of executions across the globe almost doubled in 2008, and Asian countries led the world in the use of the death penalty, Amnesty International revealed yesterday.

The findings, released in the human rights organisation's annual survey of global death penalty use from January to December last year, show that at least 2,390 people were executed in 25 countries last year, up from 1,252 in 2007.

Meanwhile, at least 8,864 death sentences were handed down in 52 countries.

On the one hand, said Amnesty, there was comparatively good news in that only 25 or 1 in 8 countries carried out executions last year. Slightly more than one in four, or 59, retain the punishment.

However, the organisation warned that executions were carried out at a rate of about 7 a day during 2008. China alone was known to have carried out 1,718 executions, although Amnesty said the total figure was "undoubtedly" higher.

10 other countries from Asia Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Japan, North Korea, Malaysia, Mongolia, Pakistan, Singapore and Vietnam also carried out judicial killings.

Notable among these is Japan, which carried out 15 executions, the highest number in the country since 1975.

Meanwhile Belarus, which executed 4 people last year, is shown to be the only remaining executioner in Europe.

Irene Khan, Amnesty International's secretary-general, said: "The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Beheadings, electrocutions, hangings, lethal injections, shootings and stonings have no place in the 21st century.

"Capital punishment is not just an act but a legalised process of physical and psychological terror that culminates in people being killed by the state. It must be brought to an end."

Kate Allen, the organisation's UK director, said: "Japan's use of the death penalty is a hidden scandal.

"Death row prisoners are effectively turned into ghosts banned from talking to other prisoners and forbidden from watching television or engaging in meaningful activities.

"Perhaps most shockingly of all, Japanese prisoners are often denied information about their own executions until the last moment.

"The first they may know of their impending death is when guards come to collect them from their cells in the morning.

"Japan should impose a moratorium on all further executions as a matter of urgency."

Ms Khan has also voiced hopes that the United States could be heading towards abolition of the death penalty.

She cited the example of New Mexico's governor, Bill Richardson, who supports capital punishment but outlawed it earlier this year in his state over concerns that it was being misapplied.

Source: The Scotsman, March 25, 2009

Reflections on the Death Penalty: An innocent man spared execution speaks

Since I arrived in New York 2 years ago and began reporting continuously on the issue of the death penalty, I have asked myself every day what I ought to think about the state taking human lives.

With the start of the lay judge system in Japan this May, regular citizens will have to confront the death penalty directly, which I think is a chance for us to begin thinking about the death penalty as our problem. In Japan, however, there is a dearth of information citizens need to engage in such discussions. Is not the death penalty an issue concerning the public, and not solely the Ministry of Justice?

I recently went to Dallas, Texas, to visit Kerry Cook, a former death row inmate with a broad, easy smile that showed his gentle nature.

In 1977, Cook was arrested, convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a 21-year-old woman he did not commit. It wasn't until 1997 that the dubious nature of the investigation was recognized and Cook's innocence proven beyond a doubt by DNA evidence, by which time Cook had already spent 20 years on death row. In those 20 years, Cook saw 141 of his fellow inmates head to the execution chamber. It was a trip that Cook, too, faced, as his execution date was set in May 1988. Cook was only spared, and given time for his innocence to emerge, when the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a deferment just 11 days before he was to be executed.

Cook's own impending death was not the only one on his mind in those days before his scheduled execution, for his elder brother had been murdered in 1987. The shock of losing his brother was so great that Cook tried to commit suicide in prison twice.

Although Cook well knows the pain of a victim's family, he is firmly against the death penalty, "because there remains a possibility of killing innocent people like me, even if a trial proceeds cautiously. My brother was shot to death, but I am still opposed to the murderer being killed in prison," he says.

A 12-member jury handed down Cook's death sentence by a unanimous vote. During a retrial in 1994, the jury affirmed that he deserved to die. Why did 2 juries, which should have felt the common bonds of citizenship with Cook, make such a mistake?

"In an American courtroom the prosecutor and the judge control the trial," explains Cook. "The jury is not left with any doubt about the accusation as it comes from the prosecutor. And the jury may not have enough information to form their own questions."

