News and Updates (as of 12/22/96)

JANUARY 20, 2025:

FLORIDA:

Long-awaited DNA analysis proves Zeigler innocent in 1975 murders, lawyers say----After nearly 50 years on death row, the results of Zeigler’s successful battle for DNA testing could mark a breakthrough.

A trail of blood, rug fibers and cat fur show it is impossible for Florida death row inmate Tommy Zeigler to have killed his wife and in-laws on Christmas Eve 1975, his lawyers assert in a new court filing.

Fresh DNA analysis of dozens of pieces of evidence instead supports Zeigler’s story of walking in on a burglary at his family’s furniture store in Winter Garden, his lawyers say, and provides enough reasonable doubt to overturn his convictions.

The results upend what Orange County prosecutors told Zeigler’s 1976 jury: that Zeigler, who is white, shot and killed his wife, mother-in-law and father-in-law, then lured 3 Black men to the store to blame them for the murders, killing 1. The tests also point to another man as the killer.

Zeigler, who will be 80 in July, has lived on death row for 48 years — the longest among Florida inmates and quite possibly the nation.

He tried for decades to get the evidence in his case analyzed for DNA. Prosecutors and judges refused 6 times to allow the tests, even at his lawyers’ expense.

Then in 2021, Monique Worrell became the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court state attorney serving Osceola and Orange counties. She had previously reviewed Zeigler’s case as founder of the office’s conviction integrity unit and said the state had a moral obligation to be certain it had convicted the right person.

Florida’s attorney general opposed the evidence release, but the Florida Supreme Court refused to stop it.

“There is reasonable doubt in spades in this case,” said one of Zeigler’s attorneys, David Michaeli, “and we don’t convict people, let alone execute them, when we’re not absolutely sure they’re guilty.”

In a recent interview at a conference room on death row, Zeigler said he hopes his experience showcases the police and prosecutorial misconduct embedded in Florida’s death penalty.

In his case, police or prosecutors coached witnesses, failed to get any of the blood subtyped and lost or destroyed key evidence, including a loose tooth seen in crime scene photos that did not belong to a victim, the new filing says.

Officers or prosecutors withheld the existence of multiple witnesses and police reports, including one of an attempted armed robbery at a gas station across the street from the furniture store within hours of the murders. The original judge also behaved inappropriately, the lawyers say, getting a doctor to prescribe Valium to a holdout juror, who only then voted to convict.

If he were declared innocent, Zeigler would join 30 other wrongfully convicted men released from Florida’s death row — the most of any state.

His appeals lawyers have been with him since 1987 and paid for the DNA analysis. During the last 2 years, they have sent him glimpses into the exhaustive testing by Forensic Analytical Crime Lab of Hayward, Calif. They’ve offered reassurances, and for the first time in many years, hope.

• • •

That chilly Christmas Eve in 1975, Zeigler, then 30, and his handyman, Edward Williams, 58, pulled up to the back of the W.T. Zeigler Furniture store, about 10 miles north of the Magic Kingdom. They planned to deliver several large Christmas gifts, including a LazyBoy for Zeigler’s father-in-law. Eunice, Zeigler’s 32-year-old wife, and her parents had driven ahead of Zeigler to pick out the recliner.

As Zeigler walked into the dark showroom, someone hit him over the head, knocking off his glasses, he later told police and a jury. 2 blurry figures, one much larger, threw him up against a wall and into a hallway.

Zeigler hustled to a desk, where he kept a revolver for protection. He remembers hitting someone with it and pulling the trigger, then he got knocked down and lost the gun. As he was getting up, he said, he felt the burn as a bullet entered his abdomen.

Before he fell unconscious, he heard a voice: “Mays has been hit, kill him.”

Zeigler told the first officer to arrive that he had been shot by Charlie Mays, a 35-year-old orange crew chief and father of 4 who owed the furniture store money.

When the lights came back on, police found Zeigler’s wife and in-laws in different parts of the store. Virginia Edwards, 54, was slumped on her side behind a floral couch in the front showroom, shot in her waist and the side of the head. Zeigler’s wife of eight years, Eunice, lay on her back in the store’s tiny kitchen, her hand in the pocket of her herringbone jacket and a bullet wound on the right side of her head.

Zeigler’s father-in-law, Perry Edwards, was found in the back of the store, about 15 feet from Mays. Both men had been shot multiple times and struck repeatedly in the head with a steel crank used to turn linoleum rolls. Seven guns lay scattered around the bodies.

Zeigler was still in the hospital, recovering from an operation to his stomach, when a deputy sheriff arrived at his bedside and charged him with all 4 murders. The apparent motive: a pair of insurance policies worth a combined $500,000 purchased by Zeigler months before on his wife.

The most damning testimony against Zeigler came from Williams, a Bahamian carpenter who had performed odd jobs for the Zeigler family for almost 2 decades.

Williams said when he entered the back of the store, he came face to face with Zeigler, who was pointing a .38 Special at him. Zeigler pulled the trigger 3 times, Williams told police, but the gun failed to fire. Williams said he noticed specks of blood on Zeigler’s face. He said he pocketed the gun, jumped over a fence and got a ride to a nearby town. Hours later, he returned to the Winter Garden Police Department and handed over the gun. It turned out to be one of the weapons used to shoot Zeigler’s in-laws.

Willams, who is deceased, appeared to have never been treated as a suspect. Zeigler’s lawyers sent Williams’ pants out for analysis only to learn after the trial that Williams had likely changed his clothes since the pocket where he’d stuck the murder weapon contained no gunshot residue.

Orange County Sheriff’s Office Detective Donald Frye had graduated the previous summer from a week-long school with a now-discredited blood spatter analyst. Frye noticed that Mays’ blood had dried in spots atop 72-year-old Perry Edwards’ blood on the terrazzo floor.

Frye decided Edwards’ blood had dried at least 30 minutes before Mays’ had flowed, suggesting that Zeigler killed his family. Frye, who died in 2017, theorized that Zeigler then lured Williams, Mays and another man to the store to kill them and blame them for the killings.

Zeigler, who had no criminal record, had shot himself with a .357 revolver, Frye suggested, to cover up his involvement.

In front of a jury 6 months later, that’s the story State Attorney Robert Eagan told. The prosecutor, who died in September, pointed to blood stains along the underarm of Zeigler’s shirt. He said they came from Zeigler holding his father-in-law in a chokehold while he hit the older man in the head with the linoleum crank.

If the Orange County Sheriff’s Office had ordered blood subtyping — available in the 1970s but only if performed within two weeks — they would have learned that the blood on Zeigler’s shirt belonged to Mays — not Perry Edwards.

• • •

48 years later on a muggy, rainy day last June, New York lawyers Michaeli and Dennis Tracey flew to Jacksonville and drove through pine forests and cow fields to Union Correctional Institution in northwest Florida to deliver the latest DNA results to Zeigler.

It was distressing to see the 6-foot Zeigler in a wheelchair with an oxygen cannula stuck into his nose, Michaeli said in a phone interview.

Zeigler had fought pneumonia and been diagnosed with COPD. His weight had dropped to 105. The staff had raced him to the prison hospital so many times that now they kept him there. A doctor had prescribed him a 3,000-calorie-a-day diet that included Ensure Plus, so he was gaining weight.

Michaeli said he handed Zeigler a stack of DNA reports, and they went through them one-by-one.

Lab analysts had tested Zeigler’s corduroy shirt in 18 spots, including the cuffs, the collar, the front and back, and turned up no blood from his murdered relatives. His glasses and his orange, navy and tan plaid pants also were clean.

But Mays, who had been shot twice and beaten in the head with a linoleum crank, had evidence all over his body indicating culpability, according to the lawyers. In addition to what appeared to be the store’s cash receipts in his pockets, blood from Zeigler’s father-in-law soaked Mays' Converse sneakers and the lower thigh and upper calf of Mays’ trousers, according to the results.

The bottoms of Mays’ shoes also suggested he’d moved around the store closer to Perry Edwards’ death. They bore Persian cat fur matted with blood and brown rug fibers from the front of Zeigler’s store, where evidence showed Edwards had been first shot in the ear and shoulder, and near where Virginia Edwards died. Zeigler and his wife kept 5 Persian show cats that they took to competitions around Florida, but the cats had never come to the store.

There was more. Eunice Zeigler, repositioned after her death, also was splattered with her father’s blood. It was found inside her lapel, on the back of her pant leg, on a sock inside her shoe and on the shoe. Someone with hands covered in Perry Edwards’ blood had rearranged her clothes after her death, the lawyers told Zeigler, replacing her shoe on her foot and buttoning up her jacket.

The absence of any of Perry Edwards’ blood on Zeigler’s clothes meant he couldn’t have been there when Eunice, Perry and Virginia Edwards were killed, the lawyers told Zeigler. The victims had each been shot in the head with large-caliber bullets and there were no exit wounds, which meant the killer would have been splattered with their blood.

Adding to the defense theory that Mays was a perpetrator — and not a victim — his blood and touch DNA were found in minute amounts on the cuffs of Eunice’s herringbone jacket and at the opening of one pocket. This suggested Mays had moved her and buttoned up her coat.

Zeigler allowed himself to feel satisfaction. He knew this was going to be the outcome. At the same time, he couldn’t force himself to get excited. He’d been disappointed too many times before, he said.

He had initially sought early DNA testing in 1994 after he heard about a prosecutor in Orange County being the first to use it to convict a rapist. A judge finally granted the analysis in 2001 after Florida passed a DNA testing law. Forensic tests on four tiny squares of Zeigler’s clothes failed to detect his family members’ blood.

But his appeals of innocence went nowhere, even after two expert witnesses testified that based on the limited tests, Zeigler could not have killed his family.

Florida prosecutors and judges all the way to the state Supreme Court denied further requests, saying that the information gleaned from the analysis would not automatically acquit Zeigler, as Florida’s DNA testing law required.

Michaeli and Tracey told Zeigler they thought they now had enough.

But one mystery remains unsolved for now. Spots of blood on Mays’ shirt do not match anyone who was in the store that night, and a search of the national criminal database of DNA yielded no results.

• • •

Zeigler’s future seems intertwined with that of State Attorney Worrell. The progressive prosecutor approved Zeigler’s testing only to be removed from office by Gov. Ron DeSantis in August 2023 for what he said was a failure to fully prosecute drug trafficking and gun crimes.

Worrell won back her job last November, and on Jan. 8, she was sworn back in as the next state attorney without any interference from DeSantis.

As long as she retains the job, she must decide whether to support Zeigler’s request. As she headed back into her office after her swearing-in Jan. 8, she said she hoped to review the results of Zeigler’s DNA tests soon.

Zeigler was the subject of a 2018 Tampa Bay Times series and podcast, Blood and Truth. The Times found him to be among more than 30 men sent to death row in the 1970s and 1980s who were denied DNA testing, despite the law passed in 2001. Courts rejected their appeals for DNA tests a combined 70 times, or almost 3 out of every 4 requests, according to a review of more than 500 death row cases. 8 were executed without ever obtaining DNA tests.

Lynn-Marie Carty, Zeigler’s private investigator of 14 years, said Florida should have been reviewing cases from the 1970s and 1980s once DNA testing became available, especially given its abysmal record on exonerations.

“It doesn’t really seem like that’s a priority one way or the other with the powers that be,” Carty said. “But I don’t think that you can ignore dramatic DNA results.”

But Mays’ two remaining sons, who still live in the Winter Garden area, said the DNA results do not sway them.

Mays’ eldest son, Pierre Mays, 61, was 12 when his Dad died. Initially, he said the DNA results gave him doubts about Zeigler’s guilt. But minutes later, he changed his mind. “In my mind, I think he did it,” he said of Zeigler. “I might be wrong… but my Daddy was a good father, and I don’t believe he would do no one like that. And how could he kill these three people and he was the last one that got killed? How could that be? It’s like a puzzle to me.”

Down the street in a small duplex, his brother, Napoleon, 59, was equally adamant after hearing about the DNA tests. “My mamma always said if my Daddy killed all these people, why didn’t he kill Zeigler?” he said.

Zeigler said his last goal in life is to clear his name. He wonders how the DNA results will be received by those with the power to set him free.

”We just have to wait and see if a judge will stand up after 48 years,” he said, “and say, ‘we screwed up.’”

(source: Tampa Bay Times)

******************

Veterans on Florida's Death Row, Part III----This is Part III of the latest series from Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty: Veterans on Florida’s Death Row, exploring information about veterans who are or have been on Florida's death row.

Florida has the highest number of death row exonerations in the nation, with 30 death-row exonerations since 1973. 2 of Florida’s 30 death row exonerees are veterans.

Robert Cox was a Lieutenant in the Army. He was convicted of 1st-degree murder in Orange County, Florida, and sentenced to death despite “adamantly and continuously proclaim[ing] his innocence.”

Cox spent 1.5 years on Florida’s death row before becoming Florida’s 12th death row exoneree following the Florida Supreme Court’s ruling on direct appeal reversing his 1988 conviction for first-degree murder and vacating his sentence of death.

Upon his release from death row, Cox “was turned over to prison authorities from California, where he [was required to] finish serving time on a previous kidnapping charge.”

Ron Wright was an Air Force Sergeant and Orange County Deputy Sheriff before being sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 7-5. On direct appeal in May 2017, the Florida Supreme Court held that “the evidence [was] insufficient to sustain Wright's convictions.” Wright was Florida’s 27th death row exoneree.

Currently on Death Row

Several prisoners currently on Florida’s death row are U.S. military veterans. The list is in alphabetical order by last name and will be split into parts, as it is too long to be included in just one post. This post covers A-J. The entire list of Florida’s death row prisoners can be found on the Department of Corrections website here.

Raymond Bright (Duval County)

Raymond Bright was sentenced to 2 sentences of death for crimes that occurred in 2008 following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 8-4.2 At trial, there was testimony about Bright’s military service:

Attorney and former marine James Hernandez testified that Bright served 9-plus years in the United States Marine Corps (USMC), during which he served as a fighter jet mechanic. Hernandez described Bright's multiple promotions during his service in the USMC. Hernandez testified that Bright received 2 separate awards for good conduct, a prerequisite of which is three continuous years of honorable service in the USMC. Hernandez also explained that Bright received a Meritorious Mast Award for noticing a problem on a jet upon take-off which required it to land, thereby preventing a “tragic mishap.” Bright received two separate honorable discharges from the USMC, and one general discharge under honorable conditions. The reason for the general discharge was listed as “Alcohol Abuse Rehabilitation Failure.”3

At sentencing, the trial court considered Bright’s military service as follows and assigned the noted weight:

10 years of service in the USMC with two honorable discharges and a third discharge under honorable circumstances (considerable weight);

Bright has skills as a mechanic and served as an aviation mechanic in the USMC (some weight); and

Bright's actions as a USMC aviation mechanic likely saved lives (some weight)4

Bright is 70 years old.

Daniel Conahan, Jr. (Charlotte County)

Daniel Conahan was sentenced to death in 1999 for crimes that occurred in 1996 following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.5 There’s some indication in the record that Conahan served in the Navy. Other sources provide that Conahan joined the Navy in 1977 and was stationed at the Naval Base in Great Lakes, Illinois, but was soon discharged for inappropriate behavior.

Conahan is 69 years old.

James Dailey (Pinellas County)

James Dailey was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1985 following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.6 On direct appeal in 1991, the Florida Supreme Court struck 2 aggravating factors, reversed the sentence of death, and remanded for resentencing before the trial judge.

On remand, Dailey was again sentenced to death. In 1995, on direct appeal from resentencing, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Dailey’s sentence of death.7

There has been extensive litigation related to Dailey’s sentence of death, including Dailey’s claims of innocence. In 2018, the Florida Supreme Court denied Dailey’s request for Hurst relief because his sentence became final before 2002.8 In 2019, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of Dailey’s 2nd successive motion for postconviction relief.9 In 2020, Dailey was under an active death warrant.

While his military service is generally not discussed in the various decisions about his case, news reports (linked below) state that Dailey is a Vietnam veteran.

Dailey is 78 years old.

Floyd Damren (Clay County)

Floyd Damren was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1994. Damren served in Vietnam. In 2022, Damren filed a motion for postconviction relief in part based on “newly discovered evidence of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the time of the offenses” that he argued “renders his death sentence unreliable.”10 The claim was denied.

Damren is 73 years old.

Leon Davis, Jr. (Polk County)

Davis was sentenced to more than 1 sentence of death in 2 separate cases. The record indicates that “Davis . . . joined the military and while enlisted, he attempted suicide by hitting a concrete pole while driving at a high rate of speed. Thereafter, he was discharged from the military.”11 At sentencing in one case, the trial court considered Davis’s service in the Marine Corps as mitigation and gave it little weight.12

Davis is 47 years old.

Gary Hilton (Leon County)

Gary Hilton was sentenced to death in 2011 for crimes that occurred in 2007 following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.13 At sentencing, the trial court considered Hilton’s service in the U.S. military as mitigation and assigned it “very little weight.”14

Hilton is 78 years old.

George Hodges (Hillsborough County)

George Hodges was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1987. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Hodges’ conviction and sentence. However, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari and vacated the Court’s decision for further consideration. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court reaffirmed its prior decision.

In postconviction, Hodges argued that his trial counsel failed to adequately research his school, military, and medical records for presenting mitigation at trial. The Florida Supreme Court denied this claim in 2004. However, Chief Justice Pariente dissented, writing that Hodges’ case is “particularly troubling” based on counsel’s “failure to investigate and present mitigation, in conjunction with defense counsel's failure to object to a patently improper penalty-phase closing argument.”15 According to the dissent, “the military records [in the postconviction record] indicate that Hodges was discharged after only 55 days by ‘reason of unsuitability’/’defective attitude.’ Internal military documents describe Hodges as ‘unable to adjust to a disciplined environment.’”16

Hodges is 67 years old.

Jeffrey Hutchinson (Okaloosa County)

Jeffrey Hutchinson was sentenced to death for killing his girlfriend and her 3 children in 1998.17 He waived a penalty-phase jury and was given 3 sentences of death—1 for each child.18 In sentencing Hutchinson to death, the trial court considered that he was “a decorated military veteran of the Gulf War” as mitigation and assigned it “significant weight.”19 The Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentences on direct appeal, and his sentences of death became final in 2004.

Bryan Jennings (Brevard County)

After two trials, Bryan Jennings was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1979 following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 9-3. At sentencing, the trial court did not find any mitigation. On direct appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Jennings’ convictions and sentence. This decision addressed Jennings’ military service.

However, on certiorari, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated and remanded for further consideration. On remand, the Florida Supreme Court vacated Jennings’ case for a new trial.

At the third trial, Jennings was again sentenced to death. On direct appeal, in 1987, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed Jennings’ convictions and sentence.

Jennings is 66 years old.

Tyrone Johnson (Hillsborough County)

Tyrone Johnson was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 2018. In July 2024, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his convictions and sentence of death on direct appeal.

The Court’s opinion indicates that Johnson served in the military and had no prior criminal history. He had also been diagnosed with Depressive Disorder and Anxiety Disorder by the Veteran’s Administration.

Johnson is 48 years old.

Ray Johnston (Hillsborough County)

Ray Johnston was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in August 1997 following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.20 At sentencing the trial court considered Johnston’s service in the U.S. Air Force and honorable discharge as mitigation and assigned it “slight weight.”21

Johnston is 70 years old.

Randall Jones (Putnam County)

Randall Jones was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1987 following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 11-1.22 The record reflects that Jones served in the Army.23

Jones is 56 years old.

1----Due to the age of some records and the unavailability of some information, it is possible that the lists in this series are incomplete. If you know of a veteran who is not included on the lists in this series, please let me know. Also, for purposes of thoroughness, this series includes those who were discharged from the military. Thank you to the Death Penalty Information Center for their assistance with research.

2----Bright v. State, 90 So 3d 249, 255 (Fla. 2012).

3----Id.

4----Id. at 257.

5----Conahan v. State, 118 So. 3d 718, 725 (Fla. 2013).

6----Dailey v. State, 594 So. 2d 254 (Fla. 1991).

7----Dailey v. State, 659 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1995).

8----Dailey v. State, 247 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 2018). For a full explanation of Hurst, see the five-part TFDP series available here. Even if his sentence was eligible for retroactive application of Hurst, he likely would not have been eligible for relief based on the jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.

9----Dailey v. State, 279 So. 3d 1208 (Fla. 2019).

10----Damren v. State, 2023 WL 5968167, at *1 (Fla. Sept. 14, 2023).

11----Davis v. State, 207 So. 3d 177, 187 (Fla. 2016).

12----Id. at 188.

13----Hilton v. State, 117 So. 3d 742, 749 (Fla. 2013).

14----Id.

15----Hodges v. State, 885 So. 2d 338, 363 (Fla. 2004) (Pariente, C.J., dissenting).

16----Id.

17----Hutchinson v. State, 343 So. 3d 50, 52 (Fla. 2022).

18----Id.

19----Hutchinson v. State, 882 So. 2d 943, 959 (Fla. 2004).

20----Johnston was also sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in February 1997 following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 11-1. Johnston v. State, 863 So. 2d 271, 277 (Fla. 2003). However, that sentence was later reduced to life.

21----Johnston v. State, 841 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 2002).

22----This was the jury’s recommendation in Jones’ 2nd trial. On direct appeal after his 1st trial, Jones was granted a new trial.

23----Id. at n.27.

(source: fladeathpenalty.substack.com)

ARIZONA:

Secret jars in a prison fridge hold Az’s lethal injection drugs, and they may be expired----Retired judge looking into executions is skeptical about prison officials’ claims that pentobarbital stockpile won’t ever expire

One pharmaceutical company that used to make pentobarbital sodium salt says on its product page that the drug has a shelf life of three years.hitthatswitch/FlickrOne pharmaceutical company that used to make pentobarbital sodium salt says on its product page that the drug has a shelf life of 3 years.

In a locked and alarm-equipped refrigerator at an Arizona Department of Corrections Rehabilitation & Reentry facility in Florence are 8 unmarked glass containers that resemble Mason jars. Inside the jars is a white substance that the agency claims is pentobarbital salt, the active pharmacological ingredient in the drug used to execute Arizona death row prisoners.

It’s enough poison to kill every Death Row prisoner in the United States and then some, according to a legal declaration obtained by a federal public defender who interviewed the manufacturer.

And how long it’s sat in that refrigerator is a question that ADCCR staff won’t answer, because state law forbids divulging details about execution sources and executioners themselves. It’s also unclear if the drug has an expiration date.

The current Arizona Corrections administration did not procure the drug. Instead, it was purchased by the administration of former Gov. Doug Ducey. The invoice from the manufacturer is dated October 2020, and the drug was used in 3 executions in 2022.

Now it sits, unmarked in a refrigerator, ostensibly waiting for the next execution, which is being discussed in the Arizona Supreme Court. Aaron Gunches, who killed a man in 2002, has asked to be put to death, and Gov. Katie Hobbs is trying to accommodate him.

But there are questions.

“I’m flabbergasted that a medical doctor would draw anything from an unmarked container and put it into people,” said David Duncan, the retired federal magistrate judge who Hobbs hired in 2023 to investigate the state’s lethal injection protocols. Duncan was unceremoniously fired late last year by Hobbs, who he has never met, before he could finish a report that promised to be scathing.

“…While certainly possible in theory, lethal injection is not a viable method of execution in actual practice,” he wrote in a summary before he was canned.

Duncan was told by ADCRR personnel that the pentobarbital salt can last forever. But Kelley Henry, a federal defender in Tennessee, claims she was told by the drug manufacturer, Absolute Standards, that the salt is unstable, needs to be refrigerated and has a shelf life of 2 1/2 years.

So, whether it was delivered to Arizona at the end of 2020, as suggested by the purchase invoice, or sometime in 2021 before the executions, it may well be at its limit.

Duncan is not the only one raising concerns.

On Jan. 15, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland withdrew the federal execution protocol using pentobarbital because of the likelihood that the drug, once thought to be the most humane form of execution, in fact causes a painful death by pulmonary edema that has been likened to drowning or waterboarding torture. Earlier this month, a Virginia law professor tried to file a “friend of the court” brief in the Arizona Supreme Court in the Gunches case on the exact same grounds.

So, can Arizona go forward with any executions using the pentobarbital in those unmarked jars in Florence?

Snuffing out an independent investigation Duncan, who sat on the federal bench in Phoenix for 17 years, was appointed by Hobbs in early 2023 to study the state’s execution protocol and suggest ways to move forward with executions. There had been a long history of problems, some associated with the drugs used. In 2010, for example, the corrections department side-stepped federal laws and FDA and DEA regulations to import a drug from the United Kingdom, and later, in 2015, tried to import it from India.

Then, in 2014, Arizona used a questionable cocktail that took 15 injections and nearly 2 hours to kill the prisoner as he panted and gasped on the execution gurney.

And there were repeated problems getting doctors and other medical staff competent enough to set the catheter lines in the condemned mens’ arms and legs. Consequently, there were no executions between the 2014 botch and 2022, when then-Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich filed death warrants for three death row prisoners. All three were executed and the problems setting lines persisted.

Brnovich also obtained a death warrant for Gunches, but not in time to carry out the execution before his term ended. Hobbs and the newly elected Arizona attorney general, Kris Mayes, decided not to, and instead appointed Duncan to do an independent review of the process.

Duncan pored over thousands of documents, conducted numerous interviews and uncovered some unsettling facts, including how prison staff had to consult Wikipedia at the last minute before one of the executions to estimate a fatal dose of pentobarbital. He also was concerned that the drugs were delivered by the manufacturer in unmarked containers to a private residence.

“Until the very end, I thought they were open to every question I had,” he said. He was supposed to make recommendations of best practices, after all.

“At the end, it completely shifted.”

Duncan wanted to watch a rehearsal of the process, and the department refused on grounds of confidentiality. The medical staff did not want to be seen, for fear that, if outed, they would lose their respective medical licenses.

“They said it’s against the law to reveal their identities,” Duncan recalled.

He was incensed at the insinuation.

“To sit across from a federal judge and suggest that the retired federal judge is going to violate the law is a ridiculous notion. And I said, I can’t accept that. Then they said I could not watch a dry run for the same reason — that I would create a risk.”

Duncan took issue with the things that they were rehearsing: parking, crowd control, where to seat journalists, how to walk the prisoner from his cell to the death chamber. While the pomp and circumstance were rehearsed, the actual execution — how to set the lines and administer the drugs — wasn’t, even though the current medical team has never participated in a lethal injection.

His contact at ADCRR “volunteered to me that there was no expiration date on pentobarbital, the base chemical. And I said, ‘How do you know that?’ And she said, ‘Because I checked with the manufacturer.’”

In the course of his research, Duncan didn’t recall seeing any documentation of a phone call with the manufacturer saying there was no expiration date. His source said those records had been thrown away.

“I found it hard to believe that the documents showing provenance and vitality and potency of the medication, that you would just throw them away. That was a step away from transparency,” he said.

One pharmaceutical company that used to make pentobarbital sodium salt says on its product page that the drug has a shelf life of 3 years.

Duncan concluded that lethal injection was too prone to error and suggested the state should consider firing squad, which, though shocking to witnesses, had a lesser chance of being botched.

Then politics raised its ugly head. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office was in a pitched battle with Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell over who had legal authority to request death warrants for execution. And Donald Trump, who is a booster of capital punishment was reelected, and Republicans won up and down the November 2024 ballot.

It was not a good time for a Democratic governor hoping to boost her reelection chances in a state that just shifted to the right to issue a scathing review of execution practices. The mood changed.

Hobbs fired Duncan and turned to an in-house review of execution protocol by the Corrections Department, which concluded that all problems were resolved and executions were ready to resume.

Sourcing execution drugs

In April 2022, Henry, an assistant federal public defender from Tennessee, and an investigator in her office showed up at the Connecticut offices of the only domestic supplier of pentobarbital salt, Absolute Standards, to ask questions.

Because of a 2015 U.S Supreme Court decision, defendants about to be executed were required to find the drugs to do so if they didn’t like the executing state’s decision. Pentobarbital was thought at the time to be the most humane alternative.

AMA Text Hope

Although the drug is used in clinical settings under its trade name, Nembutal, its European manufacturer refused to allow its use in executions, forcing state corrections departments to buy the raw materials and then find a compounding pharmacy to turn it into something that could be injected into the condemned prisoner.

Absolute Standards saw a hole in the market and filled it. Furthermore, the company owner assured Henry that his company was the only domestic source of the drug’s raw material, known in technical parlance as the active pharmaceutical ingredient. He told her his company had supplied the drug to the federal government and to Arizona and other states. (The company said in 2024 that it stopped producing the drug for executions at the end of 2020. It did not respond to a request for comment from the Arizona Mirror.)

Henry and the investigator were told that the price was $1.5 million — the same price that Arizona paid in 2020 — and that it would take a year to produce. The reason for the time and the high price was that, in order to be of adequate quality and stability, it had to be made in batches of at least 1 kilogram, and the process was time-consuming.

“They very specifically said it has a shelf life,” Henry told Arizona Mirror, raising questions as to whether the Arizona supply is still viable.

And now the feds have renounced the use of pentobarbital altogether in federal executions.

“Having assessed the risk of pain and suffering associated with the use of pentobarbital, the review concluded that there is significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection for execution treats individuals humanely and avoids unnecessary pain and suffering,” Garland wrote in his order ending the use of the drug by the U.S. Department of Justice.

“Because it cannot be said with reasonable confidence that the current execution protocol ‘not only afford[s] the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States’ but ‘also treat[s] individuals [being executed] fairly and humanely,’ … that protocol should be rescinded, and not reinstated unless and until that uncertainty is resolved. In the face of such uncertainty, the Department should err on the side of treating individuals humanely and avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering.”

What the incoming presidential administration decides remains to be seen.

And so does the decision of the current Arizona administration; the Governor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and the Department of Corrections have not responded to inquiries.

(source: tucsonsentinel.com)

CALIFORNIA:

Santa Clara County DA Commutes Death Sentences – Other DAs Won’t Go There

Those convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Santa Clara County over the past 50 years do not inspire sympathy, as seen through the examples of Richard Farley and Mark Crew, wrote the Sacramento Bee last week.

The Bee added Santa Clara County has lost millions of dollars in fighting appeals against death sentences that convicted murderers are entitled to under the law, noting there have been no executions in California since 2006.

Santa Clara District Attorney Jeff Rosen, as stated in the Bee, doubted “the morality of sentencing people to death in a system” that penalizes them harsher depending on the race of the victim and perpetrator, and in which 4 % of convictions are said to be flawed.”

But, Rosen is pretty much alone among DAs willing to commute sentences, the Bee wrote.

Rosen’s doubts about the system is the reason why he will ask for Farley’s sentence to be commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole in March, which is the latest in more than a dozen such cases that he has successfully fought.

Rosen, quoted by the Sacramento Bee, said, “I’m trying to end, for my county, the resources that we’re spending every day, every week on litigation in these cases, and then being able to have those resources spent investigating and prosecuting rapes, murders, burglaries and holding those offenders accountable.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, this change is unlikely to happen in Sacramento, since District Attorney Thien Ho stated he would consider commuting sentences for inmates believed to be innocent, but he continues to seek capital punishment in some cases.

Meanwhile, in Yolo County, the Sacramento Bee states that District Attorney Jeff Reisig “said he would never undertake a move like Rosen’s.”

The Sacramento Bee introduces Austin Sarat, a political scientist who opposes the death penalty and has studied the issue at Amherst College in Massachusetts. According to Sarat, these three approaches by different prosecutors illustrate the political climate that surrounds the death penalty in California and elsewhere.

In Sarat’s view, as noted in the Sacramento Bee, all three prosecutors are acting at a time when public opinion surrounding the death penalty, and appropriate sentences for other crimes, is changing. Sarat claims that as a society, many disagree about whether or not the death penalty should be used, and how and when to impose it.

The Bee quoted Sarat: “We are in a period of national reconsideration of capital punishment…a variation in the way in which people, prosecutors, governors, legislators, respond to the situation of the death penalty in the United States.”

The Sacramento Bee asks if Gov. Gavin Newsom could follow in Biden’s footsteps, when Biden commuted the sentences of all but 3 federal death row inmates last month. Newsom said he was considering a similar move for California’s inmates but did not indicate that such an action would happen soon. Newsom imposed a moratorium in 2019.

Sarat claims in the Bee that U.S. juries sentenced as many as 300 people to death per year in the late 1990s. This number dropped to around 25 last year. Drawing from state data, the Sacramento Bee stated that only three people were sentenced to death in 2023, down from the 41 people sentenced in 1996.

Again drawing from state data, the Sacramento Bee emphasizes how 2 dozen men are under death sentences sought by Sacramento County prosecutors, with another two tried in Yolo County. The oldest such case is from 1981 when Joe Edward Johnson, now 74, was sentenced to death by a Sacramento jury.

The Sacramento Bee refers to a statement from the office of District Attorney Ho, in which he indicated his unlikeliness to deviate from the existing process of considering and imposing the death penalty, citing checks and balances in the judicial system.

According to the Sacramento Bee, Ho is currently seeking capital punishment for Adel Ramos, who pled guilty to the shootout that took the life of 26-year-old Sacramento police rookie Tara O’Sullivan.

The statement from Ho’s office is quoted in the Sacramento Bee noting, “The decision to seek a death sentence is never taken lightly,” and “once imposed, death sentences are then automatically appealed. Any decision to alter from this path would require compelling circumstances.”

In the case there was credible evidence indicating an inmate’s innocence, Ho told the Sacramento Bee that “we would not hesitate to revisit the issue.”

The Sacramento Bee describes District Attorney Reisig from Yolo County as one of the first prosecutors in the state who moved to reduce terms for people serving time for offenses that would not be treated as harshly today. However, according to the Bee, Reisig said commuting death penalties was “going too far” and he “would never consider doing that.”

Reisig said to the Bee, “California voters have rejected ballot initiatives that would have eliminated the death penalty twice, and thus it is an acceptable manner of punishment for the worst crimes. The voters have been pretty unequivocal in California on the issue…that is the root of my view on why I would never consider it.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, none of the three district attorneys mentioned had calculated the cost of pursuing the death penalty and handling appeals at the county level.

However, Rosen is said to have cited studies that claimed each such case cost at least $1 million, and according to an analysis by the Sacramento Bee, the legal costs for death penalty cases in California was around $72 million per year.

The Sacramento Bee also emphasizes how only 36 lawyers in the state were qualified to handle certain state-level appeals, which meant that inmates often had to wait 30 or more years simply to obtain legal counsel—more than 360 inmates do not have an attorney to handle these habeas corpus appeals, and around 125 of them have been waiting for over 20 years.

(source: davisvanguard.org)

US MILITARY:

Accused 9/11 Mastermind Agrees to Use of Disputed Confession for Life Sentence

The man accused of being the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, has agreed to let government prosecutors use portions of a 2007 confession that he says were obtained through his torture at any future sentencing trial if his case is settled with a life sentence.

Defense lawyers have been trying for years to have those confessions excluded from the death-penalty trial against Mr. Mohammed and 3 other men accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001. The lawyers had argued that he was conditioned to answer his captors’ questions in a secret C.I.A. prison network where he was waterboarded, beaten and subjected to rectal abuse.

But an excerpt from his plea deal that was released by a federal court over the weekend shows that Mr. Mohammed agreed that prosecutors can use certain portions of his disputed confessions against him at a sentencing trial — if he is allowed to plead guilty.

That deal is in the midst of a heated political and legal controversy that is spilling over into the Trump administration.

On July 31, after more than a decade of litigation, a senior Pentagon appointee signed separate agreements with Mr. Mohammed, Walid bin Attash and Mustafa al-Hawsawi to settle their capital case in exchange for their giving up the right to appeal their convictions and challenge certain evidence. Those deals were submitted to a military judge, under seal.

The crime. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other defendants are facing charges in a U.S. military tribunal at Guantánamo Bay of aiding the hijackings that killed nearly 3,000 people. The charges carry the death penalty.

The trial. The defendants were arraigned in 2012, but the case has been mired in pretrial proceedings, much of them focused on the C.I.A.’s torture of the defendants. Learn more about why the trial hasn’t started.

The role of torture. In 2021, a military judge in Guantánamo's other capital case threw out key evidence because that prisoner was tortured. Defense lawyers in the Sept. 11 case are challenging the same type of evidence, and seeking to have either the case or possibility of a death penalty dismissed because of torture.

The plea deal. Susan Escallier, a retired general and former Army lawyer, authorized a plea agreement in July meant to resolve the case with life sentences for Mohammed and 2 other defendants. But Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin abruptly canceled the deal, reviving the possibility that they could someday face a death penalty trial.

The power to approve plea deals. After defense lawyers challenged Austin’s cancellation, a different judge, Col. Matthew McCall, ruled that the original deal could go forward. At the end of November, Austin stripped Escallier of her authority to reach settlements in any cases at Guantánamo Bay, giving himself the sole power to approve plea deals in terrorism cases there in the final months of the Biden administration.

The defendants in the plea deal. Along with Mohammed, Walid bin Attash is accused of training 2 of the hijackers, researching flights and timetables and testing the ability of a passenger to hide a razor knife on flights. Mustafa al-Hawsawi is accused of helping some of the hijackers with finances and travel arrangements.

The other defendants. Ammar al-Baluchi is accused of transferring money from the United Arab Emirates to some of the hijackers in the United States. He chose not to join the plea agreement and could face trial alone. Ramzi bin al-Shibh was accused of helping to organize a cell of hijackers in Germany. In 2023, he was found medically incompetent to stand trial and removed from the case. He could someday face trial if his mental health is restored.

Then, 2 days later, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III moved to withdraw from the deals. He retroactively stripped his appointee, Susan K. Escallier, a retired Army lawyer, of the authority to reach the deal and said he wanted the men to face trial.

Now a federal court has halted their entry of pleas while it decides whether Mr. Austin had the authority to breach the contract and whether to return the case to a full trial.

The court’s release of a few of the excerpts from the plea agreement comes at a pivotal time.

Hearings are still underway at Guantánamo Bay in the case of Ammar al-Baluchi, the 4th defendant in the case. The military judge, Col. Matthew N. McCall, is set to decide whether to exclude Mr. Baluchi’s confessions from his death-penalty trial, as they were obtained through torture.

Mr. Baluchi’s case has proceeded without the participation of legal teams for the three men who have sought to plead guilty to avert eventual death-penalty trials.

There is a precedent for a military commission suppressing the confessions. In August 2023, an Army judge threw out the same type of evidence in Guantánamo’s other capital case, against a prisoner who is accused plotting the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000. Prosecutors are appealing to get his 2007 interrogations by the F.B.I. reinstated.

In Washington, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled arguments for Jan. 28 on whether the other three defendants’ plea deals can go forward. The case was brought on Mr. Austin’s behalf by Biden administration appointees at the Justice Department who will leave the job on Monday.

Career Justice Department lawyers have now taken over the case and submitted the excerpts, by agreement with the military commissions defense lawyers of Mr. Mohammed, Mr. bin Attash and Mr. Hawsawi. The court filing also revealed that Mr. Bin Attash and Mr. Hawsawi have likewise agreed to have portions of their 2007 confessions used against them at their sentencing trial, if the pleas go forward.

But the Trump administration has not signaled how it will deal with the plea agreements. Colonel McCall, the judge, has said that if the circuit court resolves the case in favor of the pleas, he could hold proceedings in February. If the deal falls apart, the defense lawyers would go back to trying to keep the confessions out of the trial.

Like his co-defendants, Mr. Baluchi spent more than 3 years in C.I.A. custody after his capture in Pakistan in 2003 and was moved to Guantánamo Bay in September 2006. Within months of his transfer there, F.B.I. agents were brought in to interrogate the men for evidence to be used at their trial.

His lawyers have argued that in those early months, he had no reason to believe he could provide his interrogators with answers other than those he gave to the C.I.A. for years.

Lawyers for all 4 men also have also asked the judge to discard transcripts of their appearances in early 2007 before a panel of military officers called combatant status review tribunals. They argue that those, too, are tainted by torture.

At Mr. Mohammed’s March 10, 2007, tribunal, an unidentified U.S. military officer read aloud a statement he said was submitted by Mr. Mohammed: “I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z.”

Excerpts from the plea agreement show that Mr. Mohammed also agreed to have portions of that transcript used against him at his sentencing trial.

Clayton G. Trivett Jr., the lead prosecutor who negotiated the plea deal, has described plans for a sentencing trial that he said would start late this year and most likely extend into 2026.

The sentencing would include a monthslong presentation to the panel and the public “to establish a historical record of the accuseds’ involvement in what happened on Sept. 11,” he said, as well as potentially hundreds of victim impact statements from survivors or relatives of those killed.

(source: New York Times)

JAPAN:

Capital Punishment: Japan’s Pause in Executions Extends for More than 2 Years----Japan has not carried out an execution since July 2022. The September 2024 acquittal of Hakamata Iwao, who spent decades on death row, has sparked fresh debate about capital punishment.

2 1/2 years have passed since Japan last carried out the death penalty. The most recent case was the execution of Kato Tomohiro on July 26, 2022, for a 2008 stabbing spree that left 7 people dead and 10 injured in Tokyo’s Akihabara district. There have been previous pauses on executions, such as the year of the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011 and the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, but this is the first time this century for 2 calendar years to go by without a prisoner being put to death.

Number of Annual Executions in Japan since 2000

Japan’s Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that the death penalty should be implemented within six months of the issuing of the sentence, but in fact this is almost never the case. From the beginning of 2000 to July 26, 2022, 98 death sentences were carried out. The shortest time span from sentencing to execution was 1 year, while the longest was 19 years and 5 months. The Ministry of Justice does not clarify any of the criteria on which the decision to execute a prisoner is based. In fact, in the past it was policy to not even publicly announce that an execution had been carried out. Disclosure of information on executions and the number of those executed only began in October 1998, under the direction of Minister of Justice Nakamura Shozaburo. In September 2007, the justice minister of the time, Hatoyama Kunio, instructed the ministry to also release the name of each executed convict and the place of execution.

Decisions about executions seem to reflect the thoughts and feelings of the minister of justice of the time. Sugiura Seiken, upon being appointed to that post in October 2005, for instance, openly declared that he would not issue an execution order on religious and philosophical grounds. Although he soon retracted the statement, amid criticism questioning his right as justice minister to refuse to carry out a duty stipulated by law, he did not end up signing an execution order during his tenure of roughly 11 months. Contrasting with Sugiura’s attitude were the cases of those ministers who signed execution orders at the rapid pace of one every few months.

Only 9 people were executed from September 2009 to December 2012 under the administrations of the Democratic Party of Japan, whose justice ministers showed reluctance to carry out the penalty. Chiba Keiko, the DPJ’s first justice minister, was originally opposed to the death penalty and had been one of a group of Diet members who called for its abolition. In July 2010, however, she signed the order to execute two death-row prisoners. Chiba witnessed the executions—a first for a Japanese justice minister—and expressed her desire that they should serve as an opportunity for a national debate over the death penalty. Toward that end, she set up a study group within the ministry to consider whether it should continue. In August of the same year, Chiba opened the Tokyo Detention House’s execution chamber to the media for the first time, as well as the room it provides for prisoners to meet with religious representatives.

Eda Satsuki, who was appointed justice minister in January 2011 under the DPJ government of Prime Minister Kan Naoto, stated at a press conference soon afterward that “capital punishment is a flawed penalty”—although he later retracted the statement. In July of that year, Eda expressed his intention to not sign any execution orders for the time being since the study group on the issue established by Chiba was still meeting. That year no executions were carried out. The study group continued to meet under the next justice minister as well, but it convened for the last time in March 2012 without reaching any final conclusion, merely registering the various opinions expressed on both sides of the issue.

When Japan introduced trial by jury in 2009, members of the public became involved in capital punishment decisions. In 2017, there was a string of executions of prisoners who were petitioning for retrial. Criticism was also raised inside and outside Japan in 2018 over the execution of 13 prisoners connected to the Aum Shinrikyo cult in the space of a few weeks.

A recent high-profile case concerns Hakamata Iwao, who was sentenced to death in 1980 for the killing of four people in 1966. He maintained his innocence from prison and in 2014, Shizuoka District Court released him and granted him a retrial. The retrial began in 2023 and concluded in September 2024, with the court acquitting Hakamata after finding that investigators had fabricated evidence. The ruling came 58 years after his original arrest and 44 years after he was sentenced to death. Having been incarcerated for so many years with the death penalty hanging over him, Hakamata, even a decade after his release, has difficulty communicating with others.

This story has put the spotlight on capital punishment, sparking calls for reform. A panel including lawmakers, a former prosecutor general, and a former commissioner general of the National Police Agency released a statement on November 13 calling for a halt on executions until authorities rethink the government’s approach to capital punishment and institute fundamental changes to the system.

As of the end of 2024, there were 106 death row prisoners in Japan.

(source: nippon.com)

CHINA----executions China executes 2 men for committing deadly ‘revenge on society crimes’----Fan Weiqu had rammed his car into a crowd, killing 35 people, while 21-year-old Xu Jiajin killed eight people and injured 17 in a stabbing attack.

China has executed2 men who committed deadly attacks that killed dozens in November, raising concerns about a surge in what are called “revenge on society crimes”, state media reported.

Fan Weiqu, 62, who rammed his car into a crowd outside a sports stadium in the southern city of Zhuhai, killing at least 35 people, was executed on Monday.

The attack was the country’s deadliest in more than a decade, according to authorities. Police said Fan was upset over his divorce settlement.

Also in November, 21-year-old Xu Jiajin killed 8 people and injured 17 in a stabbing attack at his vocational school in the eastern city of Wuxi.

Police said Wu had failed his examinations and could not graduate, and was dissatisfied about his pay at an internship. He was also executed on Monday, according to state broadcaster CCTV.

Chinese President Xi Jinping urged local governments to take measures to prevent such attacks, known as “revenge on society crimes”.

The 2 men’s death sentences were issued by the intermediate people’s courts in the cities of Zhuhai and Wuxi, respectively, in December, and approved by the Supreme People’s Court, according to state media.

Violent crimes are rarer in China than in many Western countries, but the country has seen a rise in recent years. Stabbings and car attacks have challenged the governing Communist Party’s reputation for strict public security and crime prevention.

They also carried a shock factor that led some to question perceived social ills such as frustration with a slowing economy, high unemployment and diminishing social mobility.

China classifies death penalty statistics as a state secret, but some rights groups believe the country executes thousands every year. Executions are traditionally carried out by gunshot, though lethal injections have also been introduced in recent years.

(source: aljazeera.com)

SINGAPORE:

Singapore’s Shanmugan defends death penalty stance against Biden’s pardons in US----Law Minister K Shanmugam’s Facebook post was a response to a Wall Street Journal article about US President Joe Biden commuting the death sentences of 37 inmates

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said on Sunday that personal feelings are “set aside” to protect the majority of people in Singapore when it comes to the death penalty.

Shanmugam was responding to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) article in December last year about US President Joe Biden commuting the death sentences of 37 inmates before stepping down from his role on January 20.

The US newspaper’s commentary, Biden’s Prisoners of (His) Conscience, highlighted some of the convicts whom Biden has pardoned, such as Jorge Avila-Torrez, who sexually assaulted and murdered women, and Anthony Battle, who killed his wife and a prison officer.

“President Biden referred to his personal conscience, for doing this,” Shanmugam said in a Facebook post.

He added that the Wall Street Journal had also pointed out that in contrast, there were others whose death sentences Biden had not commuted.

This included the gunman who murdered Jewish congregants at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the person who shot and killed African-American worshippers at a church in Charleston. “WSJ made the point about Biden’s personal conscience overriding the law: The prisoners who were pardoned by him had gone through trials, appeals, and were found guilty – beyond reasonable doubt”, Shanmugam said.

“And at the same time, the inconsistency in President Biden’s actions in allowing the death sentences to stand for some other cases: The killers in the synagogue and the church were not pardoned. Why was it OK to pardon some cold-blooded killers, while no pardon was given to other cold-blooded killers?”

“I am often asked about my position on the death penalty. For me, the public interest of Singapore is the primary consideration: What is in the best interests of Singaporeans as a whole?” Shanmugam said.

“One’s personal beliefs can and will inform one’s views on policy, but in the end, you have to do what is right by society, for the benefit of the community as a whole, regardless of your personal beliefs; to do otherwise would be wrong.”

While removing the death penalty will save the drug traffickers’ lives, Shanmugam said it will “encourage more people” to traffic drugs into Singapore and the drug supply will “undoubtedly rise”.

“And there will be consequences: More serious crime, violence, drug-related deaths. Many more innocent people will die in Singapore, including more innocent young children.”

Shanmugam gave the example of the European Union, where he said “1/2 of all homicides and more than a quarter of illegal firearms seizures were linked to drug trafficking”.

“In the US, every 14 months, more Americans die from abusing fentanyl than from all of America’s wars combined since the Second World War, from Korea to Afghanistan,” he added.

In Singapore, the Central Narcotics Bureau now arrests about 3,000 drug abusers per year, far less than the 6,000 per year in the 1990s, Shanmugam noted.

“All things being equal, this number should have gone up in the last 30 years: The supply of drugs in the region has exploded, our purchasing power has increased significantly, and the international environment is increasingly drug-tolerant. But instead, the number has halved,” he said.

Should the government remove the death penalty, when we completely believe that doing so would certainly lead to many more people dying? K Shanmugam, Singapore’s Law Minister

Singapore’s tough approach “has saved thousands of lives: Many potential abusers, victims of crimes that come with drug abuse, and their families”, he added.

“Should the government remove the death penalty, when we completely believe that doing so would certainly lead to many more people dying – and thousands more lives [including children] harmed in some way, from drugs?,” Shanmugam said.

“As policymakers, we set aside our personal feelings, and do what is necessary to protect the majority of people.

“And we cannot be at peace with ourselves, if we take a step which leads to many more innocent people dying in Singapore.”

(source: scmp.com)

INDIA:

Beant Singh killing: Supreme Court asks Centre to decide on Balwant Singh Rajoana's mercy plea by March 18

(see: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/beant-singh-killing-supreme-court-asks-centre-to-decide-on-balwant-singh-rajoanas-mercy-plea-by-march-18-3363505)

*************

Sharon Raj murder case: ‘Crime can’t be ignored,’ Kerala court gives death penalty to accused girlfriend Greeshma----In a chilling verdict, the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court sentenced Greeshma to death for the murder of her boyfriend, Sharon Raj. The court highlighted the premeditated nature of the crime and Greeshma's emotional manipulation, raising questions about trust and betrayal in relationships.

Greeshma, the accused in the high-profile Sharon Raj murder case, was sentenced to death by the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court on Monday. Greeshma had poisoned her 23-year-old boyfriend, Sharon Raj, with pesticide-laced ayurvedic decoction, as reported by ANI.

The court also sentenced the third accused, Greeshma's uncle Nirmalakumaran Nair, to three years of rigorous imprisonment.

While pronouncing the quantum of punishment, the court observed, “The act of inviting Sharon over under the pretext of sexual intimacy and subsequently committing the crime cannot be ignored. It is the State's responsibility to ensure punishment for criminal acts. Evidence such as Sharon recording a video of the suspicious juice, despite Greeshma asking him not to record, indicates that he suspected something was wrong. Sharon fought for his life for 11 days without even consuming a drop of water.”

ANI reported that the court further observed that Greeshma betrayed the trust of her boyfriend Sharon, manipulating him emotionally. She has no evidence to support claims of mental pressure from Sharon, the court said, adding, “Greeshma's defence that Sharon had physically abused her also lacks any proof. On the contrary, Sharon had never blamed her in any messages or communications. While Sharon remained committed to the accused, she was simultaneously in contact with her fiance.”

“It is evident that the crime was premeditated and carried out without provocation. Greeshma's cunning attempts to cover up her crime were unsuccessful. Her argument of youthful age cannot be considered in light of the severity of the crime. The evidence suggests that Sharon was unaware of Greeshma's plan to murder him,” the court observed.

Accused Greeshma, who faced multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code, including murder, abduction, administering poison, and obstruction of justice, was sentenced to death by the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court.

The court found her guilty on January 17 for poisoning her 23-year-old boyfriend, Sharon Raj, with pesticide-laced ayurvedic decoction. Greeshma's mother, Sindhu, was acquitted of all charges. The court heard final arguments on the quantum of punishment on Saturday.

Why did Greeshma kill Sharon?

Greeshma, convicted for poisoning her boyfriend Sharon Raj, has been sentenced to death by the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court. The case dates back to October 14, 2022, when Greeshma allegedly mixed poison in herbal medicine at her residence to end her relationship with Sharon, who refused to break up.

Sharon fell seriously ill and died 11 days later while being treated in the ICU. His dying declaration, in which he revealed he consumed the herbal medicine given by Greeshma, was a key piece of evidence in the case, along with forensic findings.

Greeshma’s uncle, Nirmalakumaran Nair, was sentenced to three years of imprisonment for obstructing justice.

The police filed the charge sheet on January 25, 2023, following a meticulous investigation led by a special team under then-Superintendent of Police Shilpa. The trial, which began on October 15 last year, concluded on January 3 this year. Over 95 witnesses were examined in the case, ANI reported.

(source: livemint.com)

******************

Greeshma remains impassive as death sentence pronounced in Sharon Raj murder case----Greeshma is the youngest convict in the state to receive the death penalty and the 2nd woman in the state currently awaiting execution.

Greeshma, the primary accused in the Sharon murder case, remained impassive as the Neyyattinkara Additional Sessions Court sentenced her to death on Monday.

With her head bowed, Greeshma stood motionless as the judge delivered the verdict and observations. The third accused, Nirmalakumaran Nair, sentenced to 3 years in prison, also had no reaction.

Before the verdict, Sharon’s parents were called to the front by the court. As the judgment was announced, they broke down, clasping their hands in relief. Sharon’s mother, seated with a rosary in prayer, later said, “My son has received justice.” Sharon’s brother expressed gratitude to the judiciary and police. On the other hand, Greeshma’s family burst into tears upon hearing the death sentence.

Greeshma is the youngest convict in the state to receive the death penalty and the 2nd woman in the state currently awaiting execution. The other, Rafeeqa Beevi, was sentenced in the Mullur Shanthakumari murder case. Both verdicts were delivered by the Neyyattinkara court. With Greeshma, the number of convicts sentenced to death in the state’s history has reached 40.

The court dismissed pleas for leniency, stating that the murder was premeditated and unprovoked. It emphasised that Sharon’s death was caused by severe organ damage due to poisoning, a result of a meticulously planned crime. Greeshma’s suicide attempt was deemed an effort to mislead the investigation. The argument that Greeshma lacked a criminal background was also rejected, with the court asserting that her actions warranted the death penalty.

(source: newindianexpress.com)

****************

Life in Prison for Hospital Rape and Murder That Shocked India----The police had sought the death penalty in a horrific but familiar crime. Its handling by the local authorities had outraged the nation.

