DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Penalty and the Victims, 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Death Penalty and the Victims, 2016 DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS © 2016 United Nations Worldwide rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the author(s), editor, or the publisher, except as permitted by law. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Editor: Ivan Šimonovi´c Design and layout: dammsavage inc. Cover image: The cover features an adaptation of a photograph of a man who is granted mercy by the victim's family, sparing him from imminent execution. ©EPA/Arash Khamooshi Pictures from The Omega Suites by Lucinda Devlin, Bochum 2000 Electronic version of this publication is available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/NewYork/Pages/Resources.aspx Sales no.: E.16.XIV.2 ISBN: 978-92-1-154217-2 eISBN: 978-92-1-058395-4 DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS New York, 2016 with support of CONTENTS Preface – Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary-General 7 Introduction – Who are the victims? Ivan Šimonovi´c, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights 9 CHAPTER 1 – MURDER VICTIMS’ FAMILIES 21 1.1 Complexity of Victims’ Families Position 22 • Marc Groenhuijsen, Michael O’Connell, Arguments against the death penalty as seen from a victimological perspective 22 • Maiko Tagusari, Does the death penalty serve victims? 41 1.2 Victims’ families’ perspective 49 • Mickell Branham, Listening to victims 49 • Mireya García Ramírez, The death penalty and the right to life 59 1.3 Victims’ Families and Closure 66 • Jody L. Madeira, Escaping the closure trap 66 • David Johnson, Does capital punishment bring closure to the victims? 75 CHAPTER 2 – THE CONVICTED AS VICTIMS? 85 2.1 Wrongful Convictions 86 • Carolyn Hoyle, Victims of wrongful conviction in retentionist nations 86 • Brandon Garrett, In the shadow of the death penalty 104 2.2 Discrimination and Mental Health Issues 111 • Ross Kleinstuber, Discrimination and the death penalty 111 • Sandra Babcock, Capital punishment, mental illness, and intellectual disability: The failure to protect individuals with mental disorders facing execution 128 2.3 Other cases of the death penalty against International Law 140 • Saul Lehrfreund and Roger Hood, The inevitability of arbitrariness: another aspect of victimisation in capital punishment laws 140 • Salil Shetty, Cases of the death penalty against international law: Amnesty International’s concerns 154 • Jens Modvig, Death penalty - torture or ill-treatment? 164 CHAPTER 3 – THE ‘HIDDEN’ THIRD PARTIES AS VICTIMS 175 3.1 Families of the Convicted 176 • Susan F. Sharp, Hidden victims: the families of those facing the death penalty 176 • Francis Ssuubi, The impact of the Death Penalty on the children with a parent on death row or executed 190 • Susannah Sheffer, Ending silence, ending shame 206 • Florence Seemungal, Lizzie Seal and Lynsey Black, Impact of the imposition of the death penalty on families of the convicted in the Caribbean 212 • Sandra Joy, Socio-Psychological Challenges of ‘Death Row families’ 227 3.2 Participants in death penalty proceedings and executions 249 • Florence Seemungal, Lizzie Seal and Lynsey Black, Death Penalty and Its Impact on the professionals involved in the execution process 249 • Robert Johnson, Executioners at work: Collateral Consequences of executions for Officers Working on Death Row and in the Death House 261 • Ron McAndrew, Painful then, painful now 279 • Susannah Sheffer, Fighting for clients’ lives: the impact of death penalty work on post-conviction capital defence attorneys 283 3.3 Society as the victim? • James R. Acker, The death penalty: killing what we instead could be 293 • Walter C. Long, The death penalty as a public health problem 304 Afterword, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, High Commissioner for Human Rights 327 Acknowledgements 333 © UN Photo/Rick Bajornas “The right to life is the foundation of all human rights. The taking of life is irreversible, and goes against our fundamental belief in the dignity and worth of every human being. I call on all world leaders, legislators and justice officials to stop executions now. There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century.” —Ban Ki-moon PREFACE Victims should always be at the centre of the debate on the death penalty. This book gives voice to a wide array of perspectives, includ- ing family members of crime