DOCSLIB.ORG

Las Vegas Conference #2

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

NATIONAL SOCIAL SCIENCE PROCEEDINGS Volume 58, #2 National Technology and Social Science Conference, 2015 Table of Contents Undergraduate Students’ Voices on Developing Cultural Competence Comfort Ateh, Providence College 1 Facing Forward: Assessing the Impact of Transporting Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) James David Ballard, California State University – Northridge Fred Dilger, Black Mountain Research Robert Halstead, State of Nevada, Nuclear Waste Project Office 7 Changes in Female Participants’ Self-Descriptions After a Self-Defense Course Leanne R. Brecklin, University of Illinois - Springfield 14 Mobile Screening Van: Initial Results From Community Outreach to Identify Developmental Risks or Delays in Children Ages 0 – 8 Years Joannie Busillo-Aguayo 22 Not That Kind of Scientist: Creating an Online BA Program in Social Science Adam Criblez, Lily Santoro, Southeast Missouri State University 39 Macroeconometrics of Survey Measures of Consumer Inflation Expectations Abdullah A. Dewan, Steven C. Hayworth, Eastern Michigan University 47 Social Norms and Perceptions of HIV/AIDS Among Young Adults Praphul Joshi, Cherika Fills, Lamar University 64 Combating Childhood Obesity: Placement and Marketing of Foods in Restaurants Praphul Joshi, Chaniqwa Fills, Lamar University 74 European Standards of Beauty and the Relation of These Assimilated Beauty Ideals Among African American Women Cherika Fills, Praphul Joshi, Lamar University 83 Working in the Cloud, Chinese Social Media Censorship, Why the Chinese Government Blocks Western Social Media, & Chinese Military Beijing Spying Builfding Harvey C. Foyle, Jingwei Chen, Muxin Wang, Lixiazi Lu, Emporia State University 89 The Successful Experiences of Higher Vocational Education In Serving the Local Economic and Social Development Xiao Han, Central Washington University 96 Thinking Outside the Forms: Retraining Teachers to Write IEP’s for Students in an Independent Study Program Patrick Hill, Donald Baggott, Learn4Life Concept Charter Schools 102 Enhancing the Quality of Life of Baby Boomers and Their Traditionalist Parents with Technology Catheleen Jordan, David Cory, Scott Sainato, Peter Lehmann University of Texas at Arlington 109 Aw Yeah: Let’s Read! Patricia Kirtley, Terry Lovelace, Independent Scholars William M. Kirtley, Central Texas College 120 America Cries, “I’m Sorry!” - Five Apologies William M. Kirtley, Central Texas College Lem Londos Railsback, Patricia M. Kirtley, William R. Curtis, Terry L. Lovelace, Independent Scholars 132 Hate Speech in America Kathleen Kreamelmeyer, Ball State University 148 Compulsive Buying Tendencies David Lester, Stockton University Bijou Yang, Drexel university 152 Content Analysis of NSSA National Technology and Social Science Conference Presentations from 2012-2014 Robin Lindbeck, Robert W. Lion, Natalie Wells, Idaho State University 161 House Call Counselors: An Educator’s Guide to Making House Calls James Todd McGahey, Jacksonville State University 175 Lethal Injection: A Fatally Flawed Method of Execution Joseph A. Melusky, Saint Francis University 180 “We are More Alike than Unalike:” mtDNA Deep Ancestry Testing and Diversity Awareness in Undergraduate Social Science Courses Johanna Moyer, Miami University 195 An Independent Study Charter School Program for Secondary Students: A University Model Approach Constance Petit, Patrick Hill, Learn4Life Concept Charter Schools 203 The Viability of an Independent Study Model for Students with Disabilities Constance Petit, Heather Stuve, Learn4Life Concept Charter Schools 224 The Rise and Fall of Religious Toleration: Is the Settlement Collapsing? Richard H. Reeb, Jr., Barstow Community College 232 Retrofitting Instructional Strategies in the Math Classroom: Technology Becomes the “New Classroom Tradition” Sydne Endorf, Judith Ruskamp, Peru State College 242 The Stigma of Stupid: A Quanitative Analysis of College Students’ Use of Disability-Related Language Nicole Sims, California State University – Chico 249 Port of Liuzhou Xifang Wang, Central Washington University 265 Liuzhou’s Housing Supply: Affordable Quality Housing for Everyone Huazhi Zhang, Central Washington University 272 Undergraduate Students’ Voices on Developing Cultural Competence Comfort Ateh Providence College 1 Introduction World migration and the political and economic aspects of globalization are challenging nation-states and national borders. With the increasing number of United Nations member states, from 80 in 1950 to 191 in 2002 (Castles 2004) there is a need to rethink citizenship education that should help students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function in their nation-states as well as in global societies. The post-1970 immigration surge impacted the racial composition of the U.S. population. The quest by ethnic, cultural, language, and religious groups for recognition implies there is no place for assimilations that existed in the United States prior to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1970s. Students of various cultural background have right to their original cultures, languages, and ethnic identities. The increasing diversity and the quest by marginalized groups for cultural recognition and rights suggest students must be helped to develop reflective and clarified cultural identifications. It is crucial that students acquire the knowledge, attitudes, and skills needed to function within and across diverse racial, ethnic, cultural, language, and religious groups (Bank, 2004). Schools continue to be segregated almost 60 years after the landmark Supreme Court ruling of Brown versus Board of Education that desegregated schools which has been a setback for one of the core goals of the civil rights movement. Findings of the Civil Rights Project’s study showed a steady increase in integration in public schools from the late 1960s to 1980s, which enhanced quality of education for all races. However, the gains in integration have been lost with the present state of re-segregation across America resulting in part from less enforcement of desegregation of schools. Re-segregation is causing students to grow up interacting only with others who look like them. Findings of a UCLA multipart study by Civil Rights Project indicate diversity is increasing in the nation with 43 percent of Latinos and 38% of African Americans attending what are called “apartheid” schools, which are intensely segregated schools with minorities making 90 to 100 percent of the student body. The current change in demographics at the national level as well as the increasing segregation in schools are likely to result in an increase in isolation of students of color and poor from their more privileged peers, which will deprive them of the opportunities and resources they need to be successful. No school reform efforts are more important than making sure all students have access to knowledge and resources they need to be successful in life. It is empirical that schools provide experiences in every classroom where students from different backgrounds can learn from each other. Unfortunately, federal and state policies perpetuate segregated school systems: one set of schools for a majority of middle class and white students, and a dramatically inferior system for those who are Latino, black and poor. Students should be educated in a way that they can interact with others of different cultural background considering the trends in the diversity composition of the nation and the need to be competitive in global engagement. Education is the hope for the poor and the means to break the cycle of poverty. It is the solution to inequity among the marginalized. Unfortunately, the current educational system continues to fall short in creating equality for different cultural groups locking the marginalized in a cycle of poverty associated with multiple social issues. Nevertheless, schools still have a responsibility to break this cycle of poverty. This paper is based on a study that engaged undergraduate students to reflect on diversity and ways to develop 2 knowledge and skills to become cultural competent. The assumption was that students who develop cultural competence are likely to become justice-oriented professions. Cultural competence is a critical skill that every employee and employer should have for the institution to be successful. In the case of a school, teachers working with students of diverse cultural background are expected to be knowledgeable in the different cultures represented in their classrooms so as to creating instruction that meets the learning needs of every student. Similarly, in hospitals, medical staffs are expected to be knowledgeable about different perspectives that patients bring with them to the hospital so as to create an intervention system that would enhance treatment. Becoming justice-oriented implies being sensitive to others different than you and accepting them for who they are. It means moving beyond ones beliefs and values to the boundary of others appreciating their beliefs and values without relinquishing yours or expecting same from others. Cultural beliefs and values are at the forefront in making decisions about any group. Everyone will be everyone’s keeper with the ultimate goal of creating a nation where everyone is successful and not a selected few. This study focused on the impact of an urban education course on students’ appreciation of the essence of diversity and the need for every citizen to appreciate our diversity, to become culturally competent and justice-oriented professionals.
Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    Death Row U.S.A