Cook believes the essential problem with the death penalty is that regular citizens are out of touch with the issue. People just don't know about the lives of death row inmates, what they think about as they count out their final days, or how a person can be "murdered by the state."

"I didn't understand anything about the death penalty before being arrested," says Cook. "If someone had asked me then, I would have said, yes, the suspect committed a murder, so they deserve the death penalty."

A trend of increasingly harsh penalties based simply on the rationale that "the person did something bad," couldn't have been the original goal of citizen participation in criminal trials.

Regarding the disclosure of information about executions, the United States is far ahead of Japan. At present, 36 of the 50 American states have death penalty statutes on the books. By law, the execution date must be set 30 days or more before the actual deed, and that date is released to the public. It's possible to find execution dates on the Internet, and even meet the condemned prisoner, should he or she approve. In Missouri, such meetings are kept private, with no prison guards or officials present.

As a basic rule, both the families of the prisoners and their victims are allowed to attend executions, and the admission of journalists is also common. The state of Oklahoma even encourages journalists to come to executions. Coverage is so thorough as to include a detailed menu of the condemned's last meal, while just before the execution is carried out the prisoner is always asked for his or her final words. So as to make sure these are heard, a microphone is directed at the prisoner.

It appears that in the United States, no effort is spared in ensuring transparency and the absolute elimination of doubt, so as to enforce the death sentence "properly."

The situation in Japan is very different indeed. Meetings with death row inmates are severely restricted, the families of both the victims and the condemned are not informed of the execution date, and of course cannot attend. What death row inmates think, how they live and how they die we do not know. In the end, is it right for citizens with no real knowledge of the death penalty to hand down such sentences?

While doing research for the Mainichi's February series on the death penalty in Japan and the United States, the words of one woman I met in Oregon stuck in my mind. Aba Gayle, 72, who has forgiven and even now lends moral support to her daughter's murderer, said she believes the Japanese are committing murder by continuing the death penalty. Neither the government nor the minister of justice, nor even the executioner is taking the lives of Japan's condemned. Each and every one of us is doing the killing.

After Kerry Cook was released he got married and had a son, naming him Kerry Justice Cook, as he wanted to believe in justice again. However, his anguish continues. Cook was recently forced to transfer his son to a new school, as Justice was being bullied by his classmates for being the son of a death row prisoner.

"Once someone is sentenced to death, the family of the criminal is also sentenced to death," says Cook.

The decision to take someone's life is a heavy one. If the public is not sufficiently informed about the death penalty, then there is the danger we will make mistakes that cannot be taken back. There is a dire need for information about the death penalty to be disclosed to the public before our citizens take such a heavy responsibility on their shoulders.

Source: The Mainichi Newspapers, by Takayasu Ogura, New York Bureau, March 24, 2009

Idaho Senate takes aim at firing squad option

The Idaho Senate voted to take the firing squad off the law books as an alternative method of execution.

The bill passed 33-2 Monday. It's already cleared the House and now goes to Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter for signature.

According to the Idaho State Historical Society, the state has never executed someone by firing squad.

But it remained a possibility, as a backup should a Department of Correction director decide lethal injection was impractical.

Since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976, two people in the United States have died by firing squad, both in Utah: Gary Gilmore, made famous in a book by Norman Mailer, in 1977 and John Albert Taylor in 1996.

But Utah did away with firing squads in 2004.

"We're the only state left with it," said Sen. Denton Darrington, a Declo Republican, before the Senate vote.

Source: Associated Press, March 24, 2009

Iran: one hanged

March 20, 2009: One man was hanged last week in the prison of Sirjan (south-east Iranian province of Kerman) reported the state run news agency ISCA news.

The man was identified as "Reza" and was convicted of a murder 8 years ago according to the report. His age was not mentioned in the report.

Source: IHR, 21/03/2009

Japan: Death Penalty and the Media

When I tell people that 10 years ago the death penalty in Japan was re-instated, most people probably would respond, "What? Haven't we been applying the death penalty all this time?"

