DOCSLIB.ORG

The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The William Mitchell Law Review Volume 22 | Issue 2 Article 15 1996 The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911 John D. Bessler Follow this and additional works at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr Recommended Citation Bessler, John D. (1996) "The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penalty Movement, 1849-1911," William Mitchell Law Review: Vol. 22: Iss. 2, Article 15. Available at: http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss2/15 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at Mitchell Hamline Open Access. It has been accepted for inclusion in William Mitchell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Mitchell Hamline Open Access. For more information, please contact [email protected]. © Mitchell Hamline School of Law Bessler: The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penal THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" AND MINNESOTA'S ANTI-DEATH PENALTY MOVEMENT, 1849-191 1t John D. Besslertt I. INTRODUCTION ........................... 578 II. THE MINNESOTA TERRITORY AND THE EARLY STATEHOOD YEARS, 1849-1867 ................. 583 A. A Public Execution on the Prairie ............ 583 B. Lynch Mobs and FrontierJustice ............. 586 C. Early Abolitionist Efforts and the Execution of Anne Bilansky .............................. 589 D. More Public Hangings .................... 599 III. THE EXECUTION MORATORIUM, 1868-1884 ........ 603 A. The 1868 Act .......................... 603 B. The Repeal of the 1868 Act ................. 608 IV. THE RESUMPTION OF HANGINGS IN MINNESOTA, 1885-1889 . .............................. 614 A. Daytime Executions ...................... 614 B. The Barrett Boys and the Beginning of the 1889 Legislative Session ...................... 616 V. THE PASSAGE OF THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" IN 1889 ............................ 619 A. Abolitionist Efforts in 1889 ................ 619 B. The John Day Smith Law .................. 624 t @ Copyright 1995 byJohn D. Bessler. All rights reserved. t# Attorney, Leonard, Street & Deinard, Minneapolis, Minnesota; J.D. 1991, Indiana University School of Law at Bloomington; BA 1988, University of Minnesota at Minneapolis. The author extends special thanks to Bruce Beddow, Gregory Gisvold and Michael Handberg for their cooperation in making materials available for use in this Article. The author also thanks the staff of the Minnesota Historical Society and the librarians at the Minnesota State Law Library and the University of Minnesota Law School for their indispensable research assistance. A portion of this article will appear in the author's forthcoming book, tentatively entitled Death in the Dark: Midnight Executions and Capital Punishment in America, to be published by University Press. Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 1996 1 William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 22, Iss. 2 [1996], Art. 15 WILLIAM M/TCIELL LAW REVEW [Vol. 22 VI. THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" IN OPERATION, 1889-1905 ............................... 629 A. The First Five Hangings ................... 629 B. The U.S. Supreme Court Ruling in Holden ..... 643 C. Non-Compliance, Non-Enforcement ........... 648 VII. A LEGAL CHALLENGE TO THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW," 1906-1907 .............. 659 A. The Hanging of William Williams ............ 659 B. The GubernatorialInvestigation ............. 665 C. Three Newspapers Indicted ................. 666 D. The District Court Ruling .................. 671 E. The Minnesota Supreme Court Case ........... 673 VIII. THE ABOLITION OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT ......... 677 A. AbolitionistEfforts from 1891 to 1910 ......... 677 B. The 1911 Legislative Session ................ 690 IX. CONCLUSION ............................ 699 X. POSTSCRIPT: THE DARK LEGACY OF MINNESOTA'S "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" ................. 701 APPENDIX ............................... 