    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 2004 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. STATE LISTS OF PRISONERS ON DEATH ROW CODES FOR STATE ROSTERS: B Black A Asian W White N Native American L Latino/a U Unknown at this issue ^ Female & Sentenced to death in the state where listed, but incarcerated in another state # Juveniles [ ] Reversals: Defendants 1) awaiting a retrial or a new sentencing proceeding following a court order or 2) whose court ordered conviction or sentence reversal is not yet final. ALABAMA (Lethal Injection or Choice of Electrocution) Total = 199 B = 93 W = 103 L = 2 N = 0 A = 1 U = 0 Females = 3 (B = 2 W = 1 ) Juveniles = 14 (B = 6 W = 8 ) 1. ACKLIN, NICK (B ) 37. CENTOBIE, MARIO (W ) 2. ADAMS, RONALDO # (B ) 38. CLARK, CHARLES GREGORY (W ) 3. ADKINS, RICKY (W ) 39. CLEMONS, EUGENE (B ) 4. APICELLA, ANDREW (W ) 40. CORAL, ROBERT (B ) 5. ARTHUR, THOMAS (W ) 41. DALLAS, DONALD (W ) 6. [ BAKER, JR., BOBBY (B ) ] 42. DANIEL, RENARD MARCEL (B ) 7. BARBER, JAMES EDWARD (W ) 43. DAVIS, DAVID EUGENE (W ) 8. BARBOUR, CHRISTOPHER (W ) 44. DAVIS, JIMMY (B ) 9. BARKSDALE, TONY (B ) 45. DAVIS, MELVIN (B ) 10. BECKWORTH, REX ALLEN (W ) 46. DAVIS, TIMOTHY # (W ) 11. BELISLE, RICK (W ) 47. DEARDORF, DONALD (W ) 12. BELL, RANDY (B ) 48. DEBRUCE, DERRICK (B ) 13. BENJAMIN, BRANDYN (B ) 49. DILL, JIMMY (W ) 14. BLACKMON, PATRICIA ^ (B ) 50.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    Death Row U.S.A