The United Nations General Assembly passed the "International Agreement to Abolish the Death Penalty" resolution in December, 1989. Because of such world-wide social pressure, Japan had already suspended the death penalty in November of that year. On February 26, 1993, however, 3 people were executed under orders of Gotoda Masaharu, the Minister of Justice. This was only 3 years and 4 months after suspension of the death penalty in Japan. Since then, in the last 10 years, the Ministry of Justice has applied the death penalty almost once every 6 months.

In contrast to Japan, the movement to abolish the death penalty has never stopped in the rest of the world. According to a survey taken by Amnesty Japan, as of January 1, 2003, the number of nations that have abolished the death penalty is 112, and the number of nations still practicing it is 83. Among the developed nations, though, only Japan and the United States still have the death penalty.

When the death penalty was first carried out again in 1993, the Yomiuri Newspaper reported this news on the front page of its morning edition. There was also extensive TV coverage in the morning news. By evening, many other newspapers also picked up the story.

For a while -- right after this happened -- the media immediately covered all executions, and brought up discussions about the death penalty whenever an execution took place. However, in the last several years, such news has become daily fare, and the public's interest has been languishing. Now, newspapers just report announcements or summarize what happened in just a few lines. When an execution took place this past September, just one year after the previous one, this also received little notice.

However, in contrast to the attitude toward actual executions, the trials and court decisions involving the death penalty are still closely watched. 11 people were given death sentences in 2000, 9 in 2001, 15 in 2002, and 12 as of September, 2003 [Cited in 'Forum 90: Requesting Ratification of the International Agreement to Abolish the Death Penalty' (Shikei Haishi Kokusai Joyaku no Hijun o Motomeru Foramu 90)]. Each time a death sentence was levied, the media heavily reported on the "feelings of the victim," and readers often felt that "The death penalty is fair, because the criminal committed murder." The news media contributes to this feeling of retributive punishment that the general public shares with the victims' families.

An issue to consider, however, is that the media leads the charge of this public cry for retribution even in cases where the convicted were actually innocent. For example, in the 'Muscle Relaxants Injection Case' (Kinshi Kanzai Jiken), after the Sendai District Court sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment on November 28, 2003, newspaper headlines reported such things as "Victims' Families Seek the Death Penalty." The next day on November 29th, the Asahi Newspaper interviewed the mother of one of the victims -- a little girl who was almost killed -- and declared that failure to apply the death penalty was unfair to the victims' families. The media leads the public in clamoring for the death penalty, even if the accused insists on his or her innocence.

There were actually 4 people in Japan who escaped their death sentences from the Supreme Court when new evidence was found that proved their innocence. Menda Sakae (of the Menda Case) and Akabori Masao (of the Shimada Case) were 2 of the 4. On November 14, 2003, they attended the meeting of Citizens to Abolish the Death Penalty sponsored by Amnesty Japan and others held in eastern Kyoto and attended by almost 160 people.

Mr. Menda, who was haunted by a nagging "fear of execution" for 32 years ever since he was first convicted, told people that, "Almost 70 judges had heard my case, but only 2 judges saw the truth of the matter. I also witnessed 70 people being executed while I was in prison. Among them, some had insisted on their innocence, like me." Mr. Akabori, who was in prison for 35 years after he was forced to sign a confession by police, also appealed to the public: "Many people died in prison or are executed, even if they insist on their innocence. Please abolish the death penalty."

Some victims' families also attended this meeting. Harada Masaharu, whose younger brother was killed twenty years ago, traveled from Aichi Prefecture to participate. Mr. Harada told the audience that after he visited his brother's assailant in prison and received a personal apology from him, he felt "something was healing in me." Mr. Harada then requested that the Ministry of Justice suspend this execution because he wished to continue meeting with his brother's murderer. However, several months after his request, this death-row inmate was executed anyway. Mr. Harada said, "I have felt no comfort in his execution. I wish people would also value the rights of the victims' families to resolve their feeling by talking with the assailants." At this meeting, I learned that victims' families also have such feelings, besides those of retributive punishment.