718 I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, executions are hidden from public view. State laws, in fact, require that executions take place within prisons, and most states limit public attendance at executions to only six to twelve "reputable" or "respectable citizens."1 Television coverage is not allowed The death 1. Amiz. REv. STAT. ANN. § 13-705 (Supp. 1994) (asserting that a superintendent shall invite "at least twelve reputable citizens of his selection"); ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-90- 502(d) (2) (Michie 1987) ("At the execution there shall be present.., a number of respectable citizens numbering not fewer than six (6) nor more than twelve (12)."); MD. CODE ANN., art. 27, § 73 (1957) (stating that executions shall take place in the presence of "a number of respectable citizens numbering not less than six or more than twelve"); Mo. ANN. STAT. § 546.740 (Vernon 1987 & Supp. 1992) (requiring that the chief administrative officer of the correctional facility invite "at least twelve reputable citizens, to be selected by him"); NEV. REV. STAT. § 176.355(2) (d) (1991) (allowing the director of the department of prisons to invite "not less than six nor more than nine reputable citizens"); N.H. REV. STAT. ANN. § 630:6 (1986) (stating that "the sheriff of the county in which the person was convicted... may admit other reputable citizens not exceeding 12... ."); N.M. STAT. ANN. § 31-14-15 (Michie 1984) (warden must invite "at least twelve reputable citizens, to be selected by him"); N.C. GEN. STAT. § 15-190 (1983) ("At such execution there shall be present. six respectable citizens. .. ."); PA. CONS. STAT. ANN. § 9711(k)(1) (Supp. 1995) ("No person except the following shall witness any execution ... six reputable adult citizens selected by such superintendent... ."); S.C. http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol22/iss2/15 2 Bessler: The "Midnight Assassination Law" and Minnesota's Anti-Death Penal 1996] THE "MIDNIGHT ASSASSINATION LAW" penalty is cloaked in added secrecy because executions usually occur at night. Many states even mandate, by statute, that executions take place after midnight and before dawn. For example, Delaware and Louisiana authorize executions only between midnight and 3:00 A.M., and South Dakota's executions must occur between 12:01 A.M. and 6:00 A.M.' Other states, like Wyoming and Indiana, require executions "before the hour of sunrise."' In fact,one of the most popular times to schedule an execution is one minute after midnight, with over eighty-two percent of all executions from 1977 to 1995 occurring between the hours of 11:00 P.M. and 7:30 A.M. Only rarely do executions occur during daylight hours.5 Minnesota no longer authorizes capital punishment, but the state once played a pivotal role in shaping the way in which states conduct executions in America. Indeed, while other states acted first in passing laws requiring private, nighttime execu- CODE ANN. § 24-3-550 (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1995) ("At an execution ... a group of not more than two respectable citizens of the State designated by the director... must be present."); see alsoCOLO. REv. STAT. § 16-11-404 (1986) ("There shall... be present... such guards, attendants, and other persons as the executive director ... deems desirable, not to exceed fifteen persons."). 2. MISS. CODE ANN. § 99-19-55(2) (1972) ("No person shall be allowed to take photographs or other recordings of any type during the execution."); TENN. CODE ANN. § 40-23-116(c) (1) (Supp. 1995) ("Photographic or recording equipment shall not be permitted at the execution site until the execution is completed, the body is removed, and the site has been restored to an orderly condition."); UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-19- 11(5)(a) (1995) ("Photographic or recording equipment is not permitted at the execution site until the execution is completed, the body is removed, and the site has been restored to an orderly condition."). 3. DEL CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4209(0 (Supp. 1994); LA. REV. STAT. ANN. § 15:569.1 (West 1992); S.D. CODIFIED LAws ANN. § 23A-27A-17 (1988). 