An Indian court on Monday sentenced to life in prison the man convicted of raping and murdering a trainee doctor in Kolkata, sparing him the death penalty in a case that was a chilling example of how the country remains unsafe for women.

The killing in August led to months of protests and political turmoil in the state of West Bengal, of which Kolkata, formerly Calcutta, is the capital.

India’s Central Bureau of Investigation, its equivalent of the F.B.I., had asked the court to hand down a death penalty for Sanjay Roy, the perpetrator. So had the victim’s family, and the powerful chief minister of the state, Mamata Banerjee.

But the court ruled that Mr. Roy’s crimes did not meet the “rarest of the rare” standard used to justify executing those convicted of capital offenses.

Rekha Sharma, a former chief of the National Commission for Women and a member of Parliament, told an Indian news agency that “the victim’s family and all of us are really sad” that Mr. Roy avoided the death penalty. A member of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s party, she blamed the sentence on shortcomings of the Kolkata Police, who answer to Ms. Banerjee.

Before the sentencing, Mr. Roy, who had served as a volunteer with the Kolkata Police, said he was not guilty. “I haven’t done this. I have been framed,” he told the court on Monday. Months ago, he had said that the written confessions he gave to police were obtained by force.

Details about the crime were murky for several days after the body of the 31-year-old victim was found in a seminar hall at a university hospital in Kolkata. They were also horrific, in a way that recalled a notorious case of rape and murder in New Delhi in December 2012 that also led to mass protests and, eventually, to four hangings.

In the Kolkata case, the junior doctor had gone to sleep on a mattress she had placed on the floor in the early hours of Aug. 9, after a grueling hospital shift. After her body was discovered, the authorities said she had been raped and strangled. Police arrested Mr. Roy after he was identified in CCTV footage entering the building before the attack and wearing headphones that were found at the crime scene.

The public reaction was extraordinary, and escalated over the next few months. Thousands of doctors across the city went on strike to demand safer working conditions. They were joined by many thousands of Indians, incensed at what they regarded as callous treatment of the victim’s family and efforts at a cover-up.

“People are convinced that this was connected with wholesale corruption in the medical college,” said Jawhar Sircar, a former civil servant who joined Ms. Banerjee’s political party but resigned in September over what he said was graft under her rule, and the role that it seemed to play in the Kolkata hospital rape and murder case.

A spokesperson for Ms. Banerjee, one of Mr. Modi’s most vocal rivals, greeted the sentencing by posting on social media that the politician and the Kolkata police had been vindicated by the verdict. But many protesters, Mr. Sircar added, had taken to the streets to rally against what they perceived as corruption under her long stint as chief minister of West Bengal.

And now, after the sentencing, the widespread feeling, Mr. Sircar said, was that “by selecting this guy, and punishing him, only partial justice has been done.”

(source: New York Times)

PAKISTAN:

Mentally Ill Man on Death Row for Blasphemy for 23 Years----Anwar Kenneth wrote in 2001 letters that clearly included the ramblings of a psychiatric patient. Nonetheless, he was sentenced to death in 2002 and kept in jail.

Human rights organizations in Pakistan and abroad are campaigning for the liberation of Anwar Kenneth. He is a mentally ill man who has been sentenced to death for blasphemy in 2002 and has spent more than 23 years on death row.

Campaigners want him liberated and placed under the care of a psychiatric institution, noting that he has remained in jail for years in confinement and with his legs shackled, rather than receiving proper psychiatric care.

The case of Anwar Kenneth tests the undefined borders between the ramblings of a psychiatric patient and blasphemy in Pakistan. At the beginning of our century, the man sent letters to religious scholars, ambassadors, and heads of state. Some of his comments were constructed as blasphemous towards Islam, but it is clear they represented the delusions of a mentally ill man.

Nonetheless, a FIR (First Information Report) was filed at Gawalmandi Police Station, Lahore, in 2001, leading to his arrest and trial under Pakistan laws against blasphemy. In 2002, he was sentenced to death. Pending appeal, he was later imprisoned. In 2014, a 2-member bench of the Lahore High Court upheld the trial court’s verdict.

Throughout the legal proceedings, Anwar Kenneth consistently declined legal assistance, further manifesting his mental problems and stating that “God was his counsel.” Despite several efforts to assign state lawyers, five different legal counsels withdrew from representing him.

On 24th January 2023, the Supreme Court directed the Pakistan Bar Council to provide legal representation for Anwar Kenneth. In March 2024, after legal representation was finally arranged, the court sought opinions from religious institutions on the case. In December 2024, Anwar Kenneth was moved from Faisalabad Central Jail to Lahore Central Jail for a psychiatric evaluation at the Punjab Institute of Mental Health. A medical board diagnosed him with bipolar affective disorder, currently hypomanic, and recommended treatment at a psychiatric hospital.

It is now urgent that charges against Anwar Kenneth be dropped so that he may receive proper medical attention rather than continuing with the anguish of the death row, which has certainly made his condition worse.

(source: bitterwinter.org)

SYRIA:

He oversaw the public execution of two women. Now he’s Syria’s new justice minister.----The new regime should think about replacing Shadi al-Waisi “as soon as possible,” a member of Syria’s Orthodox Christian community told NBC News.

In a shaky video filmed in 2015, a woman cloaked in black and kneeling on a public street begs to see her children for the last time. Instead, a man identified as Shadi al-Waisi, Syria’s new justice minister, motions to a gunman, who shoots her in the back of the head.

A 2nd video shows al-Waisi reading out a death sentence for another woman, who, like the first, was convicted of corruption and prostitution. She is shot and drops to the ground.

The videos were filmed a decade ago, when al-Waisi was a judge for Jabhat al-Nusra, an Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria’s northern Idlib province. But they have re-emerged and are spreading widely on social media after he was appointed to his high-profile role in Syria’s new government, raising difficult questions about the country’s new leaders as they try to distance themselves from their extremist roots.

The videos were widely circulated at the time, but it wasn’t until earlier this month that Verify Sy, a respected Syrian news outlet, confirmed that al-Waisi was the man dispensing the sentences. Using specialized technical tools, Verify Sy said it matched al-Waisi’s features and voice to that of the man in the video.

It also interviewed a number of people who witnessed the executions and an official of the current government who confirmed that the man in the video was al-Waisi, but who went on to say that the executions were carried out during a stage that Syria had now moved beyond.

NBC News has reached out to al-Waisi’s office for comment about the videos, which contrast sharply with the moderate image espoused by Ahmad al-Sharaa, who appointed al-Waisi as justice minister. Sharaa became Syria’s de facto leader after spearheading the rebel advance that toppled President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal regime last month.

Sharaa, who was formerly known by his nom de guerre Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, was a top general for Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), Syria’s most powerful rebel army, which grew out of Jabhat al-Nusra and is still considered a terror group by the United States 13 years after it was first designated as one.

As Sharaa transitions into the role of statesman, he is calling on the U.S. and other countries to drop sanctions imposed against Syria during the deposed Assad regime, and has vowed to usher in an inclusive government that represents the country’s many religious and ethnic groups, a task that requires convincing many inside and outside of Syria that HTS’s early links to ISIS and Al Qaeda are not indicative of how his government will rule.

It’s a task complicated by the resurfacing of its leaders’ past actions, like al-Waisi’s execution videos, which have prompted alarm and outrage among some including Hind Kabawat, a member of Syria’s large Orthodox Christian community. In an interview with NBC News last week, she said it was “wrong” to put al-Waisi into such a high-level position and the new regime should “think about replacing him as soon as possible.”

Kabawat, a professor of conflict resolution at Virginia’s George Mason University who travels regularly to Syria, said there were “many qualified judges” in Syria, and at a time when the country “could not afford any mistakes,” and there should be “zero tolerance against corruption and zero tolerance against violence of any kind.”

Sandy Aly, a 27-year-old server in Damascus, also said “somebody else” should be installed into the role. “I am of the opinion that if someone has a way of behaving, they are not going to change it. Even after 100 years, he will be the same,” Aly said.

Her colleague Fatima Omar, 24, echoed that opinion. “We don’t support that they put him there,” she said.

But others like Mustafa Obaid, 43, a high school teacher from Aleppo, defended al-Waisi. He said that as a judge, al-Waisi was upholding the law in Idlib, which was based at the time on a strict interpretation of Islamic law, or Sharia.

Mohammed Mardoud, 41, also pointed to the fact that Jabhat al-Nusra “was just a small Islamic group controlling Idlib province.” The construction worker from the city of al-Rastan in Syria’s central Homs province said that in “the absence of a functioning state and laws, people turned to Islamic Sharia to settle their issues.”

Now that they had taken power over the whole of Syria, he said, Sharaa, al-Waisi and their fellow government ministers “need to rethink their approach” because “Syria is home to many religions and a rich cultural diversity.”

Zubair Abbasi, a British academic and the associate editor of the “Yearbook of Middle Eastern and Islamic Law,” cautioned against framing Sharia as a state-enforced legal code, describing it instead as a “moral and ethical framework.”

“While rulers or their officials may justify their political actions by invoking Sharia, such claims do not bestow divine sanctity upon their decisions or policies,” he said, adding that while some Muslim jurists have discussed death as a punishment for adultery, they have also “placed significant emphasis on mercy, repentance and divine forgiveness, prioritizing these values over the strict enforcement of the death penalty.”

When HTS was founded in 2017, it strictly interpreted Sharia teaching, in line with Al Qaeda and ISIS, but since then it has “decidedly changed,” according to Paul Salem, the vice president for international engagement at the Washington-based Middle East Institute think tank.

The group has since become more of a nationalist movement, he said.

But as the videos show, its hard-line past remains a concern — including for the U.S. and other Western governments that are weighing whether to lift sanctions imposed during the Assad regime, a move that would be critical in reviving Syria’s struggling economy and for the overall success of the new government.

Outside Syria, it remains “unclear what the U.S. stand on all this is going to be,” according to Joshua Landis, the director of the Center of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma. Sharaa would have to balance the internal politics of HTS with the wider goals for Syria.

“He’s got a terrible job ahead of him,” Landis said. “Politics has been so destroyed in Syria for so long that Syrians don’t really know each other, they don’t know how to speak to each other.”

However, he added that Sharaa was “keeping hope alive for every sector of Syrian society and he seems to be very good at speaking in all directions.”

Inside Syria, Obaid, the teacher, was prepared to back Sharaa and his choice of al-Waisi for justice minister, despite the videos.

“I think he is a respectable person and deserves his position,” Obaid said. “Don’t forget that this is a transitional government and won’t last long.”

(source: NBC News)

IRAN:

Kurdish groups in Iran call for general strike against looming executions

Iranian Kurdish opposition groups called for a general strike in the western Kurdish areas (Rojhelat) on Wednesday to condemn the Islamic republic's death sentences for political prisoners Pakhshan Azizi and Varisheh Moradi.

“Due to the risk of execution of Pakhshan Azizi and Varisheh Moradi, urgent and immediate steps must be taken to save them from the gallows. One of these steps is to carry out a general strike in Kurdistan,” a rare joint statement from the groups said.

The groups include the Kurdistan Democratic Party of Iran (KDPI), Komala, the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK), and the Kurdistan Freedom Party (PAK).

Azizi is awaiting imminent execution for allegedly being a member of Iranian Kurdish groups considered “terrorists” by Tehran such as KDPI and PJAK. She was sentenced to death in June 2024 on charges of “armed rebellion.”

Moradi was handed a death sentence by a Tehran court in November of last year on charges of “armed insurrection” for allegedly being a member of PJAK. She is a member of the East Kurdistan Free Women Society (KJAR).

The statement called on “all the struggling masses of Kurdistan to participate in a general strike … against the death sentences of our children, and we also call for all workplaces, markets, and educational centers to be closed.”

The Kurdish parties also called for the strike to be conducted in a “civil and peaceful manner,” reiterating their joint statement during the September 2022 nationwide protests after the death of Kurdish woman Zhina (Mahsa) Amini at the hands of Iran’s so-called morality police.

On Tuesday, the US called on Iran to overturn the death sentence of Azizi and to stop targeting Kurds.

Tasnim news agency, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), further accused Azizi of joining university protests in Iran after being trained by the Kurdish groups to spread social unrest.

Azizi was also active as an aid worker in refugee camps in northeast Syria (Rojava) and Shingal (Sinjar) where she was helping those affected by Islamic State (ISIS) attacks, according to her lawyer.

(source: rudaw.net)

***************

Death Penalty Given To Pop Singer Amir Tataloo By Iranian Court For Blasphemy----Amir Tataloo, Iranian pop singer, sentenced to death for blasphemy in a controversial court ruling.

Amir Tataloo, a well-known Iranian pop singer, has been sentenced to death by an Iranian court after being convicted of blasphemy. The ruling has sparked outrage both inside Iran and internationally, with human rights groups calling for the immediate reversal of the verdict.

Tataloo, who has gained a large following in Iran and across the Middle East for his music, was charged with spreading content deemed offensive to Islam, a highly sensitive issue in the Islamic Republic. The court’s decision comes amid increasing crackdowns on artists and celebrities who are perceived to be challenging the strict cultural norms imposed by the Iranian government.

The controversial singer has faced previous legal troubles related to his outspoken views and his criticism of the regime, including a period of imprisonment. Tataloo’s music often pushes boundaries, and his style has made him both a celebrated and polarizing figure. However, this most recent conviction is by far the most severe, as it brings the death penalty into play.

Iran has a long history of imposing harsh penalties for actions it deems blasphemous or against Islamic values, and Tataloo’s case is no exception. The decision has attracted criticism from international human rights organizations, who argue that it highlights the oppressive nature of the regime in dealing with free expression and dissent.

While many in Iran have rallied behind Tataloo, calling for his release and a fair trial, others remain deeply concerned about the consequences of challenging the country’s religious laws. The singer’s supporters fear that the sentence could be carried out swiftly, while the broader global community has urged the Iranian government to reconsider the penalty.

This case reflects the broader tensions in Iran, where citizens, especially artists and musicians, have faced increasing repression as they attempt to push back against government restrictions on freedom of expression and creativity. With Tataloo’s case, the world watches closely, hoping for an outcome that ensures justice and freedom for the artist and his supporters.

(source: newsx.com)

***************** Iranian court sentences pop star Tataloo to death for blasphemy----Amir Hossein Maghsoudloo’s 5-year jail term increased after prosecutor’s objection, according to reports An Iranian court has sentenced the popular singer Amir Hossein Maghsoudloo, known as Tataloo, to death on appeal after he was convicted of blasphemy, according to local media reports. “The supreme court accepted the prosecutor’s objection” to a previous 5-year jail term on offences including blasphemy, the reformist newspaper Etemad reported on Sunday. It said “the case was reopened, and this time the defendant was sentenced to death for insulting the prophet”, referring to Islam’s prophet Muhammad. The report added that the verdict was not final and could still be appealed against. The 37-year-old underground musician had been living in Istanbul since 2018 before Turkish police handed him over to Iran in December 2023. He has been in detention in Iran since then. Tataloo had also been sentenced to 10 years for promoting “prostitution” and in other cases was charged with disseminating “propaganda” against the Islamic Republic and publishing “obscene content”. The heavily tattooed singer, known for combining rap, pop and R&B, was previously courted by conservative politicians as a way of reaching out to young, liberal-minded Iranians. Tataloo even held an awkward televised meeting in 2017 with the ultra-conservative Iranian president Ebrahim Raisi, who later died in a helicopter crash. In 2015, Tataloo published a song in support of Iran’s nuclear programme. (source: The Guardian)

JANUARY 19, 2025:

TENNESSEE:

Tennessee will still use execution drug abandoned by DOJ over ‘unnecessary suffering’ concerns

Despite the Department of Justice announcing it will no longer use the single lethal injection drug, pentobarbital in executions after a review raised questions about whether it causes “unnecessary pain and suffering,” the Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) still plans to use the drug, which was included in its new execution protocol completed last month.

On Wednesday, the U.S. Attorney General told the director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons in a memo to stop using pentobarbital in executions because it’s unclear whether it causes unnecessary pain and suffering.

TDOC completes review of lethal injection protocol after 2022 pause

“Because it cannot be said with reasonable confidence that the current execution protocol ‘not only afford[s] the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States’ but ‘also treat[s] individuals [being executed] fairly and humanely,’ that protocol should be rescinded, and not reinstated unless and until that uncertainty is resolved,” the memo read.

Pentobarbital, a drug commonly used to euthanize pets, has been reported to cause flash pulmonary edema in humans when used for executions, which can feel similar to being waterboarded or drowning, according to some medical experts.

However, a TDOC spokesperson told News 2 the department still plans to use pentobarbital as part of its new execution protocol, which the state announced in Dec. 2024.

Gov. Bill Lee paused all executions in the state in April 2022 after a report and lawsuits revealed Tennessee wasn’t following its own rules when putting people to death, including failing to test the drugs used in executions. Lee ordered TDOC to create a new protocol.

“I’ve told the department take all the time you need to develop this thing exactly as it should be because it matters very much to Tennesseans,” Gov. Lee told reporters in Jan. 2024.

TDOC took more than 2 years to finalize its new protocol.

Stacy Rector, the executive director of Tennesseans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty told News 2 the state has a history of transparency issues surrounding executions, first by not following its own protocol, then refusing to release the new protocol before later releasing a redacted version, which Rector said “is even more secretive and less transparent than where we were before.”

“I think all citizens, regardless of your opinion on the death penalty, should have deep concern about government shielding itself from accountability this way,” Rector said. “I’m grateful that the DOJ, after their thorough review of this, came to that conclusion, because it’s the conclusion that many people who have been looking at this for a long, long time have come to.”

Rector argues the lack of transparency and the DOJ’s concerns over pentobarbital not only create issues for those being executed but also for those carrying them out.

“When these sorts of things are going on with the drugs, with lack of transparency with the protocols, what that does is put these individuals in a situation where they may have to deal with some horrific realities in that execution chamber that we should not be asking state employees to have to deal with,” Rector said.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 20 of the 27 states that allow the death penalty have statutes permitting single-drug lethal injections, including most recently Tennessee.

(source: WKRN news)

USA:

Biden Commuted Their Death Sentences. Now What?----As 3 men challenge their commutations, others brace for imminent prison transfers and the finality of a life sentence with no chance of release.

In the days after President Joe Biden commuted his death sentence, 40-year-old Rejon Taylor felt like he’d been reborn. After facing execution for virtually his entire adult life for a crime he committed at 18, he was fueled by a new sense of purpose. He was “a man on a mission,” he told me in an email on Christmas Day. “I will not squander this opportunity of mercy, of life.”

Taylor saw new signs of life all around him. Biden had granted clemency to 37 of the 40 men on federal death row, an unprecedented move that none of them expected. One of his neighbors, a man who long ago seemed to have “fallen into an abyss in his fractured mind, never to return again,” suddenly appeared lucid, talking to Taylor instead of the voices in his head. “He even cleaned up his cell today, something he NEVER does. … He now has hope, despite a life sentence! I’m amazed!”

The sense of renewal was shared by men like Charles Hall, whose years on death row had been especially punishing. In a six-page letter to Biden, he vowed that the decision to grant clemency “will not be wasted on me.” Hall had earned a paralegal certificate while on death row and he planned to continue his education, he wrote, adding that change and positivity are possible “even behind razor wire, fences, walls, and bars.”

The outpourings of gratitude came amid a flurry of activity inside the Special Confinement Unit at the U.S. Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. Men sorted their belongings and packed their things. They had been told that the unit would likely be shut down and its residents transferred to other prisons. No one knew precisely when this would happen — or where they might end up — but it was best to be prepared. Prison transfers are notoriously disruptive, taking place with no advance notice, and sometimes lasting months.

Yet not everyone was eager for a new beginning. Within days of the announcement, two men had sent handwritten emergency petitions to a federal court in Indiana seeking to block the commutation of their death sentences. Neither of them had applied for clemency and both were adamant that they did not want it, arguing that it threatened to derail their efforts to prove their innocence in court. One of them decried Biden’s commutations as a “publicity stunt.” This week a third man, Iouri Mikhel, similarly objected to Biden’s reprieve.

While people on death row are automatically entitled to legal representation, those serving life without parole are not.

The challenges are a long shot to say the least. “The Court harbors serious doubt that it has any power to block a commutation,” a federal judge wrote in response to the first two filings. But the lawsuits also lay bare a sobering reality for most people who go from facing a death sentence to a life sentence with no chance of release. While people on death row are automatically entitled to legal representation, those serving life without parole are not. And for those who harbor even the faintest hope of overturning their convictions, a commutation can foreclose on legal avenues that once made it possible. This is true even for those who do not claim to be innocent but have challenged their convictions on other grounds, from ineffective advocacy by trial lawyers to racial bias to official misconduct.

With Taylor and his neighbors facing a lifetime behind bars — and with more questions than answers about what will happen next — the mood in Terre Haute has shifted. The initial wave of celebration has given way to anxiety over the future. Rumors have run rampant about the upcoming prison transfers; some days the men hear they will happen imminently, only to be told that it could be a while. Many are nervous about living in general population after years or even decades in solitary confinement.

In the thick of such uncertainty, the man whose mental illness seemed to recede after the commutations has gone back to his previous behaviors, sometimes yelling from behind his steel cell door, Taylor told me recently. “He’s falling back under the weight of his stress again.”

Significant Uncertainty

After an unprecedented 13 executions during Trump’s final six months in office, there was no question that his reelection spelled doom for the men in Terre Haute. Although Biden fell short of abolishing the federal death penalty as he vowed to do during his 2020 campaign, his mass clemency robbed Trump of a chance to carry out another execution spree. “In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted,” Biden said upon announcing the commutations.

Biden’s moratorium had been imposed in January 2021 by Attorney General Merrick Garland, who also announced a review of the federal protocol used to carry out Trump’s executions. After four years, the results were finally released this week. In a 25-page report, the Department of Justice addressed long-standing concerns over the method of lethal injection used to carry out Trump’s execution spree. Autopsy reports have long revealed that executions carried out by a single dose of pentobarbital (as well as other drug combinations) have led to pulmonary edema, the filling of fluid in the lungs.

Citing “significant uncertainty” about whether the pentobarbital executions inflicted “unnecessary pain and suffering,” Garland rescinded the government’s lethal injection protocol, calling on the Justice Department to “halt the use of pentobarbital unless and until that uncertainty is resolved.”

“The DOJ’s review has confirmed what medical experts have said for many years: pentobarbital causes excruciating pain when used to carry out executions,” death penalty lawyer Shawn Nolan said in a statement. While Garland’s actions could certainly complicate plans to restart federal executions, the truth is that Trump would have been unlikely to be able to carry out new executions soon after returning to office anyway. The three remaining men on death row — Dylann Roof, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, and Robert Bowers — are a long ways off from exhausting their appeals.

Trump could theoretically restart executions sooner if the men fighting their commutations somehow prevail. Winning their lawsuits might allow their post-conviction appeals to continue in the short term — but if their challenges eventually fail, it would set them up for execution.

Shannon Agofsky, who filed his challenge late last year, says that’s a risk he is willing to take. “The fact that I do not want commutation may lead you to believe that I am mentally disturbed, suicidal, or somehow wishful of death,” he wrote in an email sent via his wife, Laura Agofsky, in late December. “That is not the case. I am in full possession of my faculties, and am not eager to die at all; in fact, I have much to live for.”

Agofsky found out about the commutations the same way as his neighbors: through media reports shortly after 5 a.m. on December 23. He immediately called Laura, who lives in Germany and was shopping for Christmas. She cried when she heard the news. “I sort of had a mental breakdown in the grocery store,” she told me in a phone call. Both of them assumed that he would lose his lawyers and that his legal challenges were now null and void. (His lawyers have since reassured him that they will continue to represent him.)

Agofsky was sent to death row after killing a man at USP Beaumont, a maximum security penitentiary known as one of the bloodiest prisons in the federal system. He swore it was an act of self-defense — and a key eyewitness later gave a sworn declaration saying he was coerced into pinning the blame on Agofsky. Nonetheless, in 2004, a federal jury found Agofsky guilty and sentenced him to death based on the fact that he had previously been convicted of a different murder.

But Agofsky is adamant that he is innocent of the first crime. He had been sent to Beaumont after being convicted and sentenced to life alongside his brother for a 1989 bank robbery and killing. The case against him turned almost entirely on fingerprints matched to Agofsky — a type of forensic evidence that, while ubiquitous, has since been revealed to be often unreliable, especially given the analytical techniques used at the time.

It was not until Agofsky was sentenced to die that he was able to secure lawyers who investigated both his cases and found evidence questioning his original conviction. Though records in his case remain under seal, he argues that they expose his wrongful conviction — and that Biden’s commutation order came just as he was “on the cusp” of proving his innocence.

Agofsky wrote in an email that he would do “whatever it takes, go to any lengths, to prove that my brother and I did not rob a bank, or kill a banker.” At their 1992 sentencing, his brother Joseph accused the government of manufacturing evidence, telling the court “our innocence will be proven eventually.” Joseph Agofsky died in prison in 2013.

In his legal filing, Agofsky invoked the “heightened scrutiny” courts are supposed to give death penalty cases. “To commute his sentence now, while the defendant has active litigation in court, is to strip him of the protection of heightened scrutiny,” he wrote.

Len Davis, the second man who challenged his commutation in December, for his part argued that he “has always maintained that having a death sentence would draw attention to overwhelming misconduct” in his case.

Davis, a former New Orleans police officer, was convicted and sentenced to death for ordering the murder of a woman who had allegedly filed a complaint against him. Unlike Agofsky, he has no pending appeals remaining. But Davis told me that he is not afraid that his lawsuit would leave him vulnerable to execution. “First, I’m a Born-Again believer in Jesus The Christ,” he wrote in an email. “I can’t be scared with a trip to heaven.” What’s more, he argued, “Trump should be able to empathize with me about D.O.J Misconduct.” He hopes that by rejecting a commutation, he will draw more attention to his innocence claim — and possibly receive a pardon.

On January 14, federal prosecutors filed responses to the emergency petitions, calling the judge’s doubts about his power to block a commutation order “well-founded.” Under existing case law, “a prisoner’s consent is not necessary when the President unconditionally commutes a federal death sentence to a life sentence,” they wrote. Two days later, a lawyer appointed to represent Agofsky and Davis summarized their arguments in response, but ultimately agreed with the government that the court “does not have the power to block” the commutations.

By the 2nd week of January, rumors swirled among the men in Terre Haute that the transfers would happen far sooner than expected. There were whispers that most, if not all, of them might be headed, at least temporarily, to ADX Florence in Colorado, the highest security penitentiary in the federal system. For Taylor, who craves community and human connection, such an environment would be hard to take. In contrast to the Special Confinement Unit, where residents have access to phone calls and emails, ADX is notorious for its isolation.

Taylor found himself unprepared. He had previously heard that the Bureau of Prisons was willing to at least consider housing preferences from the men whose sentences had been commuted. He hoped to get into a residential program that was available right there in Terre Haute. The program, called Life Connections, is “designed for inmates who are sincerely interested in seeking their faith, or improving their social responsibility,” according to the Bureau of Prisons. Participation is up to the chaplain — and Taylor, who is known for his empathy and desire to make a positive impact inside and outside prison walls, could be an ideal candidate.

In an email responding to questions from The Intercept, Bureau of Prisons spokesperson Scott Taylor wrote that the men whose death sentences were commuted “will be transferred to an institution commensurate with their respective safety, security, health, and programming needs.” He did not provide a timeline, but the rumored imminent transfers have not come to pass.

With Trump’s inauguration just a few days away, Taylor and his neighbors remain in limbo. For now, his cell is packed. His beloved art supplies and family pictures are in boxes, which he will send to loved ones for safekeeping. His walls are mostly bare, save for a calendar featuring cityscapes and a photo of one of his paralegals with her French bulldog. Rather than distract himself with TV, he’s trying to prepare himself mentally, he said, the same way he did before the commutations were announced: by envisioning the worst-case scenario while hoping for the best. “If you sit with anxiety, it helps you prepare for the future.”

(source: theintercept.com)

JAPAN:

Family of ex-death row inmate seeks answers after Japan gov't blacks out execution docs

The family of a death row inmate who was executed while he was preparing to request a retrial has filed a civil lawsuit demanding full disclosure of documents relating to the execution, large portions of which the Japanese government blacked out.

The man, Michitoshi Kuma, was convicted of killing 2 elementary school students in the Fukuoka Prefecture city of Iizuka in 1992, in what came to be known as the Iizuka incident. His death sentence was finalized in 2006 and he was executed 2 years later at the age of 70. Kuma had protested his innocence and his family is now fighting the government seeking information on his execution, which they say was carried out too soon.

In September 2008 around two years after the death sentence was finalized, lawyers Tsutomu Iwata and Yasuyuki Tokuda met Kuma in a meeting room at Fukuoka Detention House. "If you don't request a retrial soon, the death sentence could be carried out," they warned him. Kuma showed them a list of death row inmates, including himself, with the dates their sentences had been finalized. Names of those already executed were crossed out. "I'm still about in the middle, so it's OK. There's still time so please proceed with the retrial request," Kuma said before leaving the meeting room.

However, only about a month later, on Oct. 28, 2008, he was executed.

The Code of Criminal Procedures stipulates that executions must be carried out within 6 months after the death penalty is finalized. But according to the Ministry of Justice and other sources, over the period from 2014 to 2023, the average time from the finalization of the sentence to execution was around 9 years. Among the currently incarcerated inmates there is a case when the execution has been stayed for over 50 years.

The execution of Kuma, in comparison, was quick, being carried out after roughly 2 years and 1 month. Lawyer Iwata recalls, "At the time, the government was avoiding executing inmates when they were seeking retrials. Detention facility workers were present at the meeting, so the Ministry of Justice must have been aware of the details. Why, then, was the execution carried out so quickly?"

In January 2022, Kuma's bereaved family requested the disclosure of documents relating to the execution process. About 2 months later, the government released some documents, including a "Death penalty execution petition" addressed from the superintending prosecutor of the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office to the minister of justice, an internal Ministry of Justice decision document titled "Regarding execution of the death penalty" and a "Death penalty execution report."

The documents show that the superintending prosecutor filed a petition for Kuma's execution to the justice minister on Feb. 7, 2007, about 4 months after his sentence was confirmed. On Oct. 24, 2008, the Ministry of Justice's Criminal Affairs Bureau drafted the execution, which was approved by 13 ministry officials. The minister of justice at the time then ordered the superintending prosecutor to carry out the execution, with the directive "Carry it out as per the court's ruling."

However, other parts of the documents were mostly blacked out. The document titled "Regarding execution of the death penalty" is said to have contained concrete deliberations on the appropriateness of the death penalty, but about nine relevant pages were totally blacked out.

The "Death penalty execution report," meanwhile, is believed to contain a chronological record of the procedures on the day of the execution and the condition of the former death row inmate, but that part too, was blacked out. The reason for this was said to be that those parts constituted "information where it is possible to identify a specific individual" and "information likely to cause impediments to the execution of punishment," which are subject to nondisclosure under Japan's information disclosure law.

Among the many inmates on death row, why was Kuma, who was preparing to request a retrial, chosen at that particular time, and how did he spend his final days? Dissatisfied with the documents full of redactions, Kuma's kin filed a lawsuit in the Fukuoka District Court in October 2023 requesting annulment of the nondisclosure decision. In the lawsuit, the family argues, "Despite being willing to waive our own privacy rights, the information was unilaterally withheld." The family further states the government's act unacceptably went as far as to conceal information that could help restore Kuma's honor, and that the nondisclosure was illegal.

The government, on the other hand, argued that if the process by which officials consider implementation of the death penalty becomes known, then other inmates might imagine that they are next and try to escape or kill themselves. It said all of the blacked-out parts constitute information subject to nondisclosure and is calling for the court to dismiss the family's suit.

Iwata, however, stated, "When the documents are blacked out, there is no way to verify whether execution of the sentence was appropriate. The information should be fully disclosed, not hidden."

Shinichi Ishizuka, a professor emeritus of criminal law at Ryukoku University, who is knowledgeable about Japan's death penalty system, stated, "Shedding light on the execution process is the starting point for discussing the existence of the death penalty system. Withholding information takes away the opportunity for debate, which is unacceptable. In the lawsuit, the question of whether disclosing the information could harm the public interest and the appropriateness of nondisclosure on the grounds of protecting the privacy of the former death row inmate, even when requested by the bereaved family, are likely to emerge as points."

The Iizuka incident

In February 1992, 2 first-year elementary school girls went missing in Iizuka, Fukuoka Prefecture. They were later found dead in the mountains of the prefectural city of Amagi (present-day Asakura). In September 1994, police arrested Michitoshi Kuma, who lived within the school zone. He consistently maintained his innocence, but he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. His death sentence was finalized in 2006 and he was executed in 2008. According to the confirmed ruling, Kuma was convicted of abducting the 2 girls between about 8:30 and 8:50 a.m. Feb. 20, 1992 near a 3-way intersection in Iizuka, strangling them by around 9 a.m., and disposing of their bodies in the mountains of Amagi around 11 a.m.

(source: mainichi.jp)

INDIA:

Life or death for RG Kar rape and murder convict Sanjoy Roy? All eyes on Sealdah court

The Sealdah court will on Monday sentence the civic volunteer convicted in the RG Kar rape and murder case, which shook the country.

After Sealdah Additional Sessions Judge Anirban Das on Saturday found Kolkata Police civic volunteer Sanjoy Roy guilty of the rape and murder of a 31-year-old doctor of RG Kar Medical College and Hospital, all are eagerly waiting for the quantum of punishment to be announced on Monday.

The maximum punishment for the crimes committed is the death penalty, while the minimum sentence is life imprisonment. The judge, in an open court, informed Sanjoy Roy that the death penalty was an option for offences proved under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita sections 64, 66 and 103(1). “It may be a life term or even death, given the way you throttled and killed the victim,” the judge said.

But, till the very end, Roy insisted he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in the case.

Billwadal Bhattacharya, a senior counsel at the Calcutta High Court, told The Indian Express that a lot of questions regarding the August 9 incident still remained unanswered given that “there is no further investigation and this person has been made the sole convict”.

“The death penalty is given in the rarest of rare cases. There cannot be any second thoughts on the fact that this was one of the most heinous forms of crime against a woman. It was done in a beastly manner. The way the young doctor was murdered, and the torture that was inflicted on her, definitely fits the rarest of rare cases, which very well warrants the death penalty,” he said.

Bhattacharya also raised questions about the investigation. “Initially, there were allegations that the police were trying to botch up the investigation. There were a lot of loopholes, which is why the matter got transferred to the CBI by the Calcutta High Court. But the question is, was it done only by this particular person who has been convicted? Now, a lot of questions will remain unanswered.”

He added, “In our country, the legal system grants an opportunity to appeal against the order of conviction given by the lower court. This will take time…”

Another senior counsel at the high court, Jayanta Narayan Chatterjee, said that Roy has been declared guilty on the basis of documents collected as circumstantial evidence or statements of eyewitnesses.

“In this case, he has been declared guilty on the basis of circumstantial evidence. I do not know what is the weight and value of the circumstantial evidence, but at the same time, it has to be appreciated that the immense pressure of the public has played a vital role in this case,” he told The Indian Express.

Reflecting on the Kamduni case of 2013, he said, “Due to the pressure of society, 7 persons were given the death penalty; one person died during trial, and 6 persons faced the trial. They appealed in the high court, and we saw that 4 people came out and 2 people got life terms. Not a single one got the death penalty, because the witnesses and evidence were weak.”

Chatterjee said the death penalty was the only option. “But I feel there are some doubts in the trial. In the lower court, a death sentence will be given, but when the case goes to the high court or the Supreme Court, I do not know what the fate of this case will be.”

Advocate Kaustav Bagchi, another counsel at the Calcutta High Court, noted that the trial was in-camera and said the question of the death penalty would definitely arise. “But what we are all more concerned with is that apart from Sanjoy, there are more perpetrators of the crime and they need to be booked. We hope and believe that this trial has not been a shabby or a shoddy trial. We hope that the sentence given to Sanjoy will not be overturned by a higher court,” he told The Indian Express.

The verdict was delivered 162 days after the on-duty postgraduate trainee doctor was raped and murdered on the premises of the hospital in Kolkata. The CBI counsel has termed the crime as the rarest of rare during the trial.

(source: indianexpress.com)

***************

Daughter testifies against father, an Army jawan who killed his wife, son; court hands death sentence: Report

(see: https://www.deccanherald.com/india/uttar-pradesh/daughter-testifies-against-father-an-army-jawan-who-killed-his-wife-son-court-hands-death-sentence-report-3362731)

*************

Extreme, grotesque: Court in death sentence to Haryana man who stabbed disabled brother

(see: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chandigarh/extreme-grotesque-court-in-death-sentence-to-haryana-man-who-stabbed-disabled-brother-28-times-for-property/articleshow/117357466.cms)

PAKISTAN:

Death penalty of 2 brothers suspended over mother’s compromise

District & Sessions Judge, Shahpur Mian Shahid Javed on Saturday while hearing murder case has suspended the death punishment of 2 brothers, who had killed their sister on honour issues on the behalf of written compromise of their mother in the court. According to prosecution, Sarfraz (44) and Umar Draz R/O Shahpur city had killed their sister Nighat Yasmeen on the doubt of her ill character.

The court released the murderers on the behalf of written compromise of their real mother.

(source: nation.com.pk)

KUWAIT:

6 Kuwaitis among 8, including a woman, set for execution----Executions, approved after final rulings by criminal, appeals and cassation courts

8 individuals convicted of murder are scheduled to be executed on Sunday at Kuwait's Central Prison, following the completion of all legal procedures, a security source confirmed.

? The convicts include 6 Kuwaiti nationals — 5 men and 1 woman —alongside an Egyptian national and a Bidoon (individual who has no documents), the source said.

The executions, approved after final rulings by the criminal, appeals and cassation courts, were ratified in accordance with Kuwaiti law.

The Ministry of Interior, in collaboration with the Departments of Correctional Institutions, Criminal Evidence, the Criminal Execution Prosecution and judicial authorities, has finalised all preparations for the executions. Specialised doctors from the Ministry of Health will be present to ensure protocols are properly followed.

This marks Kuwait’s 1st executions of 2025. The Central Prison last carried out executions on September 5, 2024, when 6 murder convicts were executed, and in November 2022, when seven individuals faced capital punishment.

(source: gulfnews.com)

IRAN----executions

The Elimination of Iranian Judges Behind Mass Executions

According to official reports, 2 senior judges, Ali Razini and Mohammad Moghiseh, both responsible for mass executions, were eliminated in their offices in Tehran. The attack occurred in the early hours of Saturday morning when an infiltrator within the judiciary reportedly used a handgun to fatally shoot the 2officials. The assailant then took his own life as security forces approached.

Both judges were infamous figures in Iran’s judiciary, with long records of human rights abuses and repression that have drawn widespread international condemnation. Their deaths have reignited discussion about their role in decades of systemic oppression, including the massacre of over 30000 political prisoners in the 1988 massacre.

Ali Razini: Enforcer of the 1988 Massacre

Ali Razini, head of Branch 41 of the Supreme Court, was among the architects of the Iranian regime’s campaign of repression. His most infamous role was in the 1988 massacre, during which over 30,000 political prisoners were summarily executed.

Razini was a member of the “Death Committees” that sentenced prisoners to execution based solely on their political affiliations. Survivors and human rights organizations have accused him of fabricating charges to justify these killings.

In a 2016 interview, Razini defended his actions, boasting about personally interrogating hundreds of prisoners and ensuring they were either executed or given extended prison sentences.

Razini once sentenced dozens of university students to death in Bojnourd after accusing them of ties to opposition groups. He later claimed this instilled fear in their families and crushed dissent in the region.

Mohammad Moghiseh (Naserian): The Executioner Judge

Mohammad Moghiseh, also known by his alias “Naserian,” was a central figure in Iran’s judiciary, notorious for presiding over politically motivated trials, issuing death sentences, and overseeing torture.

1988 Massacre and Beyond:

As part of the Death Committee in Gohardasht Prison, Moghiseh ordered the executions of countless political prisoners. Survivors recount how he expedited hangings, even personally assisting in carrying disabled prisoners to the gallows.

In 2019, he sentenced Abdullah Ghasempour to death and imprisoned 3of his relatives on charges of supporting the PMOI/MEK.

In 2016, he issued death sentences for seven Sunni prisoners based on confessions extracted under torture, many of whom were executed in subsequent years.

Survivors describe Moghiseh executing paralyzed prisoners, including Mohsen Mohammad Bagher, and taunting inmates about their impending deaths.

International human rights organizations have long called for accountability for the atrocities committed by these judges. Both men were sanctioned by the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States for their roles in human rights abuses, including their involvement in the 1988 massacre.

(source: ncr-iran.org)

****************

Taliban ask Iran to share list of Afghan prisoners, seek leniency for those on death row

A Taliban judicial delegation led by Abdul Malik Haqqani, the deputy chief justice of the Taliban’s Supreme Court, has requested that Iran share a list of Afghan prisoners, particularly those sentenced to death.

The request was made during a meeting with Kazem Gharibabadi, Iran’s deputy judiciary chief, during Haqqani’s visit to Tehran, according to a statement issued by the Taliban’s Supreme Court on Sunday.

Haqqani called for leniency toward Afghan prisoners facing execution, citing Islamic principles. “Execution is a discretionary punishment, and Islam provides prosecutors with the authority to exercise discretion in such cases. We request Iranian authorities, in the spirit of Islamic brotherhood, to replace execution with alternative measures,” he said.

The Taliban also urged Iranian officials to ensure that Afghan migrants in Iran are granted the right to work and education “in accordance with Sharia.”

The meeting reportedly focused on strengthening judicial cooperation between the two countries. Discussions included potential alternatives to execution for Afghan prisoners and improving the rights of Afghan migrants living in Iran.

According to the Taliban’s statement, Gharibabadi assured the delegation that 1,500 Afghan prisoners would soon be transferred back to Afghanistan. He also emphasized that efforts would be made to treat Afghan citizens with dignity.

Iranian officials have not publicly commented on the meeting.

The request comes amid a noticeable increase in the execution of Afghan citizens in Iran in recent months. The rise in executions has heightened tensions, particularly as migration from Afghanistan to Iran has surged following the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.

At the same time, the number of Afghan migrants leaving Iran has also increased, reflecting growing economic and social challenges faced by refugees in the country.

(source: amu.trv)

JANUARY 18, 2025:

TEXAS----impending execution

Texas Gives Steven Nelson Execution Date of February 5, 2025

Steven Nelson is scheduled to be executed at 6 pm local time on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, inside the Walls Unit execution chamber at the Huntsville State Penitentiary in Huntsville, Texas. 37-year-old Steven is convicted of 28-year-old Clinton Dobson on March 3, 2011, in Arlington, Texas. Steven has spent the last 12 years on death row in Texas.

Steven was born in Oklahoma. His father was rarely around and was abusive when he was. Steven dropped out of school after the 11th grade. Throughout his childhood, Steven had numerous encounters with law enforcement and spent time at a high-risk juvenile detention center. As an adult, he also had numerous encounters with law enforcement, including spending some time in prison for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Before his arrest, he worked as a laborer.

Clinton Dobson, pastor of NorthPointe Baptist Church had agreed to meet church member Dale Harwell for lunch on March 3, 2011. When Clinton did not arrive, Dale unsuccessfully attempted to contact him. Debra Jenkins went to the church and saw 2 cars in the parking lot, that of Clinton and Judy Elliot. When Debra was unable to enter the church or have anyone answer at the church office, she left. She returned about 15 minutes later and noted that Judy’s car was no longer in the parking lot. Another church member arrived for a meeting with Clinton but left after being unable to reach him.

Clinton’s wife, Laura, was concerned when she could not reach her husband and asked the part-time music minister to go to the church. He agreed, along with Judy’s husband. Upon arriving, they were able to enter the church using a passcode. They noticed that the church office was in disarray and a woman was lying on the ground severely beaten. She was not immediately recognized as Judy. They also saw Clinton lying on the floor and called the police.

When police arrived, they discovered that both victims were lying on their backs, with their hands bound behind them. Clinton had a plastic bag over his head, sucked into his mouth. Clinton was soon pronounced dead. Judy suffered long-lasting and permanent injuries from the attack but survived.

It was discovered that Steven Nelson stole Judy’s car after the altercation in teh church office. He also stole several items and Judy’s credit cards. Nelson sold some of the items and used Judy’s credit cards to purchase numerous items including shoes, jewelry, clothes, alcohol, and gas.

Nelson was arrested on March 5, 2011. He was arrested wearing many of the items he purchased with the stolen credit card. A search of the apartment where he was arrested identified more items purchased with the stolen credit card. DNA evidence would also link Nelson to the crime scene.

On March 19, 2012, while in jail awaiting trial, Nelson allegedly killed Jonathon Holden, a mentally challenged inmate. Nelson convicted Holden of faking a suicide attempt by hanging. Holden approached Nelson’s cell bars and allowed Nelson to place a noose around his neck. Nelson then tightened the noose and held it, resulting in Holden’s death. Nelson was seen celebrating after Holden’s death. He was never tried for Holden’s death.

During his trial, Nelson claimed that 2 others committed the murder and robbery and that he only served as a lookout. Nelson also confessed to stealing some items from the office and to using the stolen credit card.

Pray for the family of Clinton Dobson. Pray for healing for Judy Elliot and her family. Please pray for strength for the family of Steven Nelson. Pray that if Steven is innocent, lacks the competency to be executed, or should not be executed for any other reason, that evidence will be proved before his execution. Pray that Steven comes to find peace through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

(source: theforgivenessfoundation.org)

PENNSYLVANIA:

Bill could abolish the death penalty in Pennsylvania, ‘Sanctity of life'

A lawmaker in the House of Representatives announced plans to introduce legislation that would abolish the death penalty in the Commonwealth.>

The bill, authored by Rep. Russ Diamond (R-Lebanon County), would abolish the death penalty, which aligns with “pro-life” values. Diamond argued that states should not take life as punishment, even in response to the gravest of crimes. The role of the government “should not be to decide” who lives and who dies, the legislation reads.

Diamond added in his legislation that the death penalty is “inconsistent with the sanctity of life” and fails to meet the “practical and moral standards” of justice and equality. The bill outlined 5 specific points where it is believed the death penalty fails to meet said standards.

Risk of Wrongful Execution - “The irreversible nature of the death penalty magnifies its tragic consequences,” Diamond wrote. Over 190 individuals nationwide have been exonerated from death row since 1973, with some coming within days of execution. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 13 individuals who had been sentenced to death in Pennsylvania were later exonerated, including 1 in 2024, the legislation reads.

Perpetuation of Violence – Capital punishment “perpetuates a cycle of violence” that devalues human life and “undermines our efforts to build a culture of life and hope.”

Bias and Inequities Persist – The application of the death penalty disproportionately affects people of color, those with limited financial resources, individuals with mental illness and those with intellectual disabilities, according to the bill.

Deterrence is a Myth – “Decades of research show no evidence that the death penalty deters crime more effectively than life imprisonment without parole,” Dimond wrote.

Economic and Ethical Costs – The death penalty “burdens taxpayers with excessive costs, diverting resources away from victim support and crime prevention offices.”

According to the legislation, a recent student found that since Pennsylvania enacted the death penalty in 1978, it has cost the state about $816 million dollars more than the cost of life without parole. Diamond argued that the money would be better spent on initiatives that uplift life and community well-being.

There are currently 95 people on death row in Pennsylvania, according to the Department of Corrections. Since 1978, only 3 people have been executed in Pa., with the last one being carried out in 1999.

Diamond ended his legislation by highlighting how 23 states and Washington, D.C. have already abolished the death penalty, saying that Pennsylvania “can and should” prioritize a consistent ethic of life in our justice system.

(source: WTAJ news)

SOUTH CAROLINA----impending execution South Carolina Gives Marion Bowman Execution Date of January 31, 2025

The South Carolina Supreme Court has refused to halt the upcoming execution of Marion Bowman. Bowman has claimed he is innocent and had beneficial evidence withheld from his team during his original trial. He can seek clemency from the Supreme Court of the United States and from South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster.

Marion Bowman is scheduled to be executed at 6 pm local time, on Friday, January 31, 2025, inside the execution chamber of the Broad River Capital Punishment Facility at the Broad River Correctional Institute in Columbia, South Carolina. 44-year-old Marion is convicted of murdering 21-year-old Kandee Louise Martin on February 16, 2001, in Branchville, South Carolina. For the last 22 years, Marion has been on death row in South Carolina.

Marion began drinking at a young age and he had a history of heavy alcohol use on his mother’s side. By the age of 14, Marion was selling drugs and drinking every weekend. He soon began drinking every day.

On February 16, 2002, Marion Bowman retrieved a gun from a friend’s home, where it was being stored. Later that day, he was in a car with two other women, when he instructed them to stop so he could speak to a person he saw: Kandee Martin. Kandee asked him to wait until she was done speaking with someone else. This infuriated Bowman who stated, “I’m about to kill this [expletive].” He also said, “[She] will be dead by dark.” Bowman also informed the two women in the car that Kandee owed him money.

Later that evening, Bowman and Kandee were in a car together, when Bowman spotted Tywan Gadson and stopped to pick him up. Tywan had been drinking all afternoon and evening Eventually, Bowman stopped the car and he and Tywan got out. They walked away from the car where Bowman told Tywan that he was going to kill Kandee because she was wearing a wire.

Kandee approached Bowman stating she was scared. All 3 were startled by a passing car and walked into the woods. Kandee then began walking back to the car. Bowman then shot his gun 3 times behind her. Kandee ran towards Tywan before stopping and facing Bowman, asking him to stop because she had a child to care for. Bowman then shot her twice more. Kandee fell to the ground and Bowman dragged her body into the woods. Tywan and Bowman returned to the car and left.

Bowman dropped off Tywan and then attempted to sell Kandee’s car but was unsuccessful. However, he later picked up another friend telling him he needed help. Together, they took Kandee’s car, retrieved her body from the woods, and placed it in the trunk. While moving the body, Bowman confessed to killing her. A nearby resident heard noises, discovered the fire, and called the police. An investigation led to Bowman’s arrest the following day. Police also eventually found the gun and connected it to the murder.

Bowman was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death by a jury for the murder of Kandee.

Pray for the family of Kandee Martin. Pray for strength for the family of Marion Bowman. Please pray that if Marion is innocent, lacks the competency to be executed, or should not be executed for any other reason, that evidence will be provided before his execution. Pray that Marion may find peace through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

(source: theforgivenessfoundation.org)

***************

South Carolina inmate chooses lethal injection over electric chair or firing squad----Marion Bowman Jr., 44, is the 3rd inmate set to die since the state was able to restart executions after a 13-year pause last year.

A South Carolina inmate who has spent more than 1/2 his life on death row has chosen to die by lethal injection instead of by electric chair or firing squad later this month.

Marion Bowman Jr., 44, is the 3rd inmate set to die since the state was able to restart executions after a 13-year pause last year. All 3 have chosen lethal injection over the electric chair or a firing squad, which was created when the state feared it might never be able to obtain drugs for lethal injections again.

3 more inmates have also had all of their regular appeals rejected by the courts. The state Supreme Court is allowing executions to take place every 5 weeks.

Bowman is scheduled to die at 6 p.m. on Jan. 31 at the Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia.

“Marion has spent decades fighting to prove his innocence in this capital case in a state that has disproportionally applied the death penalty to young men of color. We will continue to support him and hope that South Carolina does not execute another innocent man," Bowman's attorney, Lindsey Vann, said in a statement.

A law allowing secrecy for executions has permitted the state to buy the pentobarbital it uses for lethal injections without revealing the drug's supplier.

On Thursday, the federal government announced it was rescinding its protocol for executions with pentobarbital after a government review raised concerns about the potential for “unnecessary pain and suffering.”

State prison officials, who have said South Carolina's procedures for lethal injection are similar to the federal government, did not comment on the decision, which could be changed again next week when Donald Trump is sworn in as president.

Bowman's lawyers are asking a federal judge to require prison officials to give them more information about the lethal injection drug. They said the state told the doctor performing an autopsy of Richard Moore that he was given pentobarbital through an IV twice — once as the execution started and again 11 minutes later when he was killed on Nov. 1.

The initial dose of pentobarbital, if administered correctly, was such an extremely high dose that his breathing should have stopped in a minute without a need for a 2nd dose, Dr. David B. Waisel, an anesthesiologist at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, wrote in court papers for the defense.

Fluid was also found in Moore's lungs, and Waisel wrote, “It appears likely that during Mr. Moore’s execution, he consciously experienced feelings of drowning and suffocation during the 23 minutes that it took to bring about his death.”

Wasiel also said he fears South Carolina's protocols don't consider Bowman's weight, which is listed as 389 pounds (176 kilograms) in prison records. It can be difficult to properly get an IV into a blood vessel and determine the dose of the drugs needed in people with obesity.

Bowman was convicted of murder in the shooting of a friend whose burned body was found in the trunk of her burned-out car in Dorchester County in 2001. Much of the evidence against Bowman at his trial came from friends and family members who testified against him as part of plea deals.

Bowman has insisted he did not kill 21-year-old Kandee Martin. He did not testify at his trial but released a statement last month through his lawyer with his story about what happened around the time Martin was killed.

When Bowman was arrested, he had Martin's watch but said she gave it to him as collateral when she didn't have the money to buy crack cocaine.

Bowman said his lawyers did a poor job representing him at trial, failing to show jurors a video from a nearby store around the time Martin was shot, which captured another man buying a container of gasoline and voices on the tape talking about killing a woman.

The prosecutor offered a plea deal for a life sentence, but Bowman said he refused to take it because he didn't kill anyone. One of his lawyers encouraged him to take it, too, saying a jury might hold his race against him.

The attorney “came to the jail and said, ‘son, you need to plead guilty. You are charged with killing a white girl and you and your family are Black,’” Bowman wrote.

On Thursday, the South Carolina Supreme Court rejected a request from Bowman's current lawyers to postpone his execution so new evidence could be reviewed over what they said was the poor performance of Bowman's trial lawyers and one of them sympathizing more with the victim because she was white.

The justices called the arguments “meritless” and said they were based on comments taken out of context.

Bowman's last chance to spare his life may lie with asking Gov. Henry McMaster to reduce his sentence to life without parole.

Bowman's attorneys said he has been a model prisoner during his more than two decades on death row. They have sworn statements from several former nurses and other death row workers who say Bowman is a gentle giant who has a knack for helping inmates with mental problems cooperate with psychologists and take their medication. He also acted for years as the official intermediary between death row inmates and prison officials.

South Carolina has executed 45 inmates since the death penalty was reinstated about 50 years ago. No governor has ever offered clemency, including McMaster, for the 2 inmates executed in 2024. McMaster will announce his decision minutes before Bowman's execution is scheduled to start at 6 p.m. on Jan. 31.

