DOCSLIB.ORG

Death Row U.S.A

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

DEATH ROW U.S.A. Fall 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. Fall 2015 (As of October 1, 2015) TOTAL NUMBER OF DEATH ROW INMATES KNOWN TO LDF: 2,959 Race of Defendant: White 1,262 (42.65%) Black 1,234 (41.70%) Latino/Latina 382 (12.91%) Native American 30 (1.01%) Asian 50 (1.69%) Unknown at this issue 1 (0.03%) Gender: Male 2,905 (98.18%) Female 54 (1.82%) 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, 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 [NOTE: New Mexico repealed the death penalty prospectively.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 Summer 2015 Issue of Significant Criminal, Habeas, & Other Pending Cases for Cases to Be Decided in October Term 2015 1. CASES RAISING CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTIONS Fifth Amendment Luis v. United States, No. 14-419 (Government freezing assets needed to hire lawyer) (decision below 564 Fed. Appx. 493 (11th Cir. 2014)) Question Presented: Does the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's legitimate, untainted assets (those not traceable to a criminal offense) needed to retain counsel of choice violate the 5th and 6th Amendments? Sixth Amendment Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505 (Constitutionality of Florida death-sentencing scheme) (decision below 147 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2014)) Question Presented: Does Florida's death sentencing scheme violate the 6th or 8th Amendments in light of this Court's decision in Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002)? (See also cases under Eighth Amendment, below) Luis v. United States, No. 14-419 (Government freezing assets needed to hire lawyer) (decision below 564 Fed. Appx. 493 (11th Cir. 2014)) Question Presented: (See cases under Fifth Amendment, above) Eighth Amendment Hurst v. Florida, No. 14-7505 (Constitutionality of Florida death-sentencing scheme) (decision below 147 So. 3d 435 (Fla. 2014)) Question Presented: (See cases under Sixth Amendment, above) Kansas v. Jonathan Carr, No. 14-449 (Jury instructions on burden of proof of mitigators and severance) (decision below 329 P.3d 1195 (Kansas 2014)). Consolidated with Kansas v. Reginald Carr, No. 14-450 (decision below 331 P.3d 544 (Kansas 2014)) Questions Presented: (1) Does the 8th Amendment require that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances "need not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt," as the Kansas Supreme Court held here, or instead whether the 8th Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances? (2) Does the trial court's decision not to sever the sentencing phase of the co-defendant brothers' trial here -- a decision that comports with the traditional approach preferring joinder in circumstances like this -- violate an 8th Amendment right to an "individualized sentencing" determination and was not harmless in any event? Kansas v. Gleason, No. 14-452 (Jury instructions on burden of proof of mitigators) (decision below 329 P.3d 1102 (Kansas 2014)) Question Presented: Does the 8th Amendment require that a capital-sentencing jury be affirmatively instructed that mitigating circumstances "need not be proven beyond a reasonable Death Row U.S.A. Page 2 doubt," as the Kansas Supreme Court held in this case, or instead whether the 8th Amendment is satisfied by instructions that, in context, make clear that each juror must individually assess and weigh any mitigating circumstances? Fourteenth Amendment Foster v. Chatman, No. 14-8349 (Batson standard) (decision below Sup. Ct. Ga. Case No. S14e0771 (Nov. 3, 2014)) Question Presented: Did the Georgia courts err in failing to recognize race discrimination under Batson in the extraordinary circumstances of this death penalty case? 2. CASES RAISING HABEAS CORPUS QUESTIONS Montgomery v. Louisiana, No. 14-280 (Retroactivity of decision prohibiting mandatory life sentences for juveniles) (decision below 141 So. 3d 264 (La. 2014)) Questions Presented: (1) Does Miller v. Alabama adopt a new substantive rule that applies retroactively on collateral review to people condemned as juveniles to die in prison? (2) (Added by the Court) Does the Court have jurisdiction to decide whether the Supreme Court of Louisiana correctly refused to give retroactive effect in this case to Miller? 