Chủ Nhật, 22 tháng 3, 2015

U.S.: Execution drug supply is running low, and states are looking for lethal backup plans

Texas Death Chamber
Nitrogen chamber? Firing squad? Electric chair?

A bulky wooden chair outfitted with leather straps sits in Huntsville's Texas Prison Museum, still fully functional, but unused in its faux death chamber. But before its retirement in 1964 this electric chair, dubbed Old Sparky, carried out 361 executions. For visitors, the chair stands as an illustration of how far Texas has advanced in capital punishment - a relic of what some consider past barbarism. But with a dwindling supply of lethal injection drugs in the U.S., states have started looking to bygone execution methods - not unlike Old Sparky - as a backup plan.

If Texas goes through with Kent Sprouse's execution April 9, it will have exhausted its last dose of pentobarbital, the lethal injection drug it has used since 2012. That leaves the state, which has the macabre distinction of being the nation's leading executioner, with 3 more April executions and no plan as to how to carry them out. Jason Clark, a spokesperson with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, said the department is "exploring all options, including the continued use of the pentobarbital or alternate drugs."

But could "all options" also include plugging Old Sparky back in?

That's what officials in other states are considering. This month, Alabama's House of Representatives voted on a bill that, in case of a continued drug shortage, would bring back the electric chair. And in May, the Tennessee Supreme Court will hear a challenge to the state's attempt to bring back the electric chair.

And if the electric chair sounds antiquated in this age of lethal injection, just consider the firing squad.

The Utah state legislature passed a bill this month that would reauthorize death by a firing squad if lethal injection drugs cannot be secured 30 days before an inmates' scheduled execution. Rep. Paul Ray, the bill's sponsor, decided to draft it after he learned last year that Utah had no execution drugs.

"It became apparent at that time that we needed a plan B just in case," Ray said. "We're still 2 or 3 years out on our next execution, but my thought was, 'Well, let's get something in place now. Just in case we need it, it'll be there.'"

Legislation to allow firing squads in Arkansas also was introduced this year, along with a failed attempt in Wyoming. Oklahoma, meanwhile, is toying with a new take on the gas chamber. The Oklahoma House passed a bill earlier in March that would allow nitrogen chamber executions. Like its predecessor, nitrogen chambers would involve an airtight chamber, but instead of filling it with poison gas, the nitrogen would cause death by asphyxiation.

But it isn't some nostalgia for brutality fueling this wave of states seemingly backpedaling on progress. It's increasingly becoming a necessity. A recent GAO report shows that the U.S. faces a widespread drug shortage that started in 2007.

As the stock of drugs began to dwindle, few domestic suppliers were able to to keep up with the deadly demand. So states turned to European pharmacies. It turned out to be a temporary fix, as 1 by 1 Italian, German and Dutch suppliers cut off drugs supplies when they discovered they were being used to kill. The companies' bans reflect a larger cultural difference - the U.S. is the only Western country that still carries out executions.

Keeping dates with death

But if the aim was to stymie executions, the plan looks like it backfired.

"Our hand has kind of been forced without the availability of drugs," Ray said. "There's still support for the death penalty, so you have to have a way to do that."

He continued, "The interesting thing is that these companies in Europe are opposed to the death penalty so they withhold these drugs. They seem to be opposed to the firing squad over there. But they're the reason we're using the firing squad. They need to understand that they might not like what we're doing, but they're the reason we're doing it."

Most of the state legislation, however, is nothing but the sketching of a backup plan. Still, with the clock ticking for 2015's roster of death row inmates, 10 across the country and 6 in the state, Texas needs a solution - fast. Even for trigger-happy Texas, it's unlikely that there will be a sudden shift to another form of execution - or at least not in the next month. Meghan Ryan, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, pointed out that even if states dodge the problems that lethal injections pose, new methods would be open to judicial scrutiny.

"The problem with going to other methods of execution is that there are potentially constitutional concerns about that, just like there are constitutional concerns about what states are doing now in experimenting with different lethal injection cocktails," Ryan said. "We're sort of in a state of uncertainty regarding executions in general."

