DOCSLIB.ORG

Amnesty International

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Amnesty International Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Too much cruelty, too little clemency Texas nears 200th execution under current governor 30 April 2009 AI Index: AMR 51/057/2009 Texas long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens. While we respect our friends in Europe, welcome their investment in our state and appreciate their interest in our laws, Texans are doing just fine governing Texas. Spokesperson for Governor Rick Perry on EU call for halt to Texas executions, August 2007 1. A ‘POINTLESS AND NEEDLESS’ DEPRIVATION OF LIFE On the evening of 9 January 2001, 37-year-old Jack Clark was taken from his prison cell in Texas, USA, and killed. This calculated killing was conducted by state government employees. It was not necessary. It could have been stopped. While deemed lawful by the courts, in the end it was a political choice to carry it out. Although such a killing could have, and has, occurred in a number of other US states both before and since – indeed one was carried out in Oklahoma on that same evening – it would not have happened in a majority of other countries at the beginning of the 21st century. Eight years later, even fewer countries operate this particular state policy. It is becoming less and less part of the modern world. It was not the first time such a killing had happened in Texas – far from it – and it was not to be the last. However, the execution of Jack Clark was the first to be carried out under the governorship of Richard Perry, the Lieutenant Governor who had been sworn in as the state’s 47th Governor three weeks earlier, on 21 December 2000, following the election of the previous governor, George W. Bush, to the office of US President. The outgoing governor’s subsequent disregard for international law in the White House was perhaps less surprising to those familiar with his record on the death penalty in Texas where such disregard could be said to have been incubated. Meanwhile, under his successor in the Texas Governor’s Mansion, the state’s resort to judicial killing has continued apace, not infrequently breaching the USA’s international obligations. There were 152 executions in Texas during the nearly six years of the Bush governorship (1995-2000). Now looming is the 200th execution during Rick Perry’s term in office.1 The combined total of more than 350 executions in Texas under these two governors represents 30 per cent of the national total since executions resumed in the USA in 1977. Virginia is ranked second to Texas in executions. In 30 years, Virginia has killed 103 people in its death chamber, half the number put to death in Texas in eight. This is geographic bias on a grand scale. Texas, where about seven per cent of the population of the USA reside, and where fewer than 10 per cent of its murders occur, accounts for 37 per cent of the country’s 1 At the time of writing, there had been 197 executions during this period. The 200th execution was due to take place on 2 June 2009. As noted below, at least one capital clemency case came before Lt. Governor Perry when Governor Bush was out of state on the presidential campaign trail. The prisoner in question was executed, after a reprieve for DNA testing was rejected. The original trial judge now believes that the condemned man may have been innocent. AI Index: AMR 51/057/2009 Amnesty International 30 April 2009 2 Too much cruelty, too little clemency. Texas nears 200th execution under current governor executions since 1977, and 41 per cent since 2001. Rid Texas of executions and, in terms of judicial death toll, the country could effectively be almost halfway to a nationwide moratorium. Not every murder in the USA, or in Texas, is punishable by the death penalty and not every capital murder is punished by execution. Jack Clark, for example, was convicted of one of the 2,000 murders in Texas in 1989, and one of 21,500 murders nationwide that year. He became one of 26 defendants to be sentenced to death in Texas in 1991, and one of 268 nationwide. Under US capital law, only the “worst of the worst” crimes and offenders are subject to execution, resulting in an attrition rate by which only around one per cent of murders result in the death penalty. In the words of the US Supreme Court, the death penalty is “limited to those offenders who commit a narrow category of the most serious crimes and whose extreme culpability makes them the most deserving of execution”.2 Carefully framed capital statutes, guided prosecutorial discretion, juror consideration of mitigating and aggravating factors, and multiple judicial appeals, ensure consistency, accuracy and fairness in capital justice. And then, in the words of the US Supreme Court’s Chief Justice in 1993, in a Texas death penalty case, because “it is an unalterable fact that our judicial system, like the human beings who administer it, is fallible”, executive clemency provides “the ‘fail-safe’ in our criminal justice system”. At least that is the theory. Reality is very different. Arbitrariness, discrimination and error mark the death penalty in Texas as elsewhere in the USA, along with the inescapable cruelty of this outdated punishment. Clemency all too often fails to prevent injustice. International law recognizes that some countries retain the death penalty. However, this acknowledgment of present reality should not be invoked “to delay or to prevent the abolition of capital punishment”, in the words of Article 6.6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. With a view to abolition, international standards require a narrowing of capital punishment and the application of safeguards aimed at minimizing arbitrariness and irrevocable error. Children, the mentally impaired, the inadequately defended, and those whose guilt remains in doubt are among those supposed to be protected from the death penalty. Those executed in Texas since Jack Clark was put to death have included individuals from each of these categories. This report looks back at a few of the cases of prisoners executed in Texas during Governor Perry’s term in office, and forward to a few cases that may yet come across his desk. This is not to suggest that the governor alone is responsible for the fate of those on death row. Many people are involved in capital justice – from prosecutors to jurors, from legislators to prison staff, from judges to members of the clemency board. In some cases, even the prisoners themselves assist the state in its pursuit of execution. About one in 10 of the more than 1,150 executions carried out in the USA since 1977 have been of condemned inmates who had given up their appeals and “consented” to being killed by the state.3 While some prisoners give up their appeals after years on death row, the death wish of others precedes their trials. Their unwavering pursuit of execution suggests that for them, far from being the deterrent some politicians claim, the death penalty represents a form of escape, whether from the torments of their lives, their crimes, or their minds. There have been seven such executions in Texas during Governor Perry’s time in office. For example, Christopher Swift was put to death on 30 January 2007 after less than two years on death row. According to one of his trial lawyers, “receiving the death penalty is what he’s wanted from day one, from the first day I met him.” Christopher Swift had prevented his lawyers from presenting any witnesses at his 2005 trial. He waived his right to a lawyer for his automatic mandatory appeal, and when the death sentence was affirmed, asked for an execution date to be set. 2 Roper v. Simmons (2005), quoting Atkins v. Virginia (2002). 