3. CASES RAISING OTHER IMPORTANT FEDERAL QUESTIONS Lockhart v. United States, No. 14-8358 (Interpretation of criminal statutes) (decision below 749 F.3d 148 (2nd Cir. 2014)) Question Presented: Is § 2252(b)(2)'s mandatory minimum sentence triggered by a prior conviction under a state law relating to "aggravated sexual abuse" or "sexual abuse," even though the conviction did not "involv[e] a minor or ward," an issue that divides the federal courts of appeals? Musacchio v. United States, No. 14-1095 (Burden of government proof; reviewability of issue not raised at or before trial) (decision below 590 Fed. Appx. 359 (5th Cir. 2015)) Questions Presented: (1) Does the law-of-the-case doctrine require the sufficiency of the evidence in a criminal case to be measured against the elements described in the jury instructions where those instructions, without objection, require the government to prove additional or more stringent elements than do the statute and indictment? (2) Is a statute-of-limitations defense not raised at or before trial reviewable on appeal? Ocasio v. United States, No. 14-361 (Requirements for extortion) (decision below 750 F.3d 399 (4th Cir. 2014)) Question Presented: Does a conspiracy to commit extortion require that the conspirators agree to obtain property from someone outside the conspiracy? Torres v. Lynch, No. 14-1096 (State offenses aggravating federal) (decision below 764 F.3d 152 (2nd Cir. 2014)) Question Presented: Does a state offense constitute an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43), on the ground that the state offense is "described in" a specified federal statute, where the federal statute includes an interstate commerce element that the state offense lacks? Death Row U.S.A. Page 3 As of October 1, 2015 Total number of executions since the 1976 reinstatement of capital punishment: 1415 Race of defendants executed Race of victims total number 1415 total number 2077 White 786 (55.55%) White 1571 (75.64%) Black 492 (34.77%) Black 319 (15.36%) Latino/a 114 (8.06%) Latin 142 (6.84%) Native American 16 (1.13%) Native American 5 (0.24%) Asian 7 (0.49%) Asian 40 (1.93%) Gender of defendants executed Gender of victims Female 16 (1.13%) Female 1014 (48.82%) Male 1399 (98.87%) Male 1063 (51.18%) Defendant-victim racial combinations White Victim Black Victim Latino/a Victim Asian Victim Native American Victim White Defendant 728 51.45% 20 1.41% 17 1.20% 6 0.42% 0 0% Black Defendant 280 19.79% 165 11.66% 20 1.41% 15 1.06% 0 0% Latino/a Defendant 48 3.39% 3 0.21% 55 3.89% 2 0.14% 0 0% Asian Defendant 2 0.14% 0 0% 0 0% 5 0.35% 0 0% Native Amer. Def. 14 .99% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 0.14% TOTAL: 1072 75.76% 188 13.29% 92 6.50% 28 1.98% 2 0.14% Note: In addition, there were 33 defendants executed for the murders of multiple victims of different races. Of those, 17 defendants were white, 10 black and 6 Latino. (2.33%) Death Row U.S.A. Page 4 Execution Breakdown by State State # % of Racial Combinations (see codes Total below) 1. TX 528 37.31 211 W/W (40%); 105 B/W (20%); 62 B/B (12%); 49 L/L 27* 13# 6^ (9%); 40 L/W (8%); 18 B/L (3%); 12 W/L, 9 B/A ( 2% each); 4 W/mix (.8%); 3 W/B, 3 L/mix (.6% each); 2 L/B, 2 L/A, 2 A/A, 2 N/W, 2 W/A, 2 B/mix (.4% each) 2. OK 112 7.92 61 W/W (55%); 17 B/W (15%); 14 B/B (13%); 5 N/W (5%); 3 7* 2# 3^ W/A (3%); 2 W/B, 2 B/A, 2 A/A, 2 W/mix (2% each); 1 N/N, 1 W/L, 1 B/L, 1 L/L (.9% each) 3. VA 110 7.77 48 W/W (44%); 35 B/W (32%); 13 B/B (12%); 4 W/B (4%); 3 10* 3# 1^ W/mix (3%); 2 L/W (2%); 1 B/L, 1 B/A, 1 W/A, 1 A/W, 1 B/mix (.9% each) 4. FL 90 6.36 51 W/W (57%); 18 B/W (20%); 8 B/B (9%); 3 L/W (3%); 2 10* 2^ L/L, 2 W/mix, 2 B/mix, (2% each); 1 N/W, 1 L/B, 1 W/L, 1 L/mix (1% each) 5. MO 86 6.08 50 W/W (58%); 17 B/W, 17 B/B (20% each); 1 N/W, 1 W/B 5* 1# (1% each) 6. GA 58 4.10 38 W/W (66%); 14 B/W (24%); 6 B/B (10%) 2# 1^ 7.
Recommended publications
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q

    Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q

    Cleveland State University EngagedScholarship@CSU Cleveland State Law Review Law Journals 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit oy u? Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad

    Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad

    Cleveland State Law Review Volume 50 Issue 3 Article 3 2003 Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad Christopher Q. Cutler Follow this and additional works at: https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/clevstlrev Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! Recommended Citation Christopher Q. Culter, Nothing Less than the Dignity of Man: Evolving Standards, Botched Executions and Utah's Controversial Use of the Firing Squad, 50 Clev. St. L. Rev. 335 (2002-2003) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at EngagedScholarship@CSU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cleveland State Law Review by an authorized editor of EngagedScholarship@CSU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTHING LESS THAN THE DIGNITY OF MAN: EVOLVING STANDARDS, BOTCHED EXECUTIONS AND UTAH’S CONTROVERSIAL USE OF THE FIRING SQUAD CHRISTOPHER Q. CUTLER1 Human justice is sadly lacking in consolation; it can only shed blood for blood. But we mustn’t ask that it do more than it can.2 I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................... 336 II. HISTORICAL USE OF UTAH’S FIRING SQUAD........................ 338 A. The Firing Squad from Wilderness to Statehood ................................................................. 339 B. From Statehood to Furman ......................................... 347 1. Gary Gilmore to the Present Death Row Crowd ................................................ 357 2. Modern Firing Squad Procedure .......................... 363 III. EIGHTH AMENDMENT JURISPRUDENCE ................................ 365 A. A History of Pain ......................................................... 366 B. Early Supreme Court Cases......................................... 368 C. Evolving Standards of Decency and the Dignity of Man...............................................
  • 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.
  • The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2013

    The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2013

    This paper was prepared by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this paper is accurate and impartial. This paper updates The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2013. It is intended to provide a concise update to highlight changes in the status of the death penalty in OSCE participating States since the previous publication and to promote constructive discussion of this issue. It covers the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014. All comments or suggestions should be addressed to ODIHR’s Human Rights Department at [email protected]. Published by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) Miodowa 10 00-557 Warsaw Poland www.osce.org/odihr The© OSCE/ODIHR Death 2014 Penalty inISBN the ________ OSCE Area All rights reserved. The contents of this publication may be freely used and copied for educational and other non-commercial purposes, provided that any such reproduction is accompanied by an acknowledgement of ODIHR as the source. Designed by Nona Reuter Background Paper 2014 ODIHR This paper was prepared by the OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). Every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained in this paper is accurate and impartial. This paper updates The Death Penalty in the OSCE Area: Background Paper 2013. It is intended to provide a concise update to highlight changes in the status of the death penalty in OSCE participating States since the previous publication and to promote constructive discussion of this issue.
  • The Death Penalty in the United States, a Polymorphous Torture

    The Death Penalty in the United States, a Polymorphous Torture

    999 THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES, A POLYMORPHOus TORTURE Ensemble contre 999 la peine de mort THE DEATH PENALTY IN THE UNITED STATES, ECPM 3, rue Paul Vaillant Couturier A POLYMORPHOUS TORTURE 92320 Chatillon - France ARNAUD GAILLARD Tel.: +33 (0)1 57 63 03 57 Fax: +33 (0)1 57 63 89 25 www.abolition.fr This mission report was elaborated with the financial assistance of the European Union. The contents are the sole responsibility of the author and cannot in any case be con- sidered to reflect the position of the European Union. Analysis & Redaction: Arnaud Gaillard, sociologist specialized in criminal justice issues. Translation: Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner Ensemble Photography: © Arnaud Gaillard contre la peine © ECPM, 2011 de mort ISBN : 978-2-9525533-5-1 Acknowledgements This study was conducted with the assistance of Florent Vassault and Emile Carreau, whom I wish to thank warm-heartedly. They were daily collaborators to complete this fact-finding mission, sharing the many issues that did not fail to arouse during the encounter, sometimes aggressive and violent, with the reality of the death penalty in the United-States. Prior to this mission and throughout the data analysis and drafting, I would like to thank Sandrine Ageorges-Skinner, tireless activist and wife of Hank Skinner sentenced to death, whose insight steadily enriched this analysis. Thank you to Claude Guillaumaud-Pujol, activist, researcher and author specialized in American civilization. Beyond their skills as translators, they accompanied and guided my questions about the death penalty in the United States. Finally thank you to the association Together against the Death Penalty (ECPM) and its team, employees and volunteers, for trusting me and especially for the power of their faith in a universal abolition to come, which must now be achieved.
  • Death Row U.S.A

    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.
  • Results Elected Members