Bowman said he regrets selling his friend drugs that led to her addiction.

“I have done some things in life I regret. I regret the role I had in dealing to Kandee and know that her addiction probably led to her death. But I did not do this,” Bowman wrote. “I am so sorry for Kandee and her family, but I did not do it.”

(source: WLTX news)

UTAH:

Deseret News archives: Gary Gilmore firing squad death in 1977 was 1st U.S. execution in 4 decades----On Jan. 17, 1977, nation watched capital punishment drama as Gilmore, convicted for pair of homicides, was put to death

On Jan. 17, 1977, convicted murderer Gary Gilmore, 36, was killed by a firing squad at Utah State Prison in the 1st U.S. execution in a decade.

A last-minute court decision cleared the way for the man’s execution. His last words: “Let’s do it.”

Per the Deseret News that day, “Gilmore, who killed 2 young men in 2 robberies in Utah County in July 1976, became the 1st man to suffer the death penalty in the United States in nearly 10 years. His execution was fought literally down to the last minute by opponents of capital punishment. Gilmore’s victims were Max Jensen, Orem, a 24-year-old law student, and Bennie J. Bushnell, 26, a Provo motel manager.

“Gilmore was in the news often for the year and a half he spent in Utah’s prison. His love affair with Nicole Barrett and their feeble attempts at double suicide, his love poems and his defiant challenge to state authorities to get his execution over with almost overshadowed the depth of his crimes. His government-sanctioned death triggered a spate of executions across the country.”

Since then, 1,607 people have been executed in the U.S., including eight in Utah. Taberon Honie’s execution came late last year. Utah changed its laws in 2004 to eliminate the firing squad option. The majority of those executed in recent years is by lethal injection, according to the Death Penalty Execution Center. In 2005, Utah modified the law so that the firing squad could be an option if the drugs needed for a lethal injection aren’t available.

Norman Mailer’s book “The Executioner’s Song” (1979) won the Pulitzer Prize for fiction. It became a made-for-television biographical crime drama film, which was shot in Utah.

(source: deseret.com)

ARIZONA:

Why Arizona death row inmates are not executed in order

Just because someone new arrives on Arizona's death row doesn't mean they are last in line for execution. Here's why.

Alex Madrid has a new mugshot as the newest member of Arizona’s death row.

He was sentenced to death yesterday for killing his ex-girlfriend’s teen daughter back in 2013.

Alex Madrid is now one of the more than 100 inmates on Arizona’s death row, but just because he’s the latest does not mean he’s last in line for execution.

Attorneys will file many motions for many years to appeal a death sentence and go back through a trial and scrutinize every little thing that was said to make sure nothing was wrongly prejudicial or damaging.

But sometimes, an inmate wants to die. So, do they get their way?

The answer is - maybe.

There are currently 112 people on Arizona’s death row: 109 men and 3 women. So, a decades-long appeal process for Alex Madrid will likely begin soon, like most inmates on death row.

Former capital case prosecutor Susie Charbel, who began on Madrid’s case before leaving the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, said the average inmate will live on death row here for 20 years - and often longer.

She said if an inmate wants to die and waives their appeals process, that could get them 5 or 6 years ahead of others and closer to death.

Not only do defense attorneys reinvestigate a case all over again in appeal, which can vary in length for every convict and case, but she said something else a little more offbeat comes into play, too: Is the inmate healthy enough to die?

“If that person has special needs, there are a lot of mental health issues a lot of times. It’s also physical issues. A person, believe or it not, has to be healthy mentally, physically, and emotionally in order to be put to death,” Charbel said.

Former media representative for the Department of Corrections Barrett Marson also said even if an inmate wants to die, that doesn’t mean attorneys stop fighting for them to live.

“There are attorneys who represent death row inmates who believe firmly the death penalty is unconscionable and they understand the process and how to throw up road blocks and how to put off that ultimate sentence,” said Marson.

Charbel also said it doesn’t matter if somebody killed 1 victim or 4, that won’t speed up or slow down an appeals process either; it simply is about if everything was done correctly in trial.

Charbel also said sometimes an inmate will die on death row before ever making it to the execution chamber.

For some time, Arizona had the oldest death row inmate in the nation - a man who died at 94 years old from natural causes back in 2010.

(ource: azfamily.com)

**************

Firing squads will never be a more 'humane' way to die in Arizona | Opinion----A Republican lawmaker says strapping a convict to a chair and riddling him with bullets is 'always humane.' And he thinks Arizona voters will agree.

The journalists charged with covering the machinations of lawmakers at the Arizona Capitol would be hard pressed each week to select the most bizarre statement made by a member of the Legislature.

There are simply too many.

This week, however, I believe the clear winner would be the grotesquely oxymoronic declaration by Republican Rep. Alexander Kolodin.

Speaking about an alternative to Arizona’s lethal injection death penalty, he said, “We actually know what’s always humane and always seems to work properly, which is the firing squad.”

Always humane?

Will voters allow execution by firing squad?

A prisoner is bound to a chair that’s surrounded by sandbags (to catch bullets and blood) while a doctor pins a piece of white cloth over his heart. 5 shooters armed with rifles (1 loaded with blanks) aim and fire.

If successful, the condemned inmate loses consciousness quickly. If not …

Humane?

Good people have their reasons for supporting the death penalty. But I’d guess that every person who believes it serves justice, or believes it honors victims, or believes it is a deterrent (if only inside prison), understands that killing another human being is not humane.

In its own way, execution is the most premeditated of all killings. Arizona has a history of botching them.

Kolodin wants to put using a firing squad on the 2026 ballot so voters can decide.

“I don’t know what it is,” he said. “But lethal injection just seems to be incredibly complicated, where it always leads to these delays and these hiccups and whatever.”

The death penalty costs more than life in prison

Actually, delays are built into death penalty cases.

It’s well known that it costs taxpayers WAY more to put a killer on death row than to sentence him to life without the possibility of parole.

The longer trials, the appeals, the costs of the lawyers and experts in the cases ... it goes on and on. The inmate often dies naturally in prison.

We also know that wealthy defendants do better than poor ones in death penalty cases, meaning justice is rarely equal.

And we know as well that a number of condemned inmates have been exonerated of all charges after being sent to death row. The number is now at 200 since 1973.

Maybe you still want to kill the bad guys who are already locked up. Fine.

Just don’t call it humane.

Arizona once thought hanging was humane

It’s no more humane than the guillotine, banned in the ‘70s by France after it abolished the death penalty.

It’s no more humane than the sword, still used in Saudi Arabia to behead the condemned.

Killing is killing. If we are going to do it, we should own it.

In some countries it is still acceptable to stone to death a condemned person.

Up until the 1930s, Arizona’s method of capital punishment was hanging.

That ended following the execution of Eva Dugan, convicted of murdering of a wealthy Tucson chicken rancher named A.J. Mathis.

When Dugan dropped from the gallows and the noose tightened, she was decapitated.

News reports said her head rolled close to some of the spectators who had gathered for the event, causing 3 men and 2 women to faint.

Up until then, I’d guess there were many people in Arizona who thought hangings were humane.

(source: Opiinion, EJ Montini----Arizona Republic)

NEVADA----death row inmate dies

Nevada death row inmate who killed 2 people dies

A death row inmate who killed 2 employees at a restaurant where he was laid off nearly 30 years ago has died, the 8 News Now Investigators have learned.

Marlo Thomas, 52, was pronounced dead at Centennial Hospital in Las Vegas on Thursday, according to the Nevada Department of Corrections.

The 8 News Now Investigators reached out to the coroner’s office for the cause and manner of death.

Thomas entered the Lone Star Steakhouse, where he had worked as a dishwasher until he was laid off, to get his job back on April 14, 1996, according to court records. Thomas then robbed the manager and stabbed two employees to death, documents stated.

Thomas received 2 death sentences and was convicted of 2 counts of 1st-degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, battery causing substantial bodily harm, robbery, burglary, kidnapping and 3 deadly weapon enhancements. He most recently served time at High Desert State Prison near Indian Springs and began serving prison time on July 16, 1996, according to the department.

An autopsy has been requested and next-of-kin has been notified, the department stated.

The state of Nevada’s last execution of a death row inmate was in 2006.

(source: KLAS news)

USA:

Garland’s Cynical Rescission of the Death Penalty Protocol----The outgoing Biden-Harris administration and its AG continue to play a political game with capital punishment.

Merrick Garland continues his bid to outrank Eric Holder as the most partisan attorney general in American history. On Wednesday, he rescinded the federal death penalty protocol — essentially, just as President-elect Donald Trump is about to take office, and 4 years after Garland could have taken this cynical action if he truly believed it was warranted.

Garland issued a memorandum to the Bureau of Prisons in which he reported that the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy determined that the administration of phenobarbital is . . . problematic. The federal government’s execution protocol, which has not been invoked since President Biden took office in 2021, when Garland imposed a death penalty moratorium, calls for the lethal injection of phenobarbital sodium. Garland claims that such injections could lead to a degree of pain and suffering that might violate what he takes to be the government’s “responsibility to treat individuals humanely and avoid unnecessary pain and suffering.”

The attorney general must couch his 11th-hour conversion in these vagaries because he knows that, in its 2020 Barr v. Lee decision, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that executions should be halted because some medical experts opine that phenobarbital might cause painful pulmonary edema. Garland is thus reduced to rationalizing that, even though the federal execution method does not violate the Eighth Amendment or meet the Court’s standard for judicial intervention, the Justice Department is still obliged “to raise important questions.”

Pretty compelling, no?

I have observed a number of times that the Biden-Harris administration and its attorney general play a political game with capital punishment. They know that it is endorsed by the broad public but anathema to the progressives who call the tune in the Democratic Party. So, on the one hand, they tell the public they are responsible custodians of death row who defend capital punishment in worthy cases (as the DOJ successfully did in the Supreme Court when a federal appeals court reversed the jury’s death penalty verdict in Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s case); on the other hand, they wink at their progressive political base, assuring that there’s no need to worry because no one is actually going to be executed.

This of course is why Biden waited until after the 2024 election to grant clemency to 37 death row inmates — undermining Congress’s laws, eviscerating the work of juries and judges who lawfully adjudicated those cases, and scoffing at the suffering of families whose loved ones were brutally killed. (See our editorial urging Biden not to do what he did.) This corrupt use of the pardon power for the benefit of heinous murderers — this foisting of the Left’s policy preference on an unwilling public — would have cost Democrats dearly at the ballot box if they’d been transparent about it during the campaign.

And it gets worse. Less than a month ago, after national outrage was provoked by the cold-blooded killing of Brian Thompson, a health insurance executive shot from behind on a Manhattan street, Garland’s Justice Department quickly filed capital murder charges against Luigi Mangione. Even as the charges were announced in the DOJ’s chest-beating press release, Garland knew that there could be no death penalty under his moratorium, and he had to know both that the administration was about to pardon a slew of death row inmates and that he would soon endeavor to make executions illegal by eradicating the protocol.

Remember, moreover, that in pardoning 37 death row inmates, Biden preserved the death sentences of three defendants (including Tsarnaev) whose capital cases were brought or defended by Biden’s 2 administrations (his own and President Obama’s, in which Biden served as vice president). Biden and Garland struggled to come up with some coherent rationale for why their three death penalty cases were righteous while all the others “raised important questions” about the humaneness of capital punishment. But the only rational explanation is political: Basically, we only did our death cases because the voters would have hammered us if we didn’t, but since our hearts are pure, how could we cop to being inhumane?

And now, as they saunter out the door with no further concerns about political accountability, Garland and Biden tell us it was all inhumane after all . . . except they can’t say it is unconstitutional or flouts American tradition (which for centuries abided less humane methods of capital punishment).

The driver of all this legerdemain is partisan politics: Garland is trying to make it difficult for the incoming Trump administration to prosecute death penalty cases — and even to execute the three inmates who Biden told us, just a few days ago, deserved capital punishment.

As Garland well knows, in future cases — including that of Mangione, in which he approved capital charges — defense lawyers and progressive judges will use his invalidation of the execution protocol as a basis to claim that the death penalty is sadistic, illegal, and potentially unconstitutional. And mind you, in this exercise of slavish adherence to Soros-approved progressive nonenforcement pieties, the beneficiaries will as always be hardened criminals.

To be sure, federal capital sentences are rare — under current jurisprudence, the death penalty is only imposed for murder, and the vast majority of murder prosecutions are done in the state court systems. 13 federal offenders were executed in Trump’s 1st term (hence the Supreme Court’s afore-described Lee case, involving murderers of children); prior to that, there had been no executions in 17 years — not since the first Bush 43 term, after which Obama’s AG, like Biden’s, imposed a moratorium rationalized by baseless concerns about constitutionality (while nevertheless charging Tsarnaev with capital murder).

So why expend all these resources on internal DOJ and academic studies, litigation, and debate? At stake, after all, is only a minuscule fraction of the approximately 20,000 murders annually committed in the United States. Why not just content ourselves with sentences of life imprisonment without parole for the worst offenders, chalk up the steep expense of incarcerating murderers for decades as a cost of doing humaneness, and end the waste of time and effort?

Because if you don’t have a death penalty, you won’t have sentences of life imprisonment without parole.

Understand, progressives are nearly as offended by imprisonment — at least lengthy incarceration — as they are by death sentences. If the death penalty were ever repealed, progressives would immediately mount a campaign against sentences of life imprisonment, arguing that these, too, are inhumane. Gradually, congressional Democrats would push to reduce the maximum federal sentence to some term of years — say, 25 or 30 for starters, to be whittled down from there. Or, à la Europe, the federal system would maintain a nominal “life imprisonment” sentence, but defendants would become eligible for parole after a dozen or so years.

For now, progressive Democrats support sentences of life imprisonment without parole only because it is a cosmetically reasonable position to take in opposing capital punishment. Once their monstrous portrayal of grisly federal death chambers has accomplished its objective of repealing the ultimate penalty, they’d simply step up their demagoguing of our supposedly barbaric “carceral state.”

That’s at least 4 years away. In the meantime, strap in for the Trump years, in which the DOJ will likely undertake to execute the few murderers who Biden and Garland said deserve to die, while Biden, Garland, and other Democrats counter that executing them would transgress “our values” — by which they mean their values: solicitude for the predators, not the victims.

(source: Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute)

JAMAICA:

Senator doubles down on death penality for child killers----LONGMORE... if somebody murders a child, especially in the premeditated way, they should not even be considering that they have the chance of seeing sunlight again

Government Senator and consultant psychiatrist Dr Saphire Longmore on Friday doubled down on her call for Jamaica to enforce its death penalty law, particularly for child killers, irrespective of age or gender, arguing that even if individuals are not executed, a message will still be sent.

Longmore had faced some criticism for making that pitch in early December ahead of the sentencing of dental assistant Kayodi Satchell who, in June 2023, snatched eight-year-old Danielle Rowe from her Braeton Primary and Infant School in Portmore, St Catherine, before taking her to a location in St Andrew where she slashed the child’s throat.

On Friday, in making her contribution to the State of the Nation Debate at Gordon House in downtown Kingston, Longmore, stating that she wanted to explain further, said, “I needed to clarify that my position is not because of my ignorance of capital versus non-capital murder or of death penalty not being gender-specific. In my mind, if you kill a child [whether you are] man or woman, you should get the death penalty, even if we are not enforcing it.”

Under Jamaica’s Offences Against the Person Act, the punishment for capital murder is the death penalty. There is, however, one exception as the Act specifically exempts from execution women who are convicted of offences punishable with death, but who are found by a jury to be pregnant.

In that circumstance, the sentence passed on her is set as life imprisonment with or without hard labour.

The last person to be executed in Jamaica was Nathan Foster, who was convicted of murder and hanged in 1988.

Last year the Crown, in prosecuting Satchell, did not seek the death penalty. Jamaica is more or less hamstrung by the precedent set by the ruling of the United Kingdom Privy Council in the case of Trimmingham v The Queen (2009), where it was held that the death penalty should be imposed only in cases which, on the facts of the offence, are “the most extreme and exceptional”, “the worst of the worst”, or “the rarest of the rare”.

“It’s hard for me to speak about Danielle Rowe, it really is, and my position is not based on the fact that I am not cognisant of the norms of our island,” Longmore said on Friday.

“My position is based on the fact that I want meted out to child murderers, the most severe punishment we have on our books. Mi nuh know what needs to happen, but if somebody murders a child, especially in the premeditated way, they should not even be considering that they have the chance of seeing sunlight again,” Longmore argued.

“We don’t enforce the death penalty, I know, but it is still on our books, so mek wi use it to get the message across: ‘Leave our children alone.’ Allow them the chance to become the Jamaican citizen that is capable of changing the world. We have had so many examples of this,” she declared.

Longmore, who said the trauma from these killings spread far and wide, emphasised that another painful aspect is that “the system is structured in such a way that the murderer is more guaranteed care” than those who are directly affected by the situation — parents, siblings, classmates, ordinary citizens.

“When you have a lot of trauma like, for example, a trauma that happens at school, 1/3 of the persons will immediately react and show a response; 1/3, in about 6 months it will come; and then another third will probably not be affected at all. Out of every 10, one person will probably grow from that trauma,” she said.

“And so, I encourage us in our dispensation of health care to seek post-traumatic growth as an objective and resiliency factor, especially amongst our children,” Longmore added.

Satchell, who had confessed to killing Danielle, was in late December sentenced to life in prison for the murder of the 8-year-old and will be eligible for parole after serving 27 years and four months.

(source: jamaicaobserver.com)

NIGERIA:

Housewife, sister sentenced to death by hanging for killing co-wife

A High Court sitting in Minna, the Niger State capital, has sentenced one Amina Aliyu, a housewife, and her sister, Aishat Mohammed to death by hanging for the brutal killing of her co-wife, Hafsat Fatima Aliyu.

The youngest sister of the accused person, Zainab, who was alleged to have participated in the murder also received life imprisonment due to her age at the time the crime was committed.

The accused persons had conspired and killed the deceased in March 2021, at the family residence in Barkin Saleh, a suburb of Minna, the state capital.

The 2 accused persons – Amina and Aishat – were convicted for murdering Hafsat, after hitting her with a pestle from behind in the kitchen on the fateful day.

According to the prosecutor, the accused persons later set the lifeless body on fire to make it look as if she died of fire incident in the kitchen.

During the proceedings, which spanned 3 years, 4 witnesses testified, including Sani Aliyu, the husband of the deceased, who recounted how Amina and her sisters conspired and killed Hafsat.

Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf of Minna High Court 7, while sentencing the accused persons said that the prosecutor had proven his case beyond doubt, adding that: “The punishment for culpable homicide under Section 221 of the Penal Code is death.”

However Peter Omale, the defence counsel, urged leniency for Zainab, highlighting her status as a minor at the time of the crime.

Justice Yusuf concurred, admitting that, “As of 2021, when the offence was committed, the ACJA excluded anyone below 18 from facing the death penalty.”

(source: thesun.ng)

TAIWAN:

EU, Australia, and Canada urge Taiwan to end executions----Representative offices protest after Taiwan carries out 1st execution in 5 years

The EU, Australia, and Canada joined human rights groups to call for the abolition of the death penalty after Taiwan carried out its 1st execution in almost 5 years on Thursday.

Huang Lin-kai was executed by firing squad in Taipei yesterday for a double murder and sexual assault he committed in 2013. He was sentenced to death in 2017 and an appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court in the same year.

A spokesperson for the EU’s Diplomatic Service issued a statement on Thursday condemning the crimes and expressing sympathy to the family of the victims. “At the same time, the EU recalls its opposition to capital punishment in all cases and all circumstances.”

The spokesperson said the death penalty is an “inhumane and degrading punishment” and noted that it does little to deter crime. The EU calls on Taiwan to place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty and work towards abolition, the spokesperson said.

A post on the EU representative office’s Facebook page carrying the statement received numerous replies supporting the execution. Many also suggested the EU should not comment on Taiwan’s internal affairs.

Canada’s representative office in Taiwan also posted a statement expressing sympathy for the victims’ family and condemning the use of the death penalty. “Canada's policy is to oppose the death penalty in all circumstances and to advocate for its global abolition,” the post read.

The post added there is a growing international consensus against the use of the death penalty and also called on Taiwan to instate a moratorium on it. “It has also been shown to have no deterrent effect and may lead to irreparable misjudgments,” the post read.

The Australian Office in Taipei issued a similar statement. “We call on Taiwan to cease all executions and take steps towards complete abolition of the death penalty,” the office wrote in a Facebook post.

A joint statement issued by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty and other human rights groups called the execution unlawful and “bloodthirsty.” The statement asked the justice minister to cease all executions until the chief prosecutor has had adequate time to review all death row inmates' appeals against the sentence.

A Facebook post containing the joint statement also received many comments supporting the death penalty.

(source: taiwannews.com.tw)

PHILIPPINES:

38 Filipinos face death penalty abroad

The number of Filipinos on death row abroad has decreased to 38, according to Department of Migrant Workers (DMW) Secretary Hans Cacdac, who shared the update during the Kapihan held at the Manila Hotel on Friday.

Cacdac reported that the number of Filipinos on death row had previously reached as high as 72. By November 2023, during Senate budget deliberations, the figure had already dropped to 44. He attributed the decline to the enactment of Malaysia’s Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act of 2023, which took effect in July of the same year.

This new law allows Malaysian judges to impose imprisonment instead of the death penalty for serious crimes such as murder, treason, kidnapping, terrorist attacks, and drug trafficking.

The majority of Filipinos currently on death row are in Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries, with many convicted of murder and drug-related offenses. Cacdac said these Filipinos have been provided assistance through the DMW’s legal assistance program.

(source: tribune.net.ph/)

PAKISTAN:

Death penalty of 2 brothers suspended over mother’s compromise

Additional District & Session Judge,Shah purr Mian Shahid Javed on Saturday while hearing murder case has suspended the death punishment of 2 brothers who had killed their sister on honor issues on the behalf of written compromise of their mother in the court.

According to procesicution,Sarfraz (44) and Umar Draz r/o Shah purr city had killed their sister Nighat yasmeen on the doubt of her ill character.

The court released the murderers on the behalf of written compromise of their real mother.

(source: app.com.pk)

*****************

On death row

THE judiciary in Pakistan does not have established sentencing guidelines for the application of the death penalty. Unfortunately, Pakistan has one of the world’s highest numbers of prisoners sentenced to death. By the end of 2024, the total number on death row reached 6,161 — a significant increase from 2022, when death row prisoners numbered 3,226, according to a 2024 report by Justice Project Pakistan.

This suggests heightened sentencing activity by judges at the trial court level. Even though, Pakistan amended the Control of Narcotics Substances Act in 2023 and the Sabotage of the Railways (Amendment) Act in 2022, to reduce the provision for capital punishment to a life sentence, the judicial view of the application of capital punishment has not changed. In 2024, some courts continued to impose death sentences for narcotics-related offences.

This underscores the need for continuing judicial training and awareness programmes so that legislative changes are properly implemented. Currently, 31 offences in Pakistan can lead to the death penalty. These include, among others, murder, perjury and kidnapping for ransom. This is not in line with Article 6(2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states that the death penalty can only be imposed for the most serious crimes.

The outcome is irreversible injustice.

The test applicable in criminal trials, including in cases involving the death penalty, is ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’. However, trial courts continue to apply the death penalty even where this test is not met; the outcome is irreversible injustice.

Pakistan was ranked 129th out of 142 countries on the application of the rule of law and 98th on the effectiveness of its criminal justice system by the World Justice Project in 2024. This highlights a crisis within Pakistan’s criminal justice system, marked by police reliance on torture to extract confessions, the fabrication of evidence, and inadequate legal aid services. The gap in Pakistan’s justice system underscores the prevalence of both wrongful convictions and wrongful prosecutions across the country.

The legal process for death row prisoners in Pakistan starts with sentencing in the trial courts and may advance through the high courts and the Supreme Court. At the final stage, submitting mercy petitions to the president of Pakistan serves as the last option for prisoners after their appeals are denied by the Supreme Court.

The president has the authority to pardon death row prisoners under Article 45 of the Constitution. However, there is neither an established procedure nor a mechanism in place for submitting and resolving mercy petitions, leading to prolonged delays that often span years before a decision is made.

In 2018, the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty in only three per cent of the reported capital cases, overturning the sentence or ordering a review. Generally, an accused spends an average of 10 years under the death sentence before his or her case is heard by the apex court. In 65pc of the acquittals, the Supreme Court had serious doubts about the reliability of police investigation. The most common issues with such investigations were evidence that appeared to be planted, manipulated, or doubtful, according to a report by Reprieve.

There have been no executions in Pakistan since December 2019 as per the report of the Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review in March 2023. However, the courts continue to apply the penalty. Once sentenced by the trial court, individuals are confined to death row, where they endure deplorable conditio­­ns while awaiting an execution that may never occur.

Recently, in the case of Ghulam Shabbir, the Supreme Court described the living conditions in death cells as “miserable”. It highlighted that the “space of a cell provided for each condemned prisoner is about 9 x 12 feet, with a single toilet to be used jointly by all the prisoners… . The death row prisoner is not permitted to participate in any extracurricular activities… . The convict is forced to live in such an inhuman condition. The date and time of execution of his sentence is uncertain, which in the given circumstance results in horrible feelings and creates anxiety. It is not just the prisoner who suffers, it’s the family too… .”

Now imagine that the Supreme Court only upheld the death penalty in 3pc of its reported capital cases, but by the time the case had been decided, a prisoner had spent years inside the death cell of the prison, resulting in irreversible injustice.

The Supreme Court must adopt sentencing guidelines in capital cases along with stipulating the mitigating factors that can result in a reduction in the quantum of sentences in cases involving capital punishment.

(source: Rita Tahir; The writer is a barrister of Lincoln’s Inn and an advocate of the high courts of Pakistan----dawn.com)

INDIA:

In India, a police volunteer is convicted of rape and murder of a trainee doctor

An Indian court on Saturday found a police volunteer guilty for the rape and murder of a trainee doctor, a crime that sparked countrywide protests and hospital strikes last year amid renewed concerns over lack of safety for women.

The killing of the 31-year-old physician while she was on duty at a hospital in the eastern city of Kolkata in August highlighted once again the chronic issue of violence against women in the country. The trial in the case was fast-tracked through India's notoriously sluggish legal system and arguments began in November.

Judge Anirban Das said the sentence for 33-year-old Sanjay Roy will be announced on Monday and could range from life imprisonment to the death penalty.

Police discovered the bloodied body of the woman at the city's R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital's seminar hall on Aug. 9. An autopsy later found the victim had been strangled and confirmed sexual assault.

Roy was arrested a day after the crime. He has since consistently maintained his innocence and told the court that he was not guilty.

The case was initially being investigated by the Kolkata police but later the court handed over the probe to federal investigators after state government officers were accused of mishandling the investigation.

After the incident, doctors and medical students across India held protests and rallies demanding justice and better security for them. Thousands of women across the country also protested on the streets, demanding justice for the victim as they participated in "Reclaim The Night" marches. Some protesters called for the perpetrator of the crime to be given the death penalty.

Asia

Anger from the rape and murder of a female doctor in India is now political

The incident highlighted rising sexual violence against women in India and prompted India's Supreme Court to set up a national task force that suggested ways to enhance safety measures in government hospitals.

Many cases of crimes against women go unreported in India due to the stigma surrounding sexual violence, as well as a lack of faith in the police. Women's rights activists say the problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where the community sometimes shames victims of sexual assault and families worry about their social standing.

Still, the number of recorded rape cases in the country has increased. In 2022, police recorded 31,516 reports of rape — a 20% jump from 2021, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.

In 2012, the gang rape and killing of a 23-year-old student on a New Delhi bus galvanized massive protests across India. It inspired lawmakers to order harsher penalties for such crimes, as well as the creation of fast-track courts dedicated to rape cases. The government also introduced the death penalty for repeat offenders.

The rape law amended in 2013 also criminalized stalking and voyeurism and lowered the age at which a person can be tried as an adult from 18 to 16.

(source: npr.org)

************

UP: Couple gets death penalty for killing 6 members of family, including parents, in 2020----Ajay Singh and wife Rupa Singh along with their minor son murdered 6 members of their family in 2020.

A Lucknow court on Friday sentenced a married couple to death for murdering 6 members of their family including parents in 2020.

The additional district judge sentenced Ajay Singh and his wife Rupa Singh for killing 6 members of their family, including brother Arun Singh, his wife, 2 children, and parents.

According to a Live Hindustan report, the couple was convicted on December 16 last year.

What was the incident?

According to the report, Ajay Singh's sister Durgawati alias Guddi Singh had complained to Banthra Police Station in May 2020.

She alleged that her brother Ajay Singh, his wife Rupa Singh and their juvenile son had conspired and murdered their father Amar Singh, mother Ram Dulari, brother Arun Singh, sister-in-law Ram Sakhi, nephew Saurabh and niece Sarika using a chopper and also shot them.

(source: hindustantimes.com)

**********

Death sentence to 45-year-old man within 54 days of rape, murder of minor girl----The verdict came a day before the Sealdah court was scheduled to announce its judgment on the rape and the murder of a junior doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9

A court in Hooghly district on Friday awarded the death penalty to a 45-year-old man for raping and murdering a minor girl in November last year.

Chandraprova Chakraborty, the additional district and session judge of the Pocso court at Chinsurah, pronounced the sentence within 54 days of the crime. Ashok Singh had raped and murdered the 5-year-old after luring her with a packet of potato chips on November 24.

The verdict came a day before the Sealdah court was scheduled to announce its judgment on the rape and the murder of a junior doctor at R.G. Kar Medical College and Hospital on August 9.

Chief minister Mamata Banerjee and her nephew Abhishek hailed Hooghly rural district police and its chief Kamanasish Sen for the speedy investigation and for ensuring the capital punishment for the accused within a very short time.

"I thank Hooghly Rural District Police for their swift action and thorough probe that ensured speedy trial and conviction in 54 days. My heart goes to the family, and I share their pain and longing," Mamata wrote on her X handle on Friday evening.

"A rapist has no place in our world. All of us together will make it a safer place for our children through stringent law, social reforms, effective and unforgiving administration. No such crime will go unpunished," she added.

The Hooghly verdict is being billed as the fastest conviction of a rapist as the police ensured the completion of the investigation within 13 days and the capital punishment of the accused within 54 days by producing the necessary evidence in the court.

Earlier, in the case of the rape and murder of a Class IV student at Kultali of South 24-Parganas, a court at Baruipur had awarded the death penalty to the accused within 62 days of the crime.

Abhishek Banerjee, the national general secretary of the Trinamool Congres, hailed Bengal's "zero-tolerance approach to crimes against women".

"This serves as a powerful reminder that while others may offer mere lip service to NARI SURAKSHA, Bengal stands firm with a ZERO TOLERANCE APPROACH to crimes against women," the Diamond Harbour MP wrote on X on Friday.

The leader of the Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari, welcomed the judgment but said the capital punishment awarded by lower courts was commuted by higher courts because of the apathy of public prosecutors. He gave the example of how those accused in the Kamduni rape and murder incident were relieved of the gallows because of the alleged state's failure.

"Madam CM, why are you so eager to promote the Death Sentence so early. Let's wait for at least 10 years to see if the convict is actually hanged or acquitted just like the convicts of Kamduni Case," Adhikari wrote on his X handle.

A senior police officer said the punishment was ensured within a very short period as the Hooghly rural police had not delayed the investigation and had taken all possible steps to file the chargesheet as soon as possible.

"Good teamwork brought great relief to us. We ensured capital punishment for the rape and murder accused in a very short period.... I thank both the judiciary and our public prosecutors who helped us deliver justice for the parents of the minor girl," said Hooghly rural police SP Kamansish Sen, who personally monitored the case from Day One.

The mother of the girl said she was happy with the judgment that came on the birthday of her 5-year-old daughter.

"We kept our faith in the police who finally ensured punishment for the culprit who brutalised my daughter. My daughter loved to have cake that I could not offer her this year," said the mother.

(source: telegraphindia.com)

*************

A look at death penalty in India as RG Kar victim’s parents seek capital punishment----The parents of the victim of the RG Kar Medical College and Hospital rape and murder case seek nothing less than a death sentence as the Sealdah court in Kolkata is expected to pronounce the verdict today.

The parents have demanded capital punishment for prime accused Sanjoy Roy, according to a News18 report.

The body of a 31-year-old female trainee doctor was recovered from the seminar hall of the government-run RG Kar Medical College and Hospital in Kolkata in August 2024, which led to widespread protests across the country.

The chargesheet in the case was filed on October 7 before the Additional District and Sessions Court, Sealdah.

“5 months or 5 years later, it does not matter. We are living for justice. We have nothing left in our lives now. We hope Roy will get capital punishment. There was biological evidence that Roy was present at the spot, but we don’t believe that he was the only one,” the parents told News18 ahead of the verdict.

The death penalty is the highest degree of punishment in India. It is executed by hanging the convict by the neck. It is given to the person who has committed heinous crimes like terrorism or murder.

In India, the death penalty can also be awarded under various Sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), which came into force on July 1, 2024.

Section 103 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (Section 302 of IPC) states that whoever commits murder shall be punished with the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The death penalty can also be given under Section 71 of BNS (Section 376E of IPC), which deals with the punishment for repeat offenders of sexual crimes like rape, who have been convicted earlier for similar offences.

The death penalty is also awarded under Section 147 of BNS (Section 121) if a person is found guilty of waging war against the Government of India.

Also called capital punishment, the death penalty has always been a subject of contention, with strong opinions from both abolitionists and supporters.

Convicts on death row in India

According to a report, ‘Death Penalty in India: Annual Statistics Report,’ by Project 39A of the National Law University, Delhi, 120 death sentences were awarded by trial courts in 2023 across the country, while 561 inmates remained on execution row by the end of the year.

This number marks the highest number of convicts on death row in nearly 2 decades.

“Only one death sentence was confirmed in 2023, making it the year with the lowest rate of death sentence confirmations by the appellate courts since 2000,” the report added.

The year also saw an increase of 45.71% in the death row population since 2015.

The research also added that trial courts in the country imposed 120 death sentences in 2023, with the highest number of verdicts from Uttar Pradesh at 33, followed by 12 in Jharkhand; 11 each in Gujarat, Haryana and Madhya Pradesh; and 10 in West Bengal.

Uttar Pradesh has the highest number of convicts on death row at 119.

In 2023, the most death penalties by trial courts were handed out in murder cases involving sexual offences (64 of a total of 120 verdicts).

The report added that 541 and 490 inmates were on death row at the end of the years of 2022 and 2021. As many as 167 death sentences were awarded in 2022 and 146 in 2021.

The report also stated that in March 2023, the President of India rejected one mercy appeal in a case involving kidnapping, rape and murder of a minor in 2008.

It also added that as many as 488 death row prisoners were awaiting judgment from the High Courts.

(source: cnbctv18.com)

KUWAIT:

Kuwait Court Upholds Death Sentence for Bedoun in Patricide Case

(see: https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/kuwait-court-upholds-death-sentence-for-bedoun-in-patricide-case/)

IRAN----executions

Saman Davoudian and Rashid Zeynabi Executed in Khorramabad

The execution of 2 prisoners, Saman Davoudian and Rashid Zeynabi, who had been sentenced to death (qisas) for "premeditated murder," was carried out at Khorramabad Central Prison (Parsilon).

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the death sentences of 2 men were carried out at Khorramabad Central Prison on the morning of Thursday, January 16. The two prisoners have been identified as Saman Davoudian, 31, and Rashid Zeynabi, 36, both sentenced to qisas for "premeditated murder."

A knowledgeable source told Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), “Saman Davoudian was from Aligudarz and belonged to the Hassanvand tribe of Lorestan. He was arrested 6 years ago on murder charges and sentenced to death. Rashid Zeynabi was from Borujerd, arrested 4 years ago on murder charges, and sentenced to qisas. He was the father of 1 child.”

The execution of these 2 prisoners has not been reported by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The lack of classification for murder charges in Iran means that all murder cases, regardless of the circumstances, severity, or motive, can result in a death sentence.

**********

Mohammad Amiri Executed in Khorramabad; Number of Executions in Khorramabad Rises to 4

Earlier, the execution of 2 other prisoners on the same day had been reported.

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the death sentence of Mohammad Amiri-Bahravand, a 32-year-old man, was carried out at Khorramabad Central Prison on Thursday, January 16. He had been sentenced to qisas for "premeditated murder."

A knowledgeable source told Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), “Mohammad Amiri-Bahravand was from Lorestan and had been arrested 4 years ago on charges of murdering a relative. He was sentenced to qisas.”

With the execution of Mohammad Amiri-Bahravand, the total number of executions on Thursday at Khorramabad Central Prison has risen to 3.

The execution of this prisoner has not been announced by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The lack of classification for murder charges in Iran means that all murder cases, regardless of circumstances, severity, or motive, can result in a death sentence.

(source for all: iranhr.net)

************

Iranian-Kurdish rapper once on death row arrives in Germany

A Kurdish rapper in Iran who was handed a death sentence for supporting nationwide protests in 2022 has arrived in Germany after being freed from jail, a non-governmental organization announced on Friday.

Saman Yasin is a Kurdish rapper from Iran’s western Kermanshah province who recorded songs protesting Iran’s socioeconomic conditions. He was arrested in October 2022 and transferred to Tehran’s notorious Evin prison during the Jin Jiyan Azadi (Women Life Freedom) protests.

He was convicted on charges of moharebeh, or enmity against God, which carries the death penalty in Iran, as well as “assembly and collusion with the intention of acting against the security of the country.”

His death sentence was overturned in October 2023.

Duzen Tekkal, a German-Yazidi journalist and founder of Hawar Help NGO, said on X that Yasin had managed to leave Iran and make his way to Germany.

“While in captivity, Saman was subjected to torture and even mock executions by prison guards… During at least one previous hospital stay, he was injected with an unknown liquid that caused him to lose consciousness for 24 hours,” Tekkal said.

Yasin was admitted to a psychiatric clinic at least twice while in captivity, according to Tekkal.

Amnesty International says that Iran has used the death penalty disproportionately to suppress minority groups like Kurds and Baluchis who were active in the 2022 protests that erupted after the death of young Kurdish woman Zhina (Mahsa) Amini while in the custody of Iran’s morality police for wearing a lax hijab.

(source: rudaw.net)

***************

Prisoner executed for murder-related charges in Sanandaj Central Prison

Seyvan Yaghoubi, a prisoner sentenced to death on charges of “premeditated murder”, was executed in Sanandaj Central Prison on 16 January.

Yaghoubi, a 36-year-old man from the village of Bisaran in Sarvabad, Kurdistan Province, was sentenced to death about 3 years ago.

The Kurdistan Human Rights Network (KHRN) has learned that the prisoner was transferred to solitary confinement on 15 January in preparation for the execution, and was executed at dawn the following day.

(source: kurdistanhumanrightsnetwork.org)

JANUARY 17, 2025:

TEXAS----impending execution

Christians argue death penalty in controversial North Texas murder case----Steven Nelson is on death row for murdering a pastor, but Christians are split on who gets the final say—God or the court?

Back in 2011, Steven Lawayne Nelson was charged with smothering 38-year-old Rev. Clint Dobson to death and beating 64-year-old church administrator Judy Elliott during a botched robbery at NorthPointe Baptist Church in Arlington.

The following year, Nelson, then 25, was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. After denials on appeals, a Fort Worth-area judge last summer signed a warrant that detailed how Nelson would be put to death by lethal injection Feb. 2, 2025, at Texas State Penitentiary in Huntsville.

Christians in Texas and across the country have since appeared divided on whether the religion supports executions. Some believers say the Bible instructs them to spare Nelson's life, citing the phrase "turning the other cheek" from Jesus' Sermon on the Mount in the gospel of Matthew. Others argue they can find biblical passages supporting the punishment and the killing of Nelson, who is now 37 and identifies as Christian.

Jeff Hood, a priest in the Old Catholic Church in Little Rock, Arkansas, is Nelson's spiritual adviser. He's joined anti-death penalty activists nationwide to plead for mercy from the state of Texas, per reporting by Texas Monthly. Hood has asked Northpointe Baptist's parent church, First Baptist Church in Arlington, to help him in his quest to get Nelson off death row.

Hood, who belongs to the Old Catholic Church that broke from Roman Catholicism, delivered an impassioned pitch during a November press conference outside of First Baptist. "You can't love your neighbor as yourself and kill them at the same time," Hood asserted. Nelson's then-fiancee, Noa Dubois, also appeared at the event to ask state courts to stop the execution. Nelson wasn't a "monster," she added, but a victim of childhood abuse. Dubois married Nelson on Dec. 4, 2024.

However, Texas Monthly reported that First Baptist leaders aren't showing any interest in hearing Hood out; they haven't responded to his phone calls or emails and refuse to answer the door when he comes around.

When the court sentenced Nelson to death 13 years ago, First Baptist pastor Dennis Wiles issued a statement backing the decision: "We have asked God for the truth to be known and for justice to be served," the statement read. "As the Bible teaches us, God has placed the civil authority in our midst so that innocent people can live in freedom without fear and so that guilty offenders can be appropriately punished. . . . We now can confidently say that justice has been served and we will support the decision of this court."

Prosecutors have argued that Nelson committed the crimes alone. Nelson and his lawyers maintain that he was the lookout during a robbery at Northpointe Baptist while two other men went inside the church, stole Elliot's keys and killed Dobson. (The two other men have alibis.) Associates testified that Nelson laughed at news reports of the crimes, used stolen credit cards to buy clothes, and sold Dobson's laptop.

Dobson reportedly belonged to the Arlington Clergy and Police Partnership, a group of clergy serving in chaplain roles for the Arlington Police Department. After his death, the partnership established the Clint Dobson Memorial Award. Elliot, who suffered physical and mental harm in the beating, died in 2024.

The split among Christians in this case mirrors protests to either support or object to the execution of Robert Roberson, an autistic Texas man convicted of killing his 2-year-old daughter in 2002. Roberson's execution was scheduled for Oct. 17, 2024, one of the first executions in a case that included evidence of shaken baby syndrome. Christian Democrats and Republicans, along with clergy from various denominations, then protested the execution which was delayed after a temporary restraining order was issued. The Texas Supreme Court ruled that a new execution date could be set within 90 days of the original date.

(source: chron.com) ***************

Austin man faces death penalty in Saline County murder case

A suspect who is accused of fatally stabbing an East End couple in May 2024 is now facing the death penalty.

Brittany and David Taylor were found discovered in their home on Jolie Place on May 4, following a 911 call from the couple’s child. By the next morning, Bryan Reed, 37, had been named as a person of interest and arrested on charges of 1st degree murder, 1st degree battery and endangering the welfare of a minor.

Reed’s charges have now been upgraded: two counts of capital murder, for which Arkansas is now seeking the death penalty; aggravated residential burglary; and aggravated assault on a family or household member.

“Nothing is unique from any other case where capital murder is alleged and the state is seeking the death penalty. Lots of court dates and lots of hearings,” said Reed’s attorney, Lee Deken Short. “There is a lot of work being done on both sides. That’s one of the things as a defense attorney in a possible death penalty case you have to do, is learn about their history. It takes quite a bit of time. That’s where we’re at right now.”

Prosecuting attorney Chris Walton was unable to provide details about the case, but he did say that the prosecution is going through a similar process as the defense.

“At this time, both sides are going through the discovery,” he said.

Short said that so far, Reed has cooperated with the defense team.

“I think like anyone he would like the process to be quicker, but unfortunately that’s just not the system. He seems committed to providing us all the information that we need and his family seems committed to assisting us as well,” Short said.

Reed’s review date, during which both sides will be assessed on progress to see if they are ready to proceed to the next step, is on Feb. 3 at the Saline County Courthouse.

(source: bentoncourier.com)

FLORIDA:

Florida Supreme Court affirms denial of Wayne Doty's request for postconviction relief----In today’s regular release of opinions, the Florida Supreme Court issued a per curiam decision in Doty v. State, affirming the circuit court's denial of Doty's motion for postconviction relief.

Wayne Doty was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 2011. The original jury recommended death by a vote of 10-2. At a second penalty phase in 2018, the jury unanimously recommended death. Doty’s sentence became final in November 2021.

In this case, Doty appealed (1) the circuit court’s summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief, (2) the postconviction court’s denial of his request for a PET scan and MRI, and (3) the postconviction court’s order denying his request to interview a venire member. In his motion for postconviction relief, Doty raised 8 claims.

3 claims related to relative culpability, including one alleging that violations of Brady and Giglio involving the testimony of Senior Inspector Kevin Snow and Dr. Hamilton during the second penalty phase “changed the facts of the case to such a degree that the most culpable defendant was improperly changed” from Wells to Doty. Two claims related to Doty’s assertion that under Indiana v. Edwards, 554 U.S. 164 (2008), he should not have been allowed to represent himself. Another claim alleged that the judge from the second penalty phase impermissibly questioned potential jurors outside Doty’s presence. Doty also raised a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel—both “initial trial counsel” back in 2011, as well as standby counsel during the second penalty phase. Finally, Doty alleged cumulative error.

The Court unanimously affirmed the postconviction court’s ruling, denying relief on all claims. Justice Labarga concurred in result to reiterate his disagreement with the Court’s abandoning its precedent on relative culpability.

The full decision can be accessed on the Court’s website here, at: https://supremecourt.flcourts.gov/content/download/2445993/opinion/Opinion_SC2023-1123.pdf

(source: fladeathpenalty@substack.com)

ALABAMA----impending execution

Alabama death row inmate set for execution is in wrong state, lawsuit argues

An Alabama death row inmate, who is set to die next month by nitrogen gas, is arguing that he shouldn’t be in Alabama’s custody at all.

Demetrius Terrence Frazier, 52, is set to die sometime within a 30-hour-period starting at midnight on Thursday, Feb. 6 and ending at 6 a.m. on Feb. 7. Frazier is set to die by inhaling pure nitrogen gas.

But on Thursday afternoon, Frazier’s attorneys with the Federal Public Defenders filed a lawsuit saying Frazier—who admitted to the slaying of Pauline Brown in Jefferson County over 30 years ago—shouldn’t be in the state’s prison system.

Frazier was arrested in Michigan in 1992, when he was 19 years old. Shortly after his arrest, he admitted to killing Brown in 1991.

Frazier was convicted in Michigan for a string of crimes. In 1995, Michigan authorities brought Frazier to Alabama, where he was tried, found guilty and sentenced to death. The Michigan authorities then brought him back north.

Frazier remained locked up in Michigan’s penal system, serving 3 life sentences for 1993 convictions of murder, criminal sexual conduct, and robbery in the state. But in 2011, then-Govs. Robert Bentley of Alabama and Rick Snyder of Michigan created an executive agreement to transfer Frazier to Alabama, according to documents signed by the governors and attached to the new lawsuit.

No explanation was provided in the documents as to why the transfer was initiated.

Michigan does not have the death penalty, and its state constitution banned it in 1963.

Now Frazier’s attorneys are arguing that executive agreement was unlawful and void, and asking the inmate to be sent back to Michigan.

One of Frazier’s lawyers, Spencer Hahn, wrote in November to the current Michigan governor, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, arguing that Frazier is in the legal custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections and being executed by Alabama would violate the northern state’s constitution. Hahn asked the governor to do “everything in (her) power to ensure he is returned to the physical custody of MDOC.”

“You have a legal duty to preserve, protect, and defend the Michigan Constitution and Mr. Frazier requests you do so,” Hahn wrote.

Whitmer’s office had not responded to a request for comment from AL.com prior to publication of this story.

Whitmer, according to the lawsuit, responded to Hahn and said “she would not act on his request at that time.”

In the Thursday lawsuit, Frazier’s lawyers argued his “Michigan life sentences have not been commuted and he has not been pardoned.” And the northern state’s law says, according to Frazier’s lawyers, that an inmate like Frazier “shall not be eligible for custodial incarceration outside a state correctional facility or a county jail.”

The Michigan Department of Corrections lists Frazier as a prisoner on their online database, with his current status listed as prisoner and his location listed as Alabama.

Alabama’s anti-DEI law violates Constitution, UA professors and UAB students claim in lawsuitJan. 14, 2025, 12:57 p.m.

According to an inmate classification summary from the Alabama Department of Corrections, Frazier is an inmate “borrowed from Michigan.”

Frazier also has a separate federal lawsuit being waged in the Middle District of Alabama over the Alabama’s nitrogen execution protocol. A judge has set a hearing for that case for Jan. 28.

(source: al.com)

MISSISSIPPI:

AG asks state Supreme Court to set Crawford execution date again

Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has renewed her efforts to have the state’s highest court to set an execution date for death row inmate Charles Ray Crawford.

In court documents filed earlier this month, Fitch’s office argued Crawford’s latest petition for post-conviction relief is “meritless” and that the appeal of a separate rape case should not stop the Mississippi Supreme Court from setting an execution date. In their reply, Crawford’s defense team argued the PCR petition is valid because it brings up a new argument. The defense also wrote that if the rape case is reversed, it could affect the constitutionality of his death sentence.

Crawford, who will turn 59 next month, admitted he kidnapped, raped and killed Northeast Mississippi Community College coed Kristy Ray, 20, more than 30 years ago. A jury found him guilty of capital murder and sentenced him to death in April 1994, but legal wrangling over the years has kept him out of the death chamber at the Mississippi State Penitentiary at Parchman.

He ran out of appeals on the capital murder conviction in 2014, so Crawford appealed a separate rape conviction, which the state used in arguing for the death penalty. The federal appeal was initially denied in U.S. District Court but the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the case. The New Orleans-based court heard oral arguments in October 2023. The 15 judges deliberated more than 13 months before issuing an 11-4 ruling denying the appeal.

The same day the appeal was denied, Nov. 22, 2024, Fitch filed a motion asking the Mississippi Supreme Court to set an execution date. About three weeks later, the defense filed the PCR motion, arguing that the defense team in the original capital murder trial erred when they admitted Crawford’s guilt to support an insanity plea, a strategy Crawford had opposed.

Defense attorneys with the Mississippi Office of Capital Post-Conviction Counsel disagree, arguing that “Crawford’s attorneys admitted his guilt and pursued an unwanted insanity defense over Crawford’s repeated objections before and during” the capital murder trial. They say disregarding the PCR claim would create a federal due process issue.

The state holds the position that the latest PCR is “barred and meritless” and “can be viewed as merely a delay tactic.”

“His 3rd PCR motion filed 30 years (after the 1994 conviction and death sentence) is clearly outside the time allowed by law,” and should not be considered, the attorney general argues.

The 2nd issue is whether the state should wait for all appeals of the rape case to be exhausted before setting an execution date. In arguing for the death penalty 3 decades ago, the state used the rape as a prior violent felony aggravator. The defense argues if the rape conviction is overturned, the death penalty should be due overturned as well.

The state says Crawford’s death sentence has been final for a decade when the U.S. Supreme Court reused to hear it in 2014.

“Even if Crawford has not yet exhausted all his federal remedies in the rape case,” the Attorney General’s Office argues in the new documents, “that does not mean that he has any available remedy for further challenging his judgement of death.”

The state further argues that since separate aggravated assault conviction was also used to argue for death, even if the rape is reversed, the death penalty would still be valid.

“The state is wrong on both counts,” the defense writes.

When the attorney general’s office first asked for an execution date in 2014, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied the motion because the appeal of the rape conviction was still pending. The defense notes the appeal is still pending, waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court will hear it.

The defense also cites a Supreme Court ruling where the reversal of any one of the aggravators requires a re-examination of the death sentence.

(source: djournal.com)

LOUISIANA:

Grand jury to hear ‘Mr. Prada’ murder case----Thomas is charged with 1st-degree murder in the brutal killing of Baton Rouge therapist Dr. Nick Abraham.

The murder case against Terryon Thomas, known on social media as “Mr. Prada,” will go before a grand jury in East Baton Rouge Parish Thursday, January 16.

Thomas is charged with 1st-degree murder in the brutal killing of Baton Rouge therapist Dr. Nick Abraham.

The grand jury will be presented details about the case to determine if there is enough evidence to hand down an indictment.

An indictment would clear the way for the case to proceed to trial and determine his guilt or innocence. If ultimately found guilty of 1st-degree murder, Thomas could face the death penalty.

Investigators allege the September 2024 murder happened at an apartment complex off Essen Lane in Baton Rouge.

The East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Department says Dr. Abraham, age 69, was last seen alive entering Thomas’ apartment.

Abraham’s body was later found in Tangipahoa Parish wrapped in a tarp and left alongside a highway.

A search of Thomas’s apartment turned up several sharp objects, weapons and large amounts of the doctor’s blood, investigators said.Thomas, who fled Baton Rouge after nearly being captured by police, was later apprehended in Dallas, Texas.

(source: WAFB news)

KENTUCKY:

Death penalty still on the table for man accused of killing Ky. deputy

A judge denied a motion to remove the death penalty as an option against Steven Sheangshang.

He’s charged in the shooting death of Scott County deputy Caleb Conley.

In December, the judge heard a motion the death penalty should be taken off the table if Sheangshang is convicted due to mental illness.

According to court records, the judge ruled the defense failed to show a documented history of a serious mental illness.

Sheangshang was recently moved to the Fayette County Detention Center due to security concerns.

Court records show he has a status hearing scheduled for Friday morning.

(source: WKYT news)

MISSOURI:

Rich Hill man could face death penalty after drug deal turned homicide

A Rich Hill man has been charged with murder and could face the death penalty after he shot a man he attempted to buy drugs from in his own home.

Bates County, Missouri, Circuit Court records filed on Thursday, Jan. 16, have revealed that David A. Stewart, 40, of Rich Hill, has been charged with murder in connection to a November shooting.

A probable cause statement filed by the Bates County Sheriff’s Office indicated that on Nov. 14, emergency crews were called to a Rich Hill home with reports of a death. When they arrived, they found a man with an apparent gunshot wound to his head. The death appeared to be a suicide but was classified as suspicious.

The victim was later identified as Jerry McLay, 48, of Rich Hill.

A security camera upstairs showed that just before 12:25 p.m. on Nov. 13, McLay returned to his home in his truck with a gold SUV known to belong to Stewart following him. About 5 minutes later, Stewart’s vehicle left eastward and then returned approximately 20 minutes later.

Less than 5 minutes after Stewart returned, investigators said the security camera recorded the sound of a gunshot 2 minutes before the SUV left for the final time. There was no other traffic recorded on the camera until around 9:20 a.m. on Nov. 14 when the mail carrier arrived. The package delivered was still there when deputies arrived.

Over the last 2 months, the Sheriff’s Office said around 10 search warrants were executed in connection to the case. Investigators noted that a search of McLay’s phone revealed messages with Stewart on the day of the murder.

A search warrant was executed at Stewart’s home on Jan. 13, in connection to firearms stolen and pawned in Nevada. After his arrest, he was interviewed on Wednesday, Jan. 15, during which he admitted he had been at McLay’s house on the day of the shooting for a drug deal.