Ryan said that the state push for lethal injection alternatives could hit a snag under the Eighth Amendment's bar on cruel and unusual punishment. It is unclear if bringing old techniques out of retirement when lethal injections exist would hold up in court.

"The idea that punishments ought to be evolving toward more humane methods of execution suggests that moving backward, such as toward the electric chair or firing squad, might be questionable or possibly unconstitutional," Ryan said.

Texas does have a stockpile of the sedative midazolam that it could adopt into its protocol with the stroke of a pen. But the controversial drug, which replaced the depleted sodium thiopental in some states' drug cocktails, has been used in 3 botched executions. Most notably, it was part of the horrific death of Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett last April, which drew worldwide attention to lethal injection practices.

"Every Department of Corrections in the country is looking at all of this," said Deborah Denno, a law professor at Fordham University and expert on lethal injections. "They're very aware that if they do anything wrong, and they're so capable of it, that this is going to set into motion a series of questions about this entire process."

And if midazolam's link to botched executions wasn't enough, there's the upcoming Supreme Court case brought by three Oklahoma death row inmates that centers on the drug. The case, which is set to be argued April 29, has already led judges in Florida and Oklahoma to halt executions until the court reaches a decision. So for now, it seems that midazolam's reputation will keep Texas - or any other state - from touching its stash.

"My sense is that they're probably scrambling to find a compounding pharmacy in this country that would make more pentobarbital for them. That would be my 1st guess," Denno said.

The long-term solution to lethal injection drug shortages will take time and likely many court battles to sort out. But it's time that Texas, at least, doesn't have - unless it wants to do what Ohio did when it halted executions indefinitely after one was botched in 2014. The chances of that in the Lone Star state? Slim, especially since there have been no efforts for the state to take a break from its busy schedule.

"Knowing the history of Texas and other states that are advocates of capital punishment, I think they will do what they can to try to keep executions in line and on schedule," Ryan said.

Much like the rest of the country, the next steps for Texas are unclear. The Supreme Court's guidance on midazolam usage could clear pathways for states to use the drug. On the flip side, it could completely bar it, sending the U.S. on another pharmaceutical scramble. Or perhaps the frustration of switching from one drug to another, each step taken with unsure footing, will lead states to alternatives like in Utah.

Meanwhile, Old Sparky is still on display.

Source: Commercial Appeal, March 22, 2015


The drugs don't work

Utah's "firing squad chair" used for the 2010 execution
of convicted killer Ronnie Lee Gardner
When lethal injection gets tricky, try guns or gas

In 1996 the state of Utah put John Albert Taylor, a man who had raped and murdered an 11-year-old girl, to death by firing squad. Chris Zimmerman, a retired police officer who investigated the murder, witnessed the execution. "Off to our left was Mr Taylor, off to the right, behind a wall, was the firing squad," he remembers. "There was a countdown, and the firing squad were ordered to aim and fire. I heard a simultaneous explosion - you couldn't tell the guns apart. He clenched his fists, his chest rose a little, like it was suddenly filled with gas. Then he unclenched his fists, the doctor walked out with a stethoscope and checked his pulse, and it was over."

Since 1976, when capital punishment was brought back in the United States, only 3 people have been executed by firing squad in America - all in Utah. The state banned the method in 2004 (though since the law did not apply to past cases, another man was shot in 2010). But on March 10th its legislature passed a law to bring back the guns. Utah is one of several states trying to ensure it can kill people if lethal injection, the preferred modern way, is not available. To the relief of abolitionists, not many are succeeding.

Lethal injection has been becoming more controversial, and trickier, since 2011, when the European Commission banned the sale of eight drugs if the purpose was to use them in executions. Many manufacturers, including American ones, fearing bad publicity as well as regulatory problems, stopped making or supplying drugs too. The result has been an acute shortage of the chemicals with which it is legally possible to execute people in most of the 32 states that still have the death penalty. Last year 35 people were executed in America, the fewest since 1994.