victims, the wrongfully convicted and children of persons condemned to death, as well as judges, lawyers, prisoner staff and others whose job it is to oversee executions. Their testimonies make the brutality and trauma of the death penalty wrenchingly clear. I have advocated forcefully and continuously for the abolition of the death penalty, and called on Member States to end executions. I have met with experts whose research shows that the death penalty does not deter crime. And I have talked with family members of crime victims who came to realize that the execution of the perpetrator did not help their families heal. The right to life is the foundation of all human rights. The taking of life is irreversible, and goes against our fundamental belief in the dignity and worth of every human being. I call on all world leaders, legislators and justice officials to stop executions now. There is no place for the death penalty in the 21st century. Ban Ki-moon United Nations Secretary-General 7 Gas Chamber, The Omega Suites © Lucinda Devlin “Victim's perspectives, taken holistically, make a compelling case against the death penalty. When it comes to the death penalty, almost everyone loses.” — Ivan Šimonovi´c INTRODUCTION: WHO ARE THE VICTIMS? The front-page photograph is horrifying. A terrified blindfolded man is facing imminent execution. We do not see his eyes, but his face clearly reflects his fear and shock. A group of people are putting a rope around his neck…or are they? No, they are not. In fact, they are removing the rope. By this sym- bolic gesture, family members of the victim are granting mercy to the convicted murderer and are halting the execution. He has not yet realized that his life has been spared at the last moment, and he is obviously in shock. The right of victims or their families to spare the life of the crime perpetrators or influence their sentence is embedded in many cul- tures.1 Therefore, it is quite obvious that when discussing the death penalty, the victims’ perspective is highly relevant. From a human rights perspective, victims’ views should always be at the centre. How- ever, things become more challenging when we move to the next step and ask ourselves: who are the victims whose perspectives have to be taken into account? There is wide consensus that the surviving family members of crime victims should also be considered as victims. They may not only suffer from crime emotionally and psychologically, but also socially and economically.2 For practical purposes, it may be questioned how close to the victim a family member or another person needs to be in order, for example, to be entitled to compensation or to be heard by the court when the sentencing is discussed. However, these questions are not our focus here. What we are most interested in is: what is the attitude of victims towards the death penalty, 1 For example, under sharia law, the principle of revenge—qisas—entitles families of the murder victim to take revenge but they also have the option to forgive the perpetrator, and receive diyat (blood money) as compensation. 2 This is also reflected in the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (General Assembly resolution 40/34, adopted on 29 November 1985, available herehttp://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/40/a40r034.htm). 9 and how does it affect them? Do victims demand the death penalty or not, and how does the imposition—or non-imposition—of the death penalty, as well as the actual execution of the crime perpetrator—or lack thereof—reflect on the victims? The fact that a large proportion of homicides are committed by family members adds pressure in making such a choice and may cause divisions among surviving family mem- bers. Does the death penalty offer closure, or does it prevent closure? How does it affect the healing process? How does it fit with retributive and restorative justice approaches? Is reconciliation with the perpe- trator possible, and if so, under which conditions? Do contemporary justice systems prioritize victims’ or some other interests? These and related issues are discussed in Chapter 1 of the book. I am fully aware that expanding the concept of victims beyond the circle of persons close to the direct victims of crime may seem con- troversial to some. Chapter 2 raises important arguments towards considering at least some persons sentenced to death as victims themselves. In other words, not only crime victims, but also potential “victimizers” have human rights, and if they are violated, they can also be considered victims.3 The most obvious case are the wrongfully convicted, i.e. innocent persons who have been sentenced to capital punishment and some- times executed for a crime they have not committed.4 If they were given a prison sentence, after exculpatory evidence is obtained they can be released and sometimes compensated. However, if they were executed, the error cannot be undone and the harm is irreparable.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fictional Documentaries and Truthful Fictions: the Death Penalty in Recent American Film