“This is the reason why we investigate all deaths like they are homicides until we can prove different. This case has been very labor-intensive over the last 2 months. I am proud of the determination and dedication of all my staff and all those agencies who worked on this case as a team,” Sheriff Chad Anderson said. “Our sympathy goes out to the family of Jerry McLay. We are far from Justice being served until this case is adjudicated through the court system. We are still following up on leads and ask that if you have any information regarding this homicide please reach out and contact a Detective at 660-679-3232"

As a result, Stewart was taken into custody and charged with murder in the 2st degree and armed criminal action. If convicted he could face either the death penalty or life in prison.

As of Thursday, Stewart remains behind bars in the Vernon County Jail on a $1 million bond. A hearing has not yet been scheduled in this case.

(source: KCTV news)

NEBRASKA:

Ending death penalty, rule changes among legislative proposals

Proposals ranging from abolishing the death penalty to changing legislative rules were among ideas under discussion by state lawmakers Thursday.

Among the measures that have been introduced in this legislative session is a proposal by Sen. Terrell McKinney to abolish the death penalty. The abolition would take the form of a state constitutional amendment. That means, unlike a law, it could not be changed by the Legislature.

But it also means that it would have to be approved by voters. In 2016, after the Legislature voted to repeal the death penalty, Nebraskans voted 61% to 39% to reinstate it. McKinney was asked what’s changed.

“Society has changed. We went through a pandemic," he said. "I think, why not try it to see what could happen? The conversation around a lot of things has changed and I think we should try to at least see what the voters think."

The proposal would need support from 30 senators in the 49-member Legislature to be placed on next year’s ballot.

(source: nebraskapublicmedia.org)

ARIZONA:

Death Sentence for Rapist and Murderer of 14-Year-Old Girl----Decade-long case ends with ultimate punishment.

Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell has announced that Alex Anthony Madrid (DOB: 02/1982) has received the death penalty for the murder of 14-year-old Claudia Lucero, a freshman at Westwood High School. Today’s death sentence is in addition to the 91 years he already received for kidnapping and other non-capital charges related to the same assault.

On December 5, 2013, Claudia Lucero’s family filed a missing person report with the Mesa Police Department after Claudia didn’t come home from school. The following day, her body was found in a dumpster two miles from her Mesa home. According to the medical examiner’s report, Claudia died of strangulation, and her body showed signs of sexual assault. Semen collected from the victim’s body matched Alex Madrid’s DNA profile. Madrid was subsequently arrested.

In October, a jury found Madrid guilty of the following:

One count of First-Degree Murder, a Class One Felony

One count of Kidnapping, a Class Two Felony

One count of Sexual Conduct with a Minor, a Class Two Felony and Dangerous Crime Against Children

One count of Burglary in the Second Degree, a Class Three Felony

One count of Abandonment or Concealment of a Dead Body, a Class Five Felony

One count of Unlawful Flight from Law Enforcement, a Class Six Felony.

“After waiting 11 painful years to see Claudia’s murderer be held accountable, the day has finally arrived for Claudia’s mother and the Lucero family. I have had the privilege of being with them and saw firsthand the pain they’ve been through,” said County Attorney Rachel Mitchell. “I commend our prosecutors Christopher Sammons and Jennifer Carper, and the Mesa Police Department for their unwavering dedication for more than a decade to getting justice for Claudia and her family.”

(source: maricopacountyattorney.org)

***********

Lawmaker: Ask Arizona voters to OK firing squads for executions

Calling the current system inhumane, a state lawmaker wants to give voters the chance to replace the lethal injection method of executing condemned inmates with a firing squad.

The proposal by Rep. Alexander Kolodin follows a preliminary report last year by a special “death penalty commissioner’’ hired by Gov. Katie Hobbs to look into how the state executes criminals by lethal injection. Retired federal magistrate David Duncan reported there is “no humane way’’ to kill someone using that method.

Duncan said if the state is to continue with executions, the most humane method is the firing squad.

So now Kolodin, a Scottsdale Republican, wants to put a measure on the 2026 ballot asking voters to approve the change.

Kolodin said he believes in the death penalty, but that the record shows the current method — approved by voters in 1992 — is filled with problems.

“I don’t know what it is. But lethal injection just seems to be incredibly complicated where it always leads to these delays and these hiccups and whatever,” he said.

Kolodin said just preparing for an execution itself creates issues.

The state has had trouble in prior years even obtaining the lethal chemicals.

In 2015, for example, Arizona ordered 1,000 vials of sodium thiopental, a muscle relaxant used in the process, from a supplier in India, after a domestic manufacturer refused to sell it for executions.

That came despite warning from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration that such importation would be illegal. It ended up with Customs and Border Protection seizing the drugs at Sky Harbor International Airport in Phoenix.

The state now uses a different drug, but it also presents issues: It not only has to be compounded but has a limited shelf life.

Then there’s the process itself.

Hobbs appointed Duncan after what she said was a series of “botched’’ executions, including reports by witnesses of pain and bleeding as state employees had trouble inserting the necessary intravenous line.

In the interim, Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes said she would not seek any warrants of execution until the report was done.

Duncan, in his preliminary report, said the state should consider using a firing squad because it results in near-instantaneous death. He said it “does overcome the impediments to lethal injection from unavailability of material and skilled personnel."

The Democratic governor subsequently fired Duncan, saying that suggestion was beyond the purview of what he was supposed to study. But Kolodin said it’s time to take the report seriously.

“We actually know what’s always humane and always seems to work properly, which is the firing squad,’’ he said. “And this has actually been known for a long time. I’m surprised that Hobbs fired the guy for saying so because people who have at least a reasonable amount of exposure to criminal law already know this."

He said using that method could end some of the litigation about the method of execution that can result in death penalty cases dragging out for years, if not decades.

“We would not have all of these freakin’ legal hang-ups in terms of delivering capital punishment," Kololdin said.

“And it would be far more humane,’’ he continued. “So why don’t we just do it that way?"

Hobbs has not discussed her personal feelings about the death penalty and the method it is administered in Arizona. And in fact, what she thinks is legally irrelevant.

First, the method of execution is spelled out in the Arizona Constitution. It can be changed only with voter approval, a process that bypasses the governor.

Second, the governor plays no role in the process. Instead, that rests with the attorney general, who has to be the one to ask the Arizona Supreme Court for a warrant to execute someone.

A spokesman for Mayes said she opposes what Kolodin is proposing.

“The attorney general supports the current protocol,’’ said her press aid Richie Taylor of the use of lethal injection.

He also said Mayes has reviewed a report by Ryan Thornell, director of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Release. He said he has reviewed and revamped the execution process.

Based on that, Richie said, Mayes is convinced that the agency, going forward, can use lethal injection in a humane fashion to execute inmates.

That 1st execution could occur on March 18 if the Supreme Court grants Mayes’ request to execute Aaron Gunches. He has been on death row since pleading guilty to the 2022 murder and kidnapping of Ted Price, his girlfriend’s ex-husband.

Arizona initially executed inmates by hanging. That was changed to the use of lethal gas in 1934.

The last person put to death that way was in 1992. Donald Eugene Hardin took more than 10 minutes to die after cyanide pellets were dropped into sulfuric acid in a bowl beneath his chair. Witnesses said Harding gasped, shuddering and tried to make obscene gestures with both of his hands strapped down.

That led to the voter-approved constitutional amendment later that year, replacing it with lethal injection. Kolodin proposes further amending that provision to make firing squad the only legal method.

Several states authorize firing squads, including Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Utah. Idaho became the latest state added to the list in 2023, though its law says that is authorized only if the state cannot obtain the drugs needed for lethal injection.

Kolodin’s proposal, based on his assessment of what is humane, contains no such condition.

(source: tucson.com)

USA:

Drug used in federal executions under Trump may cause ‘unnecessary pain and suffering,’ Garland says

The Justice Department is rescinding its protocol for federal executions that allowed for single-drug lethal injections with pentobarbital, after a government review raised concerns about the potential for “unnecessary pain and suffering.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland’s order to withdraw the lethal injection policy comes days before President-elect Donald Trump, who is expected to restart federal executions, is set to return to the White House. Trump’s Justice Department could reinstate the protocol to use pentobarbital as a single drug to carry out executions.

Indiana resumed executions last month following a 15-year pause after then-governor Eric Holcomb announced in June that the state had acquired pentobarbital.

Once the death penalty resumed, 49-year-old Joseph Corcoran of Fort Wayne was the 1st inmate on death row to be executed by a lethal dose of the drug on Dec. 18.

A moratorium on federal executions has been in place since 2021, and only 3 defendants remain on federal death row after Democratic President Joe Biden converted 37 of their sentences to life in prison.

The governments’ findings about the potential risks of unnecessary pain could have broader implications. Legal challenges have been brought in several states where pentobarbital is the primary method of execution, potentially leading to reviews of execution protocols nationwide.

The department’s review of scientific and medical research found there remains “significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single drug lethal injection causes unnecessary pain and suffering,” according to a report published Wednesday.

“In the face of such uncertainty, the Department should err on the side of treating individuals humanely and avoiding unnecessary pain and suffering,” Garland wrote in his memo ordering the director of the Bureau of Prisons to rescind the protocol. Garland said it should not be reinstated ”unless and until that uncertainty is resolved."

The report from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Policy noted that the Food and Drug Administration “has not reviewed or approved of the use of pentobarbital in high doses or for the purpose of causing death.”

The pentobarbital protocol was adopted by Bill Barr, attorney general during Trump’s 1st term, to replace a 3-drug mix used in the 2000s, the last time federal executions were carried out before Trump was in office. The Trump administration carried out 13 federal executions, more than under any president in modern history.

Under Trump, the Justice Department also sanitized the accounts of the executions carried out in 2020 and 2021. Government lawyers said the process of dying by lethal injection was like falling asleep and they called gurneys “beds” and final breaths “snores.” But accounts by reporters from The Associated Press and other media witnesses described how prisoners’ stomachs rolled, shook and shuddered as the pentobarbital took effect during executions at the U.S. penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana. The AP witnessed every federal execution.

Questions about whether inmates’ midsections trembled, as media witnesses reported, were a focus of litigation throughout the series of executions. Inmates’ lawyers argued it proved pentobarbital caused flash pulmonary edema, in which fluid rushes through quickly disintegrating membranes into lungs and airways, causing pain akin to being suffocated or drowned. The Constitution prohibits execution methods that are “cruel and unusual.”

Several states also have policies allowing single-drug executions with pentobarbital. Tennessee announced last month that it would use the single drug to carry out executions that have been halted since 2022. The state’s previous protocol called for three different drugs to be used in a series.

Shawn Nolan, a lawyer who has represented federal death row inmates, said in a statement that the report makes clear that “no jurisdiction, federal or state, should continue using this cruel, unconstitutional execution method.”

The chief of the federal public defender’s habeas unit in Nashville, Tennessee, Kelley Henry, said the review was “a damning condemnation of the use of pentobarbital to poison prisoners to death” and that Tennessee “should rescind its execution protocol immediately.”

Biden’s decision commute the sentences of most death row inmates spared the lives of people convicted in killings, including those of police and military officers, people on federal land and those involved in deadly bank robberies or drug deals, as well as the killings of guards or prisoners in federal facilities.

The decision leaves three federal inmates to face execution. They are Dylann Roof, who carried out the 2015 racist slayings of 9 Black members of Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; 2013 Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; and Robert Bowers, who fatally shot 11 congregants at Pittsburgh’s Tree of life Synagogue in 2018, the deadliest antisemitic attack in U.S history.

(sources: Associated Press & WPTA news)

************

Department of Justice Withdraws Federal Execution Protocol and Keeps Moratorium on Executions in Place

Methods of Execution Lethal Injection Federal Death Penalty US Federal Government

3 1/2 years after announc­ing its inves­ti­ga­tion into the fed­er­al death penal­ty pro­to­col, Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on January 15, 2025 that the Department of Justice (DOJ) is rescind­ing the fed­er­al government’s sin­gle-drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal lethal injec­tion pro­to­col. The DOJ’s deci­sion was based on what AG Garland called ?“sig­nif­i­cant uncer­tain­ty” about whether exe­cu­tions by pen­to­bar­bi­tal caused unnec­es­sary pain and suf­fer­ing. The DOJ’s state­ment expressed a desire to "err on the side of treat­ing indi­vid­u­als humane­ly.” It fol­lowed an exten­sive set of con­sul­ta­tions with fed­er­al and state author­i­ties, med­ical experts, expe­ri­enced cap­i­tal coun­sel, and oth­er stake­hold­ers. Federal Execution reg­u­la­tions were not changed. Single-drug lethal injec­tion is autho­rized by statute in 20 of the 27 states where the death penal­ty is legal.

“Because it can­not be said with rea­son­able con­fi­dence that the cur­rent exe­cu­tion pro­to­col 'not only afford[s] the rights guar­an­teed by the Constitution and laws of the United States’ but 'also treat[s] indi­vid­u­als [being exe­cut­ed] fair­ly and humanely,’…that pro­to­col should be rescind­ed, and not rein­stat­ed unless and until that uncer­tain­ty is resolved.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland in a let­ter to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons

On July 1, 2021, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Policy to coor­di­nate a review of the fed­er­al exe­cu­tion pro­to­col adden­dum and the Department’s reg­u­la­tions regard­ing fed­er­al exe­cu­tions. The review includ­ed an exam­i­na­tion of autop­sies of exe­cut­ed indi­vid­u­als, reports of med­ical experts, and accounts of exe­cu­tion wit­ness­es. The review con­clud­ed that there is "sig­nif­i­cant uncer­tain­ty about whether pen­to­bar­bi­tal can be used in a sin­gle-drug exe­cu­tion pro­to­col with­out caus­ing unnec­es­sary pain and suf­fer­ing.” Specifically, the DOJ not­ed: (1) there is a risk that indi­vid­u­als who are exe­cut­ed with pen­to­bar­bi­tal will expe­ri­ence flash (acute) pul­monary ede­ma; (2) pen­to­bar­bi­tal may not ade­quate­ly anes­thetize the indi­vid­ual before they expe­ri­ence pul­monary ede­ma; and that (3) flash pul­monary ede­ma cre­ates a sen­sa­tion experts liken to being water­board­ed. The first Trump Administration used this pro­to­col to exe­cute 13 peo­ple in 2020 and 2021.

A review of state statutes by DPI indi­cates that 20 of the 27 states that still allow the death penal­ty have statutes that allow sin­gle-drug lethal injec­tion (Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and most recent­ly, Tennessee). The remain­ing s7 death-penal­ty states specif­i­cal­ly autho­rize 3-drug pro­to­cols (Alabama, Mississippi, Montana, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Wyoming). Autopsies con­duct­ed on dozens of indi­vid­u­als exe­cut­ed by fed­er­al and state gov­ern­ments in recent years using 1-drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal have revealed evi­dence of flash pul­monary ede­ma.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)

*************

Bloodbath?----Federal Death Row Abolishes Lethal Injection. What Does It Mean for Trump’s Killing Spree?; During the last years of the last Trump presidency, 13 people were executed using such a method

Just days before President-elect Donald Trump is set to take office, the Department of Justice has announced its decision to withdraw the federal government’s lethal injection protocol on the grounds that it causes unconstitutional suffering.

“Because it cannot be said with reasonable confidence that the current execution protocol ‘not only afford[s] the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States’ but ‘also treat[s] individuals [being executed] fairly and humanely,’ … that protocol should be rescinded, and not reinstated unless and until that uncertainty is resolved,” Attorney General Merrick Garland wrote in a Jan. 15 letter to the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

Garland initially began a review — which was completed this month — of the process in July 2021. That review took into account autopsies of inmates executed via 1-drug pentobarbital execution protocols and found that those people experienced flash pulmonary edema, which feels akin to being waterboarded. It also found that the drug failed to properly anesthetize the executed person, so that they felt intense pain upon dying. During the last years of the last Trump presidency, 13 people were executed using such a method — what criminal justice reformers and defense attorneys that many of them still refer to as a historic “bloodbath.”

“The DOJ’s review has confirmed what medical experts have said for many years: pentobarbital causes excruciating pain when used to carry out executions,” says defense lawyer Shawn Nolan; 11 states currently use this method. “No jurisdiction, federal or state, should continue using this cruel, unconstitutional execution method. We also hope the federal government, as well as state authorities, take into the traumatic impact executions have on correctional staff.”

Currently, federal death row only houses 3 people — Robert Bowers, Dylann Roof, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev — after President Biden commuted the sentences of 37 inmates right before Christmas. But the question becomes: what methods will the next Trump administration adopt going forward? In recent years, sources close to the next president say he’s considering bringing back the firing squad, hangings, and, potentially, group executions — despite public opinion of the death penalty being at an all-time nadir.

“The ‘killing spree,’ as you call it, is returning,” a Trump adviser tells Rolling Stone. “There’s a new sheriff in town, and he doesn’t think murderers and rapists should get off easy.”

(source: rollingstone.com)

GLOBAL:

Monitoring conditions of detention of prisoners sentenced to death: a new practical guide for NHRIs and NPMs

ECPM has released a new practical guide for National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) and National Preventive Mechanisms (NPMs) on ‘Monitoring the conditions of detention of prisoners sentenced to death’. Available in French and English, its digital publication is accompanied by an online presentation organised on Tuesday 28 January 2025 by Julia Bourbon-Fernandez, Head of ECPM's MENA desk, alongside Carole Berrih and Vicki Prais, co-authors of the guide.

Registration page to attend the online presentation of the guide | Tuesday 28 January 2025, 11:00 AM (zoom)----see: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/TqC5Z9hdRP2lw4UO5Hn7lA#/registration

Prisoners sentenced to death are likely to be among the most marginalised groups in prisons worldwide. They are often forgotten, neglected and ignored by prison authorities, and may be held in unfavourable and inhumane conditions that fail to comply with international human rights standards. They find themselves in a specific situation, often characterised by a high level of psychological uncertainty about their future. Prisoners sentenced to death face deprivation and hardship in their daily lives in prison, which has an impact on their physical and mental well-being.

Monitoring bodies (at national, regional and international level) play a central role in ensuring that persons deprived of their liberty are held in an environment that respects their dignity and other human rights. These bodies can also play an important role in driving change in policies and practices.

In light of these specific challenges, ECPM has developed this guide to assist NPMs and NHRIs in their work to assess detention conditions of prisoners sentenced to death. This practical guide supports and complements ECPM’s work on the detention conditions of individuals sentenced to death and its wider advocacy and awareness-raising activities.

This guide was developed in collaboration with Morocco’s National Human Rights Council (Conseil national des droits de l’Homme – CNDH).

Who can use this guide ?

This guide is primarily aimed at NPMs and NHRIs. It provides tools, practical guidance and advice for assessing the specific conditions of prisoners sentenced to death, in accordance with international and regional standards. It aims to facilitate the monitoring process and to ensure that the rights of prisoners sentenced to death are at the centre of the efforts of detention monitoring bodies. Beyond NHRIs and NPMs, other actors may be interested in this guide, including academics, international organisations, civil society actors and donors.

Although closely linked to the work of detention monitoring, this guide does not address issues related to the monitoring of conditions of deprivation of liberty in immigration centres or police custody facilities.

How to use this guide ?

Designed as a practical handbook for detention monitoring bodies, this guide should be considered a “living instrument”. Through general information, checklists, questions, innovative practices and advice from practitioners, this guide sets out the various stages involved in analysing the conditions of detention of women and men sentenced to death and helps to identify the systemic risk factors affecting this group. It can be used as a tool in various contexts, but its application and implementation will depend on each situation.

Ideally, this guide should not be read in isolation or as a “standalone” document, but as a complement to and in coordination with other general guides for assessing detention conditions

How was this guide developed ?

This guide is based on a literature review of existing resources on prisoners sentenced to death, including international and regional resources from intergovernmental organisations, NGOs working to combat the death penalty, press articles and other open sources.

The information contained in this guide, such as monitoring techniques, practical procedures and guiding principles of monitoring bodies, is internationally recognised and implemented by many monitoring bodies. This guide has been inspired by other practical guides, particularly those dealing more broadly with the monitoring of places of deprivation of liberty, such as those developed by the Association for the prevention of torture (APT) and by The Advocates for Human Rights. The information presented here has been adapted to the needs of prisoners sentenced to death.

(source: ecpm.org)

GAMBIA:

Man, sentenced to Death Sentence

Justice Ebrima Jaiteh of Banjul High Court on Monday sentenced one Famara Kanteh to death for killing one Omar Ceesay alia ”Bahoreh” on January 9, 2020, at Manjai Kunda in the Kanifing Municipality, The Gambia.

According to the court record the convict, Famara Kanteh pleaded not guilty to a single count of murder contrary to section 187 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10:01, Volume 3, Laws of The Gambia.

Justice Jaiteh, however, in the verdict recalled that the convict, Famara, a cocoanut seller, was a neighbour of the deceased, Omar Ceesay, who requested a green teapot locally known as ‘attaya pot’ to brew his tea. He added that the deceased at the time refused to give it to him with an excuse that Famara should wait until he was done.

He further stated that after taking the ”attaya pot” from the deceased, Famara (convict) failed to return it on time, adding that such aroused a bitter argument between Famara and Omar which made the convict angry, and started insulting the deceased’s mother and threatened to kill him.

According to the prosecution witnesses, on the following day after a heated argument between Famara and the deceased (Omar), they were separated, stating that Famara claimed to have sustained an injury which made him seek medical treatment thereafter.

”On the following day, the accused again approached the deceased and started insulting him. He attacked him and stabbed him on his right leg, he fell down and subsequently died as a result of profuse bleeding,” state witnesses affirmed in court.

Justice Jaiteh in passing a sentence against Famara said that the law on murder, contrary to section 187 of the Criminal Code, under which Famara Kanteh stands accused stated that: ”any person who of malice aforethought causes the death of another person by unlawful act or omission is guilty of murder”.

He stressed that the offence of murder is one of the heinous and abominable crimes of the land, adding that when committed, the culprit is charged, tried, and found guilty upon all the available evidence presented before the court including his/her defence thereto attracts death sentence against the accused.

Justice Jaiteh at that juncture stated that before passing sentence, he found it expedient to state that section 18 (2) of the 1997 Constitution of The Gambia permits the imposition and execution of the death penalty, however, he stated that upon assumption of office President Adama Barrow in 2018 placed a moratorium on the death penalty in honour of The Gambia’s commitments under the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR.

Justice Jaiteh cited that section 18 (3) of the Constitution (supra) provides that the National Assembly shall within ten (10) years from the date of coming into force of the 1997 Constitution review the desirability or otherwise of the total abolition of the death penalty in The Gambia.

”Time has elapsed but the said provision has not been reviewed by the National Assembly and as such this Court’s hands are tied. Therefore, having found the convict Famara Kanteh guilty of the murder of Omar Ceesay brutally, cowardly and considering that this court does not have any discretion under section 188 of the Criminal Code, Cap 10:01, Volume 3, Laws of The Gambia, the convict Famara Kanteh is hereby sentenced to death under section 250 of the Criminal Procedure Code, Cap 11:01, Volume 3, Laws of The Gambia,” Justice Jaiteh ruled.

(source: voicegambia.com)

DR CONGO:

DR Congo's death penalty plan for gang youth sparks division----In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, authorities have opted to implement the death penalty as a response to the surge in urban banditry by young gangs. While most religious leaders and human rights defenders contest this measure, others support it.

Should the Congolese justice system execute the death sentences pronounced against hundreds of young delinquents locally referred to as “Kuluna”? The question has caused a rift, even among the country’s religious leaders – though the vast majority firmly say “no.”

After numerous police crackdowns that led to the arrests of hundreds of alleged offenders, “more than 300 Kuluna have been convicted, including 127 sentenced to death,” explained Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Justice Minister Constant Mutamba during a press briefing January 6. These death sentences come after the Congolese government lifted a moratorium on executions in March last year, a ban that had been in place since 2003. The government justified its decision by citing a security crisis characterized by frequent knife attacks and foreign troop incursions, which authorities claim are sometimes aided by Congolese collaborators.

'A step backward in defending life'

Public opinion in Congolese society remains divided over these death sentences. The National Episcopal Conference of Congo (CENCO), which has consistently opposed the death penalty, maintains its stance. Speaking to La Croix International, Monsignor Donatien Nshole, CENCO’s secretary general, reiterated the church’s dismay, noting that after 20 years of suspension, there had been hope for outright abolition of capital punishment.

Further reading: End the death penalty: choose life

“With the lifting of the moratorium on the death penalty, our country is taking a step backward in defending life,” insisted Monsignor Nshole, citing CENCO’s message, “Thou shall not kill.” He emphasized, “Driven by the conviction that all life is sacred and human dignity must be protected, we categorically reject the use of the death penalty.” For the DRC’s episcopate, the purpose of punishing crime must include the offender’s rehabilitation.

The same position is echoed by the Church of Christ in Congo (ECC), a Protestant denomination. “Every person has the right to life,” stated Pastor Eric Senga, ECC’s spokesperson and secretary general. “Article 16 of the constitution upholds the sanctity of human life and obliges the state to respect and protect it,” he said. Instead of “taking shortcuts and deliberately violating the constitution,” the pastor urged Congolese authorities to explore alternative ways of managing the Kuluna. The president of the Islamic community in Congo, Sheikh Abdallah Mangala, is aligned with this view.

'Fruitless debate'

Conversely, revivalist churches—Pentecostal-inspired Christian denominations prominent in the DRC—seem more inclined to support the death penalty’s implementation. “The damage caused by the Kuluna is immense, and they seem to believe they are above the law,” said Ejiba Yamapia, the legal representative of these churches. “Eliminating traitors within the army and curbing terrorism and urban banditry is critical for our nation. If the judiciary deems this penalty appropriate, who am I to oppose it?”

Further reading: Pope Francis: Death penalty is contrary to the Gospel

Justice Minister Constant Mutamba, for his part, dismissed the controversy as a “fruitless debate.” “We are a nation under attack, a country at war. Some of our compatriots, including those in high-ranking positions, have betrayed the nation. In this context, the priority is not pleasing human rights NGOs but addressing national security imperatives,” he told the press.

Although the death row inmates have been transferred from Kinshasa to the high-security Angenga prison in the northwest, no executions have been carried out to date. However, responding to reports that more than 170 people under sentence of death were transferred to Angenga prison, Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, Sarah Jackson, said: “The announcement of these prison transfers is absolutely appalling. We fear imminent mass executions by the authorities amid a lack of reliable information about the status of people sentenced to death.”

(source: international.la-croix.com)

MALAWI:

Malawi Reaffirms Commitment to Abolish Death Penalty, Says Justice Minister

(see: https://www.nyasatimes.com/malawi-reaffirms-commitment-to-abolish-death-penalty-says-justice-minister/)

ZIMBABWE:

Zimbabwe abolishes death penalty: A life-line for 62 people on death row

The President of Zimbabwe, Emmerson Mnangagwa, signed into law the Death Penalty Abolition Act (2024) effectively removing the death penalty sentence in the penal code. Although the Southern Africa country has not carried out death sentences for nearly 2 decades, 62 people who had been sentenced to death will be resentenced or have their death sentences commuted.

Zimbabwe’s cabinet approved the Death Penalty Abolition bill in February 2024 following the approval of the bill by the National Assembly and the Senate. The private member’s bill had been introduced by opposition member of parliament, Edwin Mushoriwa, in 2023. It received backing from both sides of the political divide and was also a result of a “sustained collaboration between government and civil society for almost a decade,” noted The Death Penalty Project, a legal-action charitable trust.

“I am delighted that the Death Penalty Abolition Act has become law. Removing the death penalty sends a message to all that our nation should respect and uphold the value of human dignity. This achievement is a move in the right direction,” said Hon. Mushoriwa.

The Executive Director of Amnesty International Zimbabwe chapter, Lucia Masuka, applauded the country’s decision to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, but regretted the possibility of its reinstatement during a state of emergency under the Defence Act.

“This is not just great progress for Zimbabwe, it is also a beacon of hope for the abolitionist movement in the region, and a major milestone in the global collective pursuit for an end to this ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment,” said Masuka.

Zimbabwe has become the 27th country in Africa to scrap the death penalty for all crimes. Other countries that fully abolished the death penalty include the Central African Republic, Chad, Zambia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, South Africa and Ivory Coast. 18 African countries such as Malawi, Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania still retain the death penalty in their penal code but have not executed people in over 2 decades.

The European Union, while applauding the abolition of the death penalty, also urged Zimbabwe to remove the provision for the temporary reintroduction of the death penalty during a state of public emergency.

More than 100 prisoners executed in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Barely a week after Zimbabwe enacted the Death Abolition Act, the Democratic Republic of Congo announced that it had executed 102 inmates in December 2024 with another 70 more set to be executed later. Some of the death row inmates, aged between 18 and 35 years, had been convicted for being part of the “urban bandits” locally known as Kulunas that the government had said were terrorizing residents.

It is suspected that about 40 of the executed prisoners had been arrested and sentenced for organizing and participating in a failed coup in DRC in May 2024 while another 13 Congolese soldiers had been found guilty of desertion.

Congo had abolished the death sentence in 1981, but it reinstated it in 2006 under the Military Penal Code. Most of the executed prisoners were tried in military court. Congo has been under pressure to act against urban crime but human rights defenders, including Amnesty International Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, Sarah Jackson, have questioned the imminent mass executions “amid a lack of reliable information about the status of people sentenced to death.”

“President Felix Tshidekedi must immediately, publicly and unambiguously halt any plans to execute people in Angenga prison or elsewhere. Parliament should adopt a moratorium on executions, pending full abolition of the death penalty,” added Jackson.

Similarly, Action by Christians for the Abolition of Torture in DRC (ACAT-DRC) has been lobbying and pushing back against what they describe as a cruel, inhuman and degrading sentence. The association has also been fighting against abusive pre-trial detention by distributing food and medicine to prisoners who are held in overcrowded and unhygienic facilities.

In an interview with Prison Insider, ACAT-DRC’s Michel Kalemba said incarceration often leads to abandonment by families. “Prisoners sentenced to death, even more so than other prisoners, are often incarcerated in isolated prisons because those are the ones with advanced security systems,” said Kalemba.

Advocates of the abolition of the death penalty have argued that execution is an extreme punishment especially in Africa where convicts are kept in dehumanising conditions while waiting to be executed which is a “type of torture.”

Kalemba said that a number of senior government officers in the current DRC regime were once convicted by the Kinshasa military court for participating in the insurrectionary movement. They were saved by a moratorium that had set aside the death penalty but have now lifted the moratorium.

“If they do not take advantage of being in power to abolish the death penalty, the day may come when - as it did in 2003 - the moratorium is lifted and people will be executed. As direct abolition seems unlikely at this time, an interim solution would be to establish a de jure moratorium, which would be more secure. This would save people from getting up every morning and thinking, 'The executions will start up again today',” said Kalemba.

(source: Christian Daily International)

*******************

Prisons Close Hanging Gallows, Turn Them To Museum

The Zimbabwe Prisons and Correctional Service (ZPCS) has repurposed the infamous hanging gallows at Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison into a museum and radio broadcasting studios. This transformation marks a significant step following Zimbabwe’s recent abolition of the death penalty.

The gallows at Chikurubi were originally used in the 1970s to execute offenders.

The last execution at the facility took place in 1979 before the execution chamber was relocated to Harare Central Prison, where the death penalty was last carried out in 2005.

Since then, Zimbabwe had maintained an unofficial moratorium on executions, culminating in the formal abolition of capital punishment under President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s administration.

Brian Moyo, Director of Corporate Chaplaincy Services for Bridging the Gap Foundation, hailed the initiative, saying, “This transformation signifies a genuine commitment to respecting United Nations human rights practices. We applaud the government and ZPCS for leading this reform, and we thank President Mnangagwa for championing the abolition of the death penalty.”

The project has drawn technical support from the Broadcasting Authority of Zimbabwe (BAZ).

Matthias Chakanyuka, BAZ’s technical director, noted the site’s suitability for broadcasting purposes: “After our assessment, we determined that this place is ideal for a radio station, with all necessary facilities in place.”

Chikurubi’s Officer in Charge, Chief Superintendent Alfred Machingauta, described the psychological toll of the death penalty, saying, “I have interacted with individuals who were on death row, and their experiences were profoundly traumatic. Transforming these facilities gives new meaning to a place once associated with despair.”

ZPCS Commissioner General Moses Chihobvu highlighted the practical benefits of the conversion: “This initiative allows us to generate revenue through museum visits while also symbolizing our alignment with modern penal reforms and the abolition of the death penalty.”

Zimbabwe’s death penalty history is intertwined with its colonial and post-independence legal systems.

Executions were a common feature during the 1970s and early 1980s, primarily targeting political dissidents and convicted criminals.

However, no executions have been carried out since 2005, owing to growing advocacy against the practice and a lack of a hangman willing to perform the grim task.

The abolition of the death penalty is a milestone in Zimbabwe’s justice system.

President Mnangagwa, himself a former death row inmate during the liberation struggle, has been a vocal advocate against capital punishment.

His government’s approval of the bill to abolish the death penalty demonstrates Zimbabwe’s commitment to aligning with global human rights standards.

Located on the outskirts of Harare, Chikurubi Maximum Security Prison houses over 2,000 inmates, with the majority serving long sentences.

Known for its harsh conditions, the prison has been at the center of various reform initiatives aimed at improving the rehabilitation of inmates.

The conversion of the gallows into a museum and radio studios is expected to contribute to educational and awareness efforts while generating revenue for the ZPCS.

It also provides an opportunity for the public to engage with the history of Zimbabwe’s justice system, learn about the abolition of the death penalty, and explore avenues for promoting restorative justice.

This transformation represents a symbolic closure of a dark chapter in Zimbabwe’s penal history, paving the way for a new era centered on rehabilitation and human rights.

(source: zimeye.net)

NIGER:

2 Sisters Sentenced To Death For Killing, Burning Woman's Body In Niger State

2 siblings, Amina Aliyu and Aishat Mohammed Aliyu, have been sentenced to death in Niger State for the brutal killing of Hafsat Aliyu, a married woman.

Zainab, the youngest sibling, received life imprisonment due to her age at the time of the crime.

The incident occurred in March 2021 at the family residence in Barkin Saleh, Minna.

Amina and Aishat were convicted of murdering Hafsat, who was both Amina's co-wife and the wife of Alhaji Muhammad Sani.

According to the prosecution, Aishat attacked Hafsat with a pestle before setting her body on fire in the kitchen.

The trial began at Minna Chief Magistrate Court Number One before being transferred to the High Court.

During the proceedings, which spanned 3 years, 4 witnesses testified, including Sani, who recounted how Amina killed Hafsat.

Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf of Minna High Court 7 confirmed the prosecution had proven its case beyond doubt, stating, “The punishment for culpable homicide under Section 221 of the Penal Code is death.”

Peter Omale, the defence counsel, urged leniency for Zainab, highlighting her status as a minor at the time of the crime.

Justice Yusuf concurred, ruling, “As of 2021, when the offence was committed, the ACJA excluded anyone below 18 from facing the death penalty.”

(source: saharareporters.com)

INDIA:

Haryana Man Who Carried Disabled Brother's Severed Head In A Bag Sentenced To Death----According to the deceased's sister, the younger brother's torso was found in a pool of blood on the house's verandah, with his neck slashed by a sharp weapon. His head was missing, and the CCTV DVR was also gone

The court of District and Sessions Judge Deepak Agarwal has sentenced the man guilty of brutally slitting the throat of his disabled brother to death in Tohana in Haryana’s Fatehabad district. The court deemed this case the rarest of rare cases and imposed the death penalty.

On June 18, 2020, the accused allegedly murdered his brother following a property dispute. The accused is reported to have slit his brother’s throat and subsequently fled the scene with the victim’s head concealed in a bag. Law enforcement officials later apprehended the accused and recovered the severed head.

The police registered a case against the accused under Sections 457, 506, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court sentenced him to death and imposed a fine of Rs 20,000 under Section 302. Additionally, the court sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000 for each of the offences under Sections 457, 506, and 201.

District Deputy Public Prosecutor Arun Kumar represented the prosecution in this case. District Public Prosecutor Devendra Mittal stated that Sushma Devi, the deceased’s sister and wife of Manjit Singh, a resident of Sangrur, Punjab, filed the case.

Sushma stated that her brother Ashok had killed his younger brother Deepak by cutting his neck with a sharp weapon due to enmity. In her police complaint, Sushma said she has six siblings, of whom two brothers have died.

Her younger brother, 40-year-old Deepak, had been disabled for 3 to 4 years and was divorced. He lived with his mother near Guga Medi in Tohana. His mother registered her house in Deepak’s name 10 years ago. Sushma stated that Deepak’s brother, Ashok, held a grudge against him for this and had spoken about killing him several times.

According to the complainant, Surjeet, of village Dangra, was her brother Deepak’s brother-in-law. On June 18 2020, Surjeet called Deepak and told him that on June 17, while he (Surjeet) was at Deepak’s house, Ashok came and sat in front of him and drank alcohol. Afterwards, Surjeet returned to his village.

(source: news18.com)

****************

Man given death penalty for killing disabled younger brother

“Ashok Kumar was disgruntled after my mother had transferred the plot to Deepak. My elder brother Ashok decapitated Deepak and roamed with the latter’s severed head for one day and later threw it in a canal.”

A local court in Haryana’s Fatehabad on Thursday sentenced a man to death for brutally killing his brother with disability over property dispute in 2020. District and sessions judge Deepak Aggarwal convicted Ashok Kumar under sections 302 (murder), 457, 506 (criminal intimidation) and 201 of the Indian penal code. He awarded death penalty to the accused besides imposing a fine of ?35,000 on him.

Aggarwal termed this incident as ‘rare of the rarest’. According to police, the case dates back to June 18, 2020 when the victim’s sister Sushma had lodged a police complaint against her elder brother Ashok Kumar for allegedly killing their younger brother Deepak, who was disabled. She told the police that Deepak was living with their mother in Fatehabad’s Tohana.

“Ashok Kumar was disgruntled after my mother had transferred the plot to Deepak. My elder brother Ashok decapitated Deepak and roamed with the latter’s severed head for one day and later threw it in a canal. We got information from Deepak’s friend that Ashok had killed him. We spotted Deepak’s body in a pool of blood and informed the police,” she added.

According to police, the accused Ashok Kumar had fled with ?60,000 in cash, two mobile phones and a gold bracelet of Deepak. Later, he informed all the relatives that he had killed his brother, and he had even recorded the audio calls.

(source: hindustantimes.com)

SINGAPORE:

End harassment and intimidation of Transformative Justice Collective----Statement By the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

We, the undersigned 11 organizations, condemn in the strongest terms the latest restrictions imposed by the Singapore government on activists from the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), a civil society group actively opposing the death penalty and advocating for human rights in the country.

These orders are an undue restriction on the right to freedom of expression, create a climate of fear and have the effect of stifling debates on the human rights concerns surrounding the use of the death penalty in Singapore. The Government must immediately bring an end to the reprehensible campaign of harassment and intimidation against the human rights defenders from TJC, withdraw the direction orders and ensure the protection of the right to freedom of expression for all.

The Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) orders

On 20 December 2024, the Ministry of Digital Development and Information of Singapore issued an order declaring TJC’s website and social media accounts as “Declared Online Locations” (DOL(s)) under Section 32 of the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act 2019 (POFMA). The order requires TJC to carry a notice on all their online platforms alerting viewers that the platform “had communicated multiple falsehoods, and that viewers should exercise caution when accessing it for information”. It further directs that TJC not be allowed to receive any financial or other material benefit from operating the online platforms; and that individuals and companies must not provide financial support to TJC’s online platforms “if they know or have reasons to believe that by doing so, they will promote the communication of falsehoods in Singapore on these platforms.”1 These restrictions are to be in place until 20 December 2026.

The 20 December order is the latest in a series of orders issued under the POFMA against TJC in recent weeks. Out of the 27 orders that the Singapore Ministry of Home Affairs issued under the POFMA since 1 July 2024, seven have directly targeted activists from TJC or TJC itself, all relating to posts against the death penalty. An additional order issued on 9 October targeted the Anti-Death Penalty Asia Network, a regional civil society network of which TJC is a member. A further order was issued against the online publication The Online Citizen on 16 December, in relation to statements the media outlet had made critical of POFMA orders against the TJC. Additionally, the authorities issued seven Targeted Correction Directions against social media companies, including LinkedIn, META, Tik Tok and X, to request them to issue correcting posts in relation to statements made on the use of the death penalty in Singapore.

Continued intimidation and climate of fear targeting death penalty and other criticism We are gravely concerned at the continued intimidation and climate of fear that the Singapore authorities have created around anti-death penalty activism and other human rights concerns through POFMA orders. Issued by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Minister for Digital Development and Information and the POFMA Office, the POFMA orders targeting those who criticize the handling of death penalty cases in Singapore have the broader effect of curtailing the right to freedom of expression and human rights activism in the country and of preventing fully informed debates on the ongoing use of the death penalty and other matters of public policy.

The latest order, in particular, will have a significant impact on the operations of TJC as it threatens the organization’s ability to operate freely and carry out their human rights work safely within the country. The order on 20 December designating TJC’s website and social media accounts as “Declared Online Locations” has a 2-year operational period and the effect of further limiting scrutiny on the practice of the death penalty and human rights concerns in Singapore.

Scrutiny of the use of the death penalty in Singapore is already restricted due to the limited transparency that surrounds it; and other restrictions on the dissemination of information and public gatherings in Singapore. Human rights defenders should be free to discuss and advocate new human rights ideas and principles without fear of reprisals. We demand that the harassment of activists ceases at once.

Disproportionate restrictions to the right to freedom of expression

The authorities must act in accordance with international human rights law and standards including by upholding the right to freedom of expression for those who are critical of government policies. Restrictions to the right to freedom of expression must be clearly and narrowly defined in law and conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality to a legitimate aim2. POFMA orders are disproportionate to any possible perceived threat and provide the government unfettered powers to stifle criticism, in violation of the right to freedom of expression. Such orders have targeted human rights activists and other critics of the government, including members of TJC. The orders have created a widespread climate of fear around any attempt to debate or criticize any aspect of Singapore’s use of the death penalty or other areas of government policy.

We call on the government of Singapore to cease the use of POFMA orders to stifle criticism of the authorities; to revoke the orders already issued against human rights defenders, civil society organizations and online platforms; and to take the necessary steps to abolish POFMA and other laws that unduly restrict the right to freedom of expression.

This statement is co-signed by:

Amnesty International

Australians Against Capital Punishment

Capital Punishment Justice Project

CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation

ECPM – Together Against the Death Penalty

Harm Reduction International

Human Rights Watch

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

Julian Wagner Memorial Fund

World Coalition Against the Death Penalty

World Organisation Against Torture (OMCT), within the framework of the Observatory for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders

--Ministry of Digital Development and Information of Singapore, Operators of Transformative Justice Collective’s online platforms prohibited from receiving financial benefit due to history of communicating multiple falsehoods, 20 December 2024

--UN Human Rights Committee (HRC), General Comment No. 34, 12 September 2011, UN Doc. CCPR/C/GC/34, para 22

(source: worldcoalition.org)

***************

New Leader Retains Cruel Death Penalty Policy----Crackdown on Government Critics, Peaceful Protesters

Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who took office in May 2024, has maintained the city-state’s harsh death penalty policies and used repressive laws to crack down on government critics and peaceful protesters, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2025. The authorities have harassed and prosecuted anti-death penalty activists, sought new laws to limit appeals of death sentences, and imposed executions for drug-related offenses in violation of international law.

For the 546-page world report, in its 35th edition, Human Rights Watch reviewed human rights practices in more than 100 countries. In much of the world, Executive Director Tirana Hassan writes in her introductory essay, governments cracked down and wrongfully arrested and imprisoned political opponents, activists, and journalists. Armed groups and government forces unlawfully killed civilians, drove many from their homes, and blocked access to humanitarian aid. In many of the more than 70 national elections in 2024, authoritarian leaders gained ground with their discriminatory rhetoric and policies.

“Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong’s government has given no sign that it will change its policy on executions, bucking the global trend to abolish capital punishment,” said Bryony Lau, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. “Singapore’s business and trade partners should publicly and privately raise concerns about the city-state’s continued use of the death penalty, and urge the government to urgently impose a moratorium on the inherently cruel practice.”

On June 27 the authorities investigated, then later charged, three activists under the Public Order Act for organizing a public demonstration on February 2, in which supporters of Palestine delivered letters to the then-prime minister urging him to cut ties with Israel.

On October 4, the authorities executed Mohamed Azwan bin Bohari for drug trafficking, despite his pending appeal, along with 30 other prisoners, and ignoring a call from the United Nations Human Rights Office to halt the execution. The Central Narcotics Bureau of Singapore stated that 4 people, including Azwan, were executed for drug-related offenses in 2024. On February 28, the authorities also executed Ahmed Salim, 35, a Bangladeshi national, for murder.

The government invoked the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act against anti-death penalty activists, including Transformative Justice Collective and Kokila Annamalai, for their reporting on Azwan’s execution, requiring them to post government-determined “corrections” notices. Both had long been targets of government harassment and intimidation.

The Singaporean government should halt the executions of the country’s death-row prisoners and impose a moratorium on the use of the death penalty for drug-related crimes and other offenses, as a critical step toward abolition, Human Rights Watch said. The authorities should also stop using the country’s repressive legislation to infringe upon people’s basic rights to freedom of expression, association, and peaceful assembly.

(source: Human Rights Watch)

TAIWAN:

1st execution since 2020 a shameful setback

Responding to the 1st execution carried out by the Taiwanese authorities since April 2020, E-Ling Chiu, the Director of Amnesty International Taiwan, said:

“This execution is a shocking and cruel development. Taiwan’s Minister of Justice, with a strike of his pen, has undone several years of hard-fought progress towards the abolition of the death penalty. This is a huge setback for human rights in Taiwan.

“The execution of Huang Linkai was carried out in violation of constitutional and international safeguards on the use of the death penalty, and while an appeal filed by his lawyer to stop the execution was still pending before the courts. This renders his execution unlawful and arbitrary, in violation of the right to life.

“It is horrifying that the execution was carried out at a few hours’ notice, without the possibility of any last family visits. The death penalty is a cruel and irreversible punishment and the Taiwanese authorities have implemented it in a way that shows an utter disregard for the rights of those affected.

“We urge Taiwan’s government to immediately halt any plans to carry out further executions. Instead, the authorities must immediately change course and establish an official moratorium on executions as the first critical step towards abolition of the death penalty”.

Background

On 16 January, Cheng Ming-chien, Taiwan’s Minister of Justice, announced that he had authorized the execution of Huang Linkai, who was convicted of rape and two murders in 2017.

On 20 September 2024, the Constitutional Court of Taiwan issued its decision on a challenge on the constitutionality of the death penalty, recognizing the fundamental flaws that have characterized its use. The Court strengthened human rights protections while finding the death penalty constitutional for serious offences such as murder. It gave the authorities two years to amend the law in order to comply with the judgment.

As part of its decision, the Court ruled that the death penalty be imposed only following unanimous judgments and for such information to be disclosed by the prosecution. At the time that the execution of Huang Linkai was scheduled, his lawyer had not received information confirming that the decision in his case had been unanimous. Additionally, a pre-sentencing social investigation had not been conducted in his case, raising questions on whether the standard set by the Constitutional Court that cases have to be examined through the most stringent process was followed.

Huang Linkai’s lawyer filed an appeal on the evening of 16 January asking for these concerns to be reviewed, but the authorities proceeded with the execution.

Safeguard No.8 of the UN Safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, adopted by two UN bodies in 1984 without a vote, states that “[c]apital punishment shall not be carried out pending any appeal or other recourse procedure or other proceeding relating to pardon or commutation of the sentence”.

The last execution in Taiwan was carried out on 1 April 2020. As of 31 December 2023, 37 out of the 45 people held on death row had their death sentences finalized and were at risk of execution. As of today, 113 countries have abolished the death penalty for all crimes and 144 are abolitionist in law or practice.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases without exception regardless of the nature or circumstances of the crime; guilt, innocence or other characteristics of the individual; or the method used by the state to carry out the execution.

(source: Amnesty International)

****************

Taiwan executes death row inmate convicted in 2013 murders

Taiwan on Thursday executed a death row inmate convicted in a 2013 double murder, marking the country's 1st execution since President Lai Ching-te took office last year.

Minister of Justice Cheng Ming-chien signed the order, and the death sentence was carried out by shooting Thursday night at the Taipei Detention Center, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said.

The 32-year-old inmate Huang Lin-kai was sentenced to death in 2017 for the October 1, 2013 rape and murder of his ex-girlfriend and murder of her mother in New Taipei's Sanchong District.

Huang, an active duty soldier at the time, said during his trial that he had strangled his victims to death due to dissatisfaction that arose after his ex-girlfriend pressed him to return money he owed her.

Currently, there are 36 inmates on death row in Taiwan, and the last execution before Huang's was on April 1, 2020.

It was Taiwan's 1st execution of a prisoner since President Lai Ching-te of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) took office in May of last year.

Prior to that, 2 death row inmates were executed during the 2 terms (2016-2024) of then President Tsai Ing-wen of the DPP.

During the 2008-2016 administration of President Ma Ying-jeou of the Kuomintang, 33 inmates were executed.

Last year, Taiwan's Constitutional Court issued a ruling finding the death penalty constitutional only for "the most serious" premeditated murders and crimes leading to death, severely limiting its use in the future.

The National Human Rights Commission, which calls for the abolition of the death penalty, on Thursday night expressed deep regret over the MOJ's decision to carry out the execution.

Meanwhile, the opposition Kuomintang (KMT), voiced support for capital punishment, saying that carrying out the death penalty in accordance with the law is the unshirkable responsibility of the government.

It upholds judicial fairness and provides justice to the victims and their families, the KMT said.

*****************

DPP government condemned for executing death row inmate

Human rights groups have condemned the execution of a death row prisoner in Taiwan, calling it an attempt by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) government to reverse political headwinds.

"We strongly condemn the attempt of the Lai Ching-te government to use the implementation of the death penalty to divert attention from his current political predicament," the groups said in a joint statement issued hours after Huang Lin-kai was executed Thursday night at the Taipei Detention Center.

They were likely referring to the lack of a breakthrough by the Lai administration to end the legislative impasse over several bills and the central government's budget plans for 2025.

Speaking to reporters at an event in Taichung on Friday, Lai said the death penalty was constitutional, and he expressed hope for public support for the government's action in accordance with the law.

He did not respond, however, to a question about whether the execution was carried out to boost his government's approval rating, given the public's consistent backing of the death penalty.

A survey released by the Taiwanese Public Opinion Foundation in December found that Lai's approval rating actually increased by 8.5 percentage points from a month earlier to 51.3 percent, despite a majority of respondents supporting several opposition-endorsed bills.

In the statement, the groups said the execution, signed off on by Justice Minister Cheng Ming-chien, violated procedural justice and the Constitutional Court's ruling on the death penalty last year.

Carrying out the death sentence will not bring about a safer society or improve public trust in the government. Instead, the groups said, it will "render a more bloodthirsty society and deepen public resentment against the government."

In September 2024, the Constitutional Court ruled the death penalty to be constitutional only for "the most serious" premeditated murders and crimes leading to death, further limiting its use in the future.

The ruling also said the 37 death row convicts who had brought their cases to the court after exhausting appeal measures, including Huang, might petition the head prosecutor of the Supreme Prosecutors Office to file extraordinary appeals for them.

The groups called for giving the remaining 36 death row inmates sufficient time to petition the Supreme Prosecutors Office and for a moratorium on their executions until Prosecutor-General Hsing Tai-chao (???) has reviewed their petitions.

The statement was issued by the Taiwan Alliance to End the Death Penalty, the Judicial Reform Foundation, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights, and the Covenants Watch.

Meanwhile, in a statement issued on Thursday (Brussels time), the European Union said it "recalls its opposition to the capital punishment in all cases and all circumstances" while expressing its "sincere sympathy to the family of the victims" in Huang's case.

It urged Taiwan to "apply and maintain a de facto moratorium, and to pursue a consistent policy towards the full abolition of the death penalty."

In a statement Thursday night confirming the death of the 32-year-old Huang, the Ministry of Justice (MOJ) said the death penalty by shooting was carried out according to the law to "ensure social justice" while taking into account human rights protections.

It was Taiwan's 1st execution since Lai took office on May 20, 2024.

The MOJ said Huang, who was sentenced to death in 2017 for the rape and murder of his ex-girlfriend and the murder of her mother in New Taipei's Sanchong District on Oct. 1, 2013, had committed the most serious crime.

The Supreme Prosecutors Office reviewed Huang's case and determined that there were no grounds for filing an extraordinary appeal, the ministry added, contending that the execution was in compliance with the Constitutional Court ruling.

(source for both: focustaiwan.tw)

*******************

Statement by the Spokesperson on the recent execution

On 16 January, Huang Lin-kai was executed in Taipei. He was convicted of murdering 2 people. The European Union condemns this crime in the strongest terms and expresses its sincere sympathy to the family of the victims. At the same time, the EU recalls its opposition to the capital punishment in all cases and all circumstances.

The EU believes that the death penalty is an inhumane and degrading punishment, which represents the ultimate denial of human dignity. Evidence shows clearly that the death penalty has little or no effect in deterring or reducing crime.

The EU therefore calls on Taiwan to apply and maintain a de facto moratorium, and to pursue a consistent policy towards the full abolition of the death penalty in Taiwan.

(source: eeas.europa.eu)

IRAN----executions

3 Prisoners Executed in Adelabad Prison, Shiraz

At dawn yesterday, January 15, 2025, the death sentences of 3 prisoners convicted of murder were carried out in Adelabad Prison, Shiraz, according to the Iran Human Rights Organization.

The identities of the executed prisoners have been reported as follows:

Farrokh Nasiri, approximately 40 years old

Payam Cheraghi, 36 years old, both residents of Najafabad, Isfahan

Mansour Gholizadeh, 29 years old, a resident of Rafsanjan

According to the report, Mr. Nasiri and Mr. Cheraghi were arrested 4 years ago in a joint case on charges of murder and were subsequently sentenced to death by a judicial authority. Mr. Gholizadeh was arrested 3 years ago for murder during a dispute with motives linked to family honor and was also sentenced to death.

As of the time of this report, the executions have not been officially announced by prison officials or relevant authorities.

(source: en-hrana.org)

******************

Amnesty International Urges Halt to Imminent Executions of Two Iranian Political Prisoners

Amnesty International is urgently calling on Iranian authorities to halt the execution of Behrouz Ehsani, 69, and Mehdi Hassani, 48, 2 political prisoners sentenced to death on charges of alleged membership in the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK).

Ehsani and Hassani were convicted in September 2024 by Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court under charges including “enmity against God” (moharebeh), “corruption on earth” (efsad-e fel-arz), and collusion against national security. Their sentences were upheld by the Iranian regime’s Supreme Court last week, sparking international outrage.