Several states have tried to acquire drugs in other ways - typically from crude "compounding pharmacies". But since this has not always worked, they must find alternatives. In Oklahoma, where a botched lethal injection took 43 awful minutes to kill a prisoner last year, the state House on March 3rd overwhelmingly approved a bill to allow the state to execute people by gassing them with nitrogen. On March 12th the Alabama House voted to reintroduce the electric chair. In Wyoming, the state House has passed a bill to bring back firing squads. Several states now also keep the names of their lethal-drug-suppliers secret, to protect them from protests.

So far, however, few alternatives have passed into law. Several states retain the option of the electric chair, and a few the use of hanging, but such executions are now extremely rare, and almost only because the prisoner requests it (the last man to die by the electric chair was in Virginia in 2013). Wyoming's bill on firing squads was held up by a debate about whether prisoners should be sedated, and ultimately failed; Utah's barely made it to a vote, and may yet be vetoed by the governor. Only in Tennessee has a law reintroducing the electric chair made it on to the books.

While executions are held up, some 3,000 condemned prisoners are left unsure of their fate. While waiting, they are in effect serving life sentences of solitary confinement, with few visitors allowed. Their number, however, is gently declining. In 2013, the latest year for which figures are available, more prisoners were removed from death row than were executed, mostly because their sentences had been commuted to life.

The problem with resurrecting older methods of execution, says Robert Dunham, the head of the Death Penalty Information Centre, an NGO, is that they will instantly be challenged as unconstitutional "cruel and unusual punishment" - creating as much delay as the drugs shortage. This is why many states moved away from the electric chair in the first place. In addition, polls suggest that even death-penalty supporters are squeamish about most alternatives to lethal injection. "Don't we care about how Utah is perceived in the country and in this world?", asked 1 Utah state representative in the firing-squad debate. Notoriously, the state was the 1st to seize its chance to execute a criminal after 1976. The case of Gary Gilmore caused a media sensation; and so did the state's latest use of the firing squad in 2010.

In reality, insists Mr Zimmerman, shooting is hardly more barbaric than poisoning with drugs. "There was no blood. He died so quickly he didn't bleed," he says of Taylor's execution. But whatever the alternatives, free-flowing drugs are not returning. On April 9th Texas is expected to use its last dose of pentobarbital, its preferred drug; earlier this month Georgia delayed an execution to check the quality of its supply. Death's proponents are not giving up, but life is getting harder.

Source: The Economist, March 22, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

Louisiana: Prosecutor apologizes for his role in sending innocent man to death row

This photo of Glenn Ford was taken by his lawyer on March 11, 2014— Ford's first day of freedom after 30 years in prison
This photo of Glenn Ford was taken by his lawyer
on March 11, 2014— Ford's first day of freedom after
30 years in prison—near St. Francisville, LA (Gary Clements)
In a letter published Friday in the Shreveport Times, he pleads for compensation for the man exonerated last year but battling cancer.

Marty Stroud was 33 years old when he fought to have Glenn Ford sentenced to death. Stroud was relatively new in his role as assistant district attorney in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, when Ford was indicted on a charge of 1st-degree murder for the 1983 killing of a watchmaker who ran a jewelry store in Shreveport.

"The case took about a week and a half," Stroud recalls now. Ford, a black man before an all-white jury, was convicted and sentenced in 1984. He remained on death row for three decades. It was the 1st and only death sentence Stroud won as a prosecutor.

A.M. "Marty" Stroud III of Shreveport, La., wrote a letter of apology, published Friday by the Shreveport Times, for his role in sending Glenn Ford, who has been exonerated, to death row for 30 years.

Last year, Ford was declared a free man and released from prison. His attorneys said upon his release he was sentenced because of questionable testimony as well as inexperienced defense. The lawyers he had during his initial trial had not tried a case before a jury before, Stroud said.

Other men had also initially been charged in the shooting of Isadore Rozeman, the watchmaker, but those charges were later dismissed.

In 2013, Ford's attorneys say they were told that a confidential informant for the Caddo Parish Sheriff's Office pointed to one of those other men as the person who killed Rozeman, though precise details remain unclear.

In March 2014, after prosecutors and Ford's attorneys filed motions to vacate his conviction, the state district court ordered his release. However, more than a year later, Ford is still fighting the state for compensation. He's also facing an advanced cancer diagnosis.

