DOCSLIB.ORG

UCLA Law Review Capital Punishment, Latinos, and the United States Legal System

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UCLA Law Review Capital Punishment, Latinos, and the United States Legal System U.C.L.A. Law Review Capital Punishment, Latinos, and the United States Legal System: Doing Justice or an Illusion of Justice, Legitimated Oppression, and Reinforcement of Structural Hierarchies Martin Guevara Urbina & Ilse Aglaé Peña ABSTRACT As the twenty-first century progresses, the influence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class in crime and punishment continues to be a pressing and polemic issue. With various antisocial control movements taking place, particularly in response to the Trump administration, the nature of crime and punishment is once again being redefined nationally and abroad. As in the past, this new punitive cycle of social control has revived support for what many consider to be the sanction of last resort: capital punishment. But executions, and capital punishment in general, are not directly governed by crime trends. Rather, the simultaneous interaction of historical and contemporary legacies, conflictive race and ethnic relations, and the influence of various extralegal factors like citizenship, nationality, language, accent, skin color, and economics influence the use of such punishment. The history of the death penalty in the United States is a story shaped and reshaped by the race and ethnicity of the offender and victim, and further fused by other intertwining factors at different points in time and geography. But because of the traditional adoption of a racially dichotomous black/white approach in investigating capital punishment, little is actually known about the experiences of executed Mexicans and other Latinos. As such, to debunk historical myths about the effects of race and ethnicity in capital punishment in the United States one needs to document the Mexican and Latino experiences which have been left out of the pages of history. AUTHORS Martin Guevara Urbina, PhD, is author, coauthor, or editor of over seventy scholarly publications on a wide range of topics, including twelve academic books. Visit his website (http://www. martinguevaraurbina.com) for a complete list of Urbina’s research and publications and his Author Page on Amazon (http://amazon.com/author/martin.guevara.urbina) for his books. Ilse Aglaé Peña, MA, has coauthored book chapters and refereed journal articles. Currently, Peña is working on a book, Hispanic Soldiers: The Latino Legacy in the U.S. Armed Forces, documenting the role, significance, and contributions of Latinos in the U.S. armed forces over the years. 66 UCLA L. REV. 1762 (2019) TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................................1764 I. The Color of Justice: How Many Mexicans Is a Horse Worth? ..........................................1765 II. The Historical Contours of Crime and Punishment Over Time.......................................1766 A. Mexicans/Latinos Executed, 1977–2018 ......................................................................................1769 B. National Origin, Citizenship, and Ethnic Identity ......................................................................1770 C. Characteristics of Executed Mexicans and Other Latinos .........................................................1773 III. The Significance of Commutations in Capital Punishment ...............................................1779 A. The Stories of Three Mexican Nationals on Death Row ............................................................1781 IV. Deadly Mistakes in Capital Punishment: A Question of Justice ......................................1784 A. The Stories of Clarence, Ricardo, and Christopher: The Quest for Justice .............................1787 V. Female Executions in the United States .....................................................................................1788 A. The Stories of Juanita and Chipita .................................................................................................1789 VI. The Machinery of American Justice: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides? ..................1791 VII. The Global Nature of American Criminal Law and Social Control ...........................1793 VIII. Capital Punishment as Social Control: Past, Present, and Hope for the Future ..................................................................................................................................1794 A. Symbolic Justice ................................................................................................................................1799 B. Capital Punishment in America: Underneath It All ...................................................................1800 Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................1804 Appendix .........................................................................................................................................................1804 1763 1764 66 UCLA L. REV. 1762 (2019) INTRODUCTION As noted by scholars like Adalberto Aguirre and David Baker, to provide a more holistic examination of capital punishment in America, one needs to look beyond the traditional black/white approach, which excludes not only Mexicans, but also the various other ethnic groups that constitute the Latino community, like Cubans and Puerto Ricans. As a result of adopting a dichotomous approach in theorizing, investigating, and