Amnesty International Secretary General Agnes Callamard posted on X: “We at @Amnesty are calling on Iranian authorities to immediately halt the executions of Behrouz Ehsani, 69, and Mehdi Hassani, 48.” The organization also highlighted the use of torture during their detention, prolonged solitary confinement, and a grossly unfair trial.

Ehsani, a political prisoner since the 1980s, and Hassani were arrested in late 2022 and transferred to Evin Prison’s notorious Ward 209, where they endured severe physical and psychological abuse. Both were vocal members of the “No to Execution Tuesdays” campaign, advocating against Iran’s rising execution rates.

In letters written before their sentencing, the men called for international support. Behrouz Ehsani stated, “This execution-driven regime can do nothing else. I will not bargain over my life… I am ready to sacrifice my insignificant life for the liberation of the Iranian people.”

The Iranian Resistance has also called on the United Nations, the European Union, and international human rights bodies to intervene immediately. “The regime’s judiciary is using these executions to suppress dissent and intimidate the population amid growing unrest,” said the Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI).

In 2024, Iran’s regime executed at least 1,000 people—the highest number in 3 decades—with 47% of these killings occurring in the year’s final quarter as the regime faced mounting crises. Under Masoud Pezeshkian’s presidency, who openly mocked human rights concerns, the judiciary targeted marginalized groups, including 119 Baluch citizens, 34 women, and 7 juveniles. These executions, coupled with brutal punishments such as amputations and eye-gouging, reflect the regime’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s desperate attempt to suppress dissent and delay the regime’s inevitable collapse, as noted by NCRI President-elect Maryam Rajavi.

The international community now faces mounting pressure to respond decisively to prevent the loss of 2 more lives in Iran’s crackdown on political dissent.

(source: ncr-iran.org)

**************

A Person with Disabilities Executed in Gachsaran

In October of last year, the execution of a prisoner with disabilities named Ebrahim Shooli, who had been sentenced to death on drug-related charges, was carried out secretly and without public notice in Gachsaran Prison.

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the death sentence of a man was carried out at Gachsaran Prison on the morning of Sunday, October 27. The identity of the prisoner, sentenced to death on drug-related charges, has been confirmed as Ebrahim Shooli.

A knowledgeable source told Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), “Ebrahim Shooli had a disability and had lost one of his legs. He was arrested four years ago on drug-related charges and sentenced to death.”

? The source added, “Ebrahim Shooli’s execution was carried out without allowing a final meeting or farewell with his family.”

The execution of this prisoner has not been announced by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The number of prisoners executed on drug-related charges has risen sharply and consistently over the past 4 years. In 2023, there was an 84% increase compared to 2022, when 256 people were executed for drug-related offenses. In 2023, this number reached 471.

(source: iranhr.net)

JANUARY 16, 2025:

TEXAS----impending execution

He’s on Death Row for Killing a Pastor. Christians Are Divided Over Whether He Should Die.----On February 5, the 37-year-old newlywed will be put to death for the gruesome murder of an Arlington pastor. His spiritual adviser is urging forgiveness.

The sun was so bright on November 15 that the priest had to squint to read his prepared remarks. A cassock peeked from beneath his tan trench coat, and the gentle breeze called attention to his red, sternum-length beard. He spoke to a small gaggle of journalists gathered in the driveway of an Arlington church and hurtled accusations of “spiritual malpractice, theological atrocity, and a failure to love.”

“There was a demand for Steven Nelson’s head on a platter,” Jeff Hood said, casting church leaders in the role of Herodias, the adulterous princess of the Christian gospels who demanded, and was granted, John the Baptist’s death. “That ain’t got nothin’ to do with Jesus.” About a half dozen supporters stood behind the priest holding a banner and wearing T-shirts that bore a more reserved appeal: “Hope for Steven Nelson.”

Nelson, 37, is set to be executed on February 5 for his participation in the 2011 murder of pastor Clint Dobson and brutal beating of 64-year-old church administrator Judy Elliott. While Nelson’s lawyers race to make their case for retrial, Hood is calling for Christians to be messengers of a divine love that transcends guilt or innocence. He’d like that message to come from one church, specifically: First Baptist Church Arlington, the church that sent Dobson to pastor its daughter congregation, NorthPointe Baptist church, where he was killed. When Nelson was sentenced, in 2012, church leadership released a statement saying that justice had been served. Hood sees things very differently.

Hood subscribes to a somewhat radical “turn the other cheek” philosophy, one in which even the worst offenders are offered grace and forgiveness. A priest in the Old Catholic Church, a collective term used to describe certain groups that broke from Roman Catholicism, Hood is married with five children and teaches Sunday school in a United Methodist Church in Little Rock. Hood knows how to use scripture to provoke, like when he said, at the November press conference, “You can’t love your neighbor as yourself and kill them at the same time.”

But Hood’s version of Christian hope for offenders is not the only one. Other Christians can point to the same Bible to support a very different response to violent crime: state-sanctioned punishment, even death. In that version, a perpetrator’s hope lies in a personal profession of Christian faith and eternal life in heaven. Both of those things can happen—Nelson identifies as Christian—with the death penalty firmly in place on earth. On a Zoom call convened by Hood last month, the spiritual leader addressed the disconnect. “I’m angry because here are people who are proclaiming a faith that I share and not just not living up to it, but . . . using it to kill people.”

Hood is calling on First Baptist Arlington to join his cause, to offer forgiveness or some kind of reconciliation, because he wants Nelson, and whoever else might be listening, to hear the message that God does not deem anyone beyond hope. His strident methods—which included posting flyers all over the First Baptist property on the morning of the press conference—aren’t getting him very far. The leaders at First Baptist, who didn’t respond to requests for interviews, won’t take Hood’s calls, answer his emails, or open the door when he stands outside knocking.

Nelson’s lawyers are disputing the details of the case, which are harrowing. Nelson claims that he was the lookout during a robbery while two accomplices went into NorthPointe and, in the process of stealing Elliott’s car keys, beat and suffocated Dobson with a plastic bag. Elliott was beaten to the point that her own husband did not recognize her when he came to the church to check on her. It was only when he saw her clothes that he realized the body on the floor was his wife. Elliott still suffered from physical and mental impairments at the time of the trial. She died in 2024.

Prosecutors argued that Nelson acted alone. Acquaintances testified that Nelson acted cavalier later, laughing at news reports. He used stolen credit cards to buy shoes and a shirt at a nearby mall and sold Dobson’s laptop for cash. Most damning for Nelson: The two men he claims committed the crimes have alibis.

The jury convicted Nelson, finding him guilty of capital murder.

Whether Nelson held the plastic bag or whether he was the lookout, the Tarrant County district attorney had the grounds he needed to pursue the death penalty, and pressure to do so was high. Dobson was a young husband and a well-loved member of the community. In addition to being the pastor chosen to lead First Baptist’s fledgling church plant—a vote of high confidence in evangelical church circles—Dobson was a member of the Arlington Clergy and Police Partnership, a coalition of clergy members serving in chaplain-type roles for the Arlington Police Department. After his death, the partnership established the Clint Dobson Memorial Award.

When the court handed down the death penalty sentence in 2012, Dennis Wiles, the pastor of First Baptist, issued a statement that read as a resounding affirmation of the decision: “We have asked God for the truth to be known and for justice to be served. As the Bible teaches us, God has placed the civil authority in our midst so that innocent people can live in freedom without fear and so that guilty offenders can be appropriately punished. . . . We now can confidently say that justice has been served and we will support the decision of this court.”

Like an overwhelming number of others on death row, Nelson was abused as a child. He remembers watching Family Matters and wondering why his house couldn’t feel as safe and friendly as the Winslow home. Sometimes, he told me, he’d get himself sent to juvenile detention on purpose just to get away from home for a while. He remembers being twelve years old in a youth rehabilitation center, staring all day at a blank white wall as punishment for some infraction. He spent enough days like this, he said, that something snapped, and he simply stopped caring about other people. He didn’t want to connect with anyone.

Along the way, he was offered rehabilitation programs—paths back into society. If he was good enough, the programs promised, he could be redeemed. But he came to see society’s offers of hope as carrots, he said, eternally dangling before him, never landing on his plate.

While Nelson was on death row, other inmates urged him to join the prison’s Faith-Based Program, an evangelical-leaning spiritual-development initiative inside the prison. Joining would make him more sympathetic in the eyes of the courts, they said, and would show that he’d changed since his early days in jail—days marked by angry, violent outbursts. He would be a good candidate, they said, as someone who has a personal faith. His prayers are marked by the repetitive invocation “Father God,” common in evangelical churches. But when I asked him why he didn’t join the Faith-Based Program and its separate unit, with more privileges, he made a hand gesture, from behind the glass in the visitation room, as if he was dangling a carrot in front of my face. He saw the Faith-Based Program as one more carrot, one more promise that society would see him as something other than a monster. It wouldn’t work. “Besides,” he said, “I don’t have to have a group of people to express my spirituality. I’m not changing myself for people. I’m changing myself for me.”

Well, he admitted, for himself and for Noa.

In 2020, Noa Dubois, a French immigrant with large brown eyes and a contagious laugh, was working as a video game producer in Los Angeles, where most of her friendships were surface-level, she told me. “I had like a thousand questions and no one to really ask them to.” That was when she found Nelson on a matching site for prison pen pals. Their letters quickly ventured into deep and sensitive territory: culture, race, trauma. The structured, limited nature of their communication forced them to get good at it, she said.

As the connection between the two deepened, Dubois began asking Nelson to be more “vulnerable.” She asked him, instead of channeling his pain into anger and violence, to name the hurt: The sting of family members saying they will visit and then never showing. The frustration of the court system denying his appeals. The hopelessness of being told that society would be better off with him dead.

In July, when the state announced the date for Nelson’s execution, Dubois made two decisions: She would try to save the life of the man she had come to love, and she would become Nelson’s wife. Getting Nelson off death row, if possible at all, would be a long, slow, complicated path that would have to begin with a stay of execution. Nelson’s lawyers were working on various appeals, but courts had already rejected their strongest arguments. Nelson did not have the kind of record or public image that made him an easy figure to rally around. If the couple’s hope rested in being happy together outside prison walls, it was far-fetched, and Dubois knew this. “We’re not fully delusional, thinking he’s coming home tomorrow.” But making her second decision, that of marriage, was simpler. In fact, Hood, who has become like family, encouraged it. “I don’t usually play Cupid,” he said, but he felt it would give both Dubois and Nelson a sense of peace.

The wedding, held on December 4, was an administrative procedure. The only difference between that visit and others was the dress Dubois had chosen—one that was shorter than the prison typically allows, but for the special occasion, she said, the guards let her get away with it—and the fact that instead of the couple’s usual chat, Dubois and Nelson exchanged vows. It was all over in less than an hour.

Dubois was standing next to Hood on November 15 at the press conference at First Baptist Arlington. Poised and grave in a chic blazer worn over her “Hope for Steven Nelson” T-shirt, she made her own plea for mercy, with Hood’s supportive arm around her. As they spoke, Hood’s eyes continued to drift to one of the only people standing around who was not an obvious member of the press. A young, slight man with shoulder-length brown hair and a Sherpa-lined trucker jacket appeared to scowl at Hood from the scant shade of an ornamental tree along the sidewalk.

Alex Tablizo, a twenty-year-old member of First Baptist and student at the University of Texas at Arlington, was indeed scowling. “He demonized us,” Tablizo said, referring to Hood’s speech and making it clear he did not speak on behalf of the church. He said this was the first he was hearing of Nelson’s case and its connection to his church. Hood’s comments were ignorant and hypocritical, he said, full of the same kind of vitriol the priest was denouncing. He resented Hood’s characterization of the entire church. “Most of the members of First Baptist Arlington don’t know anything about this.”

While Tablizo said it did seem that spending 12-plus years on death row was inhumane—a “failure of the legal system”—he said that the death penalty itself has the potential to put one’s focus on the destiny of all living things. Theologians call this memento mori, living with the awareness that life is finite. If a looming execution brought Nelson to know Christ, then, in Tablizo’s opinion, February 5 will be his entry into heaven, his liberation day.

Nelson doesn’t see it that way. But he’s also not afraid to die. He’s made a certain kind of peace with the life that brought him here, and with what it means to have hope in his final days. He doesn’t see hope the way Tablizo sees it—as anchored solely in some kind of eternal life. He doesn’t see hope the way Hood sees it—in the embrace of a more just society. For Steven Nelson, hope lies in a reason to get up every day, and for the 21 days he has left, his reason is simple: It’s Noa.

(source: texasmonthly.com)

**************

‘I Am Ready, Warden’ follows a man facing execution and 2 sons who lost their fathers----John Henry Ramirez took the life of Pablo Castro. A new documentary tells the story of how his victim’s son, and his own, tried to find peace.

A still from "I Am Ready, Warden."

In 2004, Pablo Castro was killed during a robbery at a convenience store in Corpus Christi where he worked. John Henry Ramirez, a former Marine, was convicted of the crime, and sentenced to death.

Ramirez was executed by Texas in 2022. He had fled to Mexico after the crime, but ultimately was returned to Texas and acknowledged his guilt. He became a devout Christian during his time in prison.

A new film, “I Am Ready, Warden,” follows Ramirez during the last weeks of his life.

The film is also the story of 2 sons – Aaron, whose father died violently at Ramirez’ hands, and Izzy, whose father had spent most of his son’s life on death row.

The film was directed by Smriti Mundhra, and produced by Los Angeles Times investigative reporter Keri Blakinger, who says Ramirez sought her out near the time of his death. Listen to the interview above or read the transcript below.

This transcript has been edited lightly for clarity:

Texas Standard: I understand you’ve been affected by these wildfires in Los Angeles, but fortunately, your house is intact. Where are you now? Are you back in Texas?

Kari Blakinger: No, I am in L.A. It’s been a chaotic week and there are red flag warnings. So I think we’re in for a potentially chaotic next week, as well.

Well, I’m glad to hear that, so far, things are all right for you. But I know so many people have been affected and I wish you continued success in trying to deal with this situation.

Congratulations on the film. It’s very powerful. Can you talk about how you became involved in this project?

So this was a kind of unusual situation. The way that I first became aware of this case was when John Ramirez asked if I could be the reporter who would witness his execution.

I’ve witnessed executions before as a reporter, but I never had somebody request it like that. And given how Texas prison system rules work out, that didn’t end up being possible because I wasn’t local to the crime.

But I was so intrigued by that unusual request that I immediately put in a request to interview him and just sort of talk to him and see what stories were there. And then the stories that came out of that interested me.

What made this story an interesting and important one to tell? I mean, this is not the story of a person who might be innocent of a crime, which is sort of a classic narrative arc in a death penalty story – or you have a mishandling of a trial or something like that. John Henry Ramirez committed the murder he was accused of.

I think that’s actually what made it so interesting and so powerful as a film, because there’s a lot of stories in reporting that explore narratives of people who are innocent and wrongfully convicted. And it’s easier to get sympathy for them and get readers and viewers to care.

But I think this gave us a chance to explore ideas of redemption that you can’t explore the same way with someone who’s not admitting guilt.

I mentioned Aaron Castro, Pablo’s son, who we meet in the film. Where is he when it comes to John Henry Ramirez, his father’s killer?

I think he’s a very empathetic guy. And I think you can see in the film that he sort of has his emotions right under the surface and seems to want to forgive him and tends towards forgiveness, but also has the sort of deep hurt and this sense that there should be some justice.

So I think he’s kind of conflicted. But you see him work through it in the film, and I don’t want to sort of ruin too much, but I think watching him work through it is really what ended up making the film.

What about Izzy, Ramirez’ son? What did you learn about him and what was his relationship with his father?

That was a really heartbreaking connection to make – to be talking to his son in the days leading up to, and on the day of, the execution.

One of the things that John told us several times was that he was so grateful that his son didn’t turn out anything like him. And he described him as a square. And there’s one point at which he said that he was glad, in some ways, that he hadn’t been able to be around to influence him negatively at all.

But yeah, I mean, I think the story of 2 sons ended up being particularly heartbreaking.

What you’re just talking about speaks to Ramirez’s own… What would you say? “Transformation” while on death row?

Yeah, I think so. I think some of the transformation may have already begun to occur between the time of the crime and the sentencing. Over the years that he’d been on the row, he’d become particularly devout. He had always been religious. And I think he dove into religion a lot more.

And one of the things that really struck me about him and his case was a little bit of audio that I’d heard early on when he had given some of the other men on the row a little speech before he had an execution date that got called off. And it gave me this really rare opportunity to hear how a death row prisoner will speak to other people when there’s not a reporter in the room.

Because normally I don’t get to hear all the men speak amongst themselves and hearing the sincerity and the remorse in what he was saying when there was no one from the outside listening was, I think to me, really moving, because that’s not a window I get to see very often.

People may remember Ramirez’s name because this case got a lot of attention for a couple of reasons. One of them was I recall he had asked his pastor to lay hands on him at the time of his execution. Could you tell us about what happened there?

Yeah, I think that was the the main thing that had this case in the spotlight in recent years, because, again, like I said, he had become very devout and religious. And he wanted to be able to have his pastor lay hands on him as he was dying.

The Texas prison system said that that wasn’t possible. So Ramirez started litigating that ended up going up to the Supreme Court. And eventually the Supreme Court’s decision ended up meaning that the pastor could lay hands on him, which meant that he won that. But because that had been resolved, it opened up the door to setting another execution date.

The other thing, of course, that ended up, I think, putting this case on some people’s radar was that the district attorney at the time had wanted to recall the execution date because he decided he no longer believed in the death penalty. And so he tried to have the date called off – to the Corpus Christi D.A., which was then Mark Gonzales – and was not successful in that legal battle, also got a decent amount of press.

Ultimately, as you followed all of these players in this tragedy, do you feel like this affected you in any way? I mean, was there something that you took away from this experience?

I feel like almost every person we followed in this had absolutely heartbreaking stories and moments. I mean, it was difficult following Izzy and it was difficult following some of the other people that supported John that we didn’t even end up putting in the film. And then I think obviously the moments that we captured on camera with Aaron [Castro] were all pretty heartbreaking as well.

I think, for me, watching John Ramirez lose hope… And it seems in some ways like I was watching him possibly lose faith in the final months. And that was particularly heartbreaking to me.

I’m not a religious person, but watching him go from someone who had this very elaborate view of the afterlife to someone who eventually just became sort of so worn out with the years of solitary and the years of litigation that he said he hoped for nothingness after his death… That, to me, seemed like a really heartbreaking and dark transition to witness.

(source: Shelly Brisbin, texasstandard.org)

**************

Judge accused of bias removed from case of death row inmate who killed ex-wife's family in Spring

A judge has granted the state's motion to recuse District Court Judge Natalia Cornelio from a high-profile death row appeal after she was accused of bias.

Wednesday's ruling comes after the Harris County District Attorney's Office wanted Cornelio to be removed from Ronald Lee Haskell's case after she ordered him back to Harris County under unusual circumstances last summer.

The initial motion for her recusal was filed Oct. 7, 2024, "based on conduct indicating that she has cast aside her role as a neutral, detached decision maker to become an advocate for death row inmate Ronald Lee Haskell," it reads.

Haskell was given the death penalty in 2019. He was charged with 6 counts of capital murder for the shooting deaths of 6 of his family members at their Spring home in 2014.

The crime was described as a "massacre" and the victims included 6 children, ages 6 to 13, and their parents, Katie and Stephen Stay. Katie was the sister of Haskell's ex-wife, whom he stalked, authorities said. Cassidy Stay, just 15 years old at the time, was the only survivor.

Court records show that on June 27, Cornelio issued a bench warrant for Haskell to appear in her courtroom a month later at midnight.

The DA's office said that never happened, and they had no idea Haskell had been moved from TDCJ custody.

Instead, during Haskell's nearly 3-week stay at the Harris County Jail, he called his mother, acknowledging the secretive nature of his presence, calling it "cloak and dagger," according to a jail call transcript.

He was also taken to a private imaging clinic near the Texas Medical Center for a scan as seen in still images from body camera video that were filed with the court.

Drue Lyon is Katie Stay's brother.

"The inmate was feet -- 3or 4 feet -- away from some random guy sitting at the doctor's office, waiting for his name to be called. Did that guy know he was feet away from a mass murderer?" Lyon asked. "Who on Earth has that much power and authority? Who authorized that?"

The defense argued the state didn't have enough evidence to firmly prove Cornelio was incapable of impartiality, but on Wednesday, Judge Susan Brown ruled otherwise.

ABC13 spoke to Joshua Reiss with the Harris County District Attorney's Office following her ruling in their favor.

"What was very clear is that the victims of Ron Haskell were never going to have a fair shot," Reiss said.

Reiss named all Haskell's victims in his closing arguments.

(source: ABC News)

ALABAMA----impending execution Alabama inmate asks court to block nitrogen gas execution----Attorneys for an Alabama inmate facing execution by nitrogen gas are asking a federal judge to block the upcoming execution Attorneys for an Alabama inmate scheduled to be the 4th person put to death with nitrogen gas on Wednesday asked a federal judge to block the execution, arguing that the first three inmates showed signs of suffering from suffocation as the gas flowed. Demetrius Terrence Frazier, 52, is scheduled to be executed Feb. 6 for the 1991 murder and rape of Pauline Brown. His attorneys in a Wednesday court filing asked a judge to block the execution unless the state makes changes to the protocol, such as giving him a sedative before the gas begins flowing. The court filing cited witness descriptions of the state’s first three executions with nitrogen gas. “The data set for nitrogen hypoxia executions is small —t3 — but provides clear results: Alabama’s method does not work the way defendants claim and necessarily causes conscious suffocation, in violation of the Eighth Amendment,” lawyers for Frazier wrote in the court filing. Alabama last year became the first state to carry out an execution with nitrogen gas. Three inmates were put to death using the new method last year. The method involves placing a respirator gas mask over the person’s face to replace breathable air with pure nitrogen gas, causing death by lack of oxygen. Media witnesses, including The Associated Press, described how the men shook on the gurney for the first minutes of their execution, followed by what appeared to be several minutes of periodic labored breaths with long pauses in between. The Alabama attorney general’s office has not yet filed a response to the request to block the execution. The state previously asked a federal judge to dismiss Frazier’s lawsuit over the execution method, arguing the movements exhibited by the inmates were not a sign of suffering. “He never confronts more likely causes of movement, including voluntary resistance or involuntary movements associated with dying, which can be misperceived as signs of consciousness or distress,” lawyers for the state wrote in a Christmas Eve court filing. Lethal injection remains Alabama’s primary execution method. Alabama in 2018 became the 3rd state to authorize the use of nitrogen gas to execute prisoners. Alabama gave inmates a brief window to select their preferred execution method. Frazier was among inmates who selected nitrogen gas as their preferred execution method, but at the time the state had not developed procedures for using the gas to carry out an execution. Frazier was convicted of killing Brown in her Birmingham apartment. Prosecutors said Frazier, while in police custody in Detroit on an unrelated charge, confessed to raping and shooting Brown after stealing about $80 from her purse. A jury voted 10-2 that he receive a death sentence. A judge sentenced him to death. (source: Associated Press)

INDIANA:

Legislation abolishing death penalty among ICC’s priorities at Statehouse

At the start of a new legislative session, the Indiana Catholic Conference (ICC) is already out front on numerous issues, including the state’s recently reignited debate over the death penalty.

The 124th Indiana General Assembly opened Jan. 8, less than a month after the state carried out its first execution in 15 years. Lawmakers are now considering — and the ICC is strongly supporting — House Bill 1030, which would eradicate the death penalty in Indiana. Its author, Rep. Bob Morris (R-Fort Wayne), is a Catholic who has spoken widely about his change of heart concerning capital punishment, which he favored until recently.

The ICC’s support for this measure comes as additional Catholic lawmakers lead the charge on other key legislation, including bolstering parents’ authority over their children’s use of social media and offering a fresh start to residents who have an eviction on their record.

Underscoring these issues is the Catholic Church’s unwavering commitment to upholding the sanctity of human life and protecting the vulnerable, according to Alexander Mingus, executive director of the ICC, the public policy voice of the Catholic Church in Indiana.

“As we discern our priorities for any given legislative session, we always try to stay attentive to the moral areas the Church cares about — in particular, matters concerning the dignity of the human person,” Mingus said. “But we also look at what is on the minds of legislators and how we can advance the Church’s long and rich tradition of social teaching when it comes to the issues of the day.”

The ICC has taken that approach since its inception nearly 60 years ago. Now, Mingus is its new leader following the retirement of his predecessor, Angela Espada, over the summer. And there is a new voice at the ICC — that of Roarke LaCoursiere, its new associate director.

With her background in law and her deep formation in Catholic tradition, LaCoursiere has immersed herself in the death penalty debate that has been making headlines since then-Gov. Eric Holcomb announced in June that Indiana would resume executions in Indiana state prisons. Despite opposition from the 5 Catholic bishops in the state, the ICC and other pro-life advocates, 49-year-old Joseph Corcoran was executed on Dec. 18 for the murders of 4 people in 1997.

In their recent ICC podcast, LaCoursiere and Mingus discussed the legislation that Rep. Morris introduced 2 weeks before the execution. House Bill 1030 has undergone its first reading and awaits further action in the Committee on Courts and Criminal Code.

“I’m so inspired by Rep. Bob Morris and the efforts that he has taken to spread the word about how abolition of the death penalty is in line with the pro-life agenda, and all the efforts he’s made to talk to his co-legislators about this issue,” LaCoursiere said.

Mingus helped institute the weekly ICC podcast, ICAN (Indiana Catholic Action Network), 4 years ago.

“If you haven’t thought much about the death penalty or the Church’s teaching on it, take some time to read about it and to pray about it, just as we have,” Mingus said.

The ICC testified on day one of the legislative session in support of another measure — Senate Bill 11, which would require social media companies to verify parental permission for users under age 16. Its author, Sen. Mike Bohacek (R-Michiana Shores), introduced legislation last year aimed at restricting minors from accessing online pornography — a measure that was ultimately signed into law.

“The Catholic Bishops of Indiana, as pastors, are aware of the potential harms of social media and the emerging body of evidence that links mental health issues with social media usage,” Mingus said during a Jan. 8 hearing on the bill in the Senate judiciary committee. “Youth are particularly vulnerable to harm and exploitation online, and we believe this bill makes an important step toward their greater protection.”

Another Catholic lawmaker, Sen. Liz Brown (R-Fort Wayne), is Bohacek’s co-sponsor on Senate Bill 11 — as well as the primary author of another measure that has the support of the ICC. Senate Bill 142 would automatically expunge, or permanently erase, an eviction from a person’s record after seven years. Under current law, an individual has to proactively apply for an eviction to be expunged — and only after 10 years.

The ICC and other advocates say passage of this bill would open doors for people who face serious challenges in attaining a stable housing situation. A past eviction creates what many call a “Scarlet E,” haunting a tenant for years.

“This would be a preferential option for people who have been struggling with housing,” LaCoursiere said. “Taking an eviction off their record could help them find another rental unit much more easily, or to even open up the possibility for them to one day be homeowners.”

In this long session of the General Assembly, held every 2 years and culminating in passage of the state’s biennial budget, fiscal matters will be at the forefront. Attaining universal school choice will again be a high priority for the ICC and advocates including the Indiana Non-Public Education Association (INPEA).

2 years ago, the state legislature expanded school choice eligibility to 97 percent of Indiana families. This year, advocates want to see that reach 100 percent, ensuring that any Indiana family can receive a voucher for their child to attend a school of their choice.

LaCoursiere and Mingus encourage the Catholic faithful to stay up to date on the issues and legislation before the General Assembly by joining the Indiana Catholic Action Network (ICAN). Details can be found on the ICC website.

“To amplify the voice of the Church, we need the engagement of all Catholics in our state,” Mingus said. “We thank everyone who has been active with our ICAN network in the past, and we hope to expand our reach as we work to bring the timeless teachings of the Catholic Church to the public arena.”

For more information, visit www.indianacc.org.

(source: evdiomessage.org)

NEBRASKA:

109th Unicam update: Day 6 filings include bills on urban housing, police reform, death penalty, vaping, license plates, Article V----A summary of Nebraska state senators’ activity on Wednesday, Jan. 15

Nebraska state senators — and mulitple committees — filed dozens of bills on Wednesday, their s6th day in session.

Lawmakers filed 57 pieces of legislation Tuesday, including 2 amendment proposals.

Here’s a quick look at which senators have submitted bills on Day 6:

Below is a look at a few bills that caught our attention on Wednesday:

State Sen. Victor Rountree of Bellevue submitted LB267, which would allow landlords to evict tenants who have committed domestic violence.

State Sen. Megan Hunt of Omaha filed LB273, which would not allow a medical power of attorney to make decisions regarding a pregnancy unless the person’s life is at risk.

State Sen. Terrell McKinney of Omaha introduced LB276, a police reform bill that would ban no-knock warrants, and create a citizen police oversight board; and LB277, which would require a special prosecutor be appointed to investigate in-custody deaths and require law enforcement involved in such incident not return to duty until the grand jury proceedings have been completed; and LB290, which would prohibit downtown businesses from receiving recovery grant funds. He also filed LR15CA, an amendment proposal to eliminate the death penalty in Nebraska.

(source: WOWT news)

*************

‘No merit’: Judge strikes down Jason Jones’ renewed motion to quash death penalty

A 2nd attempt by Jason Jones, who was found guilty of murdering 4 people in Laurel, to have Nebraska’s death penalty statutes ruled unconstitutional was again unsuccessful, keeping execution a possibility for Jones.

A district judge ruled Wednesday that Jones’ arguments against the death penalty’s constitutionality were all “without merit” and have been previously addressed by the Nebraska Supreme Court. As a result, Jones’ renewed motion was denied.

Jones originally filed a motion to quash in Jan. 2023 after being accused of killing Gene, Janet, and Dana Twiford, along with Michele Ebeling, back on Aug. 4, 2022. That motion was denied and dismissed in March 2023.

A jury would later find Jones guilty of 10 counts on Sept. 26, 2024, including 4 counts of 1st-degree murder, 4 counts of use of a firearm to commit a felony, and 2 counts of 2nd-degree arson. A 3-person panel was appointed soon after to determine whether or not he should be given the death penalty. Jones then renewed his motion to quash on Dec. 3, 2024.

Jones utilized the same arguments across both motions, and the court came to the same conclusion in both instances.

Jones’ wife, Carrie Jones, is also charged in connection with the case. She is accused of 1 count of 1st-degree murder, tampering with evidence and accessory to a felony. Carrie Jones pleaded not guilty to her charges in May 2023. A pretrial conference is scheduled for March 24, 2025.

(source: KCAU news)

COLORADO:

A tattoo, the N-word, a different crime: Colorado justices hear appeal of former death row inmate----Robert Ray was one of the last prisoners on Colorado's death row when lawmakers abolished capital punishment

Almost 20 years after the murders of a young couple in Aurora, the Colorado Supreme Court heard the appeal of the man convicted of orchestrating the killings and who now alleges numerous errors pervaded his trial.

Arapahoe County jurors convicted Robert Keith Ray for the 2005 slayings of Javad Marshall-Fields and Vivian Wolfe. He received a death sentence and remained on death row until 2020, when the legislature abolished capital punishment and Gov. Jared Polis commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.

Although another man, Sir Mario Owens, was convicted for being the gunman, prosecutors asserted Ray arranged for the murders in order to prevent Marshall-Fields from testifying about a related shooting the summer prior in Lowry Park.

Lengthy postconviction proceedings meant the Supreme Court had its 1st opportunity on Wednesday to hear Ray's claims about his 2009 trial. In an unusual two-hour oral argument, the justices hinted that several aspects of Ray's prosecution, taken together, might have been problematic enough to warrant a new trial.

Among their concerns were the prosecution's repeated use of the N-word in court while quoting Ray; its emphasis on Ray's tattoo of a rap lyric, "Crime Payz in 999 Wayz"; extensive testimony about the victims; and roughly one-third of the trial being dedicated to the already adjudicated Lowry Park shooting.

"This is concerning," said Justice Richard L. Gabriel. "It may well be you can say there’s overwhelming evidence that Mr. Ray coordinated these murders. That may be. But there was a lot of evidence that came in that I’m mystified."

In the defense's telling, the proof of Ray's involvement in the murders was circumstantial and depended largely on witnesses who received tangible benefits in their own criminal cases by cooperating with law enforcement and painting Ray as the killer.

The government countered that jurors had a right to believe those witnesses, and that Ray had a motive to get rid of a witness to the Lowry Park shooting to avoid conviction and continue his lucrative drug business.

Last year, the Supreme Court decided Owens' appeal and upheld his convictions for killing Wolfe and Marshall-Fields, who was the son of Arapahoe County commissioner and former state legislator Rhonda Fields. Considering Ray's appeal, however, several of the justices seemed alarmed by decisions the prosecutors and trial judge made that were unique to his prosecution.

The defense argued the district attorney's office tried to paint Ray as a "young, Black, drug-dealing thug," noting the White prosecutors had said the N-word 24 times during trial while quoting Ray, who is Black.

"Why was that necessary?" Chief Justice Monica M. Márquez asked the government. "The repeated use of those words and those kinds of phrases .... it does seem to play into that picture, does it not?"

"This is an awful word. It should never be used. But it came out of defendant’s mouth," responded Senior Assistant Attorney General Carmen Moraleda.

"I think it’s more subtle. ... There is a picture that's getting drawn here," interjected Gabriel. "It does paint a picture of, this is a drug-dealing, low-life thug against the clean-cut, college-educated victims. That makes the N-word problematic."

Justice William W. Hood III added that other evidence tended to feed into the jury's perception of Ray as a bad person.

"Maybe the word 'thug' wasn't used, but when you have the tattoo evidence coupled with some other things, you know, you might as well take out a billboard that says 'thug,' right?" he said. "Why did they put on the tattoo evidence?"

"Because it was probative, your honor," said Moraleda.

"Was it?" pressed Hood.

He also was curious about the amount of evidence jurors heard before deciding Ray's guilt that portrayed the victims' lives as being "rich and abundant with promise."

"The prosecution's typically given a chance to humanize the victims to some extent," said Hood, a former trial judge and prosecutor. "This seems to go well beyond that."

Members of the court questioned the defense about how the trial judge evaluated evidence, whether Ray's attorneys had objected at the time and whether some of the allegedly improper evidence was relevant after all. Some justices seemed inclined to think that the cumulative effect of Ray's alleged errors, rather than any single instance, could determine whether he receives a new trial.

To that end, Justice Melissa Hart expressed curiosity about the logistics of a redo.

"As a practical matter," she said, "what does a new trial look like 20 years on?"

"The issue before the court is whether Mr. Ray’s constitutional rights were violated," responded his attorney, Gail K. Johnson. "There’s certainly no evidence before the court that a retrial would be impractical."

Justice Carlos A. Samour Jr. is not participating in the appeal. As a former Arapahoe County trial judge, he briefly handled Ray's case following the convictions.

The case is People v. Ray.

(source: coloradopolitics.com)

IDAHO:

Idaho Reckons with High Costs of the Death Penalty

Costs Representation Idaho

A recent op-ed in the Idaho Statesman high­lights a num­ber of dif­fi­cul­ties that are a result of his­toric under­spend­ing on cap­i­tal defense as the state pre­pares for its first exe­cu­tion since 2012. Idaho’s pub­lic defense sys­tem is tran­si­tion­ing to statewide over­sight as part of an effort to address long­stand­ing inequities in coun­ty-fund­ed legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion. With the con­sol­i­da­tion of the pub­lic defend­er sys­tem came pay increas­es for most of Idaho’s pub­lic defend­ers, but many of the high­est-paid attor­neys took cuts. The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho said that with these cuts came ?“mass res­ig­na­tions” of attor­neys and sup­port staff, leav­ing many defen­dants with­out access to ade­quate legal rep­re­sen­ta­tion. In response to this cri­sis, Governor Brad Little request­ed a bud­get increase of 70%, from just over $50 mil­lion to $89 mil­lion for the state pub­lic defense sys­tem for fis­cal years 2025 and 2026.

The bud­get increas­es to sup­port the pub­lic defend­er sys­tem are just one of many fac­tors dri­ving up the cost of pur­su­ing the death penal­ty in Idaho. The state’s deci­sion to amend its lethal injec­tion pro­to­col and pro­ceed with exe­cu­tions, as well as the cre­ation of a new fir­ing squad cham­ber in response to recent leg­is­la­tion have also increased death-penal­ty-relat­ed expen­di­tures. Public records reveal that the state spent $150,000 on lethal injec­tion drugs in its efforts to exe­cute Thomas Creech—$50,000 in October 2023 and $100,000 in June 2024. Recent ren­o­va­tions to the F Block unit at the Idaho Maximum Security Institution to cre­ate an exe­cu­tion prepa­ra­tion room cost an esti­mat­ed $313,915, accord­ing to IDOC pub­lic infor­ma­tion offi­cer Sanda Kuzeta-Cerimagic. The ren­o­va­tions to the exe­cu­tion room includ­ed imag­ing, design, and engi­neer­ing, and are just the 1st phase of a 2-stage ren­o­va­tion. The 2nd stage includes the cre­ation of a secured facil­i­ty for exe­cu­tions via fir­ing squad, which was adopt­ed as an alter­na­tive exe­cu­tion method in 2023. Phase two con­struc­tion costs are esti­mat­ed at $952,589, as report­ed by the Idaho Capital Sun.

All of this under­scores the finan­cial strain cre­at­ed by the deci­sions to seek death sen­tences and car­ry out exe­cu­tions in Idaho. Lori Daybell’s tri­al, which did not ulti­mate­ly result in a death sen­tence, cost Fremont and Madison Counties about $2 mil­lion. The Idaho Statesman op-ed not­ed that had Daybell’s case been held in neigh­bor­ing Clark County, the amount of mon­ey would have required near­ly a quar­ter of the county’s total operating budget.

Cost stud­ies from mul­ti­ple states con­sis­tent­ly show that cap­i­tal cas­es cost sig­nif­i­cant­ly more than non-cap­i­tal cas­es, for rea­sons includ­ing longer tri­als, increased secu­ri­ty, and appeals. A 2017 inde­pen­dent study in Oklahoma esti­mat­ed that cap­i­tal cas­es in the state cost 3.2 times more than non-cap­i­tal cas­es on aver­age. In their review of 15 dif­fer­ent state stud­ies from across the coun­try, the Oklahoma Death Penalty Review Commission found that nation­al­ly, seek­ing the death penal­ty impos­es an aver­age of approx­i­mate­ly $700,000 more in costs than not seeking death.

The finan­cial strain on Idaho’s pub­lic defense sys­tem high­lights a crit­i­cal dis­con­nect between the state’s pri­or­i­ties and resources. While the statewide pub­lic defend­er sys­tem strug­gles to meet the con­sti­tu­tion­al rights of indi­gent defen­dants, mil­lions are spent on cap­i­tal cas­es and the death penal­ty in a state that has not car­ried out an exe­cu­tion since 2012.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)

USA:

A.G. Garland withdraws federal execution drug protocol following review----"[T]here is significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection for execution treats individuals humanely," Garland wrote.

Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the head Bureau of Prisons to withdraw the federal government’s current execution drug protocol, leaving the federal government with no drug protocol in place to carry out executions.

The current drug protocol, the use of pentobarbital in a single-drug lethal injection, was last used to carry out executions in the first Trump administration.

After a multi-year review ordered in 2021, the Department’s Office of Legal Policy concluded — and Garland echoed — that there is “significant uncertainty” surrounding the use of pentobarbital that justifies withdrawing the protocol authorizing it.

“[T]he review concluded that there is significant uncertainty about whether the use of pentobarbital as a single-drug lethal injection for execution treats individuals humanely and avoids unnecessary pain and suffering,” Garland wrote Wednesday in a letter to the director of the Bureau of Prisons. Writing that “it cannot be said with reasonable confidence” that the pentobarbital protocol protects “the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and laws of the United States" and ensures that those facing execution are treated “fairly and humanely,” the attorney general concluded “that protocol should be rescinded, and not reinstated unless and until that uncertainty is resolved.“

Although the underlying statutes authorizing executions, as well as the federal rules regarding the manner of execution remain in place, Garland’s action would force additional steps on the incoming Trump administration before it could carry out any executions.

The move to rescind the execution drug protocol comes a few weeks after President Joe Biden commuted the death sentences of all but three men on the federal death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole in the days before Christmas.

The earlier years of the administration presented a more mixed record from the Justice Department, with Garland authorizing continued and new capital prosecutions.

In all, though, it is a striking record of opposing capital punishment and doing significant work to end the federal death penalty, as I called for here in recent months — and as candidate Biden pledged to do when running for office in 2020.

Back in July 2021, Garland issued an execution moratorium following the 13-person execution spree carried out in the closing year of the 1st Trump administration. At that time, he also ordered a review of the federal government’s execution protocol and procedures — something previously undertaken in the Obama administration with no resolution.

This time, however, the review was concluded — on Wednesday, according to Garland’s letter and a a report provided to Law Dork via Chris McDaniel, who received it on Wednesday night from the Justice Department. My former colleague from BuzzFeed News, McDaniel now works at Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, where he conducted an investigation that led to the show’s incredible report on where the Trump administration obtained its execution drugs.

After detailing the first Trump administration’s authorization of the use of pentobarbital in a “federal execution protocol addendum,” Garland noted, “The then-Attorney General ordered the Bureau of Prisons to adopt the addendum on July 24, 2019. Following the adoption of the addendum, 13 federal executions took place between July 2020 and January 2021.”

Biden then took office, Garland ordered the review, and the Office of Legal Policy provided its report this month.

Regarding the use of pentobarbital in a single-drug lethal injection, the report addressed four areas of concern, first asserting that “there is a risk of flash (acute) pulmonary edema with the use of pentobarbital in executions.” Specifically, it added, “Two autopsies were conducted after recent federal executions with pentobarbital, and both showed signs of pulmonary edema.”

Second, it noted that “experts have warned that the use of high amounts of pentobarbital in a single-drug execution protocol could cause extreme pain upon the initial injection.”

Third, the report highlighted the “greater significance” of eyewitness accounts in this area:

In light of the limited research and unanswered questions about the risks of pulmonary edema and pain associated with lethal injection by pentobarbital, witness accounts take on greater significance and provide important anecdotal evidence. Witness accounts from the 13 federal executions using pentobarbital are particularly relevant.105 In February 2021, AP News reported that “executioners who put [those] 13 inmates to death in the last months of the Trump administration likened the process of dying by lethal injection to falling asleep…but those tranquil accounts are at odds with reports by The Associated Press and other media witnesses of how prisoners’ stomachs rolled, shook and shuddered as the pentobarbital took effect inside the U.S. penitentiary death chamber in Terre Haute, Indiana.” 106 During the execution of Alfred Bourgeois in 2020, witnesses reported that he “grimaced and furrowed his eyebrows. He began to exhale rhythmically, and his stomach started to quiver uncontrollably.”107 It was observed during Lezmond Hall’s execution in 2020 that his “chest heaved” and his “stomach area began to throb.”108 Similarly, in 2020, witnesses reported that William LeCroy’s “midsection quickly began to heave uncontrollably” after the pentobarbital was administered.109 In addition, in 2020, eyewitnesses observed that as the drug was administered to Orlando Hall, he “appeared to wince briefly and twitched his feet...open[ing] his mouth wide, as if he was yawning…[e]ach time that was followed by short, seemingly labored breaths.”110

Finally, the report highlighted the distinction between “consciousness” and “responsiveness.” Disturbingly, but in fitting with many of the questions raised by those witness reports, the report stated, “It is not clear whether a person who receives 5 grams of pentobarbital can feel and experience the impact the drug has on the body.” It is possible, it noted, that “the drug leaves a person in a state of connected consciousness, in which they may or may not be physically responsive to pain of pulmonary edema but are experiencing that pain.”

In addition to rescinding the current protocol, Garland put in place — for now, at least — a process for considering any other protocol.

“I further direct the Director [of the Bureau of Prisons] to assist the Office of Legal Policy, under the supervision of the Deputy Attorney General, to conduct evaluations of any other manner of execution, and of the State or local facilities and personnel involved in any such execution, before such other manner may be implemented,” he wrote. As such, Garland ended his memorandum by noting that “the moratorium on federal executions announced on July 1, 2021, remains in effect.”

For now, then, federal executions remain on hold.

Donald Trump takes office in 4 days.

(source: lawdork.com)

INDIA:

Fatehabad Court Sends Man To The Gallows For Decapitating Differently-Abled Brother----The fraternal enmity broke out in 2020 after their mother transferred the house ownership to the victim. A Rs 35,000 fine has also been slapped.

The district court in Fatehabad has awarded a death sentence along with a Rs 35,000 fine to a person guilty of killing his differently-abled brother.

On June 18, 2020, the accused, Ashok, had decapitated his brother, Deepak, and roamed with the severed head for about one-and-a-half-hour before disposing it into a canal. Considering the case a rarest of rare crimes, Judge Deepak Aagarwal awarded the capital punishment.

During the investigation, the police recovered the head and other items a case was registered against the accused under sections 457, 506, 302 and 201 of the IPC, as the incident happened before July 1, 2024, when the three new criminal laws came into effect.

Public Prosecutor Arun Kumar said Sushma Devi, wife of Manjit Singh, of Sangrur, Punjab, had recorded a statement that her brother Ashok had killed her younger brother, Deepak (40), by severing his head from the torso. In her complaint to the police, Sushma said she had five siblings of whom two brothers died. Deepak, a divorcee and differently-abled, lived with his mother near Gogamedi in Tohana. Their mother got the house registered in Deepak's name a decade ago. Ashok was upset with this and had threatened to kill Deepak several times.

"Surjeet of Dangra village was the brother-in-law of Deepak. On June 18, 2020, Surjeet called Sushma and told her that on June 17, Ashok went to Deepak's house. Both drank liquor and were chatting. Meanwhile, Surjeet left both of them and went to his house. In the morning, when Surjeet came to meet Deepak, he found the door closed and got no response from inside. Sushma reached the spot with her husband and informed the police. When the door was broken, they found Deepak's decapitated body in the verandah," the complaint said.

(source: etvbharat.com)

PAKISTAN:

At least 68 Pakistanis are on death row in 10 countries----Nearly 1/2 of Pakistanis imprisoned abroad are detained in Saudi Arabia

The National Assembly of Pakistan was informed that nearly 10,300 of the 20,000 Pakistani nationals currently incarcerated overseas are being held in Saudi Arabia.

The revelation came during a session led by Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar, who also serves as Deputy Prime Minister.

According to data from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, a total of 10,279 Pakistanis are detained in Saudi prisons, making the kingdom home to roughly 1/2 of the 19,997 Pakistanis imprisoned abroad. The number of detainees in foreign jails highlights the significant issue of Pakistani nationals facing serious charges in countries around the world.

The figures provided also revealed that 68 Pakistanis are currently on death row across 10 countries, facing charges ranging from terrorism to drug trafficking and murder.

The primary offenses for which Pakistanis are detained abroad include illegal immigration, drug possession, human trafficking, assault, and fraud.

Significant numbers

Aside from Saudi Arabia, other countries with significant numbers of detained Pakistanis include the UAE (5,292), Greece (598), and Oman (578). Other countries, including Malaysia, Turkey, and the UK, also have notable figures, with many facing serious charges such as money laundering.

Repatriation efforts

In his statement, Dar assured the public that the government is actively working to facilitate the repatriation of prisoners. He explained that emergency travel documents are issued to those whose passports have expired after they complete their sentences, and that the Pakistani community often helps pay fines for released prisoners.

“There is no obstacle in the repatriation of prisoners to Pakistan,” Dar said, adding that Saudi Arabia has agreed to repatriate 570 prisoners under a bilateral agreement. He emphasised the ongoing efforts to return detainees to their home country.

The report underscores the widespread challenge faced by Pakistani nationals abroad, with the government working to manage diplomatic ties and ensure the safe return of prisoners wherever possible.

(source: gulfnews.com)

IRAN----executions Increase in Executions in Iran: At Least 100 Prisoners Executed in 20 days

According to received reports, since December 21 ,2024 at least 100 prisoners have been executed in Iran. This statistic indicates that, on average, nearly 5 people are executed daily, and one prisoner is executed every 6 hours in the country. This alarming increase has once again heightened serious concerns about the human rights situation in Iran.

Execution of 3 Prisoners in Dastgerd Prison, Isfahan

At dawn on Thursday, January 9, 2025, 3 prisoners were executed in Dastgerd Prison, Isfahan. The names of these prisoners are:

Behrouz Ghasemi, from Yasuj, who was arrested 3 years ago on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Houshang Shahi, 40 years old, married, father of 2 children, originally from Lahijan and residing in Isfahan. He was arrested 5 years ago on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Samad Najjar-Asl, 41 years old, son of Kheirollah, married, father of 2 children, from Behbahan. He was arrested in 2019 on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Execution of 5 Prisoners in Qezel-Hesar Prison, Karaj

At dawn on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, 5 prisoners were executed in Qezel-Hesar Prison, Karaj. These individuals are:

Ashkan Piryan and 2 Afghan nationals who were convicted of murder.

Reza Azizian, from Tehran, who was arrested on drug-related charges and sentenced to execution.

Salman Bozorgmehr, whose execution sentence was also carried out on the same day.

Execution of a Prisoner in Sari Prison

At dawn on Wednesday, January 8, 2025, the execution sentence of Milad Bao Dizabadi, from Qaemshahr, was carried out in Sari Prison. He had been arrested 4 years ago on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Continuation of Executions in Diesel-Abad Prison, Kermanshah

At dawn on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, the execution sentence of Farman Eistam, son of Ali-Akbar, married, and father of 1 child, was carried out in Diesel-Abad Prison, Kermanshah. He had been arrested 4 years ago on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Execution in Langarud Prison, Qom

At dawn on Sunday, January 5, 2025, the execution sentence of Hassan Norouzi was carried out in Langarud Prison, Qom. He had previously been arrested on charges of murder and sentenced to execution.

Rising Concerns Over Mass Executions

The mass execution of prisoners in Iran, especially in the past month, has raised serious concerns at both domestic and international levels regarding the human rights situation in the country.

(source: iran-hrm.com)

************

Women activists call for immediate reversal of death sentence for Pakhshan Azizi

A group of Kurdish women activists staged a protest today in front of the governor’s office in Kurdistan Province to denounce the confirmation of the death sentence against Kurdish political prisoner Pakhshan Azizi. The protesters demanded the immediate cancellation of the sentence and the release of all political and religious prisoners.

During the rally, the activists held up pictures of Azizi and chanted slogans against the death penalty.

They also issued a statement highlighting the unjust nature of the verdict, describing it as a gross violation of human values and a denial of Azizi’s significant contributions to society.

The full text of the statement is as follows:

We have gathered here today to raise our voices against an apparent and unjustifiable injustice. Pakhshan Azizi is a woman who dedicated her life to helping others, a social worker who stood amidst humanitarian crises in refugee camps for over a decade, represents selfless service, resilience in the face of despair, and the embodiment of compassion and kindness.

Pakhshan was not just an ordinary social worker; she was a beacon of hope for thousands of women and children—women who had lost everything to war and destruction, and children who saw nothing but darkness in their future. She was the hand that reached out from the rubble towards life, the voice that broke through the silence imposed on the suffering, advocating for their rights. Her work not only aimed to rebuild the bodies and spirits of those in need but also carried the message that life is possible even amidst crisis and destruction.

Today, however, this courageous woman, instead of being honoured and praised, faces a sentence that not only fails to reflect her services and actions but also symbolises the injustice inflicted on humanitarian efforts.

Pakhshan Azizi is not just an individual; she is a representation of human ideals. She embodies hope, life, and resistance against death and despair. Therefore, any attempt to silence her voice is an attempt to suppress these fundamental values. The sentence against Pakhshan Azizi, an innocent social worker and humanitarian, is unjust, for saving lives and restoring hope to the broken has never been, and will never be, a crime. Revoking this sentence and all other unjust rulings against prisoners of conscience is the bare minimum that can restore some measure of credibility and humanity to the criminal justice system.

(source: kurdistanhumanrights.org)

JANUARY 15, 2025:

PENNSYLVANIA:

4th suspect emerges in 2020 torture, murder of Potter County man after Hornell arrest----Varley Fuller, arrested in Hornell, is charged with 1st-degree murder and other felonies related to the 2020 death of Joshua Ramos, of Galeton.

A witness who reported the grisly torture and murder of a Potter County man more than 4 years ago is now a suspect in the case.

A month after the last of 3 suspects initially charged in the death of Joshua Ramos, 19, of Galeton, was sentenced for his role in the killing, Pennsylvania State Police at Coudersport have charged Varley William Fuller, also of Galeton, with multiple felonies for his alleged role in the crime.

Fuller, 65, was arrested Jan. 10 in the City of Hornell with the assistance of the Hornell Police Department. He waived extradition proceedings and has been returned to Pennsylvania.

Fuller was arraigned Monday night in Magisterial District Court in Galeton on charges of criminal conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, 3rd-degree murder, kidnapping and tampering with physical evidence. He was committed to the Potter County Jail without bail.

A preliminary hearing is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Jan. 27 in front of District Justice Chris Kalacinski.

1st-degree murder carries a possible punishment of the death penalty or life in prison in Pennsylvania, according to Potter County District Attorney Andy Watson.

What happened to Joshua Ramos?

In July 2020, a witness who was not publicly named at that time reported Ramos' death to state police and led them to the area where his body was left. He said he was present at the time of the attack.

As a result of the investigation, state police charged Galeton residents Felicia Kay Cary, Krysten Lauren Crosby and Kyle Michael Nathan Moore with criminal conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder, 1st-degree murder, 2nd-degree murder, 3rd-degree murder, kidnapping and tampering with physical evidence.

The original criminal complaint against Cary, Crosby and Moore alleged they all attacked Ramos in the kitchen of the apartment where most of them lived.

Joshua Ramos, originally from New Jersey, was living in Galeton, Pennsylvania when he went missing in 2020. 3 people were charged with his murder after his decomposed body was later found in rural Potter County.

The beating went on for about an hour before Moore, Cary and Crosby humiliated Ramos by forcing him to lick his own blood off the floor and off the shoes of the others, according to the criminal complaint.

Testimony at a later hearing indicated the trio assaulted Ramos because he had allegedly shoved Crosby prior to the attack.

The suspects then took Ramos on a road trip, eventually ending up on Whitman Road in Harrison Valley, where they took Ramos into the woods and hanged him from a tree with a 12-foot pair of jumper cables, the criminal complaint stated.

It was there, months later, that a state police cadaver dog located the decomposed body covered with a gray blanket and buried underneath multiple rocks, according to the complaint.