    FICTIONAL DOCUMENTARIES AND TRUTHFUL FICTIONS: THE DEATH PENALTY IN RECENT AMERICAN FILM David R. Dow* When it comes to death, most Hollywood movies cheat. They cheat by tinkering with the truth, because the truth as it ac­ tually is is too complex or too disturbing to confront honestly. (The so-called happy ending is the most famous form of such cheating.) They cheat because people generally prefer happi­ ness and simplicity to darkness and complexity, especially where their entertainment is concerned, and filmmakers tend to give people what they want. Even great movies cheat. For example, last year's Oscar winner for best picture, American Beauty, cheats egregiously. The movie (for the one or two of you who have not seen it) deals with modern times: It is about suburbia, men and women who mindlessly pursue meaningless careers, bigotry, and finally, hope and redemption. In the end, the character played by Kevin Spacey is murdered. This is not a surprise ending because the Spacey character narrates the movie in a voice-over, and he tells us as the movie opens that in less than a year he will no longer be alive. We know at the beginning that 110 minutes later Kevin Spacey's character will be dead. Spacey plays a morally ambiguous character. He is in the midst of a full-blown mid-life crisis. He is a lousy husband and a worse father. For virtually the entire length of the film, he lusts after his daughter's high school classmate. In the end, however, he gently rebuffs a neighbor's homosexual advance and-again * George Butler Research Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2017 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2017 (As of July 1, 2017) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,817 Race of Defendant: White 1,196 (42.46%) Black 1,168 (41.46%) Latino/Latina 373 (13.24%) Native American 26 (0.92%) Asian 53 (1.88%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,764 (98.12%) Female 53 (1.88%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 33 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 20 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2017 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2016 or 2017 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Packingham v. North Carolina, No. 15-1194 (Use of websites by sex offender) (decision below 777 S.E.2d 738 (N.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2. Analysis of Korean TV Dramas
    저작자표시-비영리-변경금지 2.0 대한민국 이용자는 아래의 조건을 따르는 경우에 한하여 자유롭게 l 이 저작물을 복제, 배포, 전송, 전시, 공연 및 방송할 수 있습니다. 다음과 같은 조건을 따라야 합니다: 저작자표시. 귀하는 원저작자를 표시하여야 합니다. 비영리. 귀하는 이 저작물을 영리 목적으로 이용할 수 없습니다. 변경금지. 귀하는 이 저작물을 개작, 변형 또는 가공할 수 없습니다. l 귀하는, 이 저작물의 재이용이나 배포의 경우, 이 저작물에 적용된 이용허락조건 을 명확하게 나타내어야 합니다. l 저작권자로부터 별도의 허가를 받으면 이러한 조건들은 적용되지 않습니다. 저작권법에 따른 이용자의 권리는 위의 내용에 의하여 영향을 받지 않습니다. 이것은 이용허락규약(Legal Code)을 이해하기 쉽게 요약한 것입니다. Disclaimer Master’s Thesis of International Studies The Comparison of Television Drama’s Production and Broadcast between Korea and China 중한 드라마의 제작 과 방송 비교 August 2019 Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University Area Studies Sheng Tingyin The Comparison of Television Drama’s Production and Broadcast between Korea and China Professor Jeong Jong-Ho Submitting a master’s thesis of International Studies August 2019 Graduate School of International Studies Seoul National University International Area Studies Sheng Tingyin Confirming the master’s thesis written by Sheng Tingyin August 2019 Chair 박 태 균 (Seal) Vice Chair 한 영 혜 (Seal) Examiner 정 종 호 (Seal) Abstract Korean TV dramas, as important parts of the Korean Wave (Hallyu), are famous all over the world. China produces most TV dramas in the world. Both countries’ TV drama industries have their own advantages. In order to provide meaningful recommendations for drama production companies and TV stations, this paper analyzes, determines, and compares the characteristics of Korean and Chinese TV drama production and broadcasting.