Stroud knows all of this. He says he knows now that Ford was innocent and he knows Ford's trial "was fundamentally unfair."

He knows Ford is dying, and he knows the state is not paying Ford for the decades he lost.

"When he was exonerated last year, I was thrilled," Stroud, 63, said in a telephone interview Friday. "I thought that justice had been done."

'FULL OF MYSELF'

A.M. "Marty" Stroud III, who grew up in Shreveport and is an attorney there, read about Ford's problems getting the state to pay him in the Shreveport Times.

Marty Stroud
Former prosecutor Marty Stroud III: 'Full of myself'
Stroud could not believe it, so he began working on a letter to the editor of the newspaper to try to put his thoughts together.

All of the things that had bothered him about the case, and all of the things about the case that had built up in him over the sleepless nights, poured out into the letter.

"I'm not one to write letters or get on soapboxes or anything like that," Stroud said. "But I felt that in this particular case, I had a unique view of what had happened, since I actually was there and had watched the progress through the system all these years."

The result, which totals more than 1,500 words, was published online Friday by the Shreveport Times and widely circulated on social media. In the bracing letter, Stroud apologized for his role in taking away 30 years of Ford's life. He says he was "arrogant, judgmental, narcissistic and very full of myself."

Stroud explained why he had turned against the death penalty he so eagerly sought in 1984, and he expressed both his remorse for what he did and his apology to Ford for what cannot be undone.

"I was not as interested in justice as I was in winning," he wrote.

He recalled that late in the trial, while arguing for the death sentence, he mocked Ford for wanting to stay alive to try to prove his innocence, adding: "I continued by saying this should be an affront to each of you jurors, for he showed no remorse, only contempt for your verdict."

Stroud continued: "How totally wrong was I."

He went on to work for a private firm after leaving the District Attorney's Office in 1989.

Stroud has worked on a mix of civil and criminal cases, including mounting defenses in death-penalty cases.

EXONERATION TALLY RISES

"I have a stain because I participated in the proceeding that, looking back on, it was fundamentally unfair," Stroud said in the phone interview. He said he knew that Ford's attorneys had not practiced criminal law and that he knew "it was a mismatch from the beginning."

Stroud also began seeing problems with a larger issue in the proceedings: The fact that Ford was not just found guilty, but found guilty and sentenced to death, which means he could have been executed before his innocence came to light.

The letter from Stroud comes as prosecutors around the country are putting increasing resources into trying to overturn false convictions.

The country had a record number of exonerations last year, a tally boosted by the efforts of prosecutors, according to the National Registry of Exonerations.

Mistaken convictions are a particular concern when they involve death sentences. 6 of the people exonerated last year had been sentenced to death, the registry said.

Wrongly executing someone is "the ultimate nightmare," Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. said recently. But Holder, who opposes the death penalty, called this an "inevitable" feature of the current capital punishment system, which relies on the judgment of people who can make mistakes.

Ford was the 144th death row inmate cleared since 1973, and he had spent more time on death row than any of these other inmates, the Death Penalty Information Center reported.

Stroud's unease with the death penalty has grown and deepened over the years, and he says Ford's case illustrates why he now opposes capital punishment.

He said after being on both sides of the issue, he has determined that it does not work.

"All it is is state-assisted revenge," he said, adding: "We can't do it. It's arbitrary, it's capricious. And I believe that it's barbaric."

Stroud was confident in his case in 1984, but he wishes now he had done more to look into the rumors that other people were involved in the crime.

In hindsight, he realizes he was an eager prosecutor less than a decade out of law school, one who wanted to make a name for himself.

BARRIER TO COMPENSATION

In Louisiana, the wrongfully imprisoned can receive up to $250,000 in compensation. Ford is trying to get the state to pay him for the years spent in prison, but court documents show that the state says he should not be given money because he went to a pawn shop to sell items that had been stolen from Rozeman's store. Attorneys for Ford said last year that one of the other men initially charged in the killing had given him jewelry to pawn.

Ford has also filed lawsuits claiming he was wrongfully imprisoned and that he was denied necessary medical care after signs emerged he may have cancer.