Lately, the movement to abolish the death penalty has spread to many Asian countries. Some leaders, such as those from South Korea and Taiwan, traveled from abroad to attend this meeting and share the situations in their countries. According to them, since the start of Kim Dae Jung's administration in 1998, there have been no executions in South Korea. Furthermore in 2001, a proposal to completely abolish the death penalty was introduced to the Diet, and is currently under consideration to become national law. In Taiwan, in May of 2003 the government proposed a set of "Basic Human Rights" which included abolishing the death penalty. This proposal is going to be submitted to the legislature in the very near future.

At this meeting we also learned of various local movements in Japan. We also saw pictures of the execution grounds at Tokyo Prison, and watched a video of a death sentence being carried out in Osaka Prison. I learned much from this 6-hour conference.

I was, however, very disappointed the following day. Only the Asahi Newspaper reported on the meeting. Even the Asahi, however, treated this as rather trivial news (only some forty lines and a secondary headline). Various people in the mass media said that the reason for this quiet treatment was to protect the right to privacy for victims but I think that this also ignores the right of the public to be informed about the death penalty.

Many people are being led astray -- thinking that having a feeling of retributive punishment is justified -- without knowing the actual facts and issues concerning the death penalty. I think one of the reasons why Japan is far behind the rest of the world in abolishing the death penalty is because of the way the media spins the news.

This article appeared in Shukan Kinyobi, December 12, 2003. It was translated for Japan Focus by Nobuko Adachi.

Yamaguchi Masanori is the Supervisor, Liaison Committee on Human Rights and the Conduct of the Mass Media and a Yomiuri Newspaper reporter.

Nobuko Adachi is a visiting assistant professor of Anthropology at Illinois State University and co-editor of Pan-Japan: The International Journal of the Japanese Diaspora. Her research interests and publications include Japanese immigration, linguistics, ethnohistory, ethnic identity, transnationalism, and cultural and human globalization.

Source: JapanFocus, March 21, 2009

Bali 9 families tell their stories

The nights are the worst, say the families of the Bali Nine ringleaders, clinging to hope as their loved ones launch final appeals against their death sentences.

Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran are two of nine young Australians arrested on April 17, 2005, in Denpasar over an attempt to smuggle more than eight kilograms of heroin from Indonesia to Australia.

Another - Scott Rush - also is facing the death penalty, while the other six were given sentences of 20 years in jail or life imprisonment.

Chan and Sukumaran have had previous appeals rejected.

If their appeals to the Supreme Court fail, their last resort is a bid for clemency from Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, which is unlikely to be granted.

Their families say sleep comes hard - as they think of what might await their loved ones.

"The nights are the worst time, when I go to bed," Sukumaran's mother Rajini has told the ABC TV program Compass.

"I just can't (sleep), I just lie there and think about all these things.

"Then I start praying ... and then I fall asleep after a long time."

It's even worse after visiting him in Kerobokan Prison.

"When you go there ... you go with such a positive attitude ... and you start to realise we're going to a prison and it's just really hard," his sister Brintha says.

His brother Chinthu says nothing can undue what the family has experienced.

"The whole thing has changed me," he says.

"The way I see it is that ... life before this happened, it'll never be that again.

"Even if everything changed and he came back tomorrow."

Chan's brother Michael says his sibling stopped going to church years ago, but in prison he is "looking back to his faith ... and I think that's carrying him a long way right now".

"When I do go visit him it is more about, you know, footie scores - the sport.

"I can ask him how his day has been, but you know it could be Groundhog Day - everything is pretty much the same for him in prison."

Melbourne barrister Julian McMahon, a member of Chan and Sukumaran's legal team, says the families remain in limbo.

They were sentenced to death at their trial and twice more on separate appeals - but their fight is not over.

"They're not allowed to grieve because no one has died," Mr McMahon tells Compass.

"They're not allowed to move on because there's hope that they might be able to save the person who is on death row.

"So they can't go forward, they can't go back - they're just stuck in the grey zone."

Source: 9new.com.au, March 20, 2009

New Mexico: Darren White looking for ways to bring back the death penalty

It is less than 24 hours after Gov. Bill Richardson announced he would sign the death penalty abolition bill. The death penalty has been replaced with life without the possibility of parole.

But already those who support capital punishment are looking for ways to bring it back. Bernalillo County Sheriff Darren white indicated today on his Twitter account.

