DOCSLIB.ORG

Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment MARYLAND COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY December 12, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... 2 COMMISSIONER LIST................................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN.................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 9 1. RACIAL DISPARITIES ................................................................................................. 10 2. JURISDICTIONAL DISPARITIES................................................................................ 12 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISPARITIES ............................................................................. 14 4. THE COMPARISON OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH SENTENCES AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ........................................................................................... 15 5. THE EFFECTS OF PROLONGED COURT CASES INVOLVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THOSE INVOLVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE.................................................................................................... 16 6. THE RISK OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING EXECUTED......................................... 18 7. THE IMPACT OF DNA EVIDENCE IN ASSURING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN CAPITAL CASES............................................................................................................... 20 DETERRENCE........................................................................................................................ 22 FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE MARYLAND COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT......................................................................................................................... 23 VOTING RECORD ................................................................................................................. 25 ISSUE 1: RACIAL DISPARITIES.............................................................................................. 26 Racial Disparities Throughout the Criminal Justice System.................................................... 26 Racial Disparities in the Maryland’s Capital Sentencing System............................................ 27 Racial Bias and Capital Juries.................................................................................................. 31 The Negative Effects That Racial Disparities Have on the Criminal Justice System.............. 32 ISSUE 2: JURISDICTIONAL DISPARITIES ............................................................................ 36 The Presence of Jurisdictional Disparities in Maryland’s Capital Punishment System .......... 36 The Source of Jurisdictional Disparities in Capital Cases....................................................... 38 The Problem with Jurisdictional Disparities............................................................................ 39 ISSUE 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISPARITIES.......................................................................... 41 ISSUE 4: A COMPARISON OF THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH SENTENCES AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ........................................................................... 44 The Cost of Capital Cases........................................................................................................ 44 Why Do Capital Cases Cost More? ......................................................................................... 47 What Has Maryland Gained From Its Capital Punishment System? ....................................... 50 Will Elimination of the Death Penalty Increase Some Costs?................................................. 52 2 ISSUE 5: A COMPARISON OF THE EFFECTS OF PROLONGED COURT CASES INVOLVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THOSE INVOLVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ........................................................................... 55 ISSUE 6: THE RISK OF INNOCENT PEOPLE BEING EXECUTED .................................... 61 A. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 61 B. Widespread Exonerations and Reversals Reveal Fatal Flaws in the Capital System...... 62 C. Frailty of Eyewitness Testimony..................................................................................... 64 D. False Confession Cases ................................................................................................... 66 E. Limitations of Science..................................................................................................... 70 F. Legal Complexities and Prohibitive Defense Costs ........................................................ 75 G. Erosion of Public Trust and Confidence in the Judicial System..................................... 79 ISSUE 7: THE IMPACT OF DNA EVIDENCE IN ASSURING FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY IN CAPITAL CASES............................................................................................ 82 A. Role of DNA Evidence in Investigations, Prosecutions, and Exonerations.................... 82 B. Scarcity of Credible DNA Evidence ............................................................................... 84 C. “DNA is a Hard Science”................................................................................................ 85 D. DNA Labs Are Not Error-Free........................................................................................ 89 E. DNA Laws in Maryland .................................................................................................. 90 F. Conclusions Relating to DNA......................................................................................... 93 OTHER ISSUES .......................................................................................................................... 95 Deterrence ................................................................................................................................ 95 A Religious Perspective on Capital Punishment.................................................................... 