Within months of his release from the notorious Angola Prison last year, Ford was diagnosed with stage 3 lung cancer; he currently has stage 4 lung cancer, according to legal filings submitted in federal court this month.

In his letter, Stroud calls for Ford to be given "every penny" called for by Louisiana's law governing compensation for the wrongfully convicted. He also says he hopes for compassion he does not believe he has earned.

"I end with the hope that Providence will have more mercy for me than I showed Glenn Ford," he wrote. "But I am also sobered by the realization that I certainly am not deserving of it."

Source: Press Herald, March 22, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

Alabama: Efforts to reinstate electric chair may face court trouble

Alabama's 'Big Mama'
Alabama's 'Big Mama'
Alabama lawmakers hope to save the death penalty by bringing back the electric chair, but legal experts said the move could open the door to legal challenges, or even the end of executions in Alabama.

"Lawyers from all over the country will assemble to take on cases against electrocution," said Sharon Dolovich, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles. "You'd be able to bring out all the horrible evidence about people frying in the chair."

Earlier this month, the Alabama House of Representatives passed a bill that would require the use of the electric chair to kill condemned inmates if the U.S. Supreme Court declares lethal injection unconstitutional, or if the state runs out of the drugs needed to conduct an execution.

Both outcomes are possible this year. Executions in Alabama are effectively on hold until the U.S. Supreme Court reviews an Oklahoma case challenging the use of the drug midazolam in executions, on the grounds that it constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Midazolam, which is also part of Alabama's execution protocol, was used in a botched execution last year in which Oklahoma inmate Clayton Lockett lived for 43 minutes after being injected.

Drug makers themselves are also putting the squeeze on lethal injection. After the pharmaceutical company Akorn was named in court documents as a possible maker of Alabama's midazolam, the company asked for the state to return any drugs it bought for that purpose.

In a statement to The Star last week, the drug company Mylan also expressed its opposition to the use of its drugs to kill inmates. Mylan is a maker of rocuronium bromide, another drug in Alabama's lethal injection protocol, though the drugmaker said it never directly sold any rocuronium to the state.

Alabama's electric chair, nicknamed "Yellow Mama," has been in storage for more than a decade. It was the only method of execution until 2002, when state law allowed inmates to choose between electrocution and lethal injection. Every inmate since has chosen the gurney over the chair.

Supporters of the current electric chair bill said it will save capital punishment from obsolescence. They said death penalty opponents, through suits and boycotts against lethal injection, run the risk of crowding out the least painful form of execution.

"My understanding is that we adopted lethal injection because it was more humane," said Sen. Cam Ward, R-Alabaster, sponsor of the Senate version of the electric chair bill. "It's what we'd all prefer."

Saving capital punishment

The advantage of the electric chair, Ward said, was that it has never been struck down by the Supreme Court, despite past legal challenges.

But 1 question lingers. If the court finds it cruel and unusual to inject inmates with deadly drugs, can a ruling against the chair - with its own history of botched executions - be far behind?

Ward said that about half the lawyers he's spoken to about the issue expect significant legal challenges to the electric chair. Still, he expects fewer delays than with lethal injection, which can be challenged every time the drug combination changes.

"We've had more challenges with the drug cocktails than we ever had with the electric chair," he said.

13 years ago, however, lawmakers seemed convinced a ruling against the death penalty was imminent. Back then, Alabama was one of only 2 states still using the chair as the sole means of execution. Other states were rapidly switching to lethal injection, largely because of high-profile mishaps, such as a 1999 incident when flames rose from a Florida inmate's head during an execution.

"If we don't pass this bill, we're not going to have a death penalty in Alabama at all," then-Sen. Hinton Mitchem told the Associated Press in 2002, as he was pushing a lethal injection bill through the Senate.

Evolving standards

In fact, a court ruling against the chair wasn't exactly right around the corner. Nebraska retained the electric chair until 2008, when the Nebraska Supreme Court rejected it under a state constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment: a ban almost identical to the one that appears in the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

"Besides presenting a substantial risk of unnecessary pain, we conclude that electrocution is unnecessarily cruel in its purposeless infliction of physical violence and mutilation of the prisoner's body," the justices wrote.