    [Show full text]
  • F E a T U R E S Summer 2021
    FEATURES SUMMER 2021 NEW NEW NEW ACTION/ THRILLER NEW NEW NEW NEW NEW 7 BELOW A FISTFUL OF LEAD ADVERSE A group of strangers find themselves stranded after a tour bus Four of the West’s most infamous outlaws assemble to steal a In order to save his sister, a ride-share driver must infiltrate a accident and must ride out a foreboding storm in a house where huge stash of gold. Pursued by the town’s sheriff and his posse. dangerous crime syndicate. brutal murders occurred 100 years earlier. The wet and tired They hide out in the abandoned gold mine where they happen STARRING: Thomas Nicholas (American Pie), Academy Award™ group become targets of an unstoppable evil presence. across another gang of three, who themselves were planning to Nominee Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler), Golden Globe Nominee STARRING: Val Kilmer (Batman Forever), Ving Rhames (Mission hit the very same bank! As tensions rise, things go from bad to Penelope Ann Miller (The Artist), Academy Award™ Nominee Impossible II), Luke Goss (Hellboy II), Bonnie Somerville (A Star worse as they realize they’ve been double crossed, but by who Sean Astin (The Lord of the Ring Trilogy), Golden Globe Nominee Is Born), Matt Barr (Hatfields & McCoys) and how? Lou Diamond Phillips (Courage Under Fire) DIRECTED BY: Kevin Carraway HD AVAILABLE DIRECTED BY: Brian Metcalf PRODUCED BY: Eric Fischer, Warren Ostergard and Terry Rindal USA DVD/VOD RELEASE 4DIGITAL MEDIA PRODUCED BY: Brian Metcalf, Thomas Ian Nicholas HD & 5.1 AVAILABLE WESTERN/ ACTION, 86 Min, 2018 4K, HD & 5.1 AVAILABLE USA DVD RELEASE
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2005 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services, Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2005 (As of January 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,455 Race of Defendant: White 1,576 (45.62%) Black 1,444 (41.79%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.30%) Native American 39 ( 1.13%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,401 (98.44%) Female 54 ( 1.56%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.29%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 40 (Underlined jurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES: 13 Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Fall 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Devenpeck v. Alford, No. 03-710 (Probable cause to arrest and qualified immunity) (decision below Alford v.
    [Show full text]
  • Slim Jim Phantom Has Secured His Place As a True Rock-N-Roll Icon. As the Legendary Drummer for the Stray Cats, Phantom, Alongsi
    Slim Jim Phantom has secured his place as a true rock-n-roll icon. As the legendary drummer for the Stray Cats, Phantom, alongside band mates Brian Setzer and Lee Rocker, spearheaded the neo-rockabilly movement of the early 80s. With a love for 50s rock-n-roll the Stray Cats took inspiration from that bygone era and mixed with their youthful energy and aggression produced the updated hard-edged rockabilly sound that saw them conquer London, Europe and later the U.S., gaining fans among the likes of Keith Richards, Mick Jagger and Robert Plant along the way. Born in the Brooklyn Borough of New York City, Jim grew up listening to his parents’ jazz records and by the age of ten took up the drums. Immersing himself in the art of drumming and the world of music, Jim took lessons with Mousie Alexander (who played with Benny Goodman), which included the study of jazz and working through books by Jim Chapin and Ted Reed. By the late 70s Jim was playing in bands with school friend and bassist Lee Rocker and they soon joined forces with guitarist Brian Setzer. The rest, as they say, is history. The Stray Cats had numerous hit singles in the early 1980s, their classic album “Built for Speed” went double platinum, and their song “Rock This Town” is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame’s list of “The Songs That Shaped Rock and Roll.” Summer 2008 saw Jim and the Stray Cats reunite for an extensive tour of Europe. In February 2009 the band headed to Australia and New Zealand for the first time in 18 years - a tour which was eagerly anticipated by Australasian fans.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2013 A quarterly report by the Criminal Justice Project of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Consultant to the Criminal Justice Project NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2013 (As of July 1, 2013) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,095 Race of Defendant: White 1,334 (43.10%) Black 1,291 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 391 (12.63%) Native American 33 (1.07%) Asian 45 (1.42%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 3,034 (98.03%) Female 61 (1.97%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 35 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 18 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico [see note below], New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: Connecticut and New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively. The men already sentenced in each state remain under sentence of death.] Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Spring 2013 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2012 and October Term 2013 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Article I § 10 Ex Post Facto Clause Peugh v.