4. IND. CODE ANN. § 35-38-6-1(b) (West 1986); KEN. REV. STAT. § 431.240(1) (Michie Supp. 1995) (requiring executions to take place "before sunrise"); WYO. STAT. § 7-13-905(a) (1995) (requiring executions "before the hour of sunrise"). Until 1995, Texas also required executions to take place "before sunrise." In 1995, the Texas Legislature passed a law requiring lethal injections to occur after 6:00 P.M. TEX. CRIM. PROC. CODE ANN. art. 43.14 (West 1996) (requiring that "the sentence shall be executed any time after the hour of 6 p.m. on the day set for the execution."). This change in the timing of executions was meant to accommodate the schedules of lawyers and judges, who are more accessible during the day. Bruce Tomaso, 100th Inmate ExecFue DALLAS MORNING NEws, Oct. 5, 1995, at 27A; Texas MurdererDies by Lethal Injection, BALTIMORE SuN, Oct. 5, 1995, at 6A. Some states allow correctional officials to set the hour of execution. UTAH CODE ANN. § 77-19-6(2) (1995) ("The Department of Corrections shall determine the hour, within the appointed day, at which the judgment is to be executed."). 5. See infra Appendix (listing the hour and minute that executions took place in the United States from 1977 to 1995). Published by Mitchell Hamline Open Access, 1996 3 William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 22, Iss. 2 [1996], Art. 15 WILLIA MrTCHEfLL LAW REWE W [Vol.[o.2 22 tions,6 Minnesota's so-called "midnight assassination law" is the only American law requiring private, nighttime executions ever commented upon by the United States Supreme Court.' That fact alone makes the study of Minnesota's "midnight assassina-
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • AMR 51/003/2002 USA: €Arbitrary, Discriminatory, and Cruel: An
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Arbitrary, discriminatory, and cruel: an aide- mémoire to 25 years of judicial killing “For the rest of your life, you will have to move around in a world that wanted this death to happen. You will have to walk past people every day who were heartened by the killing of somebody in your family.” Mikal Gilmore, brother of Gary Gilmore1 A quarter of a century has passed since a Utah firing squad shot Gary Gilmore and opened the “modern” era of judicial killing in the United States of America. Since that day – 17 January 1977 – more than 750 men and women have been shot, gassed, electrocuted, hanged or poisoned to death in the execution chambers of 32 US states and of the federal government. More than 600 have been killed since 1990. Each has been the target of a ritualistic, politically expedient punishment which offers no constructive contribution to society’s efforts to combat violent crime. The US Supreme Court halted executions in 1972 because of the arbitrary way in which death sentences were being handed out. Justice Potter Stewart famously compared this arbitrariness to the freakishness of being struck by lightning. Four years later, the Court ruled that newly-enacted capital laws would cure the system of bias, and allowed executions to resume. Today, rarely a week goes by without at least one prisoner somewhere in the country being strapped down and killed by government executioners. In the past five years, an average of 78 people a year have met this fate. Perhaps Justice Stewart, if he were still alive, would note that this is similar to the number of people annually killed by lightning in the USA.2 So, is the system successfully selecting the “worst of the worst” crimes and offenders for the death penalty, as its proponents would claim, or has it once again become a lethal lottery? The evidence suggests that the latter is closer to the truth.
    [Show full text]
  • UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969
    UCCSN Board of Regents' Meeting Minutes April 11­12, 1969 04­11­1969 Pages 1­39 BOARD OF REGENTS UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA SYSTEM April 11, 1969 The Board of Regents met on the above date in the Donald C. Moyer Campus Student Union, University of Nevada, Las Vegas. Members present: Fred M. Anderson, M. D. Mr. Thomas G. Bell Mr. James H. Bilbray (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Archie C. Grant Mr. Procter Hug, Jr. (for a portion of the meeting) Mr. Harold Jacobsen Mrs. Molly Knudtsen Louis Lombardi, M. D. Mr. R. J. Ronzone Dr. Juanita White Members absent: Mr. Albert Seeliger Others present: Chancellor Neil D. Humphrey President N. Edd Miller (UNR) President R. J. Zorn (UNLV) Vice Chancellor Wendell A. Mordy (DRI) Mr. Daniel Walsh, Deputy Attorney General Mr. Edward L. Pine, Business Manager, UNR Mr. Herman Westfall, Business Manager, UNLV Dr. Donald Driggs, Senate Chairman (UNR) Professor Roger Miller, Senate Chairman (UNLV) Dr. Don Fowler, representing DRI Faculty Senate Mr. Edward Olsen, Director of Information (UNR) Mr. Mark Hughes, Director of Information (UNLV) Mr. Joe Bell, ASUN President Mr. Jim Hardesty, ASUN President­Elect Mr. Bill Terry, CSUN President The meeting was called to order by Vice Chairman Bell at 10:45 A.M. 1. Approval of Minutes Upon motion by Mr. Grant, seconded by Mr. Ronzone, the minutes of the regular meeting of March 6, 1969 were ap­ proved as submitted. 2. Acceptance of Gifts Upon motion by Dr. Lombardi, seconded by Dr. Anderson, the following gifts and grants were accepted: University of Nevada, Reno Library Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Officials Back $39 Board Increase by VIVIAN B