In the Nebraska case, the court found that electrocution can burn inmates' bodies, that it doesn't necessarily kill instantly, and that some inmates have lived through the initial prescribed jolt of electricity. Much of that evidence wasn't available to the U.S. Supreme Court when it considered its 1st challenge to electrocution, back in 1890 when the chair was 1st introduced as an alternative to hanging.

Since then, law professors said, the nation's highest court has rarely taken up cases that challenge an execution method as unconstitutionally cruel. And the Supreme Court has never shot any method down.

"It's difficult to say with any degree of certainty," said Meghan Ryan, who teaches Eighth Amendment law at Southern Methodist University's law school. "It's true they've never ruled against it, but the court also considers 'evolving standards of decency' in these cases."

The court doesn't consider the "unusual" part of "cruel and unusual" separately, Ryan said. Still, the rarer a punishment, the more likely the court will say it doesn't fit modern standards of decency.

"If you look simply at the number of states using a method, the outlook for the electric chair isn't good," Ryan said.

Dolovich, the UCLA professor, said it might not take a Supreme Court case to end execution. If lower federal courts reject it with no disagreement between them, the Supreme Court might not take up the issue at all. While Supreme Court opinions are hard to predict, she said, there's a "good chance" there will be rulings against the chair in other federal courts.

Ryan said the current situation, with states reverting to older methods of execution to avoid problems with lethal injection, is unusual in history.

"For the most part, the movement has always been forward, to methods we felt were more humane," she said.

Source: Anniston Star, March 22, 2015


Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

Malaysia: Johor Sultan Grants Full Pardon To 1 Prisoner, Commutes 10 Death Sentences To Life Imprisonment

Sultan Ibrahim Almarhum Sultan Iskandar has consented to grant full pardon to a prisoner and commute the death sentences of 10 other prisoners to life imprisonment in conjunction with his coronation as the 5th Sultan of modern Johor Sunday.

Johor State Secretary Datuk Ismail Karim said the prisoner granted full pardon, a juvenile offender when he committed a murder offence in 2004, was released on March 19 after an audience with the Johor Sultan.

"Sultan Ibrahim had chaired a meeting of the Johor Pardons Board on March 5.

"The meeting gave consideration to 10 cases for pardon on the death penalty under Rule 114, Prison Regulations 2000 and 13 cases for review of sentences every 4 years (KHETS) under Rule 54, Prisons Regulation 2000," he told reporters at the Sultan Ibrahim Building, Bukit Timbalan, here.

Ismail said the meeting was attended by Johor Menteri Besar Datuk Seri Mohamed Khaled Nordin, Attorney-General Tan Sri Abdul Gani and 3 other Pardon Board members appointed by the Sultan.

He said on the advice of the Johor Pardons Board, Sultan Ibrahim gave the juveniles offender, now 28 years old, a reprieve and was released with the condition that he seek an audience with the Sultan to ensure he had repented.

Following that, the prisoner released under KHETS, had an audience with the Sultan at noon on March 19, at Istana Bukit Serene here, in the presence of his parents and accompanied by prison officers.

With the amnesty given, it was hoped that the pardoned prisoner would use his 2nd chance to contribute to his family, community and country, he said.

For the commutation of sentences for the 10 prisoners, Ismail said Sultan Ibrahim had consented to pardon them on the death penalty and commute their sentences to life imprisonment for three prisoners who had committed an offence under Section 39B (1) (a) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1952.

The sentences of 3 other prisoners who had committed offences under Section 3 of the Firearms (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 were also commuted to life imprisonment.

"A prisoner who committed an offence under Section 3 of the Firearms Act (Increased Penalties) Act 1971 and 3 others who committed offences under Section 302 of the Penal Code also had their death sentences withdrawn and instead were commuted to life sentence without parole," he said.

Source: Bernama, March 22, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

UN narcotics agency questioned over support for Saudi drugs executions

UN support for Saudi counter-narcotics policing has been questioned in light of figures which show that around half of the country’s 48 executions so far this year have been for drugs offences.