    [Show full text]
  • "Antithetical to Human Dignity": Secondary Trauma, Evolving
    DE LILLY PROOF V4 12/2/20131:33 PM NOTES “ANTITHETICAL TO HUMAN DIGNITY”: SECONDARY TRAUMA, EVOLVING STANDARDS OF DECENCY, AND THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSEQUENCES OF STATE-SANCTIONED EXECUTIONS LAUREN M. DE LILLY “When a death row inmate is executed, the State takes his personal autonomy. This is the very definition of indignity. The execution process is inhumane and brutal to all involved, from the judge or jury imposing the sentence to the prison guard who carries it out.”1 I. INTRODUCTION “Please don’t kill my baby.”2 The heartbroken plea of Connie Ray Evans’s mother echoed incessantly in Superintendent Donald Cabana’s head.3 As warden of Parchman, Mississippi’s state penitentiary, Cabana supervised the visit between Evans and his family in the days before Evans’s execution.4 At 11:15 p.m., it is time to move Evans into the last- Juris Doctor Candidate 2014, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; Editor-In-Chief, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, Volume 23, 2013–2014. The author would like to sincerely thank Professor Elizabeth Henneke for her inspiration and guidance over the course of writing this Note; the staff and executive editorial board for Volume 23 of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal for their patience, time, and insightful edits; and her family for their unwavering encouragement and support. 1. Amanda K. Eklund, Comment, The Death Penalty in Montana: A Violation of the Constitutional Right to Individual Dignity, 65 MONT. L. REV. 135, 150–51 (2004). See also Testimony of Donald Cabana Before the Judiciary Committee of the Minnesota House of Representatives, 79th Legislature (1995), available at http://www.theadvocatesforhumanrights.org/uploads/cabana_2.pdf.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row USA, Winter 2000
    DE.AIii ROW U.SA Winter2000 A quarterllJ report hlJ. the Capital Punishment Project 0£ the NAACPLegal De£ense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins, Esq. Director of Research and Student Services,Criminal Justice Project · NAACP Legal Defense & EducationalFund . \_., TOTAL NUMBER OF'DEATHROWINMATES KNOWN TO LDF: . 3,652 Race of Defendant: White 1,701 (46.71%) Black 1,562 (42.77%) ' Latino/Latina 312 ( 8.54%) Native American 45 ( 1.23%) Asian 31 ( .85%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,600 (98.58%) Female 52 ( 1.42%) Juveniles: Male 69 ( 1. 89°/o) DISPOSmONS SINCE JANUARY 1, 1973: Executions: 59'8 Suicides: . 54 Commutations: 90 (including those by the Governor ofTexas resulting from favorable court decisions) Died of natural causes or killed while under death sentence: 157 Convi~ions/Sentences reversed: 1697 JURISDICTIONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 40 (Underlinedjurisdiction has statute but no sentences imposed) Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas,California, Colorado, Connecticut,Delaware , Florida, Georgia, Idaho , Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire,New Jersey, New Mexico, New Yorlc,North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, U.S. Government,U .S. Military. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 13 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vennont,West Virginia,Wisconsin . Death Row U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court October Term - 1999 SignificantCriminal , Habeas, & Other Pending Cases · 1. CASESRAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fourth Amendment Bond v. United States, No. 98-9349 (Manipulationofluggage stored in overhead bin of bus) (decision below at 167 F.3d 225 (5th Cir.
    [Show full text]
  • A Cost and Lack-Of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty
    Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review Volume 23 Number 1 Symposium—The Death Penalty Article 5 Approaches the 1990s: Where Are We Now 11-1-1989 The Execution of Injustice: A Cost and Lack-of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty Ronald J. Tabak J. Mark Lane Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Ronald J. Tabak & J. M. Lane, The Execution of Injustice: A Cost and Lack-of-Benefit Analysis of the Death Penalty, 23 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 59 (1989). Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol23/iss1/5 This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Loyola Marymount University and Loyola Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE EXECUTION OF INJUSTICE: A COST AND LACK-OF-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF THE DEATH PENALTY* Ronald . Tabak** and J. Mark Lane*** TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ......................................... 61 II. THE DEATH PENALTY IS STILL ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ............................................ 62 A. The CapitalPunishment System Does Not Rationally Select Those Who Shall Die ......................... 62 B. Overzealous ProsecutorsImproperly Seek and Obtain Death Sentences ..................................... 64 C Ineffective Defense Renders Capital Trials Unfair ..... 69 D. The Juq Selection Process Fails to Ensure Unbiased Juries .............................................. 75 E. Jurors in Capital Cases Are Often Misled, Misinstructed, or Incompletely Informed ............. 77 F. The Lack of Real ProportionalityReview Means that * This Article was prepared for New York Lawyers Against the Death Penalty, an organization of over 1,000 members of the New York Bar, as a memorandum in opposition to legislation which would restore the death penalty in New York State.