RelatedGaleton homicide victim remembered as caring person who overcame troubled early life

How a witness became a murder suspect

At the time of Ramos' murder, Fuller lived at 16 Clinton St. in Galeton Borough, along with the victim, Cary, Crosby and four other people, according to the criminal complaint filed against him.

Fuller admitted to placing his arm or hand on Ramos' throat during the attack and telling him not to touch Crosby, who was Ramos' girlfriend at the time.

Fuller said he tried at one point to get the others to stop the assault and when they didn't, he said he videotaped a portion of the attack, although state police said there was no evidence to support that claim.

Fuller also admitted using his minivan to take the victim and the others to the area where Ramos was eventually killed, and did not report the crime when he was stopped by Westfield police for an equipment violation.

Fuller also concealed evidence after Ramos' murder by selling his minivan for scrap to Troups Creek Auto Parts in Troupsburg, New York, the criminal complaint stated.

What happened to the other suspects in the death of Joshua Ramos?

The 3 original suspects in the torture and murder of Ramos accepted plea agreements before their cases went to trial, avoiding a possible death sentence.

All 3 pleaded guilty in Potter County Court to conspiracy to commit 1st-degree murder and kidnapping, and Crosby additionally pleaded guilty to tampering with evidence.

On Aug. 29, 2024, Crosby was sentenced to a minimum of 31 and a maximum of 62 years in state prison. On Nov. 18, Cary was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison, and on Dec. 16, Potter County Judge Stephen Minor sentenced Moore to 22 to 44 years incarceration.

Moore was given a lighter sentence than the others because he cooperated with law enforcement against his codefendants, Watson said.

(source: stargazette.com)

SOUTH CAROLINA----impending execution

New Analysis: Marion Bowman’s Scheduled Execution in South Carolina Raises Concerns About Youth Culpability, Fits Pattern of Disproportionate Executions of Young Black Men

Youth Race Upcoming Executions South Carolina

When Marion Bowman was arrest­ed at age 20 for the mur­der of Kandee Martin, soci­ety did not con­sid­er him mature enough to drink alco­hol, rent a car, or enter a casi­no. Yet he was deemed old enough to be sen­tenced to death. Now 44, he has spent over half his life on South Carolina’s death row and is sched­uled for exe­cu­tion on January 31. ?“Retribution is not pro­por­tion­al if the law’s most severe penal­ty is imposed on one whose cul­pa­bil­i­ty or blame­wor­thi­ness is dimin­ished, to a sub­stan­tial degree, by rea­son of youth and imma­tu­ri­ty,” the United States Supreme Court rea­soned when it pro­hib­it­ed the death penal­ty for crim­i­nal defen­dants under the age of 18 in Roper v. Simmons (2005). A grow­ing body of neu­ropsy­cho­log­i­cal research has found that the same deficits in crit­i­cal think­ing, impulse con­trol, and sus­cep­ti­bil­i­ty to peer pres­sure that moti­vat­ed the Roper Court to exempt juve­niles from exe­cu­tion also apply to ?“emerg­ing adults” aged 18 – 20. And evi­dence sug­gests that the death penal­ty is dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly applied to youth­ful Black offend­ers like Mr. Bowman, who if his exe­cu­tion pro­ceeds will become the fifth Black pris­on­er in South Carolina put to death in the mod­ern era for a crime com­mit­ted under age 21 — com­pared to just 1 white prisoner.

Emerging Adults Experience Same Neurocognitive Deficits as Juveniles

The Constitution lim­its the death penal­ty to offend­ers who com­mit ?“a nar­row cat­e­go­ry of the most seri­ous crimes” and ?“whose extreme cul­pa­bil­i­ty makes them the most deserv­ing of exe­cu­tion.” In Roper, the Supreme Court held that juve­niles were less cul­pa­ble because of their dimin­ished capac­i­ty to con­trol their behav­ior. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writ­ing for the major­i­ty, relied on sci­en­tif­ic stud­ies that high­light­ed juve­niles’ ?“lack of matu­ri­ty and under­de­vel­oped sense of respon­si­bil­i­ty, [which] often result in impetu­ous and ill-con­sid­ered actions and deci­sions”; not­ed that they are ?“more vul­ner­a­ble or sus­cep­ti­ble to neg­a­tive influ­ences and out­side pres­sures, includ­ing peer pres­sure”; and argued that ?“the char­ac­ter of a juve­nile is not as well formed as that of an adult,” mak­ing reha­bil­i­ta­tion a greater possibility.

Mr. Bowman’s case demon­strates sev­er­al com­mon ele­ments of youth­ful offens­es. He was con­vict­ed and sen­tenced to death for the mur­der of Ms. Martin, age 21, in con­nec­tion with a drug-deal­ing dis­pute. Three oth­er young peo­ple were arrest­ed as par­tic­i­pants, and accord­ing to Mr. Bowman’s defense team, ?“the only alleged eye­wit­ness con­fessed to com­mit­ting the mur­der him­self.” Mr. Bowman has main­tained his inno­cence. ?“I regret the role I had in deal­ing to Kandee and know that her addic­tion prob­a­bly led to her death. But I did not do this,” he said in a written statement.

The past 2 decades of neu­ropsy­chol­o­gy and human devel­op­ment research have revealed that emerg­ing adults share the key brain func­tion char­ac­ter­is­tics with juve­niles that formed the basis of Roper. The sen­sa­tion-seek­ing and reward-seek­ing fea­tures of the brain devel­op dur­ing puber­ty, but the ?“cog­ni­tive con­trol sys­tem” that reg­u­lates impuls­es, pro­motes long-term plan­ning, and resists peer pres­sure does not ful­ly devel­op until around age 25. In 2018, the American Bar Association called for the pro­hi­bi­tion of the death penal­ty for ?“any indi­vid­ual who was 21 years old or younger at the time of the offense,” refer­ring to the ?“grow­ing med­ical con­sen­sus that key areas of the brain rel­e­vant to deci­sion-mak­ing and judg­ment con­tin­ue to devel­op into the early 20s.”

Their own vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty and com­par­a­tive lack of con­trol over their imme­di­ate sur­round­ings mean juve­niles have a greater claim than adults to be for­giv­en for fail­ing to escape neg­a­tive influ­ences in their whole envi­ron­ment. The real­i­ty that juve­niles still strug­gle to define their iden­ti­ty means it is less sup­port­able to con­clude that even a heinous crime com­mit­ted by a juve­nile is evi­dence of irre­triev­ably depraved char­ac­ter. From a moral stand­point it would be mis­guid­ed to equate the fail­ings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater pos­si­bil­i­ty exists that a minor’s char­ac­ter defi­cien­cies will be reformed.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writ­ing for the major­i­ty in Roper v. Simmons (2005)

In a pair of 2017 deci­sions, the Fayette Circuit Court in Kentucky ruled that the Commonwealth’s death penal­ty statute was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al as applied to peo­ple under 21 at the time of their crime. The court cred­it­ed Dr. Laurence Steinberg, a lead­ing researcher in the field, who tes­ti­fied that ?“ado­les­cents [under 21] are more impul­sive, more like­ly to mis­per­ceive risk, less able to reg­u­late behav­ior, more eas­i­ly emo­tion­al­ly aroused, and, impor­tant­ly, more capa­ble of change.” Dr. Steinberg argued that ?“if a dif­fer­ent ver­sion of Roper were heard today, know­ing what we know now, one could’ve made the very same argu­ments about 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds that were made about 16- and 17-year-olds in Roper.” Judge Ernesto Scorsone inter­pret­ed Dr. Steinberg’s find­ings to mean, ?“put sim­ply, under feel­ings of stress, anger, fear, threat, etc., the brain of a twen­ty-year-old func­tions sim­i­lar­ly to a six­teen- or sev­en­teen-year-old.” The judge con­clud­ed that “[i]f the sci­ence in 2005 man­dat­ed the rul­ing in Roper, the sci­ence in 2017 man­dates this rul­ing.“1

Arguing that Roper should be extend­ed nation­al­ly to pro­tect defen­dants under the age of 21 from the death penal­ty, schol­ar Andrew Michaels sum­ma­rized evi­dence show­ing ?“crime rates esca­lat­ing rapid­ly between ages 14 and 15, top­ping out between ages 16 and 20, and prompt­ly deesca­lat­ing.”2 18 to 20-year-olds ?“share many of the same mit­i­gat­ing char­ac­ter­is­tics as juve­niles,” Mr. Michaels argued. ?“They are psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly pre­dis­posed to reck­less behav­ior and they are sus­cep­ti­ble to neg­a­tive peer influ­ences. These tran­sient ten­den­cies dimin­ish their cul­pa­bil­i­ty and negate the tra­di­tion­al death penal­ty jus­ti­fi­ca­tions of ret­ri­bu­tion and deterrence.”

Emerging Adults Executed in South Carolina Are Disproportionately Black

The ?“adul­ti­fi­ca­tion” of Black youth has been demon­strat­ed in vir­tu­al­ly every facet of the crim­i­nal legal sys­tem. According to the Center for Policing Equity, ?“the peri­od of time dur­ing which White youth are not expect­ed to be ful­ly respon­si­ble for their actions can extend well into their late 20s,” while ?“Black chil­dren are often treat­ed as adults by age 13, if not well before, reg­u­lar­ly per­ceived as old­er, less inno­cent, and more threat­en­ing than their White same-age peers.” Black chil­dren make up 15% of the youth pop­u­la­tion but 1/2 of ele­men­tary school arrests and 1/2 of trans­fers to adult court. They are also 5 times more like­ly to be com­mit­ted to juve­nile facil­i­ties. In a cap­i­tal case, these racial bias­es may man­i­fest in pros­e­cu­tors offer­ing plea deals and lenien­cy to young white offend­ers while seek­ing death for young Black offend­ers even when the facts of the cas­es are similar.

A new analy­sis by the Death Penalty Information Center finds that in the mod­ern era (since 1976), 5 peo­ple have been exe­cut­ed in South Carolina for crimes com­mit­ted under the age of 21 — and 4 of those peo­ple (80%) have been Black. The sole white per­son was James Roach, who was also the only juve­nile exe­cut­ed in South Carolina in the mod­ern era, put to death by elec­tro­cu­tion in 1986 for a crime com­mit­ted at age 17. Since then, every­one aged 18 – 20 at the time of the crime who has been exe­cut­ed in the state has been Black. This find­ing tracks a recent nation­al study con­clud­ing that 78% of emerg­ing adults sen­tenced to death post-Roper were peo­ple of col­or. DPI’s research also shows a sta­tis­ti­cal­ly sig­nif­i­cant 6-year dif­fer­ence in the medi­an age at crime for those exe­cut­ed by South Carolina: the medi­an age is 29.7 for white peo­ple but just 23.4 for Black people.

South Carolina resumed exe­cu­tions in 2024 after a 13-year pause, killing Freddie Owens by lethal injec­tion on September 20. Mr. Owens, who was also known as Khalil Divine Black Sun Allah, was sen­tenced to death for the mur­der of a clerk dur­ing a con­ve­nience store rob­bery that occurred when Mr. Owens was just 19 years old. The key wit­ness against Mr. Owens was his co-defen­dant Steven Golden. 2 days before Mr. Owens’ exe­cu­tion, Mr. Golden wrote that he false­ly accused Mr. Owens as the shoot­er, but courts reject­ed Mr. Owens’ attor­neys’ requests for a stay of exe­cu­tion to inves­ti­gate the claims.

Mr. Owens was sen­tenced to death in 1999 and Mr. Bowman in 2002, in the years after the so-called ?“super­preda­tor” myth took root. The term was first used in 1995 and referred to young ?“inner-city” men, under­stood to be Black or Hispanic, who were sup­pos­ed­ly ?“mur­der­ers, rapists, and mug­gers” with no regard for human life. Many states increased penal­ties or removed court pro­tec­tions for youth­ful offend­ers as a result. The the­o­ry has since been wide­ly debunked and sev­er­al young peo­ple con­vict­ed in high-pro­file racial­ized cas­es have been exon­er­at­ed, includ­ing the ?“Central Park Five.” John J. DiIulio Jr., the Princeton pro­fes­sor who pop­u­lar­ized the term, lat­er dis­avowed it. He worked to pro­mote fund­ing for social ser­vices and alter­na­tives to incar­cer­a­tion for youth. "If I knew then what I know now, I would have shout­ed for the pre­ven­tion of crimes,” he said.

It seems clear that deci­sion-mak­ers at key stages of a cap­i­tal case — pros­e­cu­tors and jurors — are more like­ly to per­ceive crimes com­mit­ted by young per­sons of Color as more heinous or oth­er­wise more deserv­ing of the death penal­ty, or to believe that young per­sons of Color are some­how and for some rea­son less like­ly to be reha­bil­i­tat­ed, or are oth­er­wise sim­ply more cul­pa­ble for their actions.

Craig Haney, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Karen Steele, Roper and Race: the Nature and Effects of Death Penalty Exclusions for Juveniles and the ?“Late Adolescent Class,” 8 Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology 168 (2023).

Conclusion

“The rea­sons why juve­niles are not trust­ed with the priv­i­leges and respon­si­bil­i­ties of an adult also explain why their irre­spon­si­ble con­duct is not as moral­ly rep­re­hen­si­ble as that of an adult,” Justice John Paul Stevens wrote for the plu­ral­i­ty in Thompson v. Oklahoma (1988), which barred the death penal­ty for offend­ers aged 16 or younger at the time of the crime. Like juve­niles, young peo­ple under age 21 are not trust­ed with sev­er­al impor­tant priv­i­leges and respon­si­bil­i­ties in soci­ety — and the sci­en­tif­ic con­sen­sus on brain devel­op­ment explains why. As a group, ?“emerg­ing adults” do not have the same capac­i­ty as adults to make rea­soned, inde­pen­dent deci­sions and curb emo­tion­al impuls­es. This research rais­es ques­tions about whether Marion Bowman’s death sen­tence for a crime that took place when he was just 20 years old, in a state with a his­to­ry of dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly exe­cut­ing young Black men, meets the ?“extreme cul­pa­bil­i­ty” stan­dard for the death penal­ty that the Constitution demands.

Sources----Tiffany Tan, SC court orders exe­cu­tion of inmate Marion Bowman on Jan. 31, con­tin­u­ing reg­u­lar pace of exe­cu­tions, The Post and Courier, January 3, 2025; Patrick Phillips, SC Supreme Court sets exe­cu­tion date for man in Dorchester County mur­der case, Live5WCSC, January 3, 2025; Tiffany Tan, SC pris­on­er in line for exe­cu­tion speaks for first time since his con­vic­tion more than 20 years ago, The Post and Courier, January 2, 2025; James Causey, The Health Divide: Black youth are dis­pro­por­tion­ate­ly sent to adult court, USC Annenberg Center for Health Journalism, December 9, 2024; Joshua Rovner, Black Disparities in Youth Incarceration, The Sentencing Project, December 12, 2023; CPE Staff, The Adultification of Black Children, The Center for Policing Equity, January 19, 2023; Craig Haney, Frank R. Baumgartner, and Karen Steele, Roper and Race: the Nature and Effects of Death Penalty Exclusions for Juveniles and the ?“Late Adolescent Class,” 8 Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology 168 (2023); Chris Hacker, Aparna Zalani, Jose Sanchez, and Stephen Stock, Handcuffs in Hallways: Hundreds of ele­men­tary stu­dents arrest­ed at U.S. schools, CBS, December 9, 2022; Carroll Bogert and LynNell Hancock, Analysis: How the media cre­at­ed a ?‘super­preda­tor’ myth that harmed a gen­er­a­tion of Black youth, NBC, November 20, 2020; Commonwealth v. Bredhold (Ky. 2020); American Bar Association, Death Penalty Due Process Review Project, Report to the House of Delegates, Resolution 111 (2018); Commonwealth v. Diaz (Fayette Circuit Court 2017); Commonwealth v. Bredhold (Fayette Circuit Court 2017); Andrew Michaels, A Decent Proposal: Exempting Eighteen- to Twenty-Year-Olds From the Death Penalty, NYU Review of Law & Social Change (2016); Kathryn L. Modecki, Addressing Gaps in the Maturity of Judgment Literature: Age Differences and Delinquency, 32 Law & Hum. Behav. 78, 79 (2008); Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005); Elizabeth Becker, As Ex-Theorist on Young ?‘Superpredators,’ Bush Aide Has Regrets, The New York Times, February 9, 2001; John DiIulio, The Coming of the Super-Predators, The Washington Examiner, November 27, 1995; Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815 (1988).

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)

OKLAHOMA----death row inmate dies

Death row inmate convicted in 2017 killing of a Tecumseh police officer has died in prison

Byron James Shepard, the man convicted and jailed on Oklahoma’s death row for the 2017 shooting death of Tecumseh Police Officer Justin Terney, has died in prison, according to the Oklahoma Department of Corrections.

“We can confirm that death-row inmate Byron Shepard (ODOC #747199) was pronounced deceased early this morning, Tuesday, Jan. 14, at a local hospital. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections Office of Inspector General is investigating his death per normal procedure. As no physical injury or trauma was observed, the Medical Examiner’s office will determine the official cause of death.”

Shepard, who was 43 at the time of his death, was convicted of 1st-degree murder by a Pottawatomie County jury back in 2019. For the sentencing phase of the that trial, he received the death penalty and was jailed on Oklahoma’s death row.

Officer Terney, 22, died March 27, 2017, from gunshot wounds he suffered the night before in a shootout with Shepard, who was a passenger in a vehicle stopped by Terney that night.

Prosecutors argued Shepard, who was a fugitive, shot Terney that night to avoid going to jail. During his trial, prosecutors pointed out Shepard’s criminal history, as well as past violence and drug use. Shepard’s public defenders argued that the shooting and officer’s death were unintentional and asked the jury to spare his life and allow him to spend the rest of his life in prison.

(source: Shawnee News-Star)

ARIZONA:

Why Is a Democratic Governor Covering For Her State’s Disastrous Execution Practices?

The latest chapter in Aaron Gunches’ on-again, off-again death-penalty saga occurred on the last day of 2024, when he revealed his New Year’s resolution: He is determined to force the state of Arizona to get on with the business of putting him to death. Before the clock reached midnight, he filed a motion with the state Supreme Court asking it to hurry things along.

Gunches was originally scheduled to die in 2023 and had previously said he wanted to die, only to change his mind. This time, he told the court that his death sentence was “long overdue” and accused the state of dragging its feet.

As CBS News puts it, Gunches is now urging the court “to skip legal formalities and schedule his execution earlier than authorities were aiming for.” He would like the state to kill him in mid-February.

Earlier this month, the Arizona Capitol Times reported that the state Supreme Court had “rejected a Gunches pleading to forgo any more legal maneuvering and finally put him to death. … Instead, the justices said they want to hear arguments from all sides, including Attorney General Kris Mayes, who wants Gunches executed, but not on his schedule.”

Abolitionists who think that no one should be able to volunteer to be executed will be heartened by this decision. But the issues in Gunches’ case go beyond the question of whether a person should be able to waive their legal appeals and volunteer for execution.

Whatever Gunches’ wishes, Arizona has not shown that it can carry out his death in a way that respects his constitutional rights and meets the requirements for performing a legal execution. The state Supreme Court has evidenced no interest in that issue.

Until it does, it should not let his execution proceed.

It should insist on finishing what Gov. Katie Hobbs set out to do in January 2023, when she appointed retired Judge David Duncan as the state’s death penalty independent review commissioner. At the time, the governor directed him “to review and provide transparency into Arizona’s execution process” through “a comprehensive and independent review.”

Hobbs is by no means the first governor to commission an independent review of the death penalty and to propose remedies for its problems. Chief executives in places like Illinois, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have done so before.

But unlike what the governors did in those places, last November Hobbs abruptly ended the independent review before Duncan could finish his work. Her explanation was curt, to say the least.

Duncan, she said, was not “up to the task.” Adding more mystery, Hobbs said, “I’m grateful for the work he did. But we decided to go in a different direction.”

It turns out that before firing Duncan, Hobbs had asked the director of the state’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry to do his own review. Forgetting, or ignoring, what she had said about the importance of independence, when the DCRR review was completed, Hobbs deemed it thorough. She stated that the department had “gone through every procedure and process and updated them. And I’m confident in the process.”

All of this is odd, to say the least. And why is it relevant to the Gunches case?

It is relevant because trusting the very agency that has been responsible for the myriad problems plaguing Arizona’s death-penalty system is a classic instance of letting the fox guard the henhouse. It’s unlikely to end well.

On Jan. 6, law professor Corinna Barrett Lain, author of a forthcoming book on lethal injection, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Arizona Supreme Court in which she pointed out the inadequacy of the review the governor is now asking the court to rely on. Lain suggests that it’s completely implausible that the DCRR, which Hobbs once called “one of the worst (and) most incompetent … in the country,” could suddenly overcome that incompetence and be ready to do the difficult business of carrying out executions by lethal injection.

Lain’s study of corrections departments, she says, “reveals a striking pattern: Self-reviews always conclude the department has remedied its deficiencies, even when this is patently false.” An example of that pattern occurred in Alabama in 2023, when Gov. Kay Ivey asked her corrections department to do such a review, after the state had experienced its own series of botched executions.

It took the department just four months to assure the governor that everything was copacetic. Yet, last January, the state botched another execution.

In Arizona, Duncan got in trouble by raising questions about not just how to do better at carrying out lethal injections, but whether they could even be performed in a humane manner. In an interview after his firing, Duncan called attention to several of the serious problems associated with lethal injection, including the poor track record of the compounding pharmacies that supply the drugs used during the process.

In addition, he observed, “The medical personnel who are best suited to [carry out such executions] are not allowed to be anywhere near it because the American Board of Anesthesiologists will withdraw the board certification for any anesthesiologist who participates in an execution.” Duncan explained: “You’re very much restricted on finding the appropriate personnel to do it. And that has led, also, to the botches.”

In that interview, Duncan speculated that the governor had fired him because she didn’t want to hear about those issues. “I think they wanted me to say everything was fine. And I could not say that.” Duncan called it “ironic that a report designed to increase transparency was terminated on the eve of its disclosure.”

But more than irony is at stake with what Hobbs has done.

Gunches’ life is on the line, as is the legality of what the state now says it is able to do. Lain is right to suggest that his “apparent willingness to be executed” should not determine whether Arizona is allowed to put him to death.

“The interests at stake when a state kills in its citizens’ name,” Lain argues, “are larger than those of the parties.” Those interests can be satisfied only if the court is provided a “fair-minded assessment of the facts.”

The Arizona Supreme Court needs such an assessment. Unfortunately, for reasons she has not adequately explained, Hobbs has thrown a roadblock in the way of such an assessment.

The state Supreme Court should insist that she remove it before it allows Arizona to put Gunches, or anyone else, to death.

(source: Austin Sarat, slate.com)

IDAHO:

Lori Daybell’s Idaho case may offer path to dump death penalty in Kohberger murder trial

Bryan Kohberger’s defense team is considering whether to assert a legal precedent set in another high-profile Idaho murder case in one more push to drop the death penalty as a possible sentence at trial.

Attorneys for the man charged with killing 4 University of Idaho students allege that the prosecution failed to meet the deadline to turn over its list of experts for trial and related information through the legal process known as discovery. The judge who oversaw Lori Vallow Daybell’s murder trial removed the death penalty as a sentencing option because of a similar delay from prosecutors in that case, Kohberger’s defense said in a court filing.

His attorneys have yet to move for such a court sanction. They specifically claimed that the state’s expert witness briefs were overly broad and did not address the scope of the opinions those called to testify may offer at trial. If these discovery deficiencies are not resolved, the defense’s request to strike the death penalty will be “forthcoming,” Kohberger’s legal team wrote.

In 2023, Judge Steven Boyce, of the 7th Judicial District in Eastern Idaho, removed the death penalty in Lori Daybell’s trial. He made the unprecedented decision in the state when, shortly before trial, prosecutors disclosed thousands of documents and more than 100 hours of recorded jail calls through discovery that “were clearly past the deadline,” Boyce said.

Lori Daybell, 51, was convicted of murder in the deaths of 2 of her children and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Her husband, Chad Daybell, 56, was convicted last year of murder in the death of his previous wife and the 2 children, and he was sentenced to death. Vallow Daybell now awaits trial in Arizona on unrelated charges of conspiracy to commit murder and plans to act as her own attorney.

Kohberger’s public defense team has tried, but failed, to eliminate the death penalty as a sentencing option if he is convicted of murder. To no avail, they argued that capital punishment is unconstitutional, breaks with evolving standards of decency and is arbitrarily applied. All were rejected by Ada County 4th District Judge Steven Hippler, who is handling the closely watched case.

Now, Kohberger’s defense argues that it has additional legal grounds to ask the judge to consider dumping the death penalty. State attorneys prosecuting Kohberger refute that they did not fully meet their discovery burden and objected to a request for sanctions from his attorneys.

“Failure to properly disclose experts is arguably more prejudicial than late disclosed jail calls,” the defense wrote.

Kohberger, 30, is accused of fatally stabbing four U of I undergraduates at an off-campus home in Moscow in November 2022. The victims were Madison Mogen, 21, of Coeur d’Alene; Kaylee Goncalves, 21, of Rathdrum; Xana Kernodle, 20, of Post Falls; and Ethan Chapin, 20, of Mount Vernon, Washington.

At the time, Kohberger was a Ph.D. student in Washington State University’s criminal justice and criminology program and living in Pullman, Washington, just over the Idaho state line. He was arrested in December 2022 and is charged with 4 counts of 1st-degree murder and 1 count of felony burglary.

Kohberger’s trial is scheduled for this summer. If a jury convicts him, prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty.

‘Death is different’

Despite the allegation from Kohberger’s defense of late disclosed discovery — which the judge has yet to confirm — there’s a key difference in procedure between the two murder cases, U of I law professor Samuel Newton said. Whereas Vallow Daybell maintained her right to a speedy trial, Kohberger waived his on the advice of his attorneys so they could push out the trial in favor of more time to prepare.

If a defendant in Idaho does not waive the constitutionally guaranteed speedy right, a criminal trial must start within 6 months of the entry of a plea. Frustrating some of the victims’ families, Kohberger’s capital murder trial won’t begin until more than 2 years after a judge entered a not guilty plea on his behalf.

Also, the late discovery issue in the Vallow Daybell case came just 3 weeks ahead of jury selection. In Kohberger’s case, trial remains more than 6 months out, so Hippler still has other potential remedies at his disposal if he deems any are warranted, Newton told the Idaho Statesman.

“So the Kohberger situation doesn’t fit into the same box,” Newton said in a phone interview. “They don’t have the speedy trial throttle on the back end, and there’s still time on the other end, so you have neither” issue.

Boyce cited complications over the volume of evidence that prosecutors disclosed late, which prevented the defense from adequately preparing with little time before trial. A continuance was not an option because Vallow Daybell had “unequivocally asserted her right to a speedy trial,” he said.

“The problem here is a timing problem,” Boyce said in a ruling from the bench.

Trial judges are granted wide latitude to decide what sanctions should be applied when discovery evidence is handed over after court deadlines, Newton said. More often, judges settle on giving the opposing side extra time, or restricting late evidence from being presented to the jury, which avoids the “extraordinary remedy to take the death penalty away from the state,” he said.

The risk of losing evidence is usually incentive enough for prosecutors to follow the court schedule and ensure that all discovery deadlines are met, added Joshua Ritter, a criminal defense attorney in Los Angeles who hosts “The Sidebar” podcast from True Crime News. That or granting more time to the defense already are “both pretty strong remedies,” he told the Statesman by phone.

“The exclusion of evidence could be profound on a state’s case,” Ritter said.

Boyce noted at the time of his ruling that he didn’t find another Idaho case in which the heavy sanction was issued to block capital punishment, though there were precedents in some federal cases and other U.S. jurisdictions. The prosecution’s evidence violations in the Vallow Daybell case were “inarguably” and “inexcusably” late, and not dropping the death penalty could have led to overturning a conviction, Boyce said.

“If I were to fail to address this discovery issue, I believe this case would inevitably be reversed on appeal if there was a capital conviction,” he said. There is a heightened standard in all capital cases, Boyce added, and he referenced a well-known U.S. Supreme Court tenet: “Death is different.”

Another murder case

The continued focus on removing capital punishment as a sentencing option ahead of Kohberger’s murder trial is revealing about his attorneys’ overarching legal strategy, Ritter said. Kohberger’s three-member defense team is led by North Idaho attorney Anne Taylor.

“It’s abundantly clear that at any possible opportunity the Kohberger defense seems like mission No. 1 to them is getting the death penalty off of the table,” he said.

So far, it hasn’t worked. It’s also not yet a certainty that his attorneys will formally ask Hippler once more to consider striking a possible death sentence, now related to alleged discovery lapses by prosecutors. They’ve only signaled that’s their next possible step.

Taylor also has cited Boyce’s decision concerning Vallow Daybell in the criminal case for another of her clients. In recent court filings, Taylor asked a district judge in Nez Perce County to remove the death penalty in defendant Skylar Meade’s murder case after she alleged that the prosecution failed to disclose “massive amounts” of evidence.

“I imagine they will vigorously defend him in the guilt phase,” Ritter said of the Kohberger case. “But it does seem to be a battle to save their client’s life rather than a real battle for what they believe to be the innocence of their client.”

The family of victim Kaylee Goncalves has been vocal about their desire for Kohberger to face the death penalty if he is convicted. The Goncalveses anticipate any number of additional pretrial motions filed by the defense, including to ward off the death penalty, but doubt that most, if not all, of the efforts will succeed, according to a statement through the family’s attorney to the Statesman.

“The family is and always will be a proponent of the death penalty in this case,” the Goncalveses’ statement read.

Kohberger’s defense alleged that the prosecution’s expert witness filings to date, which remain sealed, represent violations of their client’s constitutional rights under the Sixth and 14th amendments. As a criminal defendant, he is guaranteed a chance to “confront and cross-examine the witnesses, confront the evidence that the state intends to present, and his counsel’s ability to effectively prepare,” they wrote.

As a result, Kohberger’s attorneys have asked Hippler to sanction the prosecution, and also filed a request to extend their own expert witness disclosure beyond next week’s deadline.

“Mr. Kohberger must be able to confront the evidence against him,” his defense wrote. “The expert evidence disclosed by the state is inadequate. This is a capital murder case and compliance with the rules of discovery are not optional.”

(source: The Idaho Statesman)

ARIZONA:

Why Is a Democratic Governor Covering For Her State’s Disastrous Execution Practices?

The latest chapter in Aaron Gunches’ on-again, off-again death-penalty saga occurred on the last day of 2024, when he revealed his New Year’s resolution: He is determined to force the state of Arizona to get on with the business of putting him to death. Before the clock reached midnight, he filed a motion with the state Supreme Court asking it to hurry things along.

Gunches was originally scheduled to die in 2023 and had previously said he wanted to die, only to change his mind. This time, he told the court that his death sentence was “long overdue” and accused the state of dragging its feet.

As CBS News puts it, Gunches is now urging the court “to skip legal formalities and schedule his execution earlier than authorities were aiming for.” He would like the state to kill him in mid-February.

Earlier this month, the Arizona Capitol Times reported that the state Supreme Court had “rejected a Gunches pleading to forgo any more legal maneuvering and finally put him to death. … Instead, the justices said they want to hear arguments from all sides, including Attorney General Kris Mayes, who wants Gunches executed, but not on his schedule.”

Abolitionists who think that no one should be able to volunteer to be executed will be heartened by this decision. But the issues in Gunches’ case go beyond the question of whether a person should be able to waive their legal appeals and volunteer for execution.

Whatever Gunches’ wishes, Arizona has not shown that it can carry out his death in a way that respects his constitutional rights and meets the requirements for performing a legal execution. The state Supreme Court has evidenced no interest in that issue.

Until it does, it should not let his execution proceed.

It should insist on finishing what Gov. Katie Hobbs set out to do in January 2023, when she appointed retired Judge David Duncan as the state’s death penalty independent review commissioner. At the time, the governor directed him “to review and provide transparency into Arizona’s execution process” through “a comprehensive and independent review.”

Hobbs is by no means the first governor to commission an independent review of the death penalty and to propose remedies for its problems. Chief executives in places like Illinois, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have done so before.

But unlike what the governors did in those places, last November Hobbs abruptly ended the independent review before Duncan could finish his work. Her explanation was curt, to say the least.

Duncan, she said, was not “up to the task.” Adding more mystery, Hobbs said, “I’m grateful for the work he did. But we decided to go in a different direction.”

It turns out that before firing Duncan, Hobbs had asked the director of the state’s Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation, and Reentry to do his own review. Forgetting, or ignoring, what she had said about the importance of independence, when the DCRR review was completed, Hobbs deemed it thorough. She stated that the department had “gone through every procedure and process and updated them. And I’m confident in the process.”

All of this is odd, to say the least. And why is it relevant to the Gunches case?

It is relevant because trusting the very agency that has been responsible for the myriad problems plaguing Arizona’s death-penalty system is a classic instance of letting the fox guard the henhouse. It’s unlikely to end well.

On Jan. 6, law professor Corinna Barrett Lain, author of a forthcoming book on lethal injection, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief to the Arizona Supreme Court in which she pointed out the inadequacy of the review the governor is now asking the court to rely on. Lain suggests that it’s completely implausible that the DCRR, which Hobbs once called “one of the worst (and) most incompetent … in the country,” could suddenly overcome that incompetence and be ready to do the difficult business of carrying out executions by lethal injection.

Lain’s study of corrections departments, she says, “reveals a striking pattern: Self-reviews always conclude the department has remedied its deficiencies, even when this is patently false.” An example of that pattern occurred in Alabama in 2023, when Gov. Kay Ivey asked her corrections department to do such a review, after the state had experienced its own series of botched executions.

It took the department just four months to assure the governor that everything was copacetic. Yet, last January, the state botched another execution.

In Arizona, Duncan got in trouble by raising questions about not just how to do better at carrying out lethal injections, but whether they could even be performed in a humane manner. In an interview after his firing, Duncan called attention to several of the serious problems associated with lethal injection, including the poor track record of the compounding pharmacies that supply the drugs used during the process.

In addition, he observed, “The medical personnel who are best suited to [carry out such executions] are not allowed to be anywhere near it because the American Board of Anesthesiologists will withdraw the board certification for any anesthesiologist who participates in an execution.” Duncan explained: “You’re very much restricted on finding the appropriate personnel to do it. And that has led, also, to the botches.”

In that interview, Duncan speculated that the governor had fired him because she didn’t want to hear about those issues. “I think they wanted me to say everything was fine. And I could not say that.” Duncan called it “ironic that a report designed to increase transparency was terminated on the eve of its disclosure.”

But more than irony is at stake with what Hobbs has done.

Gunches’ life is on the line, as is the legality of what the state now says it is able to do. Lain is right to suggest that his “apparent willingness to be executed” should not determine whether Arizona is allowed to put him to death.

“The interests at stake when a state kills in its citizens’ name,” Lain argues, “are larger than those of the parties.” Those interests can be satisfied only if the court is provided a “fair-minded assessment of the facts.”

The Arizona Supreme Court needs such an assessment. Unfortunately, for reasons she has not adequately explained, Hobbs has thrown a roadblock in the way of such an assessment.

The state Supreme Court should insist that she remove it before it allows Arizona to put Gunches, or anyone else, to death.

(source: Austin Sarat, slate.com)

CALIFORNIA:

Are California’s Death Penalty Laws Applied in Racially Discriminatory Ways, Violating the State Constitution?

2 students in UC Berkeley Law’s Death Penalty Clinic played pivotal roles in an amicus brief for OSPD v. Bonta(opens in a new tab), recently filed with the California Supreme Court, which argues that California’s death penalty laws have been applied in a racially discriminatory manner violating the state constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

? Clinical Professor of Law Elisabeth Semel, the clinic’s co-director, oversaw the students’ work and hailed their diligent approach.

3Ls Niki Kates and Robin Martinez worked tirelessly on the brief, submitted on behalf of the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD) and other petitioners by Professor Elisabeth Semel, the clinic’s co-director. Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is co-counsel on the brief, with Professors Khiara M. Bridges and Ian Haney López and other legal scholars as the amici (friends of the court).

“So much of Niki’s and Robin’s work was impressive,” Semel says of their research and writing. “But I especially recall several times during our many meetings pausing at a suggestion one or the other raised that struck me as exquisitely insightful.”

Kates researched how the California Supreme Court’s record of state constitutionalism — and leadership in that approach — is fundamental to America’s system of federalism. Her research demonstrated the importance of state constitutional independence over the last 75 years, especially within criminal law and criminal procedure.

Martinez delved into the historical section, highlighting California’s deep record of racial and ethnic discrimination in administering capital punishment. With no sound empirical studies of capital punishment before the early 1970s, he surfaced robust content from before that time — including legislative reports, hearing transcripts, law review articles, and news coverage.

Chief Deputy State Public Defender Christina Spaulding ’88 says the brief “added an extraordinarily valuable scholarly perspective on the history of racial discrimination in California, including in the administration of the death penalty, and the California Supreme Court’s history of interpreting the state constitution to afford broader protections against discrimination than the federal Constitution.” She adds, “The caliber of scholars from California law schools who joined the brief, including Professors Bridges and Haney López from Berkeley, attests to its strength.”

Extensive evidence

The brief also includes results from a comprehensive empirical analysis the clinic conducted in San Diego County on behalf of their death-sentenced client La Twon Weaver. One of 15 studies spanning 44 years the petitioners used as evidence, it was the 1st county-level California death penalty study to collect and analyze extensive data over a vast time frame.

It found that between 1978 and 1993, the odds the District Attorney would charge special circumstances — necessary to seek the death penalty — were 3.7 times higher in cases involving Black defendants and White victims than in cases with non-White victims. The odds of the death penalty being sought was 6.5 times higher in cases in which the defendants were Black and the victims were White than in cases with Black or Latinx victims.

UC Berkeley Law Dean Erwin Chemerinsky is co-counsel on the brief with Semel.

OSPD also referenced some of the clinic’s other empirically-based litigation, including challenges to death qualification as a racially discriminatory procedure in four California counties, a previous clinic amicus brief highlighting the history of California’s death penalty as a racially biased system, and the clinic’s Whitewashing the Jury Box report. That study showed the connection between racial discrimination in death qualification and the exercise of peremptory jury challenges.

Noting consistent patterns of results across numerous studies with different approaches, Semel says, “When it comes to extra-legal and legal executions, the roots of racism are sunk deep in California soil.”

In addition to Kates and Martinez, 3Ls Alizeh Hussain, Sara Flinn, and Ian Feather helped proofread and cite-check as the filing deadline neared, paralegal Steph Shattuck was the production engine for the brief, and UC Berkeley Law library staff provided often obscure materials.

“This filing exemplifies the concept of ‘team defense,’ which is our model in the clinic,” Semel says.

Historical roots

Martinez’s research showed how the history of racism and racial terror in California is indispensable as the court considers how the state’s death penalty, and the disparities that persist within executions, came to be.

He says death has been an authorized state response to alleged crime since the Gold Rush era, but underlines in his research that the killing and subjugation of people of color in California began well before then with an extermination campaign waged against the Indigenous population by early colonizers, including those panning for gold and the U.S. government.

Native people were arrested for petty criminal infractions and sold at auction in Los Angeles, Martinez adds, and enslaved people were brought from the South to toil along riverbeds and mountainsides for gold — some unaware they were legally free once within the state.

“When it comes to executions in California before 1970, data on state-sanctioned sentences and documented extrajudicial lynchings tend to show that Black and Brown people were more likely to be executed than their White counterparts despite representing a small fraction of the population,” he says. “This cannot be decoupled from California’s deep history of racism.”

Between the late 19th and mid-20th century, racial terror gripped many places in California and racial disparities in executions remained manifest. Martinez points out that vigilantism and extrajudicial lynchings in response to allegations of crime were also rampant and that between 1850 and 1927, 352 documented lynchings occurred in the state. In 1871, Martinez reports, a Los Angeles mob lynched 17 Chinese men and boys because the mob believed that Chinese people had killed a White saloon owner.

“This trend of disproportionately targeting people of color for executions in response to alleged crime extended to judicially-imposed death sentences,” Martinez says. “Over half of those executed by the San Francisco sheriff between 1850 and 1890 were people of color, and between 1938 and 1963 Black Californians accounted for 22% of the state’s executions despite representing less than 6% of the population.

“The historical record bears out a clear and consistent conclusion: Until its temporary halt in application in the early 1970s, executions in California — judicially imposed or otherwise — were often a vehicle for discriminatory racial violence. And this state’s history of executions cannot be disentangled from California’s broader history of persistent racial violence.”

Constitutional connection

The clinic also addressed an area it had not fully explored before: the California Supreme Court’s history of grounding fundamental rights in the state constitution, rather than in the U.S. Constitution. The petitioners claim that the court is not bound by McCleksey v. Kemp — a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding a death sentence and stating that the racial disparity in Georgia’s death penalty system did not itself violate the federal Constitution — if it considers the application of capital punishment under the state constitution’s equal protection guarantee.

The state independent grounds doctrine essentially protects state court decisions from federal review by basing the reasoning in state constitutional law, over which federal courts lack jurisdiction. While much public discourse about states exercising constitutional autonomy focuses on conservative state actions, Kates found it is also used to advance civil rights.

“Particularly on the West Coast, there’s a very robust tradition of relying on state constitutions to increase protections for vulnerable populations,” she says. “The California Supreme Court has long held itself to a more protective standard than federal courts, especially when it comes to issues like equal protection and due process. What this means is the court has often been ahead of the national curve on issues like school desegregation, marriage equality, interracial marriage, and racial bias in jury selection, to name a few.”

Kates notes some federal courts might reject the data submitted in the case, comprehensive as it is, because of the McCleskey ruling — which holds that intentional discrimination against a specific defendant is required to invalidate a death sentence on anti-discrimination grounds.

Washington, Connecticut, and Massachusetts have applied their state constitutions to bar capital punishment based on evidence less robust than the studies presented in OSPD v. Bonta, Kates explains.

“Morally, referencing other states helps show the court that this is a just path for California to continue its history of being ahead of the curve, particularly regarding discrimination,” she says. “The message is this: When you look at important rights and protections over the past century, California has been the 1st or one of the first. Shouldn’t we add the death penalty to that list, too?”

Semel says California Attorney General Rob Bonta has publicly acknowledged, as a general matter, that studies show the death penalty has long had a disparate impact on defendants of color — especially when the victim is white — and in the AG’s initial pleading agreed the court should hear the petition and appoint a special master to oversee the presentation of evidence.

“Historically, the California Supreme Court has had the courage to apply independent state constitutional provisions to ensure that Californians’ fundamental rights are protected when the federal court fails to do so,” Semel says. “The question is whether the court will meet the challenge to act on the strength of the facts and the law.”

(source: law.berkeley.edu)

USA:

Democrats Refuse to Condemn Biden’s Commutations for 37 Death Row Inmates

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) Tuesday asked the Senate to pass a resolution condemning the Biden administration’s blanket commutations of 37 death row inmates. Senate Democrats blocked the resolution, illustrating that they continue to support Joe Biden’s soft-on-crime policies, denying justice to the victims and their families.

Senator Cotton: For almost four years now, Joe Biden has subjected our country to economic misery, uncontrolled crime, and international humiliation. And now, on the way out of his failed and scandal plagued presidency, he’s showering gifts and favors for some of the most depraved human beings.

It started last month, with Hunter Biden- pardoning his own son not just for the crimes he was convicted and pleaded guilty to but for all crimes that he may have committed. Lord only knows what Joe Biden was trying to cover up. The hits continued when he issued 1,500 blanket commutations for criminals, whose records- by his own aids admission- he did not review, whose victims he did not consider—an affront to the pardon process envisioned by our founders, which was intended to correct specific and limited errors in the criminal justice system.

Among the beneficiaries of these commutations was a corrupt judge who sent hundreds of kids to jail for bribes. Yes, a judge took bribes to imprison children. The victims of the so-called “kids for cash judge” included a young man who later killed himself. These 1,500 commutations also benefitted hundreds of drug dealers, fraudsters, and thieves.

Joe Biden and those who control him though didn’t seem to care about the victims of those criminals—instead, they just continued their uncaring, offensive giveaway to criminals.

The hits continued in just the last two weeks, we learned that the Biden Administration released 11 Yemeni terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, including two suspected bodyguards of Osama Bin Laden. We also learned that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 2 other architects of the 9/11 attacks will avoid the death penalty as a result of a Biden administration plea deal.

That plea bargain is an insult to the sacrifice of the thousands of young Americans who left their homes, their families, and their professions after 9/11 and volunteered to go to fight on behalf of our country. That is an absolute disgrace, and it alone would blacken the legacy of any presidency.

There should be a Senate resolution condemning every single one of these commutations and the release of every single terrorist—but unfortunately, Senate Democrats would block every single resolution. Case and point: last month, I introduced a resolution condemning the democrat’s commutation that “kids for cash” judge- surely we can agree on that, but nope. Senate Democrats, led by the Senator from Illinois, objected even to that limited bill.

Therefore, I have come to the floor today not to condemn all of these atrocious actions—although they all deserve condemnation. I am here to simply judge the depth of Democratic fealty to the disgraced president halfway out the door.

I am asking the Senate to condemn just two of President Biden’s latest and most inexcusable commutations of all—his commutations of death row inmates’ death sentences. Just 2 days before Christmas—2 days before Christmas, when most kids have visions of sugarplum fairies dancing in their heads-- the president announced that he was commuting the death sentence of 37 rapists, murderers, and sadists.

With that action, he brought relief to 37 depraved monsters on death row and despair to the families of their victims during the holiday season. It is difficult to express the cruelty of reminding these families of the worst day of their lives and robbing them of justice right before Christmas. A Christmas gift to 37 savage murderers, and a reminder to those families that not only will the never spend Christmas with their loved ones again, but they won’t get justice for their loved ones.

The president showed disdain for the victims of these crimes and their families, presumably and cynically hoping that the Christmas holiday would suppress media attention and public backlash against his commutations. I don’t think so.

Now, the President and his defenders would like the American people to think that President Biden made these commutations out of a principled objection to the death penalty—I could respect that, I know people who are opposed to the death penalty no matter how heinous the crime in all cases, usually founded in a deep-seated religious conviction. I can respect that, I certainly disagree with it, but I understand it.

But that is not what Joe Biden did. That is a lie. He commuted the sentences of 37 death row inmates, and he left three killers on death row. Who are they? You may have heard of them-- the Mother Imanuel church shooter in Charleston, the Tree of Life synagogue shooter in Pittsburg, and the Boston Marathon Bomber. So, clearly, he believes in the death penalty for some criminals, but not most.

He made a choice, a moral judgement that the victims of 37 depraved murderers and their families didn’t deserve justice. He also made a choice that not even he- doddering out of the White House could defend the commutations of racist murderers, and terrorists on political grounds or inflict that kind of grave political damage on his own party.

But he wasn’t motivated by principle—he was motivated by politics and guided by left-wing ideologues.

He hand-picked 37 murderers to save from death row. Unlike the rest of his pardons and commutations, he can’t hide behind the excuses of staff incompetence, personal arrogance, or the affection of a father. He knew who he was pardoning, and he knew the evil crimes they committed.

So, I would like to discuss in a little more detail just two of the depraved savages that Joe Biden saved from death row.

The first is Anthony Battle, who broke into his ex-wife’s home and raped her, stabbed her to death with a butcher knife. She was heard screaming QUOTE “help me, help me, rape.” She was a United States Marine—and Anthony Battle raped and murdered her. Yet that murder wasn’t even the crime for which he was on federal death row.

He wasn’t done. While he was in prison, he beat a 31-year-old correctional officer to death with a hammer, hitting him in the back the head three times until he was soaked in the officer’s blood. The correctional officer hadn’t even done nothing to provoke or confront Battle—Battle beat him to death anyway. When he was given a chance to apologize for the killing, Battle said that the officer QUOTE “died like a dog.”

This is why we have the death penalty for correctional officers—so inhumane monsters who are stuck in prison for life have some reason not to start open-hunting season on correctional officers.

This is the man that Joe Biden decided deserved mercy two days before Christmas. A man who raped and murdered a U.S. Marine and bludgeoned a peace officer to death.

Joe Biden also saved the life of Marvin Gabrion, another rapist and serial killer. While facing trial for raping 19-year-old Rachel Timmerman, yes that is right, he was on trial for raping a 19-year-old girl, Gabrion kidnapped her, bound her body with duct tape, he chained her to a concrete block, and he threw her into a lake while she was still breathing. Her last moments filled with terror and agony.

In addition, he also killed her 11-month-old baby. 11 months old. He allegedly confessed in prison that he QUOTE “killed the baby because there was nowhere else to put it.”

This is the man Joe Biden also decided deserved clemency two days before Christmas.

It is an ancient truth that some crimes are so evil that the scales of justice can never balance so long as the perpetrator lives. Every day that men like Marvin Gabrion and Anthony Battle draw breath at the expense of American taxpayers is a day that justice is denied.

There is no forgiveness in this world for what they did and there is no redemption. The sooner they exit this world; the sooner they will face the full measure of justice in the next.

And that’s just 2, I could give you 35 more examples as well. That’s all I am asking for today. Unanimous consent for two resolutions—the first one condemns the commutation of Marvin Gabrion, a rapist and serial killer, the second condemns the commutation of Anthony Battle, who raped and murdered a U.S. Marine and bludgeoned a correctional officer to death.

…

Senator Cotton: Reserving the right to object- which I certainly will. I want to briefly address what the senator from Illinois said about my resolution condemning these 2 death sentence commutations. And I want to acknowledge the senator from Illinois as a long time and principled opponent of the death penalty based, I believe in part on genuine and deep faith convictions. He has had that position for years, and as I said I can respect that. The senator from Illinois would presumably want to see the commutation of the Mother of Imanuel Church Shooter, the tree of life synagogue shooter, and the Boston marathon bomber.

I strongly disagree, I can respect it. It’s not what Joe Biden did. Joe Biden picked and chose which depraved murderers and rapists deserved to live and deserved to die, denying justice to the families of all those who were killed by anyone who wasn’t totally politically toxic.

Second, the senator from Illinois said that he did not hear 5 words in my remarks. He repeatedly said he did not hear 5 words in my remarks. Those 5 words he did not hear are “life without the possibility of parole”. That is true, he didn’t hear those words in my remarks. That’s not what these murderers were sentenced to, they were sentenced by a jury of their peers to the death penalty. And one of them that I offered the resolution on- Anthony Battle, murdered a correctional officer while he was in prison for life.

Giving these 37 depraved murderers life in prison without the possibility of parole doesn’t solve the problem, it creates 37 new potential problems. Open hunting season on correctional officers at every facility where they are incarcerated. Again, that is why we have the death penalty, for the murderer of a correctional officer. Because otherwise, there is nothing for these depraved men to lose.

Now, Senator Durbin also mentioned a few of President Trump’s pardons of Medicare fraudsters or political allies or others. I haven’t review every one of those cases, I am not prepared today to say whether I would support them or not. Some of them sound pretty bad.

Here’s what they aren’t though, heinous murderers who duct taped a woman alive, tied her to a concrete block and threw her in a river while the murderer was on trial for her rape. And then killed her 11-month-old baby because he didn’t have anything better to do with it.

He mentioned the January 6 defendants, President Trump has said he is going to likely issue pardons in those cases, I think that’s appropriate. Many of these men and women have been convicted of misdemeanor crimes like parading and picketing on public grounds without a permit and they had the book thrown at them-- including a 72-year-old great grandma who was just walking around wearing a red MAGA hat. I expect, I hope the president will view these cases on a case-by-case bases—I think all presidents should do that. But whatever President Trump does with January 6 defendants and commutations or pardons will pale in comparison to eliminating the judgment of these 37 depraved murderers’ fellow citizens to impose the death penalty on them. Will pale in comparison to depriving these families of some measure of justice two days before Christmas.

So, I do object to this resolution, and I cannot believe that this Senate, our democratic colleagues cannot bring themselves to condemn some of these pardons over the last two months. Of Hunter Biden, or the kids-for-cash judge who sold kids into juvenile detention centers for bribes. Or now, depraved murderers. I object Mr. President.

(source: cotton.senate.gov)

NIGER:

Court sentence 3 siblings to death by electrocution in Niger

There was a mild drama in Minna High court number Seven as parents of 3 children break down in tears when Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf convicted their 3 children to death by electrocution

The 3 siblings were in 2021 arraigned by the office of the Attorney General in the State Ministry of Justice for jointly killing a married woman

The 3 Convicted siblings were Monday sentenced to death after 3 years legal tussle at the Minna High Court after they were found guilty of 2 count charge of joint act and culpable homicide as brought by the Attorney General of Niger State.

They are Amina Aliyu, Aishat Mohammed and Zainab Aliyu all of the same parents and residents of Barkin Saleh area of Minna Niger State.

Aishat Aliyu was said to have on the 23rd of March,2021 killed her rival late Hafsat Aliyu after hitting her with a pestle and setting her corpse on fire in the kitchen.

They were earlier arraigned before a Minna Chief Magistrate court Number One for a preliminary trial pending legal advice from the office of the Director of Public Prosecution in the office of the Attorney General.

They were charged to the Niger High Court number Seven on 2 count charges which bothered on joint act and culpable homicide punishable under section 97 and 221 of the penal code.

During the full trial at the High court, 4 persons testified as witnesses which include the husband Alhaji Muhammad Sani who gave vivid testimonies on how his late wife was killed by her own rival Amina after which set her ablaze.

While analysing the judgement, the Presiding Judge, Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf, averred that the 2 count charge of joint act and culpable homicide punishable under section 97 and 221 of the penal were established against the three convicts as proved by the prosecutor.

The punishment of culpable homicide, according to Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf attract death penalty” the 3 convict were found guilty as charged”

The defense counsel to the convicts Barrister, Peter Omale while pleading for leniency on behalf of the convicts, drew the attention of the Judge to the age of the 3rd convict, Zainab Aliyu, who was a teenager at the time the offence was committed.

”My Lord, before you pronounce your verdict on the Convicts, I want to dream your attention to the age of the third convict, Zainab Aliyu, who was below age 18 as at the time the offence was committed.

She was under aged in March, 2021 when the offence was committed and according to the administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA), no under age standing trial on a capital offence of culpable homicide should be sentenced to death,

”The ACJA law has already been domesticated in Niger State which has taken care of excluding her from facing any capital sentence. My Lord, I want you to temper justice with mercy while passing your verdict on her” he pleaded in an emotional laden tune.

At this point, while considering the plea of the defence counsel, Justice Balkisu Gambo Yusuf, noted that “as at 2021, when the offence was committed, the administration of Criminal Justice Act (ACJA) was already domesticated which really excluded some body below the age of 18 to be convicted for capital related offence, however, the 3rd convict Zainab Aliyu is hereby Convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.

“While Amina Aliyu, Aishat Aliyu are sentenced to death by electrocution. May the Lord have mercy on their souls” she pronounced.