publishing, little is known about executed Mexicans and other Latinos in the United States since 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court held that the death penalty did not violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments in Gregg v. Georgia.1 What were the experiences and characteristics of the individuals executed during this time period—the most crucial death penalty era in modern times? And of what ethnic group were those Latinos who were executed after Gregg in 1976? Based on capital punishment studies and the history of conflictive race and ethnic relations between whites and Mexicans,2 we would expect that most, if not all, of the Latinos who were executed from 1977 to 2018 were of Mexican heritage. Further, considering the historical legacy of hate in Texas and the high volume of executions which occur in the state—the “capitol” of capital punishment—we would predict that most, if not all, of the post-Gregg executions took place in Texas. This Article goes beyond the traditional black/white traditional approach by disaggregating the group of Latinos who were executed from 1977 to 2018 in the United States, focusing primarily (but not exclusively) on Mexicans and the selected issues that tend to influence the dynamics of capital punishment over time. While this Article’s primary objective is to determine the exact ethnicity of Latinos executed in the United States post-Gregg, it also contextualizes the relationship between race, ethnicity, and the death penalty to better elucidate the 1. Martin G. Urbina, Furman and Gregg Exit Death Row?: Un-Weaving an Old Controversy, 15 JUST. PROF. 105 (2002); Martin G. Urbina, A Qualitative Analysis of Latinos Executed in the United States Between 1975 and 1995: Who Were They?, 31 SOC. JUST. 242 (2004) [hereinafter Urbina, A Qualitative Analysis]; MARTIN GUEVARA URBINA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND LATINO OFFENDERS: RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN DEATH SENTENCES (2011) [hereinafter URBINA, LATINO OFFENDERS]. For a detailed discussion of death penalty literature, its research methodology and limitations, and an analysis of Furman and Gregg, see MARTIN GUEVARA URBINA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA: RACE AND THE DEATH PENALTY OVER TIME (2012) [hereinafter URBINA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA]. 2. Sofia Espinoza Álvarez & Martin Guevara Urbina, Capital Punishment on Trial: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Decides—A Question of Justice?, 50 CRIM. L. BULL. 263 (2014); URBINA, LATINO OFFENDERS, supra note 1; URBINA, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT IN AMERICA, supra note 1; MARTIN GUEVARA URBINA & SOFIA ESPINOZA ÁLVAREZ, HISPANICS IN THE U.S. CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM: ETHNICITY, IDEOLOGY, AND SOCIAL CONTROL (2018). Doing Justice, or an Illusion of Justice 1765 impacts of the current punitive anti–social control movement—including President Donald Trump’s aggressive anti-Mexican political rhetoric—on the Latino experience. Because we seek to better understand the role of ethnicity and race in crime and punishment in its totality, this Article also makes note of executions of minority women (i.e., Latinas) and foreign nationals (i.e., Latinos) in the United States. Findings in this Article indicate that the influence of ethnicity and race in the distribution of punishment continues in the twenty-first century. I. THE COLOR OF JUSTICE: HOW MANY MEXICANS IS A HORSE WORTH? While fictitious, the following story illustrates the dynamics of race and ethnicity in the United States by strategically asking a polemic question. In George Washington Gómez, renowned Mexican American author Americo Paredes describes the experience of living with conflicting and consequential historical legacies like conquest, colonialism, slavery, and immigration.3 Paredes tries to illustrate the influence of race and ethnicity in crime and punishment by using a mathematical experiment posed by the minor character of Orestes, an immigrant son of an exiled revolutionary intellectual living in a fictitious town called Jonesville in Texas’s Rio Grande Valley during la chia, the Great Depression. Orestes asks his best friend, the novel’s protagonist George Washington Gómez, whom everyone
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Give Me Dignity by Giving Me Death": Using Balancing to Uphold Death Row Volunteers' Dignity Interests Amidst Executive Clemency
    "GIVE ME DIGNITY BY GIVING ME DEATH": USING BALANCING TO UPHOLD DEATH ROW VOLUNTEERS' DIGNITY INTERESTS AMIDST EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY NICOLE F. DAILO ABSTRACT Oregon death row inmate Gary Haugen recently became the first criminal defendant to challenge a state governor's exercise of the executive clemency power. By suing to expedite his impending execution amidst Governor John Kitzhaber's decision to temporarily suspend the death penalty in Oregon, Haugen raised significant questions about the scope of a governor's clemency power and the dignity interests implicated when death row inmates "volunteer" to die by foregoing further appeals of their cases. This Note proposes adoption of a balancing test to evaluate governors' grants of clemency, arguing that state courts should uphold a death row inmate's decision to "volunteer" for execution if the grant of clemency does not align with traditional clemency objectives recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. This Note also suggests additional measures states can take to better protect and advance death row inmates' dignity interests. * Class of 2014, University of Southern California Gould School of Law; B.A. Communication 2011, University of Southern California. I would like to thank Professor Elizabeth Henneke for her insightful suggestions and guidance as well as the Southern California Review of Law and Social Justice for its invaluable editing and advice on this Note. I would also like to thank my wonderful friends and family, especially Rod and Christie Dailo, for their unwavering love and support. 249 250 REVIEW OFLA WAND SOCIAL JUSTICE [Vol.23:2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................ ........ 250 II.