105 The Risk to Correctional Officers.......................................................................................... 108 Juror Issues: Comment Arising from Jury Composition and Qualification........................... 110 APPENDIX A: Report of the Victims’ Subcommittee.............................................................. 111 Victim Services in Maryland ................................................................................................. 111 Victim Services in the Future for Maryland .......................................................................... 112 Conclusion of the Victims’ Subcommittee............................................................................ 117 Victims’ Subcommittee Chart................................................................................................ 119 APPENDIX B: Commission Member Biographical Information.............................................. 120 APPENDIX C: Testimony List.................................................................................................. 125 SOURCES CITED ..................................................................................................................... 128 Articles, Reports and Lectures ............................................................................................... 128 Oral Testimony....................................................................................................................... 130 Written Testimony ................................................................................................................. 132 Maryland Statutes and Regulations........................................................................................ 133 Court Cases ............................................................................................................................ 133 3 COMMISSIONER LIST1 Commission Chairman: Benjamin R. Civiletti, former U.S. Attorney General, senior partner at Venable LLP, jointly appointed as Chairman by the Governor, the President of the Senate of Maryland, and the Speaker of the House of Delegates. Commissioners: Senator Jamie Raskin, appointed by the President of the Senate Senator James N. Robey, appointed by the President of the Senate Delegate Adrienne A. Jones, appointed by the Speaker of the House Delegate William Frank, appointed by the Speaker of the House Shanetta J. Paskel, representing Attorney General Douglas Gansler The Honorable William Spellbring, former member of the Judiciary appointed by the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals Gary Maynard, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Katy C. O'Donnell, Chief Attorney of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender's Capital Defense Division, designated by the State Public Defender Scott Shellenberger, Baltimore County State’s Attorney, designated by the president of the Maryland State’s Attorneys’ Association
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Of Judicial Independence Tara L
    Vanderbilt Law Review Volume 71 | Issue 2 Article 3 2018 The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara L. Grove Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr Part of the Supreme Court of the United States Commons Recommended Citation Tara L. Grove, The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence, 71 Vanderbilt Law Review 465 (2019) Available at: https://scholarship.law.vanderbilt.edu/vlr/vol71/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Vanderbilt Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship@Vanderbilt Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Origins (and Fragility) of Judicial Independence Tara Leigh Grove* The federal judiciary today takes certain things for granted. Political actors will not attempt to remove Article II judges outside the impeachment process; they will not obstruct federal court orders; and they will not tinker with the Supreme Court's size in order to pack it with like-minded Justices. And yet a closer look reveals that these "self- evident truths" of judicial independence are neither self-evident nor necessary implications of our constitutional text, structure, and history. This Article demonstrates that many government officials once viewed these court-curbing measures as not only constitutionally permissible but also desirable (and politically viable) methods of "checking" the judiciary. The Article tells the story of how political actors came to treat each measure as "out of bounds" and thus built what the Article calls "conventions of judicial independence." But implicit in this story is a cautionary tale about the fragility of judicial independence.
    [Show full text]
  • MEMBERS of the TASK FORCE the Honorable Stuart O. Simms
    V • MEMBERS OF THE TASK FORCE The Honorable Stuart O. Simms, Chair Veda P. Allen The Honorable Patricia C. Jessamy Richard M. Karceski, Esq. The Honorable Kenneth Montague Richard B. Rosenblatt, Esq. James R. Sobers The Honorable Decatur Trotter Rodney C. Warren, Esq. ; ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Task Force extends its thanks to the following people and organizations for their expertise and dedication in assisting the Task Force with its work. The Task Force thanks several experts. Dr. Raymond Paternoster, a professor with the Institute of Criminology at the University of Maryland in College Park, and Dr. Joseph Katz, a professor with the Department of Decision Sciences at Georgia State University, provided the Task Force with information on regression analysis. In addition, John Morris, Esq. gave a presentation on minority representation in jury pools to the Task Force. The Task Force extends its appreciation to Joseph Cassilly, the State's Attorney for Harford County, who made a presentation to the Task Force on behalf of the State's Attorneys' Association of Maryland. In addition, the Task Force thanks Judith R. Catterton, a past president and a present member of the Board of Directors of the Maryland Criminal Defense Attorneys' Association, who also made a presentation to the Task Force. The Task Force also thanks the Office of the Attorney General which provided valuable legal research, case materials, and documents. The Task Force is indebted to those involved in the Task Force's meetings. Alexander Palenscar, Esq. arranged for the meeting location; Timmerman Daugherty, Esq. tape recorded each meeting; and Margaret Roberts, Esq.