(source: newnationalstar.com)

UGANDA:

Besigye faces death penalty with extra treachery charge

A Ugandan military court has charged opposition leader Kizza Besigye with treachery, a crime punishable by death. The charges come amid growing legal challenges Besigye faces after his controversial detention in Kenya last year.

Besigye, a staunch critic of President Yoweri Museveni, is accused of plotting to undermine Uganda’s national security—a claim his supporters and human rights groups call politically motivated, especially as the 2026 elections approach.

Besigye, a former military doctor under Museveni, has been a prominent figure in Uganda’s opposition for decades, unsuccessfully running for president four times. His accusations that Museveni is turning authoritarian have made him one of the president’s fiercest critics.

The case has drawn attention to the broader issue of transnational repression in East Africa, where opposition figures often face abductions and deportations. Amnesty International condemned Besigye’s treatment as a violation of human rights, calling his detention a “chilling message to dissenters.”

On November 16, Besigye disappeared in Nairobi, Kenya, while attending a book launch for opposition politician Martha Karua. He reappeared in Uganda days later, where he was charged with illegal firearm possession and attempting to solicit military support from foreign sources.

Though the Kenyan government denied involvement in his abduction, Uganda maintains that the operation was coordinated with Kenyan authorities, leading to backlash in both countries.

The military prosecutor claims that Besigye withheld intelligence on a plot to destabilize Uganda and attempted to procure weapons from Geneva, Athens, and Nairobi.

While Uganda’s Constitutional Court ruled in 2006 that military courts cannot try civilians, this decision has been ignored in Besigye’s case. His defense team argues that the military court lacks jurisdiction.

Amnesty International views the charges as part of a broader effort to suppress opposition voices. Besigye’s detention has been extended several times, and his legal team, led by Karua, faces significant obstacles, including the recent arrest of Ugandan lawyer Eron Kiiza, who was sentenced to nine months in prison for alleged contempt of court.

Besigye’s trial is set to resume on January 22, with the military court expected to rule on his defense’s objections, including jurisdiction. Human rights groups have called for his immediate release, citing violations of due process and international law.

(source: Nairobi Law Monthly)

***************

Ugandan military court rules opposition figure can be tried for treachery----The move escalates the case against Kizza Besigye as a treachery conviction is punishable by the death penalty.

A Ugandan military court has ruled that prominent opposition figure Kizza Besigye can be tried on the charge of treachery, for which he could face the death penalty if convicted.

The ruling on Tuesday escalates the legal trouble Besigye faces in the run-up to presidential elections scheduled for 2026.

Besigye, who has contested the presidency four times, went missing in the Kenyan capital, Nairobi, on November 16.

Days later, he and his co-accused, an assistant named Obeid Lutale, appeared before a military court in Kampala, the Ugandan capital.

Besigye was charged with illegal possession of a firearm and a charge relating to the alleged solicitation of military support overseas in order to destabilise national security.

The opposition leader, who denied the charges, has since been remanded in custody.

A military prosecutor amended the charge sheet to include treachery and introduced a 3rd suspect, who is a serving army officer.

Besigye, 68, has faced arrest and assault many times in his political career. But he has never been convicted of a crime.

United Kingdom-based Amnesty International has called for Besigye’s release, saying his “abduction clearly violated international human rights law and the process of extradition with its requisite fair trial protections”.

United States-based Human Rights Watch said Besigye’s trial is “the latest example of Uganda’s authorities misusing military courts and military-related charges to clamp down on the opposition”.

President Yoweri Museveni has long been criticised by human rights groups for alleged violations against opposition figures.

Although Museveni, who has held power since 1986, is expected to seek re-election, he has not confirmed it yet.

Museveni has no obvious successor within the ranks of the governing National Resistance Movement, which is creating widespread fears over an unpredictable political transition.

Besigye, a qualified physician who retired from Uganda’s military at the rank of colonel, is a former president of the opposition Forum for Democratic Change (FDC) party.

With Besigye at its helm, the FDC was for many years Uganda’s most prominent opposition group.

(source: aljazeera.com)

SOUTH KOREA:

President Yoon arrested over martial law, faces life or death penalty

The Asian country South Korea has been plunged into its worst political crisis in decades as its impeached president, Yoon Suk Yeol, was arrested on charges of insurrection following his declaration of martial law in December. The arrest marks the first time in the country’s history that a sitting president has been taken into custody.

President Yoon, a former prosecutor who led the conservative People Power Party to victory in 2022, is accused of ordering soldiers to storm parliament on December 3. His actions, which have been described as an attempt to consolidate power, led to widespread condemnation and his eventual impeachment. If convicted, Yoon could face life imprisonment or even the death penalty.

The arrest came after weeks of standoff at Yoon’s presidential compound, where members of the Presidential Security Service (PSS) had erected barricades and barbed wire to prevent authorities from detaining him. On Wednesday, hundreds of police officers and investigators executed the arrest warrant, using ladders and wire cutters to breach the perimeter. Minor clashes reportedly broke out between Yoon’s supporters and the authorities, with thousands of his backers gathering outside the residence in protest.

In a statement made prior to his arrest, Yoon said he decided to cooperate with the investigation to avoid bloodshed. “When I saw them break into the security area using firefighting equipment today, I decided to respond to the Corruption Investigation Office’s investigation, despite it being an illegal investigation, to prevent unsavoury bloodshed,” he said.

Upon his arrival at the anti-corruption agency’s headquarters in Gwacheon, Yoon exercised his right to remain silent. The agency has confirmed that the former president will be held for up to 48 hours on the current warrant, with authorities required to seek further approval to extend his detention. Yoon’s lawyers have already disputed the validity of the warrant, signalling a contentious legal battle ahead.

Earlier attempts to arrest Yoon had failed, with the PSS and supporters forming a human shield around his residence. Acting President Choi Sang-mok described Wednesday’s operation as a crucial moment for upholding the rule of law in South Korea. “The execution of the presidential arrest warrant has begun,” Choi said in a statement. “This situation is a pivotal moment for maintaining order and the rule of law in South Korea.”

As the investigation unfolds, the arrest has exposed deep divisions within South Korean society. Critics argue that Yoon’s actions have undermined democratic institutions, while his supporters maintain that he was acting to preserve stability. The political and legal ramifications of this case are likely to reverberate across the nation for years to come.

(source: muscatdaily.com)

INDIA:

Orissa High Court commutes death sentence of 9 persons to life imprisonment

The Orissa High Court has commuted the death sentence of 9 persons to life imprisonment in a case involving the murder of 3 members of a family over suspicion of practising sorcery.

The Rayagada District and Sessions Court had in October 2021 found the 9 persons guilty of murdering the family members.

The convicts had moved the High Court challenging the lower court's verdict. While the High Court had reserved its judgment, it delivered its ruling today, converting the death penalty into life imprisonment.

The triple murder incident had taken place at Rayagada’s Kitum village in 2016.

The 9 had held the family members-- Asina Sabara, his wife Ambai, and their daughter Asimani-- responsible for the spread of various diseases in the locality and accused the family of practising sorcery.

After killing the trio, the convicts buried the bodies before exhuming them later and setting them on fire to eliminate evidence.

The lower court had held Degunu Sabara, Dasantu Sabara, Dalasa Sabara, Ajanta Sabara, Podantu Sabara, Iru Sabara, Lakia Sabara, Bubuna Sabara, and Maliku Sabara guilty

What happened on the fateful day?

On September 9, 2016, in Kitum village under Putasingh police limits in Rayagada district, Asina Sabara, his wife Ambai Sabara, and their daughter Asimani Sabara were forcibly taken from their house by a group of 9 persons. They were dragged to a cowshed and brutally assaulted. After the family members lost consciousness, the attackers inflicted further cruelty by injecting pesticides into their eyes and private parts. The 3 were then buried.

Later, upon learning that someone had informed the police about the incident, the perpetrators exhumed the bodies during the night and burned them to destroy evidence.

(source: sambadenglish.com)

TAIWAN:

Death penalty upheld for murderer of Malaysian student

The Taiwan High Court Kaohsiung Branch on Wednesday upheld a death sentence for a man found guilty of raping and murdering a Malaysian student in a retrial.

The sentence was upheld due to defendant Liang Yu-chih's intention to kill, the cruelty of his actions and the high risk of him reoffending, the court said in a news statement.

The ruling can be appealed.

On October 28, 2020, Liang abducted the victim, a college student studying in Taiwan, when she was walking alone near her school in Tainan.

He then raped her, beat her and strangled her to death, before taking her wallet and other belongings and dumping her body in the mountainous Alian District in neighboring Kaohsiung City, according to the statement.

The statement highlighted that Liang's actions were premeditated, as he concealed himself while holding a prepared length of coarse rope, which he then used with brutal force to strangle the 24-year-old.

Liang displayed extreme cruelty during the assault, inflicting injuries that caused bleeding in multiple organs and areas of the victim's body, the statement said.

It added that the court had also found Liang guilty of attempting to rape another woman on Sept. 30, 2020, in its previous trial.

The Taiwan Ciaotou District Court handed Liang a death sentence for the 2 counts of rape and intentional killing, and robbery and intentional killing in March 2022.

He was also sentenced to 2 years for abandoning a body and 34 months for attempted rape.

The High Court Kaohsiung Branch Court upheld the sentence in March 2023.

In June of that year, the Supreme Court dismissed Liang's appeal of his sentences for abandoning a body and attempted rape.

However, it ordered a retrial of the rape and intentional homicide charges at the High Court's Kaohsiung Branch, citing flaws in the original trial.

Lee Shu-hui, the High Court Kaohsiung Branch administrative chief judge, said that the 3 judges in the case unanimously decided to uphold the death penalty.

The case was the 1st death sentence verdict after the Constitutional Court ruled in September 2024 that capital punishment is only constitutional for "the most serious" premeditated murders and crimes leading to death.

(source: focustaiwan.tw)

IRAN----executions

20 Recent Executions in Recent Days, 748 Under Pezeshkian’s Term

Khamenei’s executioners hanged 2 prisoners, Pouya Askari and Jafar Fallah, on Sunday, January 12, 2025, in Arak and Semnan. On Thursday, January 9, 2025, 3 prisoners—Behrouz Ghasemi, Houshang Shahi, and Samad Najar-Asl—were executed in Isfahan.

On Wednesday, January 8, 2025, 7 prisoners, including Milad Baoudizabadi in Sari, Hamid Ashna in Kerman, Amanollah Tajik, Ashkan Pirian, Reza Azizian, Salman Bozorgmehr, and 1 unidentified prisoner in Qezelhessar, were sent to the gallows.

On Tuesday, January 7, 2025, 5 prisoners—Alireza Mehrabadi in Sabzevar, Farman Afristam, Mohammad Shahidi, Mozafar Bahmani, and Ashkan Kazemi in Kermanshah—were executed. On Monday, January 6, 2025, 3 prisoners—Ali Atin and Reza Seyyedi in Mahabad, and Ali Sa’di in Ahvaz—were hanged.

On January 5, 2025, 5 prisoners were executed, and on January 4, 2025, 3 prisoners were hanged. The names of 6 of these victims were announced in a previous statement. Additionally, Hassan Nowrouzi was hanged in Qom on January 5, and Ramadan Taheri was executed in Taybad on January 4.

Thus, the number of prisoners executed since July 2024, the beginning of Pezeshkian’s term, has reached at least 748.

Ali Khamenei is futilely trying to prevent his inevitable overthrow of the crisis-ridden regime of Velayat-e Faqih through brutality and mass killings. These relentless bloodsheds will undoubtedly strengthen the resolve of rebellious youths and dissatisfied people in their quest for liberation from religious fascism.

Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI)

(source: ncr-iran.org)

**************

Pouya Asgari Executed in Arak

The execution of a prisoner named Pouya Asgari, who had been sentenced to death on drug-related charges, was carried out at Arak Central Prison.

According to a report by HRANA News Agency, the death sentence of a man was carried out at Arak Central Prison on the morning of Sunday, January 12. The identity of the prisoner, sentenced to death on drug-related charges, has been confirmed as 37-year-old Pouya Asgari.

The report, quoting informed sources, stated, “This prisoner had been arrested in 2020 on charges related to drug offenses and was subsequently sentenced to death by the judiciary.”

The execution of this prisoner has not been announced by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The number of prisoners executed on drug-related charges has risen sharply and consistently over the past 4 years. In 2023, there was an 84% increase compared to 2022, when 256 people were executed for drug-related offenses. In 2023, this number reached 471.

************

Execution of at least 6 prisoners, including 3 Afghans, in Ghezel Hesar Prison

The death sentences of at least 6 prisoners, including 3 Afghan nationals, were carried out in separate cases at Ghezel Hesar Prison in Karaj. The prisoners had been sentenced to death or qisas (retribution-in-kind) on drug-related charges or "premeditated murder."

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), at least 6 men, including 3 Afghan nationals, were executed at Ghezel Hesar Prison on the morning of Wednesday, January 8. 2 of the prisoners sentenced to death on drug-related charges have been identified as Salman Bozorgmehr and Reza Azizian.

The identity of another prisoner, an Afghan national who was also sentenced to death on drug-related charges, has not yet been confirmed at the time of this report.

Additionally, HRANA News Agency, which first reported the executions, stated that 3 other prisoners sentenced to qisas for "premeditated murder" were also executed. One of these prisoners has been identified as Ashkan Piryan, while the identities of the other 2, who were Afghan nationals, remain unknown.

The executions of these 6 prisoners have not been officially announced by Iranian domestic media or government sources at the time of writing.

The number of prisoners executed on drug-related charges has risen sharply and consistently over the past 4 years. In 2023, there was an 84% increase compared to 2022, when 256 people were executed for drug-related offenses. In 2023, this number reached 471.

(source for all: iranhr.net)

****************

UN experts alarmed as Supreme Court upholds death sentence of Kurdish woman activist----Wearing a hijab in public is mandatory for women in Iran.

Independent UN human rights experts on Tuesday expressed grave concern over the Iranian Supreme Court's decision to uphold the death sentence of Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish woman activist and social worker.

“The charges against Ms. Pakhshan Azizi do not meet the threshold of ‘most serious crimes’ required by international law for the death penalty,” the Human Rights Council-appointed experts stated. “Her death sentence constitutes a serious violation of international human rights law.”

Solitary confinement

Ms. Azizi was arrested in Tehran on 4 August 2023, by Iranian intelligence services and held in solitary confinement in the notorious Evin Prison for 5 months.

On 23 July 2024, the Tehran Revolutionary Court sentenced her to death for “armed rebellion against the state” and “membership of opposition groups,” along with a 4-year prison term for alleged membership of in the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK).

The Supreme Court upheld the death sentence last week.

“Ms. Azizi's arrest and sentencing appear to be solely related to her legitimate work as a social worker, including her support for refugees in Iraq and Syria,” the independent experts noted.

Reports indicate that Ms. Azizi was subjected to severe psychological and physical torture in solitary confinement to extract a confession. She was also denied access to family visits and legal representation of her choice.

Family members detained

Several members of Azizi's family were temporarily detained and have faced national security charges, presumably to pressure her to confess, the experts noted.

"The use of torture to extract confessions and the denial of fair trial rights render the death sentence against Ms. Azizi arbitrary in nature," the experts said.

The experts highlighted that the number of executions in Iran surpassed 900 in 2024, with an increase in the number of women put to death.

They have called for Iran to stop executions that violate international law and fundamental human rights.

End targeting of Kurdish women activists

"We are deeply concerned by the specific targeting of Kurdish women activists with politically motivated charges," they said.

"Ms. Azizi's prosecution reflects the heightened persecution that minority women activists face in Iran and the continued intention to punish and silence them by creating a climate of fear."

The experts urged Iranian authorities to revoke Ms. Azizi's death sentence, investigate allegations of torture and denial of fair trial rights, and end the harassment and targeting of women activists in Iran.

Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups who report on and monitor allegations of rights abuses are not UN staff and are independent of any government or organization. They serve in their individual capacity and receive no salary.

(source: news.un.org)

JANUARY 14, 2025:

TEXAS:

With 3 death sentences in 2024, Tarrant County ranks 2nd in Texas for death row inmates----A review of state prison data, court records shows Tarrant County has surpassed Dallas County in the number of people awaiting execution.

Jason Alan Thornburg showed no emotion as the judge read his death sentence aloud. A few jurors, who had decided the murderous former street preacher’s fate moments ago, brushed away tears. Relatives and friends of the victims let out sighs of relief.

The scene in a crowded Fort Worth courtroom last month marked the 6th time last year that a Texas jury condemned a man to die. 4 of those death sentences came from North Texas counties, including 3 — Thornburg’s among them — from Tarrant County.

“We don’t often ask,” Phil Sorrells, a former judge who serves as Tarrant County’s Republican district attorney, wrote in a quarterly newsletter after Thornburg’s weekslong trial. “But in 2024, we asked juries three times to convict capital murderers and give them the death penalty.”

“3 times, they agreed.”

The 3 men — Thornburg, 44; Christopher Karon Turner, 48; and Paige Terrell Lawyer, 45 — are now at the Polunsky Unit in Livingston, where male death row inmates await execution. Thornburg’s arrival made Tarrant County the 2nd-highest county in the state for the number of people currently on death row, according to a review of a state prison roster and court records by The Dallas Morning News.

The review found at least 14 people on death row from Tarrant County. The new number surpassed Dallas County, which previously ranked 2nd with 13 people despite not sending anyone to death row since 2018.

Harris County, the state’s most populous county, led with more than 60 people on death row, according to figures from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice reviewed by The News.

North Texas’ outsized role in adding to the state’s death row population last year comes after the nation’s busiest death chamber caught fresh attention.

In October, the Supreme Court of Texas halted the execution of Robert Roberson, a Palestine man convicted more than 20 years ago of killing his 2-year-old daughter. After a series of legal wrangles, the high court weighed in a novel request from state lawmakers, granting a House committee’s subpoena seeking Roberson’s testimony on a date 4 days after he was scheduled to die.

Roberson ultimately did not testify at the Capitol that day, but the nine-hour hearing drew a star-studded list of speakers, including “Dr. Phil” McGraw and novelist John Grisham.

The testimony was wide-reaching, with some speakers examining — and often questioning — evidence heard at Roberson’s trial. Others reflected on the implications of using the death penalty when there was some doubt about the outcome of the case, asking aloud if the courts had erred and whether Roberson’s execution would be true justice.

Critics of the hearing, including those who believe Roberson’s sentence is justified, were critical of what they saw as a play for public attention. They pointed to how courts, including the Court of Criminal Appeals, the state’s highest criminal court, had affirmed the conviction. Among the most vocal was Attorney General Ken Paxton, who later publicized a sexual abuse allegation against Roberson — an accusation prosecutors had not presented during his capital murder trial.

The same high court that punted Roberson’s October execution date lifted its temporary block the following month, barring lawmakers from using the same maneuver in the future. The House committee that issued the life-saving subpoena reconvened Dec. 20 with plans to hear from Roberson. However, Paxton derailed those efforts by filing a request for a protective order that prevented Roberson from testifying.

Roberson’s case has brought renewed attention to Texas' death row, a system that leads the nation in executions and is marked by several historic firsts.

History of the death penalty in Texas

Capital punishment in Texas has a long history, dating back to Spanish and Mexican rule when it was rarely practiced. From 1836 to 1845, during the Texas Republic, the process was formalized for crimes like murder, rape and arson.

Racial biases influenced early death penalty laws, Paul M. Lucko, Professor Emeritus at Murray State University, wrote for the Texas State Historical Association. The death penalty was unequally applied to people of color, particularly African Americans.

As one of the nation’s leading lynching states, Texas saw its racial biases reflected in death penalty cases, Lucko wrote, with scholars linking this to a post-civil rights era political culture where “law and order” served as a “coded expression of persistent racism.”

In 1923, the state’s practice of public hangings ended. Executions were then conducted by the state, rather than counties, using an electric chair. This method was used until 1964 when the U.S. Supreme Court paused executions — a moratorium the high court lifted 4 years later.

In 1976, as Texas was planning to resume executions with the electric chair, a Dallas television reporter working for KERA asked for permission to film and broadcast the execution. After the state declined, the reporter filed a lawsuit alongside the American Civil Liberties Union.

In early 1977, a federal judge in Dallas ruled executions could be televised. In response, state lawmakers decided to replace the electric chair with lethal injection, officially approving it as the new execution method later that year.

In 1982, the state executed Charlie Brooks, who had also been convicted in Tarrant County for the 1976 murder of a used car lot attendant. He was the 1st death row inmate in the U.S. to die by lethal injection.

Since 1976, Texas has ranked 1st in the num­ber of exe­cu­tions car­ried out in the U.S.

Between 1977 and 2021, the state executed more than 570 people — more than 1/3 of the total executions carried out in the nation, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report for the year 2021, the latest available.

Texas is also unique in other ways compared to death penalty states. For example, the governor cannot impose a moratorium on executions and can only grant clemency with a favorable recommendation from the Board of Pardons and Paroles — a group of members appointed by the governor.

While the governor is not required to follow the board’s advice, clemency cannot be granted without it.

The governor does have the independent authority to issue a 1-time, 30-day reprieve. As Roberson’s October execution date approached, there were increasing calls for Gov. Greg Abbott to use this authority.

In an Oct. 20 letter to the high court, Abbott’s general council said lawmakers “stepped out of line” because only the governor has the constitutional authority to delay an execution.

Texas death row, by the numbers

The rate of executions in Texas has declined since peaking in 2000 at 40 people that, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The number of executions annually has been in the single digits since 2016.

As of December, more than 170 people were on death row. The average age when they arrived was 31 years old, with the average current age being 50, according to the review by The News.

Most death row inmates are male, with 7 women currently on death row. The women are housed in the O’Daniel Unit in Gatesville, west of Waco.

People of color make up the majority of people on death row, according to the review. Nearly 1/2 are Black, about 26% are Hispanic and 25% are white.

About 1/4 were involved in the deaths or injury of law enforcement or detention officers, according to the review.

North Texas juries sent 4 people to death row last year.

The latest was rendered by a Tarrant County jury to Thornburg, the former street preacher, for the deaths of David Lueras, 42, Lauren Phillips, 34, and Maricruz Mathis, 33, in September 2021.

Thornburg lured the 3 into his motel room in Euless, where he killed them by slitting their throats or strangling them. He desecrated their bodies, dismembered them and packed the remains into bags and bins before taking them to Fort Worth and setting them on fire in a dumpster.

In November, another Tarrant County jury sentenced Turner to death. He was arrested in April 2020, days after authorities say he entered the Super Big Country Mart and robbed the store, killing owner Anwar Ali, 62, in the process.

In May, a jury in Johnson County, located south of Fort Worth, sentenced Jerry Elders to die. Elders, 43, was accused of killing Robin Waddell, 60, during a carjacking. He was fleeing the scene of a traffic stop where he shot and injured a Burleson police officer, prosecutors said.

In April, a Tarrant County jury sentenced Lawyer to die for strangling his former girlfriend, O’Tishae Womack, 30, and her 10-year-old daughter, Ka’Myria, to death. Days after the killings, Lawyer was arrested near Nashville, Tenn., and confessed to his uncle, prosecutors said.

The death penalty may be considered in at least 1 recent North Texas case.

During a news conference, the Ellis County sheriff voiced his support for seeking the death penalty — a decision left to local prosecutors — against Arron Semeion Thompson, 45, who is accused of choking and fatally beating a 28-year-old jail detention officer, Isaiah Bias, on Dec. 16 at the Ellis County jail.

What executions are scheduled in Texas?

4 executions, including 2 from North Texas, are scheduled for early 2025, according to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Steven Lawayne Nelson, 37, is scheduled to be executed on Feb. 5, 2025. He was convicted in Tarrant County for the killing of an Arlington pastor, Rev. Clint Dobson, 28, during a church robbery in 2011.

Richard Tabler, 45, is scheduled for execution on Feb. 13, 2025. He was convicted in Bell County, located south of Waco, for the 2004 fatal shootings of Mohamed-Amine Rahmouni, 25, and Haitham Zayed, 28, according to the Killeen Daily Herald.

David Leonard Wood, 67, is scheduled for execution on March 13, 2025. Dubbed the “Desert Killer,” he was convicted by a Dallas County jury in 1992 for murdering 6 women in their teens and early 20s, according to the El Paso Times. While the deaths were in El Paso County, the trial was held in Dallas.

Moises Sandoval Mendoza, 40, is scheduled for execution on April 23, 2025. He was convicted in Collin County for the 2004 killing of Rachelle O’Neil Tolleson, a young Farmersville mother whose body was found burned in a creek bed.

(source: Dallas Morning News)

CONNECTICUT:

Connecticut Lawmakers Introduce Bill to Prohibit the Production and Manufacturing of Lethal Injection Drugs and Other Materials for Executions

Secrecy Lethal Injection Connecticut

On January 10, 2025, 3 Connecticut law­mak­ers intro­duced a bill that would make it ille­gal to man­u­fac­ture and sell any drugs or med­ical devices in the state meant to car­ry out the death penal­ty. In 2024, Connecticut-based com­pa­ny Absolute Standards was iden­ti­fied as the source of lethal injec­tion drugs used in 13 fed­er­al exe­cu­tions in 2020 and 2021. In a let­ter to the bill’s spon­sors, John Criscio, President of Absolute Standards, said the com­pa­ny ceased pro­duc­tion of pen­to­bar­bi­tal in December 2020 and does not intend ?“to resume any pro­duc­tion or sale” of the drug.

One of the bill’s co-spon­sors, Senator Ceci Maher told CT Insider that she "think[s] this is some­thing we need to do to make sure we here in Connecticut are liv­ing our val­ues, which is that we do not con­done the death penal­ty.” State House Majority Leader Jason Rojas expressed con­cern about the bill, not­ing, "I oppose the death penal­ty and wouldn’t be opposed to [ban­ning] the sale or man­u­fac­ture of lethal injec­tion drugs” but nev­er­the­less he wants to exam­ine the bill’s implications.

During the April 7, 2024, episode of "Last Week Tonight,” host John Oliver focused on the use of pen­to­bar­bi­tal in fed­er­al exe­cu­tions. ?“Our fed­er­al and state gov­ern­ments have con­tin­ued to pur­sue ques­tion­ably legal and def­i­nite­ly hor­ri­fy­ing ways [of exe­cu­tion],” Mr. Oliver said. Calling the Trump’s admin­is­tra­tion accounts of 13 fed­er­al exe­cu­tions with pen­to­bar­bi­tal at the end of President Trump’s first term "san­i­tized,” Mr. Oliver not­ed autop­sies of two exe­cut­ed indi­vid­u­als revealed the pris­on­ers’ lungs were ?“twice as heavy as they should be, indi­cat­ing 'pul­monary ede­ma,’ where flu­id rush­es into the lungs and air­ways,” caus­ing a drown­ing or suf­fo­cat­ing sen­sa­tion with­out ade­quate anes­theti­za­tion. The U.S. Department of Justice is cur­rent­ly review­ing the appro­pri­ate­ness of using pen­to­bar­bi­tal in exe­cu­tions. Nashville-based fed­er­al pub­lic defend­er Kelley Henry, who is con­sid­er­ing a chal­lenge to Tennessee’s sin­gle drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal pro­to­col notes, "We know from the sci­en­tif­ic data that sin­gle drug pen­to­bar­bi­tal results in pul­monary ede­ma which has been likened to waterboarding[.]”

Through Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests sub­mit­ted by jour­nal­ists on Mr. Oliver’s team for its April 2024 report, Last Week Tonight iden­ti­fied Absolute Standards as the firm that pro­vid­ed the fed­er­al gov­ern­ment with the pen­to­bar­bi­tal used in the 2020 – 2021 round of fed­er­al exe­cu­tions. The prob­lem, Mr. Oliver alleges, is that while Absolute Standards has been reg­is­tered with Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) since August 2018 to pro­duce pen­to­bar­bi­tal, the drugs pro­duced by the man­u­fac­tur­er are not autho­rized for human con­sump­tion. According to Mr. Oliver, "under the law, com­pa­nies that make drugs need to be reg­is­tered with the FDA, and the Trump admin­is­tra­tion claimed, before the exe­cu­tions, that its sup­pli­er was 'prop­er­ly reg­is­tered.’” An addi­tion­al FOIA request sub­mit­ted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revealed that the orga­ni­za­tion was "unable to locate and records respon­sive” to the request, and Absolute Standards ?“has not been inspect­ed by the FDA.”

For more than a decade, depart­ments of cor­rec­tions across the United States have had dif­fi­cul­ty acquir­ing some of the drugs tra­di­tion­al­ly used in lethal injec­tion exe­cu­tions. Many drug man­u­fac­tur­ers have explic­it­ly banned the use of their prod­ucts in exe­cu­tions and oth­ers have stopped pro­duc­ing these drugs com­plete­ly. More than a dozen states have also enact­ed State-by-State Execution Protocols secre­cy statutes intend­ed to pro­tect drug sup­pli­ers and man­u­fac­tur­ers from public scrutiny.

(source: Death Penalty Information Center)

NORTH CAROLINA:

NC district attorney: death penalty clemency erases jury, prosecutors, victim’s family

President Joseph Biden recently commuted federal death sentences of 37 individuals. In an opinion-editorial my colleague and fellow District Attorney Jeff Nieman lauded the president’s decision, touting his own pledge to never pursue the death penalty.

However, the president, in direct contrast to Mr. Nieman’s assertion, determined that the crimes of 3 individuals were so heinous that they merited the ultimate punishment our system can afford. Perhaps the bombing of the Boston Marathon, the vile killings of worshipers at the Tree of Life synagogue or the unspeakable racially-motivated murders of parishioners at Mother Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church gave President Biden pause in reversing the judgments of jurors in those communities.

I believe if the President had done the hard work of listening to the weeks or months of testimony heard by jurors in the 37 cases he commuted, he might have respected and left unchanged their judgments as well. Unfortunately, when it comes to federal and state commutation decisions, it is often easier not to internalize the gruesome facts or make that life-altering phone call to a victim’s family. Willful ignorance is certainly more comfortable.

In the waning hours of his administration, Gov. Roy Cooper commuted the state death sentences of 15 individuals. Feedback from some of my colleagues reveals it was a flawed process, shrouded in secrecy and devoid of input from victims’ families or communities. While clemency is a tool available to the president and many governors, its use must strike a careful balance between compassion and the principles of accountability, deterrence and fairness.

In his essay Mr. Nieman presents his perspective on the death penalty, a view he says is rooted in personal convictions. His opinions do not represent the collective views of North Carolina prosecutors. As a career prosecutor and district attorney, I respect his right to express these views as much as I do the diversity of opinions of the 42 district attorneys across our state and the broad spectrum of values and experiences that inform their work. In my experience, juries in death penalty cases are thoughtful and meticulous in the performance of one of the most difficult duties a citizen can ever be called to perform. The death penalty is only possible when the jury finds certain aggravating circumstances.

It is a solemn responsibility that prosecutors ask the jury to consider only in the most extreme cases, such as mass shootings, execution style murders of citizens and law enforcement officers and murders committed by individuals already serving life sentences for previous homicides. Tragically, North Carolina has witnessed such cases, including the murders of prison guards by inmates already serving life sentences. These are individuals who have demonstrated a continued threat to society while incarcerated.

The decision to ask a jury to consider death is never made lightly or in isolation. It involves a thorough review of the case, the law and rightfully includes discussions with the victim’s family. Mr. Nieman’s remarks imply that these decisions of his colleagues are deeply flawed or unfairly applied. His misguided statements disregard the professionalism and commitment of those sworn to uphold justice. The law and facts are the driving forces behind prosecutorial decisions. Any broad generalization ignores the painstaking efforts prosecutors make to ensure fairness and equity in our justice system.

Ironically, the claim that not seeking the death penalty ‘frees up resources’ also misrepresents the role of prosecutors. Justice is not a matter of money, convenience or expedience. It is a matter of principle and duty. Mr. Nieman’s assertion that the death penalty does not serve victims or communities stands in stark contrast to the voices of many families. To dismiss the perspectives of families who have endured unimaginable loss and pain is to disregard the profound impact of the murder. Commuting sentences of those lawfully convicted by a jury, who had their case reviewed multiple times by various courts, ignores the voices of victims, the decisions of prosecutors and the community at large. Clemency should not render meaningless the hard work of those entrusted with making these weighty decisions. The verdict of a jury is the voice of the people, and their decisions must be given the respect they deserve.

(source: Opinion, R. Seth Banks, newsobserver.com)

SOUTH CAROLINA:

End state-sanctioned secrecy in South Carolina’s penal system

Much ink has been spilled about the growing regime of secrecy surrounding the death penalty in this country. In 2018, the Death Penalty Information Center reported that “During the past seven years, states have begun conducting executions with drugs and drug combinations that have never been tried before. They have done so behind an expanding veil of secrecy laws that shield the execution process from public scrutiny.”

“Since January 2011,” the organization noted, “legislatures in 13 states have enacted new secrecy statutes that conceal vital information about the execution process. Of the 17 states that have carried out 246 lethal-injection executions between January 1, 2011 and August 31, 2018, all withheld at least some information about the about the execution process.”

Since that report was written, the regime of secrecy has tightened its grip on what the public gets to know about executions. We were reminded of that last month when the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld a South Carolina policy that “prohibits the publication of interviews between prisoners and the media or members of the public.”

. The court’s decision aided and abetted a cover-up of the conditions and treatment of South Carolina prisoners and death row inmates. It eviscerated the First Amendment guarantee of press freedom and undermined the public’s ability to make informed decisions about the state’s correctional policies.

The state’s policy governing “Employee and Inmate Relations With News Media” does more than conceal information about the conduct of executions in South Carolina. It also prohibits interviews with South Carolina inmates, including death row inmates, “by anyone,” and bans photography and video and audio recording of prisoners.

The American Civil Liberties Union of South Carolina notes that the state’s department of corrections “enforces the nation’s most restrictive policy on media access to prisoners,” taking the position that “[i]nmates lose the privilege of speaking to the news media when they enter” the state prison system.

The state explains its policy as “rooted in victims’ rights … The department believes that victims of crime should not have to see or hear the person who victimized them or their family member on the news.”

That explanation came last year after a prisoner, the notorious murderer Richard Murdaugh, gave an interview to Fox Nation. According to South Carolina’s Department of Corrections, Murdaugh “willingly and knowingly abused his telephone privileges to communicate with the news media for his own gain.”

The suit challenging the policy was filed by the ACLU of South Carolina in February 2024, although Murdaugh was not one of the inmates on whose behalf it was filed. It alleged that the policy infringed on the “First Amendment right to receive and publish the speech of incarcerated people … who seek to publish speech on several matters of deep public concern: prison administration, prison healthcare, gender equity, and the propriety of capital punishment.”

The policy suppresses “the speech of incarcerated people and plaintiff’s access to that speech” and “stifles the public’s access to information on matters of deep political concern.”

And South Carolina policy, the lawsuit adds, prohibits prisoners “from communicating with anyone who intends to publish prisoner speech, either in person, by video, or by telephone” and “does not allow incarcerated people to publish their own writings in media outlets.”

The 2 inmate plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Sofia Cano and Marion Bowman. Bowman is on South Carolina’s death row.

Cano is a transgender woman who wants to do an interview about the “propriety of transgender healthcare bans” in South Carolina prisons. Bowman wants to tell his story “to increase political pressure in favor of clemency (in his case), to shed light on the impropriety of capital punishment, and to inform the public about the inhumane treatment endured” in South Carolina’s prison system.

The Federal District Court that first considered the lawsuit dismissed it, ruling that there is “no First Amendment right to access prison inmates to conduct interviews for publication.”

On Dec. 13, the Fourth Circuit agreed. It cited a line of Supreme Court cases holding that “newsmen have no constitutional right of access to prisons or their inmates beyond that afforded the general public.”

The court rejected the contentions of the ACLU, stating that the precedents cited did not apply in this case because it already had access to the inmates and was already representing Bowman. It decided that the South Carolina policy did not stifle the public’s ability to obtain information about the treatment of prisoners or of those awaiting execution.

Here, the court made the arbitrary judgment that because inmates could write letters to or talk to lawyers who could in turn talk to the press, they did not need to give press interviews. This is the kind of judgment that should be left to the speaker and to the press, not made by a state with the blessings of a court.

The ACLU was right to note that the medium is the message.

As the organization argued, “A story about Marion Bowman — that is, a telling of his case and his life behind bars — is not functionally equivalent to a story by Marion Bowman. A blog post … about how great a loss it would be if South Carolina kills Marion Bowman is no substitute for the public hearing Marion’s own voice, his own laugh, his own anguish.”

“In the context of prison advocacy,” the ACLU correctly observed, “empathy is hard earned. The sound of another person’s voice can break the demonizing and otherizing constructs that the public has about ?‘prisoners,’ and can reveal the multidimensional humanity possessed by those behind bars.”

That is true for anyone who is incarcerated, and it is especially true for death row inmates.

Moreover, every journalist knows that “A well-conducted interview can reveal hidden truths, challenge assumptions, and bring new perspectives to light, which can be both enlightening and transformative for the audience.” As an essay in National Geographic reminds us, “Some of the most important works of history are first person, from accounts by Frederick Douglass and Marie Curie to Charles Darwin and Anne Frank. They tell stories from places we haven’t been, experienced war and joy and exploration and discovery in ways we hadn’t seen, firing our imaginations and building our understanding.”

The Fourth Circuit has ensured that Sofia Cano and Marion Bowman will not have the chance to fire our imaginations and build our understanding by providing first-person accounts of their lives and experiences behind bars in South Carolina. The regime of secrecy has won another battle.

Cano, Bowman and all the rest of us are diminished because of the court’s decision.

(source: Opinion; Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College----thehill.com)

GEORGIA:

Monday Marks 4-Year Anniversary of Wayne County Murder Tied to Smith State Prison

Monday marks the 4th anniversary of the tragic death of Jerry Lee Davis in Jesup.

On January 13, 2021, the husband and father was brutally murdered while laying in bed with his young daughter. His wife and other children were also home when 2 individuals stormed the house and shot Davis to death. At the time, Davis was employed as a delivery truck driver for McDaniel Supply Company, a commissary vendor that serves Smith SP and other correctional facilities.

The GBI office in Kingsland began investigating the case, but it would be months before an arrest would be made and the Davis case would be publicly linked to a January 30, 2021 murder across the river in Tattnall County and, later, a criminal enterprise operating from behind the walls of Smith State Prison.

In August 2021, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation’s Region 5 Office announced the arrest of 4 individuals in connection to the murder of 88-year-old Bobby C. Kicklighter in Tattnall County, following up days later to announce that Christopher Reginald Sumlin, Jr. was also charged for the murder of Jerry Davis.

A criminal indictment in Tattnall County would later allege that Sumlin and Jessica Jean Gerling were responsible for Davis’ death. Sumlin was a former inmate at Smith State Prison and Gerling was a former corrections officer at Smith SP. She was terminated for attempting to bring contraband into the facility, though she was never formally charged by the Georgia Department of Corrections. Gerling was murdered in Long County roughly 5 months after Davis’ death.

Case Status

Though an arrest was made in Davis’ murder in 2021, the tangled web of connected crimes stemming from Smith SP has left the case unindicted in Wayne County ever since. Sumlin, who is being held in the Wayne County Jail, is facing the death penalty in Tattnall County for his alleged role in the death of Kicklighter.

The death penalty case will take precedence with alleged kingpin and Smith SP inmate Nathan Weekes being tried 1st. That trial is slated to begin in August 2025. Upon the conclusion of Weekes’ trial, prosecutors will move on to Sumlin’s death penalty case in Tattnall County and will then move on to resolve the Wayne County case, pending the outcome of the Tattnall case.

It can be a difficult pill to swallow for the loved ones of Davis who naturally want justice in Davis’ name, but prosecutors have opted to try the cases in this particular order in hopes of preserving the integrity of the case.

The alleged crimes of the criminal enterprise span four counties, 2 GBI regional offices, and 2 judicial circuits. To date, 9 people have been arrested and charged for their respective roles in 3 murders and the tangential criminal operations relating to those murders, with more than a dozen others named in indictments and other court proceedings.

It will be years before the cases are resolved in their entirety, particularly due to the length of time the Georgia Department of Corrections and its staff facilitated the criminal operations.

(source: thegeorgiavirtue.com)

FLORIDA----impending execution

Ron DeSantis signs 1st death sentence of 2025 in Florida----The governor of Florida authorizes the execution of James Ford for a double murder in 1997, a case that highlighted the brutality of the crime and now rekindles the debate over the death penalty.

The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, signed the 1st death sentence of the state for 2025 last Friday, authorizing the execution of James Dennis Ford, a man convicted of the brutal murder of a couple nearly 3 decades ago.

Ford has been sentenced to death for the murders of Greg and Kimberly Malnory, who were attacked during a fishing trip in Charlotte County in 1997. The execution is scheduled for February 13 at Florida State Prison.

According to court documents, both suffered fatal blows and gunshots, while Kimberly was also raped before being murdered. Her body was found near the couple's truck, where their 22-month-old baby was left abandoned for over 18 hours, exposed to the elements and covered with the blood of his mother.

Ford was also convicted of sexual assault and child abuse, further intensifying the brutality of the case, the agency AP reported.

The use of the death penalty under DeSantis' government

Ford's execution will be the 1st in Florida in 2025, following a period during which state executions have varied significantly.

In 2024, Florida carried out only 1 execution, in contrast to the 6 conducted in 2023, a year when DeSantis was in the midst of his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.

During the previous 3 years, the governor did not authorize any executions, marking a period of relative inactivity in the application of the death penalty in the state.

The return to frequent executions in 2023 was interpreted by analysts as an attempt by DeSantis to bolster his image as a "tough-on-crime" leader and appeal to more conservative voters.

Florida is one of the states with the highest use of the death penalty in the United States, a topic that deeply divides public opinion. According to data, the state has executed 103 individuals since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976, making it one of the most active in the application of this punishment.

An emblematic case due to its brutality

The case of James Ford is particularly striking due to the brutality of the crimes committed. The murder of the Malnorys and the vulnerability of their 22-month-old baby deeply affected the community in 1997, making it an emblematic case in Florida's criminal history.

During the trial, the DNA evidence and testimonies condemned Ford, who has since remained on death row.

The signing of this ruling once again highlights Florida's stance on capital punishment. Critics have pointed out that the state's judicial system has a history of controversies, with convictions that have later been overturned due to procedural errors or insufficient evidence.

However, cases like that of Ford, where the evidence is compelling, strengthen the arguments of those who advocate for the death penalty as a necessary tool to punish particularly heinous crimes.

The debate on the death penalty in Florida

The use of the death penalty remains a contentious issue in Florida and across the United States. While advocates argue that it serves as a form of justice for victims and acts as a deterrent to future crimes, opponents emphasize the risks of condemning the innocent and the high costs associated with lengthy legal processes.

In recent years, states like California and Oregon have chosen to suspend the death penalty, increasing the pressure for others to reconsider its implementation.

At the federal level, there have been significant movements regarding the death penalty. In December 2024, President Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 people on death row, including one individual of Cuban descent, changing them to life sentences without the possibility of parole.

With this action, the Democrat reaffirmed his commitment to judicial reform and his stance against the death penalty, except in exceptional cases such as terrorism and hate-motivated mass murders.

However, the former president and elected leader, Donald Trump has announced that he will reinstate the death penalty at the federal level for rapists, murderers, and pedophiles when he takes office in January 2025.

For DeSantis, this decision reinforces his political stance in a state where a large portion of the population supports the death penalty, especially in cases of extreme violence like Ford's. However, the debate over its effectiveness, ethics, and costs persists, keeping the issue as one of the most controversial in the state's criminal justice policy.

With the execution scheduled for February, Ford's case serves as a reminder to Floridians of the enduring reality of the death penalty and the deep divisions it creates in society.

(source: en.cibercuba.com)

***************

Lakeland Couple’s Murderer Labeled Schizophrenic----The psychiatrist said Marcelle Waldon’s actions showed ‘purposeful steps’ to conceal his crime

A psychiatrist hired by the defense to analyze brain PET scans of murderer Marcelle Waldon testified Monday in a post-conviction hearing that Waldon is schizophrenic, has traumatic brain injury and suffered from multiple adverse childhood experiences.

Dr. Joseph Wu, a Stanford University-educated psychiatrist, said those factors led to “significant and catastrophic failure in (Waldon’s) ability to regulate aggressive impulses and the ability to regulate proper judgment.”

But the state argued that Waldon knew what he had done was wrong because he tried multiple times to destroy evidence of the crime.

Case history: Waldon was convicted nearly a year ago of the November 2020 murder of former Lakeland City Commissioner Edie Yates Henderson and her husband, real estate developer David Henderson, in their Lake Morton Drive home. The jury recommended the death penalty, but Judge Kevin Abdoney will make the final decision on that in coming months.

Wu’s testimony Monday was part of a Spencer hearing, which gives lawyers a chance to present additional evidence to a judge before the judge hands down a sentence.

A psychologist testified in August about Waldon’s childhood, intellectual capacity, history of hearing voices and mental state when he murdered the prominent Lakeland couple — information not heard by the jury during his week-and-a-half-long trial after he waived his right to present a defense.

Assistant State Attorney Mark Levine said on Monday that Waldon, now 40, watched the Hendersons’ comings and goings for days. Then he walked into an unlocked door on Nov. 10, 2020, tied up the couple, stabbed David before forcing Edie to write two $5,000 checks, then stabbed her as she was lying on the couple’s bed. Waldon put both their cellphones in the microwave and turned it on, turned on the burners to a gas stove in an attempt to burn the house down and stole David’s car and later set it on fire.

When he was arrested the day after the murders, he had items from the Henderson home in his possession, as well as photos on his cellphone of the Hendersons tied up in their home.

Mental deficiencies: Wu said the three serious mental deficiencies, which appear on the brain scan images as decreases in his frontal and prefrontal lobes, are “not one plus one plus one equals three. It’s one plus one plus one equals 10.”

Significant psychological events: Wu said in reviewing Waldon’s psychological records, he noted several significant events, among them:

Having psychosis and auditory hallucinations when he was 17.

Hearing voices telling him to kill his ex-girlfriend.

At 26, being admitted to Peace River psychiatric facility for 3 weeks for a psychotic break with auditory hallucinations and treated with the anti-psychotic medicine Risperdal. Adverse childhood experiences: Wu discussed multiple childhood adverse experiences, which can lead a person to develop one or more serious mental illnesses. The psychologist in August detailed them, but new revelations on Monday included:

Molestation when he was 10 by a babysitter, who said she would kill him if he told anyone.

Abandonment by his biological father, who would only visit every few years.

His mother, Althea, trying to give him to his biological father because “she didn’t want to take care of him,” but taking him back because “her welfare check was cut,” Wu said.

Covering up the crime: Levine then questioned Wu about Waldon’s multiple decisions to try to cover up his crimes, asking if those were deliberate and purposeful.

“I believe that those were purposeful steps,” Wu said, adding that the brain injuries and childhood experiences led to an overactivated brain incapable of telling him to stop.

Florida law allows someone who is mentally ill to stand trial if the state can show that they knew what they were doing was wrong.

Next: The next hearing is tentatively scheduled for Feb. 14, when a mental health expert is expected to testify for the state.

Waldon is still facing trial for the burglary of the home of Julia Jenkins Fancelli, daughter of Publix founder George Jenkins, 2 days before the Hendersons’ murder.

(source: lkldnow.com)

MONTANA:

Montana Senate hears bill to abolish death penalty

State lawmakers considered a proposal Tuesday to abolish the death penalty in Montana and make the maximum allowable punishment life in prison without parole.

Similar measures have come before the Legislature in previous sessions and failed. If this bill passes, it will go into effect immediately and change the sentences of two inmates currently on death row in Montana.

Senate Bill 185 sponsored by Democratic state Sen. David Wanzenried of Missoula drew emotional testimony during the hearing by the Senate Judiciary Committee from relatives of murder victims, church leaders, state prosecutors and jail wardens.

"Occasionally we have a chance to talk about things that really hit close to home and define who we are as humans, this is one of those bills," Wanzenried said.

Supporters argued the death penalty is immoral, expensive and irreversible in the case of wrongful conviction. They also said investigators can use the threat of capital punishment to manipulate suspects.

Opponents responded with interpretations of the Bible that say the death penalty is morally acceptable and said the financial costs involved in holding an inmate for life are high. The death penalty also is an important tool to avoid lengthy trials and eliminates the risk of a dangerous criminal escaping from prison, they added.

People on both sides of the argument agreed that the court process was too drawn out and could cause undue suffering to the families of victims. They differed in their opinion about whether the death penalty aggravates or helps that process.

Republican Rep. Tom Berry of Roundup gave emotional testimony in opposition to the bill, speaking about the murder of his son and how he used the death penalty as a tool for a plea bargain to avoid a costly trial that would have rehashed the moments before his son's death.

"The power of the death penalty saved our family and many other families," Berry said.

A similar measure passed the Senate last session but was tabled in a House committee. Wanzenried is hopeful this bill will pass despite large Republican majorities in the House and Senate.

"Interestingly enough the people that have come here share the belief in the sanctity of life," Wanzenried said of the legislators who could pass the bill. "So I'm hoping those people would apply that judgment to this particular bill."

15 states and the District of Columbia ban the death penalty. The Illinois Legislature recently sent a death penalty ban bill to the governor.

(source: Associated Press)

NEVADA:

Testimony begins in Las Vegas gruesome death penalty murder retrial

Anthony Newton allegedly strangled, dismembered and dumped his victim’s body in a vacant lot before setting it on fire and walking away, Clark County prosecutors told a jury on the 1st day of a retrial of a death penalty murder case.

In opening statements Monday, attorneys gave conflicting versions of the events of the Christmas 2016 murder of Ulisys ‘Cesar’ Molina. Molina was found on Dolly Lane near E. Lake Mead and N. Lamb boulevards in early 2017 after his family said he was absent over the holidays. Prosecutors tried Newton in November 2024 but the judge, Jacqueline Bluth, declared a mistrial during the 1st day of testimony because one of Newton’s co-defendants improperly alerted the jury to a certain time Newton spent in prison.

“So please, under no circumstances does that word come out of your mouth,” Bluth told the first few jurors who testified Monday, cautioning them to not refer to Newton’s prison time.

During that time in prison, prosecutors say, Molina slept with Newton’s then-wife. They say Newton and his brother-in-law, George Malaperdas killed Molina with the help of Kelsea Glass. Malaperdas awaits sentencing on charges of murder, robbery, and kidnapping. Court records indicate a sentencing date of February 11. Glass, whose testimony in November triggered the mistrial, also awaits sentencing on the same day for her role in the murder. Prosecutors say Glass lured Molina to her apartment, where Newton and Malaperdas were waiting for him.

“In the summer of 2015 Jami Malaperdas, the defendant’s wife, ends up having a romantic affair with Cesar Molina, the victim in the case,” Pam Weckerly, a chief deputy public defender in Clark County, said Monday. “And this relationship is known by people in Mr. Molina’s family and it’s not exactly a secret.”

But Newton’s attorneys say the police rushed to the conclusion that Newton, 45, is Molina’s killer and selectively chose evidence that fit their theory. Josh Tomsheck, who delivered the defense’s opening statement, said the state’s witnesses have reason to lie.

“I’m going to ask you why they are saying the things that they say,” Tomsheck said. “The why in this case is going to tell you the truth about what really happened.”

Defense attorneys and prosecutors agreed on one set of facts surrounding the discovery of one of Molina’s hands, which were severed at the time of his murder. In April 2018, while Newton was in custody at Clark County Detention Center, a woman in Henderson sent her 5-year-old child to check the mail and found a human hand in the mailbox. Police ultimately determined it was Molina’s, but found no other leads, prosecutors said.

“So as we sit here now, we will not be able to answer for you how that hand ended up getting into that lady’s mailbox a year later,” Weckerly said.

“Anthony Newton could have had nothing to do with that hand,” Tomsheck said. “He was nowhere near it. It was 2 towns away and he wasn’t in a place where he could get it. Things, ladies and gentlemen, are not always as they seem.”

Court records indicate Newton’s trial could last three weeks. If the jury – currently comprised of 14 people before it is pared down to 12 with 2 alternates – finds Newton guilty, Bluth will preside over a separate penalty phase of the trial during which the jury will decide whether to sentence Newton to death.

(source: KLAS news)

USA:

2 prisoners can't legally object to Biden's death row commutations, DOJ argues----Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis, 2 of the 37 inmates whose sentences were changed to life in prison, have "no authority to reject" the commutation, U.S. attorneys said in a filing.

The requests of 2 prisoners who have taken the unusual step of asking a federal judge to nullify their death row commutations granted by President Joe Biden should be denied because the act of leniency doesn't violate the Constitution, the Justice Department argued Monday in a court filing.

The inmates — Shannon Agofsky, 53, and Len Davis, 60 — are being held in a federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, where the U.S. government puts inmates to death. A week after Biden announced he was commuting the sentences of 37 of the 40 prisoners on federal death row to life without the possibility of parole, Agofsky and Davis filed emergency motions seeking an injunction to block the change, arguing it could affect their appeals amid claims of innocence in their initial convictions.

In responding to Davis' request for an injunction, the U.S. government offered 3 reasons U.S. District Judge James Sweeney should deny it, writing that not only are commutations legal, but also that the president has the authority to decide them and a prisoner has "no authority to reject" one.

"The President's commutation of a sentence 'is the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed,'" the U.S. attorneys wrote. "Allowing Davis to veto this action would encroach on this exclusive and ultimate authority that is 'part of the Constitutional scheme.'"

The Justice Department said Agofsky has failed to identify a "jurisdictional basis for his petition."

In his filing, Agofsky said he is worried that no longer being a death row inmate would strip him of heightened scrutiny in his case or the process in which courts should examine death penalty cases for errors because of the life and-death consequences of the sentence.

Besides requesting an injunction, the men also asked for co-counsel to be assigned to help them in the latest litigation.

Sweeney agreed last week and assigned the inmates representation through the Indiana Federal Community Defenders.

Sweeney noted in an order granting counsel that federal prisoners are entitled to counsel only when they are under death sentences or for evidentiary hearings in their cases.

"Here, Mr. Agofsky is no longer under a death sentence," Sweeney wrote. "Therefore, whether to appoint counsel is purely a discretionary matter."

He added that the court "harbors serious doubt that it has any power to block a commutation" but that "given the novelty of the legal question, the Court prefers to receive counseled briefing on the motion."

Sweeney referred to a 1927 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that maintains that a president has the power to grant reprieves and pardons and that "the convict's consent is not required."

Agofsky, however, believes he has the right to refuse a commutation based on wording in the Constitution, which says a president "shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

According to Agofsky's wife, Laura, he said at issue is the word "grant," which he believes implies a person needs to have made an initial request. In his case, he said, as well as Davis', the men never requested commutations and refused it when asked multiple times to ask for a reduced sentence.