    [Show full text]
  • Habeas Corpus Committee Powell Papers
    Washington and Lee University School of Law Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons Habeas Corpus Committee Powell Papers 1990 Habeas Corpus Committee - Capital Punishment Data Lewis F. Powell Jr. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/habeascorpus Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Criminal Law Commons ~ ,, - . ' April 21, 1987 DEATH PENALTY LIST SCHEDULED EXECUTION DATE STATE DEFENDANT \ Su ~'X. (,-~ \_ TIE Larry N. Aflderson ~ ~ 85 -6424 -CSY, denied lq/6/86. v\\'v 4/2W£i---------------Ar------Joe-t~~amortght­ Stay granted by U.S.D.C. 4fW/~7---------------A~------Re-be~~-E>-;-Sm-H.fl Stay granted by U.S.D.C. 4/30/87 TX Clifford X. Phillips U.S.D.C. denied federal 85-6523-CSY, denied 6/23/86. habeas petition on 12/10/86. No appeal was taken. 5/6/87 AZ Roger L. Smith 5/7/87 FL John Mills, Jr. 84-6808-CSY, denied 7/1/85. 5/7/87 FL Chester L. Maxwell 86-5541-CSY, denied 11/7/86. 5/13/87 AZ Jose R. Villafuerte 84-5964-CSY, denied 2/19/85. 5/13/87 AZ Viva L. Nash 84-6639-CSY, denied 6/3/85. 5/20/87 AZ Bernard Smith 5/27/87 TX Kenneth Granviel 81-1011-CFH, denied 3/8/82. 81-5858-CFH, denied 3/8/82. 5/28/87 TX Anthony C. Williams Application for stay 81-5876-CSY, denied 3/8/82. (A-749) pending. 86-6600-CFH, denied 4/6/87. ~ I A .. SUPPLEMENTAL LIST FOR CONFERENCE, FRIDAY, APRIL 24, 1987 MOTION A-770 WILL ROBERTS V.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty and the Victims Death Penalty and the Victims Death Penalty and the Victims
    DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS © 2016 United Nations Worldwide rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the author(s), editor, or the publisher, except as permitted by law. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations. The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Editor: Ivan Šimonovi´c Design and layout: dammsavage inc. Cover image: The cover features an adaptation of a photograph of a man who is granted mercy by the victim's family, sparing him from imminent execution. ©EPA/Arash Khamooshi Pictures from The Omega Suites by Lucinda Devlin, Bochum 2000 Electronic version of this publication is available at: www.ohchr.org/EN/NewYork/Pages/Resources.aspx Sales no.: E.16.XIV.2 ISBN: 978-92-1-154217-2 eISBN: 978-92-1-058395-4 DEATH PENALTY AND THE VICTIMS New York, 2016 with support of CONTENTS Preface – Ban Ki-moon, United Nations Secretary-General 7 Introduction – Who are the victims? Ivan Šimonovi´c, Assistant Secretary-General for Human Rights 9 CHAPTER 1 – MURDER VICTIMS’ FAMILIES 21 1.1 Complexity of Victims’ Families Position 22 • Marc Groenhuijsen, Michael O’Connell, Arguments against the death penalty as seen from a victimological perspective 22 • Maiko Tagusari, Does the death penalty serve victims? 41 1.2 Victims’ families’ perspective 49 • Mickell Branham, Listening to victims 49 • Mireya García Ramírez, The death penalty and the right to life 59 1.3 Victims’ Families and Closure 66 • Jody L.
    [Show full text]