    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 2015 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. Spring 2015 (As of April 1, 2015) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,002 Race of Defendant: White 1,284 (42.77%) Black 1,251 (41.67%) Latino/Latina 386 (12.86%) Native American 31 (1.03%) Asian 49 (1.63%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,948 (98.20%) Female 54 (1.80%) JURISDICTIONS WITH CURRENT DEATH PENALTY STATUTES: 34 Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, 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: 19 Alaska, Connecticut [see note below], 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: 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 Winter 2015 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases Decided or to Be Decided in October Term 2014 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Elonis v.
  • Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court Has Determined That This

    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court Has Determined That This

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT _____________________ No. 97-10598 _____________________ GENARO RUIZ CAMACHO, JR., 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 Northern District of Texas (3:95-CV-2539-G) __________________________________________________________________ April 17, 1998 Before DAVIS, JONES, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Genaro Ruiz Camacho, Jr., a Texas death row inmate convicted of capital murder, seeks a certificate of probable cause to challenge the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The certificate is DENIED; the stay of execution, VACATED. I. In 1990, Camacho was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of David Wilburn. During the guilt phase, as * Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. discussed infra, three eyewitnesses testified that they saw Camacho shoot Wilburn; and the State also presented evidence of Camacho’s involvement in the murders, a few days later, of Evellyn and Andre Banks, who had been present when Wilburn was murdered. During the punishment phase, the State presented evidence that Camacho had committed two additional murders. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed, Camacho v. State, 864 S.W.2d 524 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); and the United States Supreme Court denied Camacho’s petition for a writ of certiorari. Camacho v.
  • IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the WESTERN DISTRICT of OKLAHOMA (1.) the Oklahoma Observer, (2.) Arnold Hamilton, (3.)

    IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the WESTERN DISTRICT of OKLAHOMA (1.) the Oklahoma Observer, (2.) Arnold Hamilton, (3.)