Legal charity Reprieve has unearthed a 2013 UN Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) document which states that it “agreed to cooperation with the [Saudi] General Directorate of Narcotics Control on drug control- related matters, including support to law enforcement efforts to combat illicit drug trafficking”.

As Saudi Arabia imposes the death penalty for non-violent drug offences, Reprieve has written to UNODC asking what, if any, safeguards it has put in place to ensure that cooperation with the country on counter-narcotics policing does not contribute to executions. Publicly-available reports analysed by Reprieve suggest that around half of the 48 executions Saudi Arabia has carried out so far in 2015 alone were for drugs offences.

Reprieve is also asking major funders of the UNODC – including the UK and other European states – to raise with it concerns over the contribution of its programmes to the death penalty in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran and Pakistan.

A letter sent by Reprieve to the UNODC’s Chief Executive, Yuri Fedotov, in February this year raising these concerns asks:
  • Whether the UNODC made any assessment of the human rights implications – particularly in relation to the death penalty – before agreeing to provide counter-narcotics enforcement assistance to Saudi Arabia;
  • Whether any assurances or measures were sought from the Saudi government to protect human right, either before or after UNODC agreed to provide assistance;
  • What assistance to Saudi Arabia of this nature UNODC is currently providing, and whether – in light of the recent executions for drugs offences – it intends to re-consider its provision of counter-narcotics law enforcement support in Saudi Arabia in the future.

UNODC’s response, received on 18 March, does not answer any of these questions. Despite stating that “we do not have a programme of assistance on counter-narcotics law enforcement” with Saudi Arabia, it fails to explain the apparent contradiction between this and the agreement set out in the 2013 document.

Maya Foa, Director of Reprieve’s death penalty team said: “2015 has seen Saudi Arabia is carrying out executions at an alarming rate – around half of which appear to be for non-violent drugs offences. This must ring alarm bells for those supporting counter-narcotics policing in the Kingdom. The UNODC must stop helping countries like Saudi Arabia send ever greater numbers to the swordsman’s blade. And Britain’s Home Office, as one of UNODC’s biggest donors, can no longer remain silent on this issue. Theresa May must urgently raise this matter with UNODC, and come clean over how British money may be supporting executions carried out by some of the world’s most abusive regimes.”

Source: Reprieve, March 21, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

Thứ Bảy, 21 tháng 3, 2015

Ohio court awards wrongly imprisoned man over $1 million

Bittersweet pic of Ricky Jackson and his lawyers upon
hearing his case dismissed. Thirty-nine years behind bars for
a crime he didn't commit.
Court of Claims: Exonerated Murder Suspect Granted $1 Million for Wrongful Imprisonment

Ricky Jackson v. State of Ohio Case. No. 2015-00127

A Cleveland man falsely imprisoned for 39 years will initially receive just more than $1 million from the state for his time behind bars, the Ohio Court of Claims ruled Thursday.

The court granted partial judgment to Ricky Jackson, 59, for the 14,178 days he spent in prison for a murder he did not commit. The Court of Claims filed a request with the State Controlling Board to transfer $1,008,055.80 to pay Jackson.

Jackson had his death sentence overturned and was released from an Ohio state prison in November 2014 after the key witness in the case against him recanted his story. Jackson was convicted of the 1975 murder of Harold Franks and maintained his innocence throughout his incarceration. Eddie Vernon, who was 12 at the time of the murder, revealed to a Cleveland newspaper in 2012 that he had lied about Jackson and 2 other men's involvement in the murder because he wanted to help the police. His remarks led to Jackson receiving a new trial.

On February 12, a Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court ruled that Jackson established he was wrongfully imprisoned, and Cuyahoga County Prosecuting Attorney Timothy McGinty did not appeal the ruling.

Jackson then presented the appropriate certification to the Court of Claims on Feb. 20. Court of Claims Judge Patrick M. McGrath ruled that pursuant to R.C. 2743.49 the state auditor's office calculated the current annual rate of compensation for a wrongfully imprisoned person is $51,902. During a status conference Wednesday, Judge McGrath said the state and Jackson's attorney Michele L. Berry, verified the number of days wrongfully incarcerated at 14,178.