    [Show full text]
  • Justice by Geography and Race: the Administration of the Death Penalty in Maryland, 1978-1999 Raymond Paternoster
    University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class Volume 4 | Issue 1 Article 2 Justice by Geography and Race: The Administration of the Death Penalty in Maryland, 1978-1999 Raymond Paternoster Robert Brame Sarah Bacon Andrew Ditchfield Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/rrgc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Race and Ethnicity Commons Recommended Citation Raymond Paternoster, Robert Brame, Sarah Bacon, & Andrew Ditchfield, Justice by Geography and Race: The Administration of the Death Penalty in Maryland, 1978-1999, 4 U. Md. L.J. Race Relig. Gender & Class 1 (2004). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/rrgc/vol4/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UM Carey Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. JUSTICE BY GEOGRAPHY AND RACE: THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE DEATH PENALTY IN MARYLAND, 1978-1999 RAYMOND PATERNOSTER, ROBERT BRAME, SARAH BACON AND ANDREW DITCHFIELD* I. INTRODUCTION On June 1 7 th, 2004, Steven Oken was executed by the State of Maryland.' His was the first execution in six years and only the third person executed in the state since the state's new death penalty law took effect in July of 1978.2 His execution lifted a moratorium that was placed on the death penalty by Maryland's former Governor, Parris N. Glendenning who, while supporting the death penalty, was concerned about how it was being administered.3 Apprehension regarding the death penalty in Maryland is not new.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime, 1966-1967
    The original documents are located in Box D6, folder “Ford Press Releases - Crime, 1966- 1967 (2)” of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Copyright Notice The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. The Council donated to the United States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections. Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. Digitized from Box D6 of the Ford Congressional Papers: Press Secretary and Speech File at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library CONGRESSMAN NEWS GERALD R. FORD HOUSE REPUBLICAN LEADER RELEASE ••Release in PMs of August 3-- Remarks by Rep. Gerald R. Ford, R-Mich., prepared for delivery on the floor of the House on Thursday, August 3, 1967. Mr. Speaker, America today is shaken by a deep national crisis--a near- breakdown of law and order made even more severe by civil disorders in which criminal elements are heavily engaged. The law-abiding citizens of America who have suffered at the hands of the lawless and the extremists are anxiously awaiting a remedy. This is a time for swift and decisive acti~n.
    [Show full text]
  • Reversible Errors and Errores Juris
    FEDERAL CONVICTIONS REVERSED The following is a publication of the Office of the Federal Public Defender for the Northern District of New York. The cases are from United States Courts of Appeal and the United States Supreme Court. The opinions contain at least one point favorable to criminal defendants. The purpose is to give CJA Panel Attorneys a shortcut to case law favoring their clients. All cases should be researched to see if they are still viable. A precedent in one jurisdiction is not necessarily the law elsewhere. None of the cases should be cited without first reviewing the entire opinion. This warning is especially for prisoners and defendants who wish to rely on the cases herein. A one-line summary cannot possibly be sufficient to cite these cases without first reading each. These materials may be duplicated for any lawyer providing legal services to indigent defendants. Duplication is encouraged. These materials may be reprinted by other free publications or free on-line providers serving the criminal defense bar. Attribution to this office is requested. This collection has previously existed as Reversible Errors and Errores Juris. The new name reflects that coverage is now limited to errors overturning federal criminal convictions, not sentences, nor are other aspects of the criminal justice system addressed. There are two reasons. First, it has been difficult to update so many areas of law on a regular basis. Second, federal sentencing law has changed drastically in recent years and it will take time to determine the common bases for reversal among federal jurisdictions. Updates can be found at www .nynd-fpd.org The publications will be distributed by e-mail in Acrobat 8.0.