    Case 5:14-cv-00905-HE Document 20 Filed 10/07/14 Page 1 of 125 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA (1.) The Oklahoma Observer, (2.) Arnold Hamilton, (3.) Guardian US, (4.) Katie Fretland, Plaintiffs, Civil Case No. 14-905-HE -v- DECLARATION OF (1.) Robert Patton in his capacity as MICHAEL L. RADELET Director, Oklahoma Department of Corrections; (2.) Anita Trammell, in her capacity as Warden of the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, Defendants. I, Michael L. Radelet, declare as follows: 1. I am a Full Professor and former Chair in the Department of Sociology at the University of Colorado. Over the past 30 years, I have studied the sociological impacts of capital punishment in America. I have served as an expert witness in 60 death penalty cases, including in Oklahoma.1 As part of my research, for the past thirty years I have been documenting media reports of miscarried executions. 2. In this declaration, I discuss media reports about “botched” executions in the years following the Supreme Court’s de facto moratorium on the death penalty announced in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972). The information in this declaration is based upon my personal knowledge and sources of the kind on which 1 See State v. Medlock, No. CRF-90-89 (D. Ct. Canadian County, appeared Mar. 13, 1991) (penalty phase). 1 Case 5:14-cv-00905-HE Document 20 Filed 10/07/14 Page 2 of 125 researchers in my field rely. If called to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
  • Death . Row U.SA. (As O{ October 1, 2000)

    Death . Row U.SA. (As O{ October 1, 2000)

    Death . Row U.SA. Fall 2000 (As o{ October 1, 2000) • r TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,703 a ~ Race of Defendant: White 1,707 (46.10%) I Black 1,586 (42.83%) Latino/Latina 328 ( 8.86%) Native American 47 ( 1.27%) Asian 34 ( .92%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,650 (98.57%) Female 53 ( 1.43%) Juveniles: Male 71 ( 1.92%) JURISDICTI ONS WITH CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 40 (Underlined jurisdicti .on 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 , Washin~on, Wyoming, U.S. Government, U.S. Military . JURIS DICTI ONS WITH OUT CAPITAL PUNISHMENT STATUTES : 13 Alaska , District of Columbia , Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusett s, Michigan , Minnesota , North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vennont , West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page I In the United States Supreme Court Update to Summer 2000 Issue of October Term 1999 Cases and Cases Granted Review in October 2000 Tenn (as of October 25, 2000) Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Legal Services Corporation v. Velazquez, No . 99-603 & 99-960 (Congressional limits on funding recipients' legal advocacy) (decision below
  • Fordham University School of Law

    Fordham University School of Law

    Fordham University School of Law 2002 When Legislatures Delegate Death: The Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electrocution and Lethal Injection and What It Says About Us By DEBORAH W. DENNO ARTHUR A. MCGIVNEY PROFESSOR OF LAW This paper can be downloaded without charge from the Social Science Research Network electronic library: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1001730 Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=319340 When Legislatures Delegate Death: The Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electrocution and Lethal Injection and What it Says About Us DEBORAH W. DENNO* This articlediscusses the paradoxicalmotivations and problems behindlegislative changesfrom one method of execution to the next, and particularlymoves from electrocution to lethal injection. Legislatures and courts insist that the primary reasonstates switch execution methods is to ensuregreater humaneness for death row inmates. History shows, however, that such moves were promptedprimarily becausethe deathpenalty itself became constitutionallyjeopardizeddue to a state's particular method The result has been a warped legal "philosophy" of punishment,at times peculiarlyaligning both friends andfoes of the death penalty alike and wrongly enabling legislatures to delegate death to unknowledgeable prisonpersonnel. This articlefirst examines the constitutionalityof electrocution, contendingthat a modern Eighth Amendment analysis ofa rangeoffactors, such as legislative trends toward lethal injection, indicates that electrocution is cruel and unusual. It then provides an Eighth Amendment review of lethal injection, demonstratingthat injection also involves unnecessay pain, the risk ofsuch pain, and a loss ofdignity. Thesefailures seem to be attributedto vague lethal injection statutes, uninformedprison personnel,and skeletal or inaccuratelethal injection protocols. The arWcle next presents the author'sstudy ofthe most currentprotocols for lethal injection in all thirty-six states where anesthesiais usedfor a state execution.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    Death Row U.S.A

    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Spring 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. Spring 2005 (As of April 1, 2005) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,452 Race of Defendant: White 1,572 (45.54%) Black 1,440 (41.71%) Latino/Latina 359 (10.40%) Native American 40 ( 1.16%) Asian 40 ( 1.16%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,399 (98.46%) Female 53 ( 1.54%) Juveniles:* Male 72 ( 2.09%) (* NOTE: On March 1, 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court determined in Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to execute a person for a crime committed when that person was under the age of 18. Only juveniles whose death sentences were vacated by court order or other official action before April 1, 2005 have been removed from the state rosters. The others remain with their names in brackets.) 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 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    Death Row U.S.A