Judge McGrath then issued a preliminary judgment that calls for the payment of 50 % of the calculated damages, which amounted to just more than $1 million, and directed the money be sent to Berry to establish an annuity account to pay Jackson for "damages for physical injury caused by wrongful imprisonment."

According to the National Registry of Exonerations, at the time of his release Jackson was considered the longest-serving person in the nation's history to be exonerated for his crime.

The Court of Claims is given original jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil actions filed against the state of Ohio and its agencies.

Source: Court News Ohio, March 20, 2015


Ohio court awards wrongly imprisoned man over $1 million

A man who was sentenced to death for a killing he didn't commit and spent nearly 4 decades behind bars will receive more than $1 million from the state for wrongful imprisonment, a court ruled Thursday.

Ricky Jackson, 58, was 1 of 3 men sent to death row in 1975 after being convicted of aggravated murder in the slaying of a businessman outside a corner store in Cleveland. Cuyahoga County prosecutors at the time relied on the testimony of a 13-year-old boy to convict Jackson and 2 brothers who were Jackson's best friends.

The boy, Eddie Vernon, said he saw the slaying, but he was in a school bus with other children about a block away when the businessman was shot. The now-grown Vernon signed an affidavit that the Ohio Innocence Project filed last March, saying police coerced him into testifying against Jackson, Wiley Bridgeman and Ronnie Bridgeman, now known as Kwame Ajamu.

Based on the recantation and corroborating testimony that Vernon lied in 1975, a judge dismissed the charges against the three men in November.

Jackson's payment comes after a judge ruled last month that all three men were entitled to compensation. The Court of Claims ordered the state to pay Jackson $1,008,055 for the nearly 39 years he spent in state prison. When Jackson was released in November he was believed to have served the longest sentence for someone wrongfully convicted.

Neither Jackson nor his attorney could be reached for comment on Thursday.

Wiley Bridgeman also was released from prison in November. He originally was paroled in 2002 but was sent back to prison several months later after an argument with a parole officer. Ajamu was paroled in 2003.

Bridgeman and Ajamu haven't received their compensation yet.

The men's slow march toward exoneration got its initial boost in 2011, after an investigation by Scene magazine.

Source: MSNBC, March 20, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com

‘Death Penalty For Gays’ Ballot Initiative May Be Allowed To Proceed Under California Law

SACRAMENTO (CBS SF) — A ballot proposal criminalizing sodomy and allowing the death penalty for anyone who “touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification” is moving forward because constitutionally, there is really no way to stop it, despite the neo-Nazi nature of the proposed law.

Huntington Beach attorney Matt McLaughlin filed papers to begin gathering signatures for the ballot measure, the “Sodomite Suppression Act” on February 26th.

In California’s “direct democracy” any citizen can follow procedures to propose just about any law.

That doesn’t mean that any law could pass, and even if passed, it doesn’t mean that any law could actually go into effect. 

Even laws passed by a majority of California voters may been overturned by judicial review, as was the case in the Prop. 8 gay marriage debate.

This latest initiative is creating news not because of what it would do if passed but because of the fact that it, so far, cannot be stopped at this stage.

Along with the required $200 fee, McLaughlin’s letter asking for certification of his initative, sent to the coordinator for Attorney General Kamala Harris, includes some bizarre language: “The abominable crime against nature known as buggery, called also sodomy, is a monstrous evil that Almighty God, giver of freedom and liberty, commands us to suppress on pain of our utter destruction even as he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrha.”

McLaughlin’s ballot proposal continues, stating, “…the People of California wisely command, in the fear of God, that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method.”

Harris’ office may actually be legally required to write a title and summary of the legislation, allowing signature gatherers to stand in front of shopping malls and grocery stores inviting patrons to sign a petition to put a death sentence for gays on the statewide ballot.

The Sacramento Bee reports that the Legislature’s Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Caucus has now written a letter to the State Bar calling into question McLaughlin’s fitness to practice law.


Source: CBS SF Bay Area, Brandon Mercer, March 20, 2015

Report an error, an omission: deathpenaltynews@gmail.com