    [Show full text]
  • 30Th Anniversary “Pearl” Award
    Press release from the office of Maryland Governor Marin O’Malley Keith Campbell, Chairman of the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment received a special 30th Anniversary "Pearl" Award ANNAPOLIS, MD (October 19, 2009) –The Maryland League of Conservation Voters (LCV) honored Senator Barbara Mikulski with its annual John V. Kabler Memorial Award in recognition of her many achievements in protecting Maryland’s Land, Air and Water. The award recognizes outstanding environmental leadership and commitment. The environmental organization known for its annual legislative report cards also gave a special 30th Anniversary “Pearl” Award to Keith Campbell, Chairman of the Keith Campbell Foundation for the Environment, for his efforts to restore the Chesapeake Bay and combat global warming. Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, four term U.S. Senator has a thirty-five year record of public service in Maryland. She is a dedicated public servant who from her earliest days in the spotlight understood what was “Smart Growth” and what was not— long before anyone had ever heard the term. As a member of the powerful Appropriations Committee, she fights every year for federal funding for environmental programs, especially the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, and the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. A trailblazer in drawing attention to the effects of global warming on the Bay, Mikulski funds 85% of the nation’s climate change-related science as Chairwoman of Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Subcommittee. Her stalwart defense of the environment in Maryland is embodied in her support for building a green jobs workforce, protecting the Chesapeake Bay, and for a clean energy economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Evans V. Saar
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND VERNON EVANS, JR., * Plaintiff, * v. * Civil Action No. 06-CV-00149 BEL MARY ANN SAAR, Secretary, * Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; * * FRANK C. SIZER, JR., Commissioner, Maryland Division of Correction; * LEHRMAN DOTSON, Warden, * Maryland Correctional Adjustment Center; * GARY HORNBAKER, Warden, Metropolitan Transition Center; * and, * JOHN DOES, * Defendants. * ****** PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION On January 19, 2006, Plaintiff Vernon Evans, Jr. filed a Complaint in this Court, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Defendants' current practices and procedures for carrying out lethal injections create a grave risk that Evans will be executed in violation of the United States' Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. On January 20,2006, Evans moved in this Court for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, pending resolution of his constitutional claims. In support of these motions, Evans showed that the balance of harms in this case tips decisively toward the Plaintiff, that he has raised "grave or serious questions" in his Complaint, and that the public interest will be served by resolution of this case on the merits, thus entitling Evans to preliminary relief. Blackwelder Furniture Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189, 196 (4th Cir. 1977). Defendants' response to Evans's motions, filed on January 26,2006, misconceives the nature of Evans's Complaint and fails to rebut Evans's showing in support of preliminary relief. Accordingly, Evans requests that this Court issue the preliminary relief sought and proceed to consideration of the merits of Evans's claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Tk-Technological-Slavery.Pdf
    Full HTML transcripts of the book can be found at http://www.wildism.org/lib/item/a3ef9393/ 1 Techno1ogica1 S1avery He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. -Luke 22:36 - The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczyr:ski, a.k. a. "The Ur:abomber" Technological Slavery is a revised and enlarged version of the book, RMd toRevolution, published in an English edition of 400 copies, and also in a Freneh edition in 2008 by �ditions Xenia of Vevey Switzerland. Technological Shvery © 2008 by Theodore J. Kaczynski Introduction © 2010 by Dr. David Skrbina All rights reserved. 10 9876 5432 1 Feral J-Jouse 1240 W. Sims Way, Suire 124 Port Townsend WA 98368 www.FcralHouse.com Design by Bill Smith To the memory of Joy Richards, with love. From tbe PUblisber Theodore J. Kaczynski has been convicted for illegally transporting, mailing, and using bombs, as well as killing two people in California and one in New Jersey. He is now serving a life sentence in the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado. Feral House has not published this book to justify the crimes committed by Mr. Kaczynski. But we do feel that there is a great deal oflegitimate thought in this book, and the First Amendment allows readers to judge whether or not this is the case. Tcchnophilcs like Ray Kurzweil and Bill Joy also expressed their regard for Theodore Kaczynski's writing: "Like many of my colleagues, I fe lt that I could easily have been the Unabombcr's next target. He is clearly a Luddite, but simply saying this does not dismiss his argument ...