    [Show full text]
  • Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and Welcome to the Death
    Episode Fourteen: Legal Process Hello, and welcome to the Death Penalty Information Center’s podcast exploring issues related to capital punishment. In this edition, we will discuss the legal process in death penalty trials and appeals. How is a death penalty trial different from other trials? There are several differences between death penalty trials and traditional criminal proceedings. In most criminal cases, there is a single trial in which the jury determines whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty. If the jury returns a verdict of guilty, the judge then determines the sentence. However, death penalty cases are divided into two separate trials. In the first trial, juries weigh the evidence of the crime to determine guilt or innocence. If the jury decides that the defendant is guilty, there is a second trial to determine the sentence. At the sentencing phase of the trial, jurors usually have only two options: life in prison without the possibility of parole, or a death sentence. During this sentencing trial, juries are asked to weigh aggravating factors presented by the prosecution against mitigating factors presented by the defense. How is a jury chosen for a death penalty trial? Like all criminal cases, the jury in a death penalty trial is chosen from a pool of potential jurors through a process called voir dire. The legal counsel for both the prosecution and defense have an opportunity to submit questions to determine any possible bias in the case. However, because the jury determines the sentence in capital trials, those juries must also be “death qualified,” that is, able to impose the death penalty in at least some cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Liberty and the Common Good - the Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion
    The Catholic Lawyer Volume 20 Number 3 Volume 20, Summer 1974, Number 3 Article 5 Individual Liberty and the Common Good - The Balance: Prayer, Capital Punishment, Abortion Brendan F. Brown Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/tcl Part of the Constitutional Law Commons This Pax Romana Congress Papers is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in The Catholic Lawyer by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND THE COMMON GOOD-THE BALANCE: PRAYER, CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, ABORTION BRENDAN F. BROWN* In striking the balance between individual freedom and the common good of society, judges are relying "on ideology or policy preference more than on legislative intent."' Professor Jude P. Dougherty, President-elect of the American Catholic Philosophical Association, has declared that "this is particulary apparent in actions of the United States Supreme Court where the envisaged effects of a decision are often given more weight than the intentions of the framers of the Constitution or of the legislators who passed the law under consideration."' The dominant trend of the United States judiciary is to begin its reasoning with "liberty" or "free- dom" as the ultimate moral value in the Franco-American sense of maxi- mum individual self-assertion, and then to maximize it. It will be the purpose of this paper to show that "liberty" or "freedom" is only an instrumental moral value, and that by treating it otherwise, the courts are damaging the common good of society.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 37 Article 6 Issue 1 Fall 2007 2007 Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment Matthew E. Feinberg University of Baltimore School of Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Feinberg, Matthew E. (2007) "Comments: The rC ime, the Case, the Killer Cocktail: Why Maryland's Capital Punishment Procedure Constitutes Cruel and Unusual Punishment," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 37: Iss. 1, Article 6. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol37/iss1/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE CRIME, THE CASE, THE KILLER COCKTAIL: WHY MARYLAND'S CAPITAL PUNISHMENT PROCEDURE CONSTITUTES CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT I. INTRODUCTION "[D]eath is different ...." I It is this principle that establishes the death penalty as one of the most controversial topics in legal history, even when implemented only for the most heinous criminal acts. 2 In fact, "[n]o aspect of modern penal law is subjected to more efforts to influence public attitudes or to more intense litigation than the death penalty.,,3 Over its long history, capital punishment has changed in many ways as a result of this litigation and continues to spark controversy at the very mention of its existence.