"Repeal the Death Penalty Repeal: Researching constitutional initiative to overturn freshly signed legislation. Stay tuned!!!" White wrote.

It should be noted that the death penalty isn't completely dead yet. The 2 men who are on death row right now can still be executed, and Richardson said he will not commute their sentences.

Richardson called the decision to sign the bill "the most difficult decision of my political career." New Mexico became the 15th state in the United States to abolish the death penalty.

In announcing he would sign the bill, Richardson cited the fact that the criminal justice system is not perfect.

Source: New Mexico Independent, March 20, 2009

New Mexico: Governor's Statement after Signing Bill Abolishing the Death Penalty

SANTA FE - Governor Bill Richardson today signed House Bill 285, Repeal of the Death Penalty. The Governor's remarks follow:

Today marks the end of a long, personal journey for me and the issue of the death penalty.

Throughout my adult life, I have been a firm believer in the death penalty as a just punishment - in very rare instances, and only for the most heinous crimes. I still believe that.

But six years ago, when I took office as Governor of the State of New Mexico, I started to challenge my own thinking on the death penalty.

The issue became more real to me because I knew the day would come when one of two things might happen: I would either have to take action on legislation to repeal the death penalty, or more daunting, I might have to sign someone's death warrant.

I'll be honest. The prospect of either decision was extremely troubling. But I was elected by the people of New Mexico to make just this type of decision.

So, like many of the supporters who took the time to meet with me this week, I have believed the death penalty can serve as a deterrent to some who might consider murdering a law enforcement officer, a corrections officer, a witness to a crime or kidnapping and murdering a child. However, people continue to commit terrible crimes even in the face of the death penalty and responsible people on both sides of the debate disagree strongly on this issue.

But what we cannot disagree on is the finality of this ultimate punishment. Once a conclusive decision has been made and executed, it cannot be reversed. And it is in consideration of this, that I have made my decision.

I have decided to sign legislation that repeals the death penalty in the state of New Mexico.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.

But the reality is the system is not perfect, far from it. The system is inherently defective. DNA testing has proven that. Innocent people have been put on death row all across the country.

Even with advances in DNA and other forensic evidence technologies, we can't be 100-percent sure that only the truly guilty are convicted of capital crimes. Evidence, including DNA evidence, can be manipulated. Prosecutors can still abuse their powers. We cannot ensure competent defense counsel for all defendants. The sad truth is the wrong person can still be convicted in this day and age, and in cases where that conviction carries with it the ultimate sanction, we must have ultimate confidence - I would say certitude - that the system is without flaw or prejudice. Unfortunately, this is demonstrably not the case.

And it bothers me greatly that minorities are overrepresented in the prison population and on death row.

I have to say that all of the law enforcement officers, and especially the parents and spouses of murder victims, made compelling arguments to keep the death penalty. I respect their opinions and have taken their experiences to heart -- which is why I struggled - even today - before making my final decision.

Yes, the death penalty is a tool for law enforcement. But it's not the only tool. For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent. But it's not, and never will be, for many, many others.

While today's focus will be on the repeal of the death penalty, I want to make clear that this bill I'm signing actually makes New Mexico safer. With my signature, we now have the option of sentencing the worst criminals to life in prison without the possibility of parole. They will never get out of prison.

Faced with the reality that our system for imposing the death penalty can never be perfect, my conscience compels me to replace the death penalty with a solution that keeps society safe.

The bill I am signing today, which was courageously carried for so many years by Representative Gail Chasey, replaces the death penalty with true life without the possibility of parole - a sentence that ensures violent criminals are locked away from society forever, yet can be undone if an innocent person is wrongfully convicted. More than 130 death row inmates have been exonerated in the past 10 years in this country, including four New Mexicans - a fact I cannot ignore.

From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That's not something to be proud of.

In a society which values individual life and liberty above all else, where justice and not vengeance is the singular guiding principle of our system of criminal law, the potential for wrongful conviction and, God forbid, execution of an innocent person stands as anathema to our very sensibilities as human beings. That is why I'm signing this bill into law.