    'Inside Today The Commission On Higher The student government votes The long-awaited report on the The Hartford Times goes out U.S.Sen Lowell Weicker, Education recommends that the today on whether to sent its possible health hazards of of business after 159 years, R.-Conn.. campaigns at UConn. legislature cut about $300,000 chairman to a convention in dormitory roof tarring is not leaving about 450 persons with- Stories and picture page 6. from UConn's 1977-78 budget. Kansas City, Mo. at a cost of satisfactory and another report out jobs. Story page 5. Story page 4. ■ $330 Story page 4. is ordered. Story page 5. tihmttttttntt lathj (Eamtma Serving Storrs Since 1896 VOL. LXXX NO. 33 STORRS. CONNECTICUT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 1976 Officials back $39 board increase By VIVIAN B. MARTIN • said Wednesday the the fee hike was set ed in arriving at the increase proposal. possible to cut another part of the A $39 per semester increase for and recommended by a committee organ- Adams has called the $39 figure "a bare budget." he said. "If we really wanted to students eating in University-run dining ized to review the fees. The recommend- bones minimum." take risks, we could deplete the reserve halls has been initially endorsed by the ed fee is tentative, and may be increased "The people involved with the fee fund, but that's not too expedient." he administration, UConn officials said or decreased. Wiggins said. review have worked out the budget and said. Wednesday. Students in dining halls currently pay all the explanations for increases." 'I know students are going to gripe, but Leonard Hodgson, director of food $335 a semester.
    [Show full text]
  • Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty
    California District Attorneys Association Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty Produced in collaboration with the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation MARCH 2003 GILBERT G. OTERO LAWRENCE G. BROWN President Executive Director Prosecutors' Perspective on California's Death Penalty MARCH 2003 CDAA BOARD OF DIRECTORS OFFICERS DIRECTORS PRESIDENT John Paul Bernardi, Los Angeles County Gilbert G. Otero Imperial County Cregor G. Datig, Riverside County SECOND VICE-PRESIDENT Bradford Fenocchio, Placer County David W. Paulson Solano County James P. Fox, San Mateo County SECRETARY-TREASURER Ed Jagels, Kern County Jan Scully Sacramento County Ernest J. LiCalsi, Madera County SERGEANT-AT-ARMS Martin T. Murray, San Mateo County Gerald Shea San Luis Obispo County Rolanda Pierre Dixon, Santa Clara County PAST PRESIDENT Frank J. Vanella, San Bernardino County Gordon Spencer Merced County Terry Wiley, Alameda County Acknowledgments The research and preparation of this document required the effort, skill, and collaboration of some of California’s most experienced capital-case prosecutors and talented administration- of-justice attorneys. Deep gratitude is extended to all who assisted. Special recognition is also deserved by CDAA’s Projects Editor, Kaye Bassett, Esq. This paper would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of the California District Attorneys Association’s Death Penalty White Paper Ad Hoc Committee. CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION DEATH PENALTY WHITE PAPER AD HOC COMMITTEE JIM ANDERSON ALAMEDA COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE TAMI R. BOGERT CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION SUSAN BLAKE CRIMINAL JUSTICE LEGAL FOUNDATION LAWRENCE G. BROWN CALIFORNIA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS ASSOCIATION WARD A. CAMPBELL CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE BRENDA DALY SAN DIEGO COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY’S OFFICE DANE GILLETTE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE DAVID R.