    [Show full text]
  • The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T
    MIGRATION,PALGRAVE ADVANCES IN CRIMINOLOGY DIASPORASAND CRIMINAL AND JUSTICE CITIZENSHIP IN ASIA The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia Series Editors Bill Hebenton Criminology & Criminal Justice University of Manchester Manchester, UK Susyan Jou School of Criminology National Taipei University Taipei, Taiwan Lennon Y.C. Chang School of Social Sciences Monash University Melbourne, Australia This bold and innovative series provides a much needed intellectual space for global scholars to showcase criminological scholarship in and on Asia. Refecting upon the broad variety of methodological traditions in Asia, the series aims to create a greater multi-directional, cross-national under- standing between Eastern and Western scholars and enhance the feld of comparative criminology. The series welcomes contributions across all aspects of criminology and criminal justice as well as interdisciplinary studies in sociology, law, crime science and psychology, which cover the wider Asia region including China, Hong Kong, India, Japan, Korea, Macao, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14719 David T. Johnson The Culture of Capital Punishment in Japan David T. Johnson University of Hawaii at Mānoa Honolulu, HI, USA Palgrave Advances in Criminology and Criminal Justice in Asia ISBN 978-3-030-32085-0 ISBN 978-3-030-32086-7 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32086-7 This title was frst published in Japanese by Iwanami Shinsho, 2019 as “アメリカ人のみた日本 の死刑”. [Amerikajin no Mita Nihon no Shikei] © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2020.
    [Show full text]
  • Death Penalty Usa Number of States
    Death Penalty Usa Number Of States Judson extenuated her Omsk forsakenly, she fluff it conveniently. Is Arvy uncomprehended or musaceous after Fahrenheit Benjie decaffeinating so incurably? Yearning Allin still pauperizes: die-hard and touching Levon inbreathing quite twitteringly but phonate her bottler pitter-patter. Can prepare leave way for either funeral? 737 prisoners on death still more than twice as many children any complete state. His execution by legal injection became the 126th recorded execution in the United States since 1976 Later again same day Lawrence Brewer. They constituted a punishment of death penalty usa states banded together, felony murder and medicine; two main claim to. Most Executions Occur and Just 3 States. The Death Penalty via The United States And just Future Digital. Overview of Capital Punishment Under chaos and Federal Law. Who pays for funeral when peg is soft money? Been no federal executions in the United States since 2003 and took three. Since 1979 there that been 61 executions in the United States California and. Readings Why Is Texas 1 In Executions The Execution. There however also fewer new death sentences imposed this year - 1 - than. Paying for funerals impossible for as poor families NBC News. California's death row holds the highest number of prisoners more. Colorado lawmakers to the early america, one consideration for consent for juries to. Though COVID-19 drove down payment number of executions this witness the federal government put blue death more prisoners than all states. Amendment grounds that do with many hold this is available if a penalty states that of social, particularly that he was previously thought.