    [Show full text]
  • ACKNOWLEDGEMENT's This Author Wishes to Thank All Who Have Aided in One Way Or Another It the Writing of This Report, Especially
    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT'S This author wishes to thank all who have aided in one way or another it the writing of this report, especially Dr. Fred Kuss, whose professional contacts in the recreation field led to the contract with the National Park Service and whose advice greatly benefited the project. The author had the pleasure of working with Mr. Jim Voigt of Catoctin Mountain Park and thanks him for his help and hospitality. Archivists at the Roosevelt and Truman Presidential Libraries and National Archives were most helpful, as were the staff of the Property Management division of National Capital Region. Mr. Barry Mackintosh and Mr. Gary Scott contributed their insight and help. Dr. David Percy, Dr. William Seale, Dr. Robert Kauffman and Jean Settle gave their comment, moral support and encouragement. But most of all a loving thank you to my husband, Ben, and my sons, Rob and Matthew, for their understanding and gracious support. BMK i TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS i INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter I. LAND ACQUISITION 4 Decline of Catoctin Mountain’s Resources and Economy 4 Early Depression Years in Maryland 6 New Deal and Catoctin Recreational Area 8 Planning and Land Acquisition 14 II. PHYSICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CATOCTIN RDA 22 Administrative Headquarters and Central Garage Unit 26 Planning for Group Camps and Picnic Areas 28 Misty Mount and Greentop 31 Camp Hi-Catoctin 39 Blue Blazes Contact Station 43 Catoctin Manor House Day Use Area 49 Catoctin Furnace 52 III. CIVILIAN CONSERVATION CORP 57 IV. ORGANIZED CAMPING 1937-1941 65 Misty Mount 65 Greentop 66 Camp Hi-Catoctin 69 British Sailors Visit-Summer 1941 69 V.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: the Burger Court’S Flawed Reasoning in Chandler V
    2017 The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Joshua E. Kastenberg University of New Mexico - School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Joshua E. Kastenberg, The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy, 8 St. Mary’s Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics 90 (2017). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/592 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the UNM School of Law at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. ARTICLE Joshua Kastenberg The Right to an Independent Judiciary and the Avoidance of Constitutional Conflict: The Burger Court’s Flawed Reasoning in Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit and Its Unfortunate Legacy Abstract. In 1970, the United States Supreme Court issued Chandler v. Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit in which five Justices determined that the federal courts of appeals possessed an administrative authority to manage the district court judges within an appellate court’s respective circuit. The decision enabled the Tenth Circuit to decide the fitness of a judge to preside over cases without a formal motion from a litigant.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment
    MARYLAND COMMISSION ON CAPITAL PUNISHMENT FINAL REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY December 12, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS............................................................................................................... 2 COMMISSIONER LIST................................................................................................................ 4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS FROM THE CHAIRMAN.................................................................. 6 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................ 9 1. RACIAL DISPARITIES ................................................................................................. 10 2. JURISDICTIONAL DISPARITIES................................................................................ 12 3. SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISPARITIES ............................................................................. 14 4. THE COMPARISON OF COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH DEATH SENTENCES AND THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH SENTENCES OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE ........................................................................................... 15 5. THE EFFECTS OF PROLONGED COURT CASES INVOLVING CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND THOSE INVOLVING LIFE IMPRISONMENT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF PAROLE...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Winter 2020 A quarterly report by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Deborah Fins Consultant to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Winter 2020 (As of January 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2620 (2,620 – 189* - 906M = 1525 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,103 (42.10%) Black 1,089 (41.56%) Latino/Latina 353 (13.47%) Native American 27 (1.03%) Asian 47 (1.79%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,567 (97.98%) Female 53 (2.02%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 31 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, ColoradoM, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, OregonM, PennsylvaniaM, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military. M States where a moratorium prohibiting execution has been imposed by the Governor. JURISDICTIONS WITHOUT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 22 Alaska, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire [see note below], New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin. [NOTE: New Hampshire repealed the death penalty prospectively. The man already sentenced remains under sentence of death.] * Designates the number of people in non-moratorium states who are not under active death sentence because of court reversal but whose sentence may be reimposed. M Designates the number of people in states where a gubernatorial moratorium on execution has been imposed.
    [Show full text]