    DEATH ROW U.S.A. Summer 2004 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. Summer 2004 (As of July 1, 2004) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 3,490 Race of Defendant: White 1,587 (45.47%) Black 1,467 (42.03%) Latino/Latina 356 (10.20%) Native American 39 ( 1.12%) Asian 40 ( 1.15%) Unknown at this issue 1 ( .03%) Gender: Male 3,438 (98.51%) Female 52 ( 1.49%) Juveniles: Male 79 ( 2.26%) 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 Alaska, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin. Death Row U.S.A. Page 1 In the United States Supreme Court Update to Winter 2004 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for October Term 2003 and Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2004 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS First Amendment Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-218 (Constitutionality of “Child Online Protection Act”) (decision below 322 F.3d 240 (3rd Cir.
  • ****Execution Scheduled for January 15, 2020**** in The

    ****Execution Scheduled for January 15, 2020**** in The

    Case 1:19-mc-00145-TSC Document 38 Filed 11/08/19 Page 1 of 91 ****EXECUTION SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 15, 2020**** IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE FEDERAL ) BUREAU OF PRISONS’ EXECUTION ) PROTOCOL CASES, ) ) Lead case: Roane et al. v. Barr et al. ) ) ) Case No. 19-mc-00145-TSC ) THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: ) ) Lee v. Barr et al., No. 19-cv-2559 ) COMPLAINT OF PLAINTIFF-INTERVENOR DUSTIN LEE HONKEN I. Nature of Action 1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by Plaintiff Dustin Lee Honken for (i) violations and threatened violations of his rights pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (“APA”); (ii) violations and threatened violations of his right to due process under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution; (iii) violations and threatened violations of his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution; and (iv) violations and threatened violations of his right to access to counsel under the First, Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution. 2. Plaintiff has been sentenced to death under federal law. Defendants are the Case 1:19-mc-00145-TSC Document 38 Filed 11/08/19 Page 2 of 91 individuals charged by the federal government with carrying out the death sentences of Plaintiff and similarly situated federal prisoners. On July 25, 2019, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that Plaintiff’s execution will be implemented through the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (“BOP”) new lethal injection method, which replaces a three-drug combination with the injection of a single drug: pentobarbital.1 As alleged in more detail below, the 2019 Protocol violates Plaintiff’s constitutional rights and the APA.
  • When Legislatures Delegate Death: the Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electocution and Lethal Injection and What It Says

    When Legislatures Delegate Death: the Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electocution and Lethal Injection and What It Says

    When Legislatures Delegate Death: The Troubling Paradox Behind State Uses of Electrocution and Lethal Injection and What it Says About Us DEBORAH W. DENNO* This articlediscusses the paradoxicalmotivations and problems behindlegislative changesfrom one method of execution to the next, and particularlymoves from electrocution to lethal injection. Legislatures and courts insist that the primary reasonstates switch execution methods is to ensuregreater humaneness for death row inmates. History shows, however, that such moves were promptedprimarily becausethe deathpenalty itself became constitutionallyjeopardizeddue to a state's particular method The result has been a warped legal "philosophy" of punishment,at times peculiarlyaligning both friends andfoes of the death penalty alike and wrongly enabling legislatures to delegate death to unknowledgeable prisonpersonnel. This articlefirst examines the constitutionalityof electrocution, contendingthat a modern Eighth Amendment analysis ofa rangeoffactors, such as legislative trends toward lethal injection, indicates that electrocution is cruel and unusual. It then provides an Eighth Amendment review of lethal injection, demonstratingthat injection also involves unnecessay pain, the risk ofsuch pain, and a loss ofdignity. Thesefailures seem to be attributedto vague lethal injection statutes, uninformedprison personnel,and skeletal or inaccuratelethal injection protocols. The arWcle next presents the author'sstudy ofthe most currentprotocols for lethal injection in all thirty-six states where anesthesiais usedfor a state execution. The study focuses on a number ofcriteria contained in many protocols that are key to applying an injection, including: the types and amounts of chemicals that are injected; the selection, training, preparation, and qualifications of the lethal * Professor of Law, Fordham University School of Law. B.A., University of Virginia, 1974; M.A., University of Toronto, 1975; Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1982; J.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1989.