    [Show full text]
  • HURST V. FLORIDA
    (Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus HURST v. FLORIDA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA No. 14–7505. Argued October 13, 2015—Decided January 12, 2016 Under Florida law, the maximum sentence a capital felon may receive on the basis of a conviction alone is life imprisonment. He may be sentenced to death, but only if an additional sentencing proceeding “results in findings by the court that such person shall be punished by death.” Fla. Stat. §775.082(1). In that proceeding, the sentencing judge first conducts an evidentiary hearing before a jury. §921.141(1). Next, the jury, by majority vote, renders an “advisory sentence.” §921.141(2). Notwithstanding that recommendation, the court must independently find and weigh the aggravating and miti- gating circumstances before entering a sentence of life or death. §921.141(3). A Florida jury convicted petitioner Timothy Hurst of first-degree murder for killing a co-worker and recommended the death penalty. The court sentenced Hurst to death, but he was granted a new sen- tencing hearing on appeal. At resentencing, the jury again recom- mended death, and the judge again found the facts necessary to sen- tence Hurst to death.
    [Show full text]
  • The Death Penalty in North Carolina, 2021 a Summary of the Data and Scientific Studies
    The Death Penalty in North Carolina, 2021 A Summary of the Data and Scientific Studies Dr. Matthew Robinson Professor of Government and Justice Studies Appalachian State University Boone, NC 28608 (828) 262‐6560 [email protected] The Death Penalty in North Carolina, 2021: A Summary of the Data and Scientific Studies EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report summarizes what is known about capital punishment in North Carolina based on available empirical data as well as studies of the state’s death penalty system through the year 2020. The goal is to establish the realities of the state’s capital punishment system for the purpose of providing important information to policy-makers. The guiding question of this work is, given the realities of the death penalty in North Carolina, should the state maintain its system of capital punishment or dismantle it and invest in other measures aimed at preventing crime and providing justice for victims, their families, and larger society? Note that this analysis does not address the morality of capital punishment, nor does this report assess the death penalty in theory. Instead, the focus is on capital punishment as a state policy, as it has actually been implemented within North Carolina. As such, the expectation is that the policy will be rational. Successful policies meet their stated or assumed goals and achieve greater benefits than they impose costs; failing policies are those that do not achieve their goals and that impose greater costs than benefits.1 It is irrational to utilize policies that fail to meet their goals and that impose costs that exceed their benefits.
    [Show full text]
  • Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence
    Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence Lawrence Katz, Harvard University and National Bureau of Economic Research, Steven D. Levitt, University of Chicago and American Bar Foundation, and Ellen Shustorovich, City University of New York Previous research has attempted to identify a deterrent effect of capital punishment. We argue that the quality of life in prison is likely to have a greater impact on criminal behavior than the death penalty. Using state-level panel data covering the period 1950±90, we demonstrate that the death rate among prisoners (the best available proxy for prison conditions) is negatively correlated with crime rates, consistent with deterrence. This finding is shown to be quite robust. In contrast, there is little systematic evidence that the execution rate influences crime rates in this time period. 1. Introduction For more than two decades the deterrent effect of capital punishment has been the subject of spirited academic debate. Following Ehrlich (1975), a number of studies have found evidence supporting a deterrent effect of the death penalty (Cloninger, 1977; Deadman and Pyle, 1989; Ehrlich, 1977; Ehrlich and Liu, 1999; Layson, 1985; Mocan and Gittings, 2001). A far larger set of studies have failed to ®nd deterrent effects of capital punishment (e.g., Avio, 1979, 1988; Bailey, 1982; Cheatwood, 1993; Forst, Filatov, and Klein, 1978; Grogger, 1990; Leamer, 1983; Passell and Taylor, 1977).1 Although only one small piece of the broader literature on the issue of We would like to thank Austan Goolsbee for comments and criticisms. The National Science Foundation provided ®nancial support. Send correspondence to: Steven Levitt, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1126 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Anthony Graves: Innocent