They contend that sets them apart from the other former death row inmates who did seek commutations.

Davis and Agofsky must reply to the Justice Department's response this week.

Agofsky was convicted in the 1989 murder of a bank president, Dan Short, whose body was found in an Oklahoma lake. Federal prosecutors said Agofsky and his brother, Joseph Agofsky, abducted and killed Short and made off with $71,000.

Both brothers were given life sentences. But it was while he was incarcerated in a Texas prison that Shannon Agofsky was convicted in the 2001 stomping death of a fellow inmate, Luther Plant, and was sentenced to death in 2004. (Joseph Agofsky died in prison in 2013.)

Davis, a former New Orleans police officer, was convicted in the 1994 murder of Kim Groves, who had filed a complaint accusing him of beating a teenager. Prosecutors said Davis hired a drug dealer to kill Groves, and they charged him with violating Groves' civil rights. Davis' original death sentence was thrown out by a federal appeals court but reinstated in 2005.

Davis "has always maintained his innocence and argued that federal court had no jurisdiction to try him for civil rights offenses," he wrote in his filing last month, requesting an injunction for his commutation.

Biden's sweeping clemency action was praised by anti-death penalty groups but also criticized by some of the victims' families, who say they believe death row prisoners are undeserving of such leniency.

Biden declined to grant commutations to 3 federal death row prisoners who were involved in mass killings or terrorist attacks.

Still, President-elect Donald Trump said after the announcement that he would "vigorously pursue the death penalty" during his 2nd term. He has also said he would expand capital punishment on the federal level to include child rapists, migrants who kill U.S. citizens and law enforcement officers, and those convicted of drug and human trafficking, although how he would do so remains unclear.

Trump's 1st term ended with 13 federal inmates having been put to death. The Biden administration announced a moratorium on federal executions after he took office and said last month that he granted the death row commutations because "in good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted."

(source: NBC News)

***************

Pedophiles could see death penalty under new House GOP bill: 'Taken off the streets permanently'----Rep Anna Paulina Luna says President-elect Donald Trump backs her effort

Rep. Anna Paulina Luna, R-Fla., is unveiling a new set of bills that could have child sexual predators facing the death penalty.

"If you are raping someone, if you're molesting someone, you are essentially murdering their soul. Those people never actually fully recover. I've actually sat on a committee with a very prominent [female House Democrat] who actually talked about the fact that she was molested as a child. And so you can see that it impacts and really hurts people," Luna said.

2 of her 3 bills, all of which are being introduced in the 119th Congress on Tuesday, would require sentences of death or at least life imprisonment for those charged with a wide range of crimes related to children.

A 3rd bill would require guilty verdicts of rape and sexual abuse against adults to carry a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years to life in prison.

Luna told Fox News Digital she broached the topic with President-elect Donald Trump over the weekend, who she suggested was enthusiastic about the idea.

"I got the impression that he absolutely is supportive of anything in this sector," Luna said.

The Florida congresswoman was among the members of the House Freedom Caucus who met with Trump over the weekend at Mar-a-Lago.

She said they also discussed Trump potentially signing an executive order levying the death penalty for pedophilia-related crimes but that it would likely be impossible to accomplish that way.

"He would be willing to sign an [executive order]. But the fact is, is that it has to go through Congress first. So it would have to come to his desk that way," she said.

Luna first introduced the bills in the last Congress when Democrats controlled half of Congress as well as the White House. They failed to get much traction, however, and ultimately never saw a House-wide vote.

She suggested that the death penalty aspect could have put some people off of an issue that otherwise could get wide bipartisan support, but she argued that child predators "cannot be rehabilitated."

"If you are going to continue to push forward in a moral society, [then] you need to ensure that people like this, that are predators, are taken off the streets permanently," Luna said.

(source: Fox news)

*****************----impending/scheduled executions

With the execution of Kevin Ray Underwood in Oklahoma on December 19, the USA has now executed 1,607 condemned individuals since the death penalty was re-legalized on July 2, 1976 in the US Supreme Court Gregg v Georgia decision.

Gary Gilmore was the 1st person executed, in Utah, on January 17, 1977. Below is a list of further scheduled executions as the nation continues its shameful practice of state-sponsored killings.

NOTE: The list is likely to change over the coming months as new execution dates are added and possible stays of execution occur.

1608-----Jan. 31------------Marion Bowman Jr.-----South Carolina

1609-----Feb. 5-------------Steven Nelson---------Texas

1610-----Feb. 6-------------Demetrius Frazier-----Alabama

1611-----Feb. 13------------James Ford------------Florida

1612-----Feb. 13------------Richard Tabler--------Texas

1613-----Mar. 13------------David Wood------------Texas

1614-----Mar. 20------------Wendell Grissom-------Oklahoma

1615-----Apr. 23------------Moises Mendoza--------Texas

(source: Rick Halperin)

UGANDA:

Ugandan opposition figure hit with extra charge carrying death penalty

Ugandan military prosecutors on Monday added a charge of "treachery" - which carries the death penalty - to the list of violations of military law they say were committed by a prominent opposition figure.

Kiiza Besigye, a veteran political foe of President Yoweri Museveni, who has been in power for almost 40 years, was detained in neighbouring Kenya in November.

He was brought back home and charged with illegal possession of firearms and with undermining the East African country's security in a military court, despite being a civilian.

He has been kept in prison in the capital Kampala since then, together with an aide, Obeid Lutale, with whom he was detained and charged.

Besigye's wife, Winnie Byanyima, the executive director of U.N. agency UNAIDS, has said the charges against him are politically motivated. His lawyers have rejected the charges as baseless.

During a court hearing on Monday, a military prosecutor read Besigye and his co-accused the new charge of treachery.

According to a charge sheet seen by Reuters, Besigye and his co-accused possessed intelligence about a plot to undermine national security but "consciously withheld the said vital information from the proper authorities".

Besigye's lawyers protested at the extra charge, saying they violated criminal trial procedures.

They also protested at the detention of prominent human rights lawyer Eron Kiiza, who is part of Besigye's defence team.

At Besigye's last court appearance on Jan. 7, Kiiza was sentenced to nine months in prison for alleged contempt of court over an altercation with court orderlies.

London-based human rights group Amnesty International has described Kiiza's detention and jail sentence as outrageous, demanding his release.

Besigye was once an ally and personal physician of Museveni, but the two later fell out. Besigye ran against and lost to Museveni in four presidential elections. He rejected the results of all those votes over alleged irregularities.

(source: reuters.com)

INDIA:

Current Scenario On Death Penalty In Light Of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

India has in the past voted against a draft resolution of the United Nations General Assembly on the abolition of the death penalty. The death penalty has long been a point of contention, with strong views from both abolitionists and retentionists shaping the discourse. The long prevailing battle between abolitionists and retentionists is also evolving based on modern democratic values and the recurrence of crime in society.

This article is mainly premised on analyzing the procedures governing the passing, implementation, and alteration of death sentences as outlined in the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita and exploring the aspects where it differs from the Criminal Procedure Code.

This article will also point out the trend differences between the trial courts and the top court in the imposition of the death penalty and various contemporary developments, including the 'rarest of rare doctrine', in relation to the death penalty. Finally, this article provides certain suggestions that may be incorporated within the death penalty jurisprudence in India.

1. BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 & DEATH PENALTY

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 provides for certain procedures to be followed in relation to the imposition, confirmation, and execution of the death penalty. It is to be noted that there is no progressive difference between the colonial legislation and the BNSS in this regard.

1.1 PASSING OF DEATH SENTENCE

The BNSS reflects the provisions of CrPC with respect to the authority of Courts to pass a sentence of death upon a convict. It specifies the Courts which have the power to pass a sentence of death and the conditions to be followed by it while doing so.

As per Sec 22 of BNSS, a sentence of death may be passed by:

A High Court

A Sessions Judge or Additional Sessions Judge subject to the confirmation by the High Court.

Additionally, Sec 23 BNSS makes it clear that a sentence of death cannot be passed by a Chief Judicial Magistrate or any other Magistrate subordinate to him for that matter. This demarcation of power is granted in order to ensure that no error or miscarriage of justice occurs while passing a sentence of death since the life of a convict once taken, cannot be compensated or given back.

Consequently, Sec 393 BNSS which provides for the language and contents of a judgment also provides the specificities of a judgment passing a sentence of death. To be precise, Sec 393(3) provides that in case of a sentence of death, the judgment must state special reasons for ordering such a sentence. This measure ensures that a sentence depriving a person of his right to life guaranteed under Article 21 must not be arbitrary and should be backed by rationality. Further, Sec 393(5) states that such a judgment must also direct the mode of execution of the death penalty ie., hanged by the neck till death.

Generally, a certified copy of a judgment will be given on an application made by the accused. But the proviso of Sec 404(2) provides that where a sentence of death is passed or confirmed by the High Court, a certified copy of the judgment shall be immediately given to the accused free of cost whether or not he applies for the same. This is based on the ideology that a person under a sentence of death must be fully informed of his situation so that he may seek all the possible recourse to save himself from capital punishment.

Again based on this underlying ideology, Sec 404(4) provides that when a court sentences a person to death, and the person has the right to appeal the decision, the court must inform them of the time frame within which they need to file their appeal, should they wish to do so. This ensures that the condemned is fully cognizant of his or her right to challenge the death sentence and the extremely limited time frame the condemned has to act in doing so. Because capital punishment is the most severe consequence a human can face, this person must be given every chance to appeal the judgement and thus ensure that no miscarriage of justice takes place. The process of appeal is a checks and balances to review any legal mistakes from trial. The court then promotes the principles of fairness and due process by informing the accused of this right together with the time frame in which they can put it to use and this is for the service of justice, with full transparency and caution.

1.2. CONFIRMATION OF DEATH SENTENCE

Chapter XXX of BNSS deals with the 'Submission of Death Sentences for Confirmation'. It comprises Sections 407 – 412 which lays down the procedures to be followed when a death sentence is submitted to the High Court for confirmation.

Section 407 addresses, in part, the question of who has the authority to finalize a death sentence. It states that if a Sessions Court hands down a death sentence, the verdict must first be reviewed and confirmed by the High Court before it can be carried out. The case proceedings must be submitted to the High Court, and the sentence cannot be executed until the High Court grants its approval. Only after this confirmation can the execution legally proceed. This provision also is a replica of Sec 366 CrPC. However, with reference to the case of State of Punjab vs Kala Ram @ Kala Singh, the Court has held that as per Section 366(2) of the CrPC, while awarding a sentence, the Court has to order that the convicted person be taken in jail custody under a warrant. This custody is not a punishment, but for "the safe keeping" of the person. The jailor only has a limited title (largely fiduciary in character) to such person for safekeeping. It's a burden given to the Superintendent, and is not viewed as incarceration in the typical sense.

So, also Section 408(1), which governs the confirmation of death penalty cases by the High Court, allows the High Court to, on discovering of some aspect relevant to the guilt/innocence of the accused, either direct the Sessions Court to make further inquiry or deal with the aspect itself by taking further evidences. Such orders are generally issued by the High Court when it feels that some points or factors might have gone unaddressed by the Sessions Court. Sub-section (2) enables the High Court to exempt the convict from being present in person during such inquiries or the hearing of new evidence, unless the Court otherwise directs. Subsection (3) provides that where such application is made to the Sessions Court or any other authority who is competent under the law to entertain, hear and dispose of such application, such authority must certify its findings before submitting them to the High Court for consideration.

Referring to the case of Balak Ram Etc vs The State of U.P[1]., the observation was made that the High Court has misjudged and misapprehended the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses. The Court observed that, whether it is in the case of a death penalty or different pieces of evidence, it is the duty of the High Court to consider all the evidence independently. The High Court must ensure that no stone is left unturned before forming an opinion on the matter. The amount of caution which the High Court has to exercise while dealing with evidences in a capital punishment trial is exceedingly high and consequently it is clear that such duty must be performed with utmost care.

Section 409 of the Code of Criminal Procedure outlines the powers of the High Court when a case involving a death sentence is submitted for confirmation under Section 407. The High Court has several options:

It can confirm the death sentence passed by the Sessions Court, or impose a different sentence as long as it is legally justified.

It can overturn the conviction made by the Sessions Court and either convict the accused of a different offense or order a retrial, either on the same charge or an amended one.

It can also pass an order of acquittal

It is also provided that an order of confirmation of the death sentence cannot be passed by the High Court unless the time limit for preferring an appeal has expired or while an appealing is pending.

In the case of Kartarey and Ors. vs The State of Uttar Pradesh[2], the Sessions Court sentenced the accused to death which was modified by the High Court. Upon arrival to the Supreme Court, the High Court was determined to have grossly erred in its assessment of the evidence, including additional evidence. The top court held that it is for the High Court to reappraise the entire evidence and arrive at a conclusion on merits. The Court emphasized that the High Court should also not ignore the evidence on record led by the defense, and after considering the entire proceedings, was required to afford equal weightage to the defense evidence.

Sec 410 BNSS, mandates that in cases where the High Court consists of 2 or more Judges, the confirmation of a sentence, or any new sentence or order, must be signed by at least two Judges.

Also, Section 411 of the BNSS provides that in cases where the sitting judges of a case are equally divided in their opinions, Section 433 of the BNSS shall be followed automatically, without the need for requisition by any party. The court takes action on its own (suo motu) to apply this procedure.

Section 433 provides for the steps to be taken when a bench of the High Court differs in their opinion. In such cases, the appeal, along with the differing opinions, is submitted to another judge of the same court who will deliver his own opinion after hearing the rationale of other judges. His opinion will determine the final judgment or order.

It is also provided that if any of the judges believe that the appeal must be reheard or decided by a larger bench, then it shall be done.

In several cases, the similar procedure in Sec 392 CrPC has been applied, including prominent the cases like Pankaj Kumar Gupta vs State Of U.P[3], State Of Gujarat vs Raghu @ Raghavbhai Vashrambhai And Ors[4] and Tanviben Pankajkumar Divetia vs State Of Gujarat[5] where there was a difference of opinions by the original two-judge bench which therefore was referred to another judge.

In the event the Court of Session sends a sentence of death to the High Court for confirmation, the officer of the High Court who is designated must, as soon as practicable, send a copy of the confirmation or the order to the Court of Session, as per Sec 412 BNSS. That either on paper or digitally. This not only expedites the transmission of critical orders but also minimizes the probability of delay and is a step by the legal system towards modern technology by permitting the use of electronic communication. Yet, even after modernizing the process, the copy still has to be sealed by the High Court and signed by the officer to ensure legitimacy.

1.3. EXECUTION OF DEATH SENTENCE

Chapter XXXIV A of BNSS (Sec 453 – 456) deals with the execution procedures of death sentences after confirmation/order by the High Court. This chapter also provides for the suspension, remission, and commutations of sentences including the death sentence.

Sec 453 provides for the execution of orders passed under Sec 409 BNSS. It states that when a case is submitted to the High Court for confirmation of a death sentence, and the Court of Session receives the High Court's order of confirmation or any other ruling on the matter, it is then the duty of the Court of Session to ensure that the order is carried out.

Similarly, Sec 454 provides that when the High Court has passed a death sentence, either in appeal or revision, the duty to enforce it has been casted on the Court of Sessions. The Court of Session must do so by issuing a warrant to ensure the sentence is carried out accordingly.

Importantly, Sec 455 BNSS lays down the law relating to the postponement of the death sentence where an appeal to the Supreme Court is pending. Sec 455(1) states that when death has been imposed on a person by the High Court and if such person has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134(1)(a) or 134(1)(b) of the Constitution, the High Court must pass an order of postponement of such death sentence. This postponement remains in effect until the time allowed for filing the appeal has expired, or, if an appeal is filed within that period, until the appeal is resolved.

Sub-section (2) provides that if the High Court passes or confirms a death sentence and the convicted person applies to the High Court for a certificate under Article 132 or sub-clause (c) of clause (1) of Article 134 of the Constitution, the execution of the sentence must be delayed. Such a delay may be in force unless and until the remedy to appeal to the Supreme Court based on such certificate has expired.

Finally, Sub-section (3) gives a framework to enable the person on whom the death penalty is imposed, to approach the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

In fact, Sec 456 BNSS provides that if a woman sentenced to death is found to be pregnant, this must be noted and the High Court is obliged to commute her sentence to one of imprisonment for life. As such, existing United States federal law and the law of most states elsewhere already provides for lesser charges during murder prosecution where pregnancy is involved.

1.4. SUSPENSION, REMISSION AND COMMUTATION OF DEATH SENTENCE

Sec 472 BNSS pertains to mercy petitions in death sentence cases. Sub-section (1) provides that a convict under a death sentence, or their legal heir or relative, may file a mercy petition before the President of India under Article 72 or the Governor of the State under Article 161 of the Constitution within thirty days of being informed by the Superintendent of the jail about the dismissal of their appeal, review, or special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court, or about the confirmation of the death sentence by the High Court after the allowed time for appeal has expired.

Sub-section (2) states that the petition can initially be submitted to the Governor. If rejected or disposed of by the Governor, the convict may appeal to the President within sixty days from the rejection or disposal. Further, Sub-section (3) provides that the Superintendent of the jail must ensure that every convict in a case files their mercy petition within sixty days. If that doesn't happen, then the Superintendent has to do the same by providing the names, addresses, case records, and other essential details to the Centre or State Govt. along with the mercy petition.

Further, Sub-Section (4) stipulates that on receiving mercy petition, the Central Government would call comments from State Government and consider it with case records and make a recommendation to the President as soon as possible and, in any case, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the comments of the State Government and records from jail. Also, Sub-section (5) says that the President can consider, decide and dispose of the mercy petitions, provided if there are more than one convicts in a case, their mercy petitions should be decided together in the interest of justice.

After the President has passed an order regarding the mercy petition, the Central Government is required to communicate the order to the Home Department of the State Government and the Superintendent of the jail or officer in charge, as soon as possible, not beyond the time, the sub section (6) of the section states. Lastly it states none can appeal in other courts against the orders of the President or the Governor made per Article 72 or Article 161 of the Constitution. These decisions are final, and there is no court review over any question of how the President or Governor made his decision.

Sec 474 deals with the power to commute sentences. It provides that an appropriate government may, without the consent of the accused sentenced, commute a sentence of death for only imprisonment of life. This is in stark contrast to the provision in CrPC which relates to the commutation of a death sentence.

Sec 475 provides that regardless of the provisions outlined in Section 473, if a person is sentenced to life imprisonment for an offense for which the law prescribes death as a possible punishment, or if a death sentence has been commuted to life imprisonment under Section 474, that individual cannot be released from prison until they have served a minimum of fourteen years. This provision is put in place to make sure that an individual serves a sentence proportionate to the offence committed while also to ensure that he undergoes rehabilitation measures while being imprisoned.

Section 476 BNSS provides for concurrent power of the Central Government in cases of death sentences. It says that the authorities granted to the State Government under Sections 473 and 474 regarding death sentences may also be exercised by the Central Government.

2. CONTEMPORARY TRENDS ON DEATH PENALTY

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab[6], the Supreme Court gave a 4:1 judgment and introduced the 'Rarest of the Rare' doctrine to limit the death penalty. The judges referred to earlier judgments in Jagmohan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh[7] and Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh[8], where they had held that death sentence takes away the fundamental right to life of an individual. However they also held that when a person's actions pose a grave, deliberate and continuous threat to the society, the state can justifiably take away his constitutional rights. The Supreme Court held that death penalty is not unconstitutional but should be reserved for the rarest of the rare cases where no other punishment is possible.

One prominent case that established principles that define the “Rarest of the Rare” doctrine is Machhi Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab[9]. The SC stated that to pass a death sentence, the following considerations must be assumed:

The way the murder was committed;

The murder's motive;

The anti-social or socially repulsive aspect of the offense;

The scale of criminality; and

Characteristics of the Murderer.

This doctrine remains a guiding light when it comes to the determination of a death sentence. But for a very long time, the top court has shown a hesitation towards granting the death penalty to an accused. This tendency prevails even now.

India has a problem of inconsistent death penalty sentencing. While the Supreme Court has confirmed only 7 death sentences from 2007 to 2022, trial courts continue to pass many more, showing lack of uniformity across the judiciary[10]. A study by National Law University Delhi, as per the Annual Statistics Report 2022 published by Project 39A, showed that as of December 31, 2022, India had 539 prisoners on death row—the highest since 2016[11]. This is a huge increase in number of people facing death penalty in recent years. But in a strange trend, the Supreme Court of India acquitted nearly 55% of the death row prisoners (6 prisoners) in the cases it heard in 2023. This inconsistency has been acknowledge by the SC in Manoj vs State of Madhya Pradesh[12] where an initiative to convene a Constitution Bench to reform the death penalty sentencing in India has been taken. The judgment underscore systemic failures by the police, prosecution, and trial courts. The recent acquittals by the SC have been outcomes of fabricated evidence, manipulated first information reports, the possibility of tampered forensic evidence and dubious recoveries of incriminating evidence by the police. Even the failure of providing efficient legal aid to the accused due to public pressure, media trials and political interests, results in inefficient defense to the accused and subsequently leads to his capital punishment.

Amidst all this, the BNS has increased the number of offences for which death penalty is a punishment. But the recommendations made by the Justice Verma Committee argued that the death sentence does not necessarily act as a deterrent against crimes such as sexual offences, including gang rapes[13]. All these conflict of opinions regarding death penalty and the trends of trial courts vis-à-vis the Supreme Court creates a complex spiral that only leads to ambiguity and arbitrariness which ultimately hinders the fair justice to both victims and death row convicts.

3. CRITICAL ANALYSIS ON THE NEW CRIMINAL LAWS IN DEATH PENALTY CONTEXT

Death penalty in BNS must be opposed. Capital punishment is based on retribution and not reformative justice. There is no empirical evidence that death penalty deters crime[14]. In a democratic society, death penalty has no justification as it gives the state the power to take the life of its citizens.

With respect to the procedural implications of death sentence, the BNSS has not done a good work. In the BNSS, Section 474 titled 'Power to commute sentence' lays down the extent of the statutory power of the Government to commute sentences. A major change brought about by the BNSS is concerning the limit imposed on the commutation of a death sentence. Under Section 433(a) of CrPC, a sentence of death would be commuted to `any other punishment' provided under IPC. But BNSS 2023 places a restriction upon the discretionary power exercised by the government to commute the death sentence only to life imprisonment. However, the BNSS restricts the discretionary power of the government by limiting the scope of commutation of a death sentence to a sentence of life imprisonment alone. This purportedly intends to increase the deterrence of such offenses, for which the death penalty has been awarded. But in reality, while there is no proper framework to efficiently establish the defense of the accused in sensitive cases, this limitation further robs him of the privilege to undergo a lesser sentence proportionate to the crime.

Though the BNSS purports to be modern legislation as opposed to the colonial CrPC, certain provisions of it explicitly have the colonial tint. Despite the acknowledgment and use of recent technological advancements like electronic evidence, recordings, etc in BNSS, when it comes to the mode of execution of the death penalty, the legislation still opted for the method used since the British rule. Under Sec 393(5), it states in the BNSS, that a judgment must also direct the mode of execution of the death penalty ie., hanged by the neck till death.

It has been widely argued and occasionally heard that hanging is an instantly lethal means of execution, but this belief has been debunked due to the overwhelming evidence that suggests that this form of execution causes extreme suffering. A documentary exploring “instantaneous death” caused by the dislocation of the cervical vertebrae in executions carried out in the U.S. and the U.K. uncovers that individuals frequently experience severe distress before death. Rather than dying instantly, they undergo prolonged asphyxiation, which results in a slow and agonizing process.

In addition, research has identified many documented instances of death by hanging going wrong through mechanical failure or human error. “Ropes have snapped, necks have slipped out of nooses, and partial and full decapitations have occurred,” said the report, while also noting the final torture of what is supposed at least to be a controlled procedure. Rather than receiving an instantaneous death by breaking of the neck, which would be a most merciful scenario, prisoners often die a slow strangulation, suffocating over a period of some time.

Previously, even the Supreme Court has asked the Centre to provide data which may point to less painful, more dignified and socially acceptable methods of executing prisoners other than death by hanging[15]. Also, the Law Commission of India in 2003 recommended that Section 354(5) of the CrPC should be amended by providing an alternative mode of execution of the death sentence by “lethal injection until the accused is dead”. However, the BNSS 2023 has not fulfilled these humane aspirations in the execution of the death penalty in India.

4. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION

India too must establish guidelines similar to the 'Sentencing Councils' existing in the United Kingdom, furnishing a systematic framework for Sessions Courts and for High Courts to deal with situations in which the evidence presented by the prosecution seems overwhelming, while the defence remains terribly unprepared. These provisions would include scenario in which the influence of media taints the fairness of the trial, counsel representing the legal aid does not provide vigorous defence, biased courts, or where there's a refusal to represent the accused by defense attorneys.

A significant move toward abolishing the death penalty would be to curb the practice of seeking early release for life convicts on political grounds. Life sentences with no possibility of remission should be used more often. In addition the definition of what the 'Rarest of the Rare' is also needs to be clear and objectively defined. It should leave no room for subjective bias or societal pressures. It must have a clear, transparent framework and mechanism in place to ensure the imposition of the death penalty is fair and uniform and intra vires the Constitution of India.

Views Are Personal

Life over death: On death penalty abolition and parliamentary panel report, THE HINDU (OCT. 13, 2024. 5:00 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/editorial/life-over-death-the-hindu-editorial-on-death-penalty-abolition-and-parliamentary-panel-report/article67536304.ece.

Vijaita Singh, Parliamentary panel on criminal law Bill leaves decision on death penalty to Centre, THE HINDU (OCT. 14, 2024, 9:10 AM), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/proposed-criminal-law-increases-number-of-crimes-attracting-death-penalty-from-11-to-15/article67532323.ece.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. 248-250 OF 2015.

Shailesh Kumar, The continuing distribution of the death penalty, THE HINDU (OCT. 12, 2024, 6:10 PM), https://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/the-continuing-distribution-of-the-death-penalty/article68652639.ece.

Joseph Mathai et.al., Review Death Penalty Punishments in Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023, PEOPLE'S UNION FOR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS, (OCT. 12, 2024, 5 PM), https://www.pudr.org/press-statements/review-death-penalty-punishments-in-bhartiya-nyaya-sanhita-2023/.

Abdul, SC Bench seeks data on alternatives to hanging, FORUMIAS, (OCT. 12, 2024 6 PM), https://forumias.com/blog/sc-bench-seeks-data-on-alternatives-to-hanging/.

(source: livelaw.in)

PAKISTAN: SHRC wants better mental health facilities for death row prisoners The Chairman Sindh Human Rights Commission (SHRC) Iqbal Ahmed Detho conducted an inspection of the Central Jail Hyderabad on Monday to assess the living conditions of death row prisoners. According to a press release of the visit, the SHRC observed that 248 prisoners were currently on death row in the prison but, disturbingly, a large number of them were experiencing mental health issues. The commission highlighted the urgent need for improved medical and psychological support systems within the prison facility and referral to tertiary mental hospitals for rehabilitation. The Chairman pointed out that the appeals of 88 condemned prisoners were pending hearings before higher courts as per data of the prison. "The SHRC’s inspection underscores its ongoing commitment to ensuring that the rights and dignity of prisoners, even of those on death row, are upheld in line with human rights principles and international standards as well as the Supreme Court's judgment in the Safia Bano case," he underlined. According to Detho, the commission was dedicated to working collaboratively with relevant authorities to address the challenges identified during the inspection. The commission in its recommendations called for providing enhanced mental healthcare services and psychological support for prisoners in addition to assuring improved living conditions which met basic human rights standards. The SHRC suggested that regular assessments of detention facilities should be carried out to ensure compliance with the legal and human rights obligations. The commission recommended that the condemned prisoners belonging to Mirpurkhas division should be shifted to Central Jail Mirpurkhas while there was also the need to upgrade the prison in Dadu district to the central jail so that inmates from that district could be shifted there. Chairman reiterated the SHRC’s commitment to protecting the fundamental rights of all individuals, including those detained in state facilities, and stressed the need for systemic reforms to address the issues identified during the visit. He requested the authorities to complete the ongoing construction of a women and children jail at the earliest to provide better living conditions to the inmates. (source: urdupoint.com)

KUWAIT:

Death Penalty Imposed on Indian Expat for Murder and Sexual Assault in Kuwait

(see: https://www.arabtimesonline.com/news/indian-expat-sentenced-to-death-for-murder-of-fellow-citizen/)

IRAN----executions

Jafar Fallah Executed in Semnan Prison

The execution of a prisoner named Jafar Fallah, who had been sentenced to death on drug-related charges, was carried out at Semnan Central Prison.

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the death sentence of a man was carried out at Semnan Central Prison on the morning of Sunday, January 12. The identity of the prisoner, who had been sentenced to death on drug-related charges, has been confirmed as 44-year-old Jafar Fallah.

A knowledgeable source told Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), “Jafar Fallah was from Zibashahr, Tehran, and had been arrested on drug-related charges 3 years ago and sentenced to death.”

The execution of this prisoner has not been announced by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The execution of prisoners sentenced to death for drug-related charges has increased sharply and consistently over the past 4 years. In 2023, there was an 84% increase compared to 2022, when 256 people were executed on drug-related charges. In 2023, the number of such executions reached 471.

*************

Houshang Shahi Executed in Isfahan

The execution of a prisoner named Houshang Shahi, who had been sentenced to death (qisas) for "premeditated murder," was carried out on Thursday morning at Isfahan Central Prison (Dastgerd). The execution marks the 2nd reported on the same day.

According to information obtained by Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), the death sentence of Houshang Shahi, approximately 40 years old, was carried out at Isfahan Central Prison on Thursday, January 9. Shahi had been sentenced to qisas (retribution-in-kind) for "premeditated murder."

Earlier reports confirmed the execution of another prisoner named Samad Najar-Asl, who had also been sentenced to qisas for "premeditated murder" on the same day in Isfahan Central Prison. This raises the total number of executions on Thursday in Isfahan to 2.

A knowledgeable source told Iran Human Rights (IHRNGO), “Houshang Shahi was originally from Lahijan but had been living in Isfahan with his family for years. He was the father of two children and was arrested five years ago for murder and sentenced to death.”

The source added, “Before his arrest, Houshang Shahi was a welder. He had a financial dispute with someone who owed him money, and in a confrontation, he threw a piece of iron at the debtor, which resulted in the debtor's death.”

The execution of this prisoner has not been reported by Iranian domestic media or official sources at the time of writing this report.

The lack of classification for murder charges in Iran means that all murder cases, regardless of circumstances, severity, or motive, can result in a death sentence.

(source for all: iranhr.net)

****************

Report on the Execution of a Prisoner in Gachsaran

On October 27, 2024, a prisoner previously sentenced to death on drug-related charges was executed in Gachsaran Prison, Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province.

The identity of the prisoner has been confirmed by HRANA as “Ebrahim Shooli.”

Based on information received by HRANA, Mr. Shooli had been arrested earlier on drug-related charges and subsequently sentenced to death by the judiciary.

As of the time of this report, prison officials and relevant authorities have not publicly confirmed the execution.

According to data compiled by HRANA, 52.69% of all executions in Iran in 2024 were related to drug-related charges. Notably, only 6% of the executions were officially announced, highlighting a significant lack of transparency.

**************

Drug-Related Charges: A Prisoner Executed in Arak Prison

At dawn yesterday, the death sentence of a prisoner previously convicted on drug-related charges was carried out in Arak Prison.

According to HRANA, the news agency of the Human Rights Activists in Iran, the execution took place on Sunday, January 12, 2025.

The prisoner has been identified as Pouya Asgari, 37, a resident of Arak. Based on information obtained by HRANA, Asgari was arrested in 2020 on drug-related charges and subsequently sentenced to death by the judiciary.

As of the time of this report, the execution has not been officially announced by prison authorities or relevant organizations.

According to data compiled by HRANA, 52.69% of all executions in Iran in 2024 were related to drug-related charges. Notably, only 6% of these executions were officially announced, highlighting a significant lack of transparency.

(source for all: en-hrana.org)

**************

Iran Protests: In the 51st Week, 34 Prisons Unite Against Executions

Iranian political prisoners and activists have intensified their protest against a sharp rise in executions, marking the 51st week of the “No to Executions on Tuesdays” campaign. The movement condemns the confirmation of death sentences for political prisoners Mojahed Kurkur, and Pakhshan Azizi, as well as the supporters of the People’s Mojahedin Organization (PMOI/MEK) Mehdi Hassani, and Behrouz Ehsani by the regime’s Supreme Court.

In a statement, the campaign described these sentences as “medieval” and vowed to fight for the abolition of the death penalty in Iran. Amid ongoing economic and political crises, the regime has escalated executions, reportedly executing over 100 individuals since early January in a bid to suppress dissent.

Prisoners from 34 facilities nationwide, including Evin and Ghezel Hesar prisons, have launched a hunger strike on Tuesday, January 14, to protest these rulings. The campaign has urged all Iranians to join the fight against the increasing use of capital punishment.

4 Prisons Join the “No to Executions on Tuesdays” Campaign in Its 51st Week

The participation of four additional prisons—Haviq Talesh, the women’s ward of Adelabad Prison in Shiraz, Borazjan, and Jovin—in the 51st week of the “No to Executions on Tuesdays” campaign has been announced.

The campaign strongly condemns the confirmation of death sentences for political prisoners Behrouz Ehsani, Mehdi Hassani, Pakhshan Azizi, and Mojahid Kurkur by the Supreme Court.

Amid escalating economic, cultural, and political crises in Iran, the regime, crippled by systemic corruption and structural inefficiency, has reached a deadlock and is incapable of addressing these issues. As a result, protests by various segments of society are occurring on a daily basis.

For Iran’s authoritarian rulers, it is evident that this widespread dissatisfaction will soon lead to another wave of large-scale uprisings, putting the very existence of this oppressive regime on a steep decline toward collapse. In a misguided calculation, the regime has resorted to increasing executions in an attempt to spread fear and deter protests. From last Tuesday to now, at least 17 individuals have been executed, and since the start of January, the number exceeds 102.

The Situation of Political Prisoners

Evin Women’s Ward Sit-in Protest: Female political prisoners in Evin Prison have staged sit-ins to protest these death sentences.

Mehdi Hassani: A political prisoner, Hassani is among those facing imminent execution.

Behrouz Ehsani Islamloo: Ehsani has been denied communication and phone privileges, leaving his situation uncertain.

Previously, it had upheld the death sentences of Mojahid Kurkur, four Baloch political prisoners, and four Arab political prisoners, all of whom face grave danger. Meanwhile, prisoners sentenced to death for non-political crimes are being executed daily.

In response to these inhumane rulings, many political activists, both inside and outside the prisons, along with families seeking justice, have reacted strongly and condemned these death sentences.

As emphasized repeatedly by the campaign, abolishing the inhumane practice of executions is possible only through solidarity, collective action, and widespread public participation.

On Tuesday, January 14, 2025, in the 51st week of the campaign, prisoners from 34 facilities will initiate a hunger strike to protest the executions:

Evin Prison (women’s ward, wards 4 and 8)

Ghezel Hesar Prison (units 3 and 4)

Karaj Central Prison

Greater Tehran Penitentiary

Khorein Varamin Prison

Arak Prison

Khorramabad Prison

Asadabad Prison, Isfahan

Dastgerd Prison, Isfahan

Sheiban Prison, Ahvaz

Shiraz Military Prison

Bam Prison

Kahnuj Prison

Tabas Prison

Mashhad Prison

Qaemshahr Prison

Rasht Prison (men’s and women’s wards)

Rudsar Prison

Ardabil Prison

Tabriz Prison

Urmia Prison

Salmas Prison

Khoy Prison

Naqadeh Prison

Saqqez Prison

Baneh Prison

Mariwan Prison

Kamyaran Prison

Haviq Talesh Prison

Adelabad Prison in Shiraz (women’s ward)

Jovin Prison, Razavi Khorasan Province

Borazjan Prison, Bushehr Province

(source: ncr-iran.org)

*************

Kurdish activists demand annulment of Pakhshan Azizi’s death penalty

A group of civil, human rights, political and media activists from Kurdistan have issued a statement calling for the immediate annulment of the death sentence imposed on Kurdish political prisoner Pakhshan Azizi and a review of her case.

The signatories also demanded review of the cases of other death row prisoners in the country.

The statement, entitled “Respect the Right to Life”, highlighted the widespread concern and anxiety caused by the Supreme Court’s confirmation of Azizi’s death sentence.

The signatories argued that in the midst of the growing social and economic crises facing the country, the issuance and enforcement of such sentences exacerbate public discontent and widen the gap between the government and society.

The full text of the statement, which bears the signatures of over 100 prominent figures, is as follows:

Respect the Right to Life

Following the confirmation of the death sentence of Ms. Pakhshan Azizi by the Supreme Court, a wave of concern and unrest has swept across society, particularly throughout Kurdistan. Considering the multifaceted challenges and crises that are increasingly affecting the people, society, and the country as a whole, we find the issuance and confirmation of such sentences in these critical times to be incompatible with any rational, customary, legal, or ethical standards. We firmly believe that such rulings will bring nothing but despair, a growing gap between society and the government, and heightened dissatisfaction.

Therefore, we, the undersigned, in light of the deeply concerning and tense atmosphere prevailing in society, urgently call for the immediate suspension of the execution process, a thorough re-investigation of the judicial proceedings and legal case, the annulment of Ms. Pakhshan Azizi’s death sentence, and a similar review for other death row inmates as an essential and unavoidable necessity.

Signatories:

Esmaeil Moftizadeh, Kak Hassan Amini, Mohammad Sedigh Kaboudvand, Siavash Hayati, Mohsen Razavi, Ashraf Sadegh Vaziri, Ejlal Ghavvami, Hamid Reza Samadi, Jalil Ahangarnezhad, Saeid Najjari (Mamosta Aso), Hashem Hossein-Panahi, Seyyed Hashem Hedayati, Seyyed Abbas Ahmadi, Abdollah Sohrabi, Bagher Piri, Seyyed Hanzaleh Hedayati, Mohsen Shafiei, Raouf Karimi, Shahram Safari, Ghafour Soleimani, Pezhman Habibi, Behrouz Zarei, Hamed Farazi, Sohrab Zanganeh, Leyla Gorgani, Golaleh Ahmad-Panah, Shamzin Zamani, Monireh Khoda-Karami, Mohsen Kavyani, Hossein Dolabi, Ramin Rezaei, Ali Ardalan, Houman Nasseri, Ramin Salehi, Hashem Hesami, Tofigh Shah-Moradi, Saeeid Zaki, Khaled Soleimani-Azar, Rashid Ilkhanizadeh, Saeid Sheikhi, Azad Mokri, Zhila Abbasi, Tayyeb Ahmadi, Masoud Karimi, Majid Sheikhi, Shaho Bahrami, Bahram Vaziri, Arash Sheikhi, Viyan Hosseini, Sasan Jahangiri, Heydar Safari, Masoud Doustan, Mehrdad Nahaei, Mehdi Ranjbar, Mousa Omidi, Sadegh Nasserzadeh, Ayoub Badpa, Kamal Jahan-Namaei, Heydar Ahmadi, Hassan Cheraghi, Ali Rashidi, Sadegh Rahimi, Reza Keykhosravi, Iraj Lamaei, Katayoun Darvishi, Saber Tahaei, Ardeshir Mohammadi, Negin Ebrahimpour, Falah Dadashpour, Khabat Miraki, Shoresh Sedighi, Saro Najmaddini, Tahsin Gholami, Daryoush Kurdistani, Afshin Mardoukhi, Rahmat Ezzat-Panah, Parvaneh Salavati, Hajar Khodadadi, Pari Naderi, Mokhtar Arshadi, Golareh As’adi, Mastoureh Asadi, Faegh Amiri, Maghsoud Dinar, Farhad Bakhtiari, Shahin Ranjbar, Kaveh Morovvati, Jalal Khoda-Moradi, Fereydoun Hatami, Osman Nouri, Shafi Arasteh, Edris Ghaderi, Kaveh Ahangari, Hassan Karimi, Asadollah Kharamanpour, Shahab Lahourpour, Mehdi Rahmani, Farshid Toulabi, Leyla Amiri, Mohammad Sharif Saedi, Mehdi Jafar-Beigi, Jabraeil Esmaeili, Zahed Oliyaei, Rahim Khateri, Saleh Shariati, Kioumars Hassani, Kianoush Ali-Khani, Hesam Seyyedi, Ronak Abtahi, Mahvash Fakhri, Leyla Veysi, Mohammad Sheikh-Ahmadi, Loghman Kamangar, Habibollah Mafakhari, Mansour Saed, and Jabbar Moradi.

(source: kurdistanhumanrights.org)

******************

Iran accuses Kurd sentenced to death of affiliation with ‘terrorist group’

An Iranian media outlet affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on Monday accused Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish woman sentenced to death, of allegedly being a member of "terrorist groups.”

IRGC-affiliated Tasnim news agency said that Pakhshan Azizi’s alleged “connection with the Kurdistan Democratic Party [of Iran] terrorist group began in the 2000s,” and in 2014 “joined the PKK [Kurdistan Workers’ Party] and PJAK [Free Life Party of Kurdistan] terrorist groups.”

Her involvement with the groups since 2009 has purportedly been to incite "chaos and civil disobedience" in Iran, according to Tasnim.

It further accused Azizi of joining university protests in Iran after being trained by the groups to spread social unrest.

In 2023, she was arrested for the 2nd time after meeting with a victim's family during Iran’s nationwide protests after entering the country illegally, the statement added.

She was sentenced to death in June 2024 for charges of “armed rebellion.”

On Wednesday, the Hengaw Organization for Human Rights watchdog reported that an Iranian court had upheld the sentence against Azizi.

”Branch 39 of the Supreme Court affirmed the death sentence against Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish political prisoner from Mahabad,” Hengaw said.

Tasnim claimed to have footage of Azizi carrying weapons while wearing the uniforms of the groups.

Her attorney Amir Raesiansaid that she was sentenced to death “without addressing numerous procedural and substantive flaws in the case,” as cited by Hengaw.

Azizi has been held in Tehran’s notorious Evin prison since August 4, 2023, and now faces the imminent threat of execution in the coming days.

“Her humanitarian efforts in refugee camps in northeast Syria (Rojava) and Sinjar, focused on aiding those affected by ISIS attacks, were peaceful and lacked any political motives,” Raeisiian added.

Following her death sentence, significant social media activity has emerged in support of Azizi, calling for the sentence to be overturned, with both Iranian society and the international community voicing their concerns.

Iran ranks second globally for known executions, according to Amnesty International.

Iran began 2025 by executing ten people in a prison north of Tehran, according to Hengaw, and Iran executed over 600 people in 2024, more than 120 of which were Kurds.

The death penalty has been used to suppress minority groups, like Kurds and Baluchis, who were active in the Jin Jiyan Azadi (Women Life Freedom) protests in 2022 that erupted after the death of young Kurdish woman Zhina (Mahsa) Amini while in custody of Iran’s so-called morality police for wearing a lax hijab.

(source: rudaw.net)

*****************

Rise in executions deeply troubling – UN Human Rights Chief

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk on Tuesday said he was deeply troubled by the marked increase in executions in Iran last year. At least 901 people were reportedly executed in 2024, including some 40 in 1 week alone in December. At least 853 people were executed in 2023.

“It is deeply disturbing that yet again we see an increase in the number of people subjected to the death penalty in Iran year-on-year,” said Türk. “It is high time Iran stemmed this ever-swelling tide of executions.”

Most of the executions last year were for drug-related offences, but dissidents and people connected to the 2022 protests were also executed. There was also a rise in the number of women executed.

“We oppose the death penalty under all circumstances,” said the High Commissioner. “It is incompatible with the fundamental right to life and raises the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people. And, to be clear, it can never be imposed for conduct that is protected under international human rights law.”

The UN Human Rights Chief urged the Iranian authorities to halt all further executions, and to place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to ultimately abolishing it.

Some 170 States have either abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its use.

(source: iran-hrm.com)

JANUARY 13, 2025:

USA:

The Guardian view on capital punishment: an upsurge in executions should concern us all----The vast majority of countries have outlawed the death penalty. Yet the annual toll is growing – and Donald Trump wants to increase its use

The good news: Zimbabwe has just banned the death penalty. While it should remove an exemption clause, which might allow for capital punishment’s return were a state of emergency to be declared, the decision is another welcome step in the global journey towards abolition: 113 states have now banned executions.

The bad news is that fewer countries have been killing more people in the last few years. Last May, Amnesty International recorded 1,153 executions in 2023, a 31% increase from the previous year and the highest level for almost a decade. (The figure is an underestimate since countries including China, believed to be the world’s largest executioner, do not publish data on the death penalty.) There was no letup in 2024. Iran reportedly executed more than 900 people. Saudi Arabia is believed to have killed another 330, compared with 172 in 2023.

In the US, the toll was stable. But while more states have abolished capital punishment over recent years, there is a renewed push for executions in retentionist states. Three – Utah, South Carolina and Indiana – resumed killings last year after more than a decade.

Joe Biden’s decision to commute the sentences of 37 men under federal death sentences in December was welcome. He should have sent a still clearer moral message by doing the same for the remaining three, who committed terrorist or hate-motivated mass murder.

But the spur to his action was clear. Thirteen federal prisoners were executed in the first term of Donald Trump, a death penalty zealot – more than under the previous 10 presidents combined. They included executions carried out against the wishes of prosecutors and victims. A new administration cannot undo the commutations, and the lengthy appeals process ensures that the remaining trio will not be executed on Mr Trump’s watch. But he has vowed to “vigorously pursue the death penalty” and called for the execution of everyone selling drugs. And state death sentences are vastly more common than federal: the Death Penalty Information Center says that about 2,250 prisoners are on death row.

In his last term, Mr Trump appointed federal and supreme court judges who have ensured that the default is now to refuse appeals instead of taking them. Above all, he has embedded and intensified a political culture that pursues executions with increasing ruthlessness. States are not only more aggressive in seeking and implementing death sentences, but are turning to crueller methods including nitrogen gas – banned by veterinarians for use on most mammals across Europe and the US.

Those killed are vastly more likely to be poor and to be people of colour; many have intellectual disabilities or histories of severe childhood abuse. In a startling number of cases there are serious doubts about their convictions. Missouri killed Marcellus Williams in September against the opposition of the victim’s family, jurors and even the office that prosecuted him. DNA traces from the scene could not be linked to Mr Williams.

That case, like others, has sparked a surprising backlash even among Republicans who back the death penalty. And, while the majority of Americans still support capital punishment, for the first time most young Americans oppose it – with support falling slightly among young Republicans too. That should give heart to abolitionists in the US and globally. While the blood-hungry may seem to be in the ascendant, there is more reason than ever to push for an end to state-mandated murder.

(source: Editorial, The Guardian)

****************

10 Shocking Facts About the Electric Chair

Since 1887, the electric chair has fascinated and horrified people around the world. The stiff, uninviting planks of wood the chairs are made of have become synonymous with the controversial method of execution.

Since its invention, the chair has continued to evolve, for better or worse. Here are 10 things you might not have known about the electric chair.

The Youngest Person Killed by the Chair Was Only 14 Years Old

Execution in South Carolina: 14-Year-Old George Stinney Convicted in 1944

Only 5 feet (1.5 m) tall and less than 90 pounds (40.8 kg), George Stinney was sentenced to death for the murder of 2 local white girls in 1944. A 14-year-old Black boy, Stinney stood no chance against accusations from neighborhood adults. Though the only “proof” was that the girls had stopped at Stinney’s house to ask where to pick flowers, the boy was arrested and taken to jail. After less than 10 minutes of deliberation, an all-white jury declared Stinney guilty and sentenced him to death by electric chair. Because of his short stature and young age, it’s rumored that Stinney needed to stand on a pile of books to sit in the chair.

70 years later, Stinney’s conviction was vacated, as a court found that he was “fundamentally deprived of due process throughout the proceedings against him.” Stinney is not only the youngest person to be electrocuted in the chair but also the youngest person to be executed in the U.S. in the 20th century.

Andy Warhol Was Inspired by It

Perhaps the most influential artist of the 1960s, Andy Warhol, is known for his colorful photos of Marilyn Monroe, Campbell’s Soup cans, and… the electric chair?

In 1964, Warhol released a series of 10 photos of the deadly furniture with different colors as part of his “Death and Disaster” series. The over-saturation of color and repetitiveness of the same image being shown repeatedly represented how, when hearing about the disasters and sad things happening in the world, we become desensitized to it.Though it’s far from his most famous work, many Warhol experts agree that “Big Electric Chair” is a perfect example of the artist’s ability to critique America through photos.

A Wet Sponge Is Used to Conduct Currents

Anyone who’s seen The Green Mile knows that the wet sponge placed on top of the inmate’s head is important to the electrocution process. The saline-soaked sponge helps conduct the electricity move more quickly and more efficiently, killing the victim faster. Placing it directly on the inmate’s head allows the electricity to go straight to the brain rather than spread across the body. The quicker the brain is electrocuted, the faster death occurs, and pain is avoided.

While it’s not necessary, as even without the sponge, the electricity conducted would kill a man, it’s been used since 1890 as a way to ensure that the experience is over as quickly as possible.

Some People Survive It

Nothing is foolproof, and unfortunately, this even applies to execution. Stories of hangings leaving people with broken necks but still breathing, or bullets inducing comas that make people appear dead, have haunted the narrative for hundreds of years. As science and society have progressed, it seems only natural, so should our forms of capital punishment.While the electric chair theoretically offers a quicker and less painful way of killing someone, there are multiple cases of people surviving the initial flip of the switch. The most famous example of this was in 1946. Rather than dying, 17-year-old Willie Francis started screaming in pain after the “lethal” surge of electricity from the Louisiana State Penitentiary electric chair. Later, it was discovered that the prison guard who set it up had been drunk on the job.

As if being electrocuted alive wasn’t bad enough, Francis’s appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, and a few months later, the teenager was successfully killed by the same chair that had failed to do it the 1st time.

There’s More than One “Old Sparky”

If you asked the average person to name one electric chair, I can almost guarantee they’ll answer “Old Sparky.”

While it’s not technically wrong, they (and you) may be surprised to learn that Old Sparky isn’t just one chair but multiple. The state prisons of fourteen U.S. states refer to their local chairs by this nickname, while a few others call their infamous piece of furniture “Old Smokey.” The “sparky” comes from the sparking and crackling noises that sometimes occur during use. Not tactful, but it is catchy.The first “Old Sparky” is probably also the most famous, stationed in New York’s Sing Sing Prison. In 1887, this was the 1st state to adopt the new form of capital punishment. All other electric chairs were modeled after this one, making the ensuing ones more like New Sparkies.

It’s Still Used in Some States

The electric chair is not just a scary reminder of the brutality of the Victorian Era. In 11 U.S. states, prisoners may still be electrocuted in the chair.

Arguments about the moral implications of capital punishment have been around for decades. Still, few methods spark (ha!) more controversy than this one. Electrocution is not the primary mode of execution in any state and may only be used if the inmate requests it.

In 2021, South Carolina passed a law forcing electrocution on prisoners if lethal injection was not available. This was eventually overturned, as a court decided the idea that the electric chair could painlessly kill someone was based on arcane information. It is “inconsistent with both the concepts of evolving standards of decency and the dignity of man,” as even if an inmate survived only 15 or 30 seconds, he would suffer the experience of being burned alive. This punishment has long been recognized as manifestly cruel and unusual.

It Doesn’t Always Kill Instantly

At the time of invention, the electric chair was thought to be a more humane way of euthanasia. Though it’s strange to think that electrocuting someone could actually be a mercy, the other methods were worse.

Previously, hanging had been the most popular form of execution in the United States. Unfortunately, hangings were easy to botch, leading to painful and prolonged deaths. The gas chamber was considered “cruel and unusual,” and it was difficult to find qualified people to properly complete lethal injections.Sadly, the electric chair did not always kill its victims right away. There are reports of people essentially being fried alive, with one 1990 case standing out. Alabama prisoner Horace F. Dunkins’s execution took a whopping 19 minutes to kill him, with the man screaming in pain the whole time.

It’s Also Been Used in the Philippines

Even though the electric chair is associated with the United States, there’s one more country that adopted the form of euthanasia—the Philippines.

This came about in 1926, when the United States’ colonial Insular Government introduced it to the Asian territory, making it the only other country to ever use it. It was the primary form of euthanasia in the Philippines for 50 years until 1976, when it was replaced by lethal injection. During that time, 85 people were killed in the chair, one of whom was only 16 years old.

Thomas Edison Helped Fund Its Development—Not With Good Intent

At the turn of the century, no American scientist was more famous than Thomas Edison, inventor of the lightbulb (and more). His electric company was revolutionizing buildings and communities across the world, but he had some concerns. Around the same time Edison began pushing direct-current voltage (DC), rival inventor George Westinghouse was promoting his own “alternating-current voltage (AC).

When it became known that the electric chair was being developed, Edison suggested that AC be used. That’s right, Westinghouse’s current. Why? Well, it’s pretty sneaky. Edison knew that if AC became standard for the electric chair, it would convince America that AC was unsafe and a killer, while DC would become the safer alternative.

And it worked better than Edison could have ever hoped. At the 1st human execution, the inmate was not killed during the 1st round of electricity. He agonized for minutes, with witnesses watching on in horror. It became a media scandal, with Westinghouse himself claiming “they could have done a better job with an ax.”

It Was Invented by a Dentist

Even the bravest among us can probably admit they feel a flash of terror upon sitting in a dentist’s chair. Whether it’s the anxiety of telling the hygienist you haven’t flossed in a year or fear of a cavity, a trip to the dentist’s office is pretty much the opposite of being a kid in a candy store.In 1881, Alfred Southwick furthered this scary stereotype by not only being a dentist, the most dreaded of careers, but also inventing the electric chair. To be fair to Southwick, it wasn’t out of malice. The opposite, in fact.

Southwick was a Quaker, a religious group that believes everyone is equal and deserves to be treated as such. After learning about a man who had died immediately upon touching a live electric generator, Southwick realized electricity could be used to create a more humane way of executing people. The idea of harnessing this electricity into a chair came from Southwick’s familiarity with performing procedures on patients in the dentist’s chairs.

So next time you get a root canal, just be thankful the chair you’re sitting in isn’t Old Sparky.

(source: Nora McCaughey, listverse.com)

PAKISTAN:

Man, son awarded death penalty in Jamshoro for killing relative, his daughter over ‘honour’

Jamshoro’s additional sessions court on Friday sentenced a man and his son to death after they were found guilty of murdering a young woman and her father in the name of honour.

The convicts Ali Mohammad Rind and his son Munir alias Farooq Rind had reportedly brutally killed 50-year-old Meer Rind and his 18-year-old daughter Ms Nimani in Joghi Khan