    [Show full text]
  • ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases ▪ February 2003
    American Bar Association Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases Revised Edition February 2003 Copyright © 2003 American Bar Association All rights reserved. The materials herein may be reproduced, in whole or in part, provided that such use is for informational, non-commercial purposes only and any copy of the materials or portion thereof acknowledges original publication by the American Bar Association and includes the title of the publication, the name of the author, and the legend "Copyright 2003 American Bar Association. Reprinted by permission." Requests to reproduce materials in any other manner should be addressed to: Copyrights & Contracts Department, American Bar Association, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Chicago, IL 60611; Phone: 312-988-6102; FAX: 312-988-6030; E-mail: [email protected]. Library of Congress Control Number: 2003104861 ISBN 1-59031-236-8 The commentary contained herein does not necessarily represent the official position of the American Bar Association. Only the text of the black-letter guidelines has been formally approved by the American Bar Association House of Delegates as official policy. The commentary, though unofficial, serves as a useful explanation of the black-letter guidelines. Joint Project of the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants Chicago, Illinois www.abalegalservices.org And the American Bar Association Special Committee on Death Penalty Representation Washington, D.C. www.abanet.org/deathpenalty Printed
    [Show full text]
  • Death Row U.S.A
    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 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. Fall 2020 (As of October 1, 2020) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2553 (2553 – 180* - 877M = 1496 enforceable sentences) Race of Defendant: White 1,076 (42.15%) Black 1,062 (41.60%) Latino/Latina 343 (13.44%) Native American 24 (0.94%) Asian 47 (1.84%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.04%) Gender: Male 2,502 (98.00%) Female 51 (2.00%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 30 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, CaliforniaM, 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: 23 Alaska, Colorado, 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]
  • When Minutes Matter
    When minutes matter A step-by-step guide to wire fraud recovery Created and published by: Thomas W. Cronkright II, Esq. Kenneth S. Robb, CISSP CEO/Co-Founder Cyber Security & Risk Consultant CertifID LLC Citadel Cyber Solutions, Inc. 1410 Plainfield Ave. NE 322 North Shore Dr. BLDG 1B, Suite 200 Grand Rapids, MI 49505 Pittsburgh PA 15212 616.855.0855 412-203-2207 www.certifid.com www.citadelcybersolutions.com [email protected] [email protected] Updated: May 18, 2018 WWW.CERTIFID.COM — [email protected] Roadmap to Wire Fraud Recovery A Step-by-Step Guide to Recouping Funds, Minimizing Loss and Remediating Systems. Wire fraud is rapidly becoming an epidemic in the mortgage industry. The FBI (IC3) hit a milestone last year by receiving its four-millionth complaint since the IC3 division was created in 2000. In 2017, it received 301,580 cybercrime and fraud complaints with reported losses over $1.4 Billion - Business Email Compromise (BEC) was the No. 1 cause of loss and is now being tracked as a separate cybercrime. The number of BEC victims increased 31% from 2016 to 2017 and BEC-related losses during the same period increased by 88%. Astonishingly, that number is estimated to include just 15% of the actual number of wire fraud incidents to hit the industry (Source: IC3). A tidal wave of indicators and anecdotes leave little doubt that fraudsters are only growing more sophisticated, more aggressive and more successful each day. What follows is our suggested roadmap for those businesses—and not simply title insurance-related firms, but any mortgage-related businesses—that believe they’ve been victimized by a wire fraud scheme.