    Anthony Graves: Innocent On October 27, 2010, Anthony Graves walked out of the Burleson County Jail after spending 18 years in prison, including 12 years on death row, as an innocent man. During his time on death row, he faced two execution dates. His case reflects egregious prosecutorial misconduct, perjury, and false accusation. In 1992, police arrested Robert Carter for the horrific murders of six people, including four young children, in Somerville, Texas. Under pressure to name an accomplice, Carter confessed to the murders and implicated Graves, a man he barely knew. There was no physical evidence linking Graves to the crime, and no motive. Despite the fact that three alibi witnesses confirmed he was present in his mother’s apartment at the time the crime took place, Graves was convicted and sentenced to death. Carter, the sole witness against Graves, first recanted his testimony three days after his arrest. He continued to recant throughout his years on death row and even in his last words before his execution in 2000: “It was me and me alone. Anthony Graves had nothing to do with it. I lied on him in court. Anthony Graves don’t even know anything about it.” Graves spent 12 years on death row before the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in 2006 that his conviction had been improperly obtained. The judges found that Burleson County District Attorney, Charles Sebesta, did not disclose all of Robert Carter’s statements to the defense and had elicited false testimony from him. Instead of dropping the charges, the Burleson County District Attorney’s office held Graves in an isolated cell in the county jail for four years while it appointed a special prosecutor to retry the case.
    [Show full text]
  • Ex Parte Randy Halprin, § § Cause No
    WR-77,175-05 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 8/22/2019 11:14 AM Accepted 8/22/2019 11:23 AM IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS DEANA WILLIAMSON CLERK IN AUSTIN, TEXAS __________________________________ § EX PARTE RANDY HALPRIN, § § CAUSE NO. WR-77,175-05 APPLICANT § § __________________________________ § MOTION FOR STAY OF EXECUTION PENDING CONSIDERATION AND DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS Applicant Randy Ethan Halprin moves this Court to stay his execution pending the consideration and disposition of the subsequent application for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the 283rd District Court of Dallas County, Texas on July 16, 2019. The execution is currently scheduled for October 10, 2019. This motion is based on the files and records in this case and incorporates by this specific reference the aver- ments and evidence proffered with Mr. Halprin’s § 5 application, as if fully set forth herein. Mr. Halprin’s application raises two claims: (1) judicial bias denied him his fun- damental right to due process, and (2) the future-dangerousness special issue in Texas death penalty scheme is unconstitutionally vague. The first claim presents newly un- covered evidence that trial judge Vickers Cunningham referred to Mr. Halprin as a “goddamn kike” and “fuckin’ Jew,” and to his Latino co-defendants as “wetbacks,” 1 when the judge bragged about his role in convicting and sentencing to death the Jewish and Latino members of the Texas 7. The evidence of Judge Cunningham’s bias comes primarily from first-hand accounts of disinterested witnesses to his prejudiced state- ments about Mr.Halprin.
    [Show full text]
  • Capital Punishment - Wikipedia 17.08.17, 1130 Capital Punishment from Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia
    Capital punishment - Wikipedia 17.08.17, 1130 Capital punishment From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a government sanctioned practice whereby a person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a crime. The sentence that someone be punished in such a manner is referred to as a death sentence, whereas the act of carrying out the sentence is known as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by death are known as capital crimes or capital offences, and they commonly include offences such as murder, treason, espionage, war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Etymologically, the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin capitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to execution by beheading.[1] Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 103 countries have completely abolished it de jure for all crimes, six have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while maintaining it for special circumstances such as war crimes), and 30 are abolitionist in practice.[2] Capital punishment is a matter of active controversy in various countries and states, and positions can vary within a single political ideology or cultural region. In the European Union, Article 2 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibits the use of capital punishment.[3] Also, the Council of Europe, which has 47 member states, prohibits the use of the death penalty by its members. The United Nations General Assembly has adopted, in 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014,[4] non-binding
    [Show full text]