3 See: USA: Prisoner-assisted homicide - more ‘volunteer’ executions loom, May 2007, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/AMR51/087/2007/en. Amnesty International 30 April 2009 AI Index: AMR 51/057/2009 Too much cruelty, too little clemency. Texas nears 200th execution under current governor 3 The power of the Texas governor to intervene in death penalty cases is somewhat circumscribed. Under Texas law, while the governor has unfettered authority to issue a one-off 30-day reprieve for anyone facing execution, he or she cannot grant a longer reprieve or commute a death sentence without a recommendation to do so from a majority of the members of the state Board of Pardons and Paroles. At the same time, the governor can reject such a recommendation. Nevertheless, it would be surprising if the governor would not have substantial influence with the Board if he or she chose to take stands in favour of clemency in capital cases. The governor appoints the Board’s members (with state Senate confirmation), and the seven current members were all appointed by Governor Perry. Moreover, under the Texas Administrative Code, “The board shall investigate and consider a recommendation of commutation of sentence in any case, upon the written request of the governor.” Before the Board decides on a case, then, the Governor could inform them that he favoured clemency. Following clemency denials by the Board, the Governor could use his power of reprieve to send such cases back with a clear message that he favours commutation. Like his predecessor, however, Governor Perry has rarely exercised the power of reprieve.4 In one case where he did, in December 2004 he granted a 120-day reprieve to Frances Elaine Newton on the recommendation of the Board of Pardons and Paroles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41382 NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, Versus GARY L. JOHNSON
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT No. 99-41382 NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, versus GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas February 9, 2001 Before SMITH, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. RHESA HAWKINS BARKSDALE, Circuit Judge: Included in the numerous issues before us, which primarily challenge the Texas death-penalty system, are several that concern whether Napoleon Beazley can be executed for committing a capital murder when he was almost, but not yet, age 18. Such effect vel non of Beazley’s age, however, is not included in the one issue (standard of review) for which the district court granted a certificate of appealability (COA). Restated, the certified issue is the only one before us on the merits; for the specific age- related issues, we must first decide whether a COA should be granted for any of them. The certified issue concerns the appropriate federal habeas standard of review, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), for state court judgments; fortunately, that standard was clarified recently in Williams v. Taylor, 120 S. Ct. 1495 (2000). Beazley asks us to grant a COA for each of numerous other issues, including whether his execution is precluded by his age at the time of the murder. The denial of habeas relief is AFFIRMED; each requested COA is DENIED. I. In June 1994, Beazley and two others, Cedric and Donald Coleman, were arrested for the April 1994 capital murder of John Luttig.
    [Show full text]
  • Death by Discrimination - the Continuing Role of Race in Capital Cases
    TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction....................................................................................................................1 The McCleskey obstacle.................................................................................................2 The evidence of bias continues to mount.......................................................................4 North Carolina............................................................................................................6 South Carolina............................................................................................................7 New Jersey.................................................................................................................7 Maryland ....................................................................................................................8 Texas ..........................................................................................................................8 Virginia ......................................................................................................................9 Pennsylvania ............................................................................................................10 Ohio..........................................................................................................................10 Poverty, race, and legal representation........................................................................12 Race, error, and arbitrariness .......................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • The American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions Gains Ground
    Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice TOWARD GREATER AWARENESS: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS GAINS GROUND A Summary of Moratorium Resolution Impacts from January 2000 through July 2001 August 2001 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice TOWARD GREATER AWARENESS: THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION CALL FOR A MORATORIUM ON EXECUTIONS GAINS GROUND A Summary of Moratorium Resolution Impacts from January 2000 through July 2001 August 2001 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES The materials contained herein represent the assessment solely of the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and have not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors of the American Bar Association and, accordingly, should not be construed as representing the policy of the American Bar Association. These materials and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational purposes only. Copyright 2001, American Bar Association Research performed on Westlaw courtesy of West Group. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Toward Greater Awareness: the American Bar Association Call for a Moratorium on Executions Gains Ground is the third report produced by the American Bar Association Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities to summarize legislative, judicial, public policy, and other developments that have occurred since the ABA's adoption of the death penalty moratorium resolution in February 1997. This report, which covers activity from January 2000 through July 2001, is intended to update and complement the two earlier publications issued in September 1998 and January 2000. The Section expresses its great appreciation to all who have helped research, draft, and produce this report over the past year.