    [Show full text]
  • The Illusion of Control “Consensual” Executions, the Impending Death of Timothy Mcveigh, and the Brutalizing Futility of Capital Punishment
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA The illusion of control “Consensual” executions, the impending death of Timothy McVeigh, and the brutalizing futility of capital punishment The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the example of barbarity it gives men. On crimes and punishments, Cesare Beccaria, 1764. There is no proof that the death penalty ever made a single murderer recoil when he had made up his mind, whereas clearly it had no effect but one of fascination on thousands of criminals; in other regards, it constitutes a repulsive example, the consequences of which cannot be foreseen. Reflections on the guillotine, Albert Camus, 1957. If...we are to be sincere in our efforts to reduce violence, there is one type of violence that we can with complete certainty eliminate. That is the killing of criminals by the state. The question is, will people learn to respect life better by threat or by example? And the uniform answer of history, comparative studies and experience is that man is an emulative animal. Norval Morris and Gordon Hawkins, US criminologists. A defendant’s voluntary submission to a barbaric punishment does not ameliorate the harm that imposing such a punishment causes to our basic societal values and to the integrity of our system of justice. Certainly a defendant’s consent to being drawn and quartered or burned at the stake would not license the State to exact such punishments. Whitmore v Arkansas, US Supreme Court, Justice Marshall dissenting, 1990. The death penalty, guns, violence in society, these cast a large cloud on America’s moral leadership.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 EXECUTION OF THE MENTALLY ILL3 THE RISK OF EXECUTING THE INNOCENT 4 INEFFECTIVE LEGAL REPRESENTATION9 FEDERAL FUNDING FOR DEATH ROW LAW CENTRES REMOVED 11 US CONGRESS ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT LEGAL APPEALS FOR DEATH ROW INMATES 12 FORMER GOVERNOR OF MISSISSIPPI’S STATE PRISON SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE DEATH PENALTY12 THIRTY-EIGHTH STATE REINTRODUCES THE DEATH PENALTY 13 THREE STATES REJECT THE RETURN OF THE DEATH PENALTY14 FIRST EXECUTIONS IN MONTANA AND PENNSYLVANIA 15 CRUELTY OF EXECUTIONS 16 TEXAS TO ALLOW VICTIM’S FAMILY TO WITNESS EXECUTIONS 17 POLL SHOWS LITTLE SUPPORT FOR THE DEATH PENALTY AMONG POLICE CHIEFS 17 PARTICIPATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONS IN THE EXECUTION PROCESS 18 PRISONERS WHO ABANDONED THEIR APPEALS AND SOUGHT EXECUTION 19 PRISONERS EXECUTED DURING 199521 STATISTICS24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Developments on the death penalty during 1995 Introduction At the end of 1995 an unprecedented number of prisoners - over 3,000 - were under sentence of death in 34 states and under US federal military law (8 prisoners) and US federal civilian law (6 prisoners). Fifty-six prisoners were executed; a higher total than in any previous single year since states revised their death penalty statutes in the mid-1970s. This brings to 313 the total number of prisoners executed in the USA since 1977. New York became the thirty-eighth state to reintroduce the death penalty in March 1995. The states of Pennsylvania and Montana carried out their first executions since the death penalty resumed in 1977. However the two prisoners executed in Pennsylvania had chosen to abandon their appeals and had sought execution.
    [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]
  • Original Document
    States Fail to Meet Critical Need ofIndigent Defendants -continued from front page tied. At the july 31, 1985 hearing where dissatisfaction over last-minute stays of his September 5, 1985 execution date There has been no action, execution, and the burden that they in­ was set, Washington's trial counsel however, in terms of funding or flict upon judges. moved to have new counsel appointed actual recruitment in most "Death Professor Anthony G. Amsterdam to represent him in connection with any of New York University, a leading capi­ habeas corpus proceedings, and the mo­ Belt" states, with the exception of tal punishment theoretician, criticized tion was denied. This left him without an Florida. justice Powell for not recognizing that attorney to pursue post-conviction pro­ the system, described by Powell as "per­ ceedings on his behalf. By late August, missive" and one which "permits the his date with the executioner was only necessary expertise, or by overburdened now familiar abuse of process," serves a two weeks away and he had not yet be­ lawyers from public interest legal pro­ beneficial purpose to be balanced against gun either state or federal habeas corpus jects. Some are afforded no representa­ the cost of delay. Only two weeks be­ proceedings. tion at all. fore justice Powell's speech, the Su­ With the clock ticking, frantic ef­ Some state government officials feel preme Court heard argument in Barefoot forts were made by Marie Deans of the that to execute someone who does not v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880 (1983). The Virginia Coalition on jails and Prisons, have an attorney would cause a "black NAACP Legal Defense Fund presented the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and eye" for their state.
    [Show full text]