Source: Las Cruces Sun News, March 19, 2009

New Mexico abolishes the death penalty

SANTA FE — Tonight, Gov. Bill Richardson (pictured next to Barack Obama in 2007) signed his name to a law that abolishes the death penalty in New Mexico, saying “This has been the most difficult decision of my political career.”

With his signature, Richardson made the Land of Enchantment the 15th U.S. state to ban capital punishment and pushed it into the worldwide community of states and nations that have abolished the death penalty, including many countries in the European Union.

“I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime,” Richardson said. “If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.”

The news excited supporters who had been pushing for the repeal.

“This is a great day for New Mexico” said Juan Melendez, who spent 18 years on Florida’s death row before being exonerated of a murder he didn’t commit. Melendez, who lobbied lawmakers this year, lives in New Mexico now. In his case, the real killer confessed, making him the 99th person exonerated across the nation, he said.

Richardson’s decision, Melendez said, can help teach “the children that killing is wrong.”

He also said that New Mexico’s example will serve as inspiration for other western states that are looking at repealing the death penalty, including Colorado.

“Gov. Richardson’s courageous and enlightened decision should send a powerful message to other states, governors and Americans about the need to take a hard look at our error-prone, discriminatory and bankrupting system of capital punishment,” John Holdridge, Director of the ACLU Capital Punishment Project, said in a release.

“It is a system incapable of ensuring that innocent lives are not unjustly taken. It is a system plagued by racial, economic and geographic discrimination. And it is a system that police chiefs, criminologists and statistical experts around the country agree does not deter crime. Gov. Richardson deserves enormous credit for acting in the best interests of the people of his state and the people of this country,” the release continued.

The law also creates a sentence of life without parole to replace the death penalty for the most heinous crimes.

The governor’s decision came after New Mexicans by the thousands called, e-mailed and visited with him over the weekend after the Senate passed HB285 by a vote of 24-18 on Friday.

Of more than 9,400 calls, e-mails and walk-ins on legislation, 7,169 were for repeal compared to 2,244 against, the governor’s office said earlier this week.

Among those urging Richardson to sign the bill was Lt. Gov. Diane Denish.

“I support replacing the death penalty with a sentence of life in prison with no chance of parole,” Denish said in a news release Wednesday. “If you’ve committed murder, you will be behind bars the rest of your life, no exceptions. I will continue working with our police officers and prosecutors and with victims’ families to make sure justice is served.”

The lead up to Richardson’s decision attracted attention across the country as well as beyond its borders.

Viki Elkey of the New Mexico Coalition to Repeal the Death Penalty said Wednesday she had conducted more than 50 media interviews in recent days. And most of the reporters she spoke to hailed from European countries.

The respected British magazine, The Economist, exemplified the interest European countries have in the death penalty. The magazine had a story about the U.S. states considering the abolishment of the death penalty, including New Mexico.

New Mexico’s repeal is part of a larger national trend, partly because of the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated in recent years, according to supporters.

About 130 people in 26 states have been exonerated since the early 1970s, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. That number includes four people from New Mexico.

Another factor driving other states to consider abolishing the death penalty is the cost of prosecuting capital murder. Appeals over a several-year period often drive up the costs, say death penalty opponents. The dollars-and-cents argument comes at a time when the economy is in a shambles and many states are struggling to balance their budgets, including New Mexico.

New Mexico has executed one prisoner since 1976 — Terry Clark in 2001.

Opponents have argued unsuccessfully that abolishing the death penalty would remove a deterrent to heinous crimes. They also said a repeal would amount to a rollback of thousands of years of practice and would put police and correctional officers in harm’s way. Richardson acknowledged them in his announcement, saying, “Yes, the death penalty is a tool for law enforcement. But it’s not the only tool. For some would-be criminals, the death penalty may be a deterrent. But it’s not, and never will be, for many, many others.”

Opponents also have recalled crimes striking in their horror, including Terry Clark’s rape and murder of Dena Lynn Gore, a little girl he killed.

Other U.S. states considering whether to abolish the death penalty include Utah and Colorado, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Source: The New Mexico Independent, March 19, 2009