    [Show full text]
  • No. in the SUPREME COURT of the UNITED STATES NAPOLEON
    No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES NAPOLEON BEAZLEY, Petitioner v. GARY L. JOHNSON, Respondent On Petition for Writ of Certiorari To the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT: Petitioner Napoleon Beazley, an indigent, respectfully moves this Court to stay his execution, presently scheduled to occur shortly after 6:00 P.M. on August 15, 2001. Under Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 895-896 (1983), a stay should be granted only if there is a "reasonable probability that four Members of the Court would consider the underlying issue sufficiently meritorious for the grant of certiorari . .; there must be a significant possibility of reversal of the lower court's decision; and there must be a likelihood that irreparable harm will result if that decision is not stayed." The underlying decision is Beazley v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 248 (5th Cir. 2001) (attached as Appendix A). Clearly, irreparable harm will result if the execution is not stayed. The petition for writ 1 of certiorari filed by Mr. Beazley on June 13, 2001, presents issues of nationwide, and indeed global, significance. Mr. Beazley asserts that the issues in the petition are so meritorious that it is likely that, following review, this Court will reverse the underlying decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Justice Antonin Scalia authored the lead plurality opinion for the most recent case in which this Court has considered the international ban on the execution of child offenders. Stanford v. Kentucky, 492 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Victim Impact Evidence Had Guilt
    CAPITAL PUNISHMENT: RACE, POVERTY & DISADVANTAGE Yale University Professor Stephen B. Bright Class Four - Part Two VICTIM IMPACT A jury found Booth guilty of two counts of first-degree murder, two counts of robbery, and EVIDENCE conspiracy to commit robbery. The prosecution requested the death penalty, and Booth elected to have his sentence determined by the jury instead John BOOTH, Petitioner of the judge. Before the sentencing phase began, v. the State Division of Parole and Probation (DPP) MARYLAND. compiled a presentence report that described Booth’s background, education and employment Supreme Court of the United States history, and criminal record. Under a Maryland 482 U.S. 496, 107 S.Ct. 2529 (1987) statute, the presentence report in all felony cases also must include a victim impact statement (VIS), Powell, J., announced the opinion of the Court. describing the effect of the crime on the victim White, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which and his family. Specifically, the report shall: Rehnquist, C.J., O’Connor, and Scalia, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which with (i) Identify the victim of the offense; whom Rehnquist, C.J., White and O’Connor, JJ., joined. (ii) Itemize any economic loss suffered by the victim as a result of the offense; Justice POWELL delivered the opinion of the Court. (iii) Identify any physical injury suffered by the victim as a result of the offense along with The question presented is whether the its seriousness and permanence; Constitution prohibits a jury from considering a “victim impact statement” during the sentencing (iv) Describe any change in the victim’s phase of a capital murder trial.
    [Show full text]
  • USA: the Experiment That Failed: a Reflection on 30 Years of Executions
    Public amnesty international UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The experiment that failed A reflection on 30 years of executions1 16 January 2007 AI Index: AMR 51/011/2007 I have been a judge on this Court for more than twenty-five years… I have no delusions of grandeur and I know my place in the judiciary. My oath requires me to apply the law as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. I will continue to do so until the Supreme Court concludes that the death penalty cannot be administered in a constitutional manner or our legislatures abolish the death penalty. But lest there be any doubt, the idea that the death penalty is fairly and rationally imposed in this country is a farce. US federal appeals court judge, 20052 Historian Arthur Schlesinger wrote in 1983: “No paradox is more persistent than the historic tension in the American soul between an addiction to experiment and a susceptibility to ideology”. On the one hand, Schlesinger suggested, “Americans are famous for being a practical people, preferring fact to theory, finding the meaning of propositions in results, regarding trial and error, not deductive logic, as the path to truth”. On the other hand, “they also show a recurrent vulnerability to spacious generalities”. 3 The USA’s attachment to the death penalty carries echoes of Schlesinger’s paradox. The facts on the ground say abolish, but an idealised notion of capital punishment says continue. Today, 30 years after Gary Gilmore was shot by firing squad in Utah on the morning of 17 January 1977, restarting executions after almost a decade without them, the USA’s reluctance to let go of judicial killing sets it apart from a clear majority of countries.
    [Show full text]