    Results Elected Members

    Results and Elected Members Second edition based on official statistics where available 13 JuLy, 1989 PE 133.341 C 0 N T E N T S Electorate and turnout in the 12 . 1 Great Britain . 2 Northern Ireland . 3 Great Britain constituency results .................................... 4 Ireland constituency results .......................................... 14 Belgium ............................................................... 16 Denmark ............................................................... 18 France ................................................................ 20 Germany . 22 Greece ................................................................ 24 Ireland ............................................................... 26 Italy ................................................................. 28 Luxembourg . 31 Netherlands ........................................................... 33 Portugal .............................................................. 35 Spain ......................... : . ...................................... 37 United Kingdom ........................................................ 39 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS Electorate and turnout in EC states in 1979, 1984 and 1989 Country Electorate Turnout V\J.lid votes Belgium 1989 7,096,273 90.7 5,899,285 1984 6,975,677 92.2 5,725,837 1979 6,800,584 91.4 5,442,867 Denmark 1989 3,923,549 46.2 1,789,395 1984 3,878,600 52.4 2,001,875 1979 3,754,423 47.8 1,754,350 France 1989 38,348,191 48.7 18,145,588 1984 36,880,688 56.7 20,180,934 1979 35,180,531 60.7 20,242,347 Germany 1989 45,773,179 62.3 28,206,690 1984 44,451,981 56.8 24,851,371 1979 42,751,940 65.7 27,847,109 Greece 1989 8,347.387 79.9 6,544,669 1984 7,790,309 77.2 5,956,060 1981 7,319,070 78.6 5,753,478 Ireland 1989 2,453,451 68.3 1,632, 728 1984 2,413,404 47.6 1,l20,-ll6 1979 2,188, 798 63.6 1 '339.
  • Whole Day Download the Hansard

    Whole Day Download the Hansard

    Thursday Volume 685 10 December 2020 No. 150 HOUSE OF COMMONS OFFICIAL REPORT PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES (HANSARD) Thursday 10 December 2020 © Parliamentary Copyright House of Commons 2020 This publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Open Parliament licence, which is published at www.parliament.uk/site-information/copyright/. 969 10 DECEMBER 2020 970 right across every sector—over £100 billion for the House of Commons furloughing scheme, the self-employed income support scheme, grants, loans, VAT deferrals—and for freelancers Thursday 10 December 2020 we know the best thing we can do is get our sectors back up and running. That is what the culture recovery fund The House met at half-past Nine o’clock is all about. PRAYERS Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op): Today, research from the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre has shown that in the last six months there have [MR SPEAKER in the Chair] been 55,000 job losses in music and the performing and Virtual participation in proceedings commenced visual arts—all that talent, dedication and diversity of (Order, 4 June). voices lost. Our creative workers are desperate to get [NB: [V] denotes a Member participating virtually.] back to doing what they do best, and we know the simplest way to get money to freelancers is to make BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS shows, but to do that producers need a safety net. Germany has just announced an indemnity fund so INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF MATERNITY event organisers can plan for the second half of 2021 SERVICES without the financial risk posed by a potential covid Resolved, outbreak.
  • OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents

    OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents

    jnl94$ind1Ð04-04-96 12:34:32 JNLINDPGT MILES OCTOBER TERM 1994 Reference Index Contents: Page Statistics ....................................................................................... II General .......................................................................................... III Appeals ......................................................................................... III Arguments ................................................................................... III Attorneys ...................................................................................... III Briefs ............................................................................................. IV Certiorari ..................................................................................... IV Costs .............................................................................................. V Judgments and Opinions ........................................................... V Original Cases ............................................................................. V Records ......................................................................................... VI Rehearings ................................................................................... VI Rules ............................................................................................. VI Stays .............................................................................................. VI Conclusion ...................................................................................
  • Communications Sent, 1 June to 30 November 2013

    Communications Sent, 1 June to 30 November 2013

    United Nations A/HRC/26/21 General Assembly Distr.: General 2 June 2014 English/French/Spanish only Human Rights Council Twenty-sixth session Agenda items 3, 4, 7, 9 and 10 Promotion and protection of all human rights, civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to development Human rights situations that require the Council’s attention Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance, follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action Technical assistance and capacity-building Communications report of Special Procedures* Communications sent, 1 December 2013 to 28 February 2014; Replies received, 1 February to 30 April 2014 Joint report by the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context; the Working Group on people of African descent; the Working Group on arbitrary detention; Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus; the Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia; the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography; the Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights; the Independent expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order; the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea; the Special Rapporteur on the right to education; the Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment; the Working Group on enforced or involuntary disappearances; the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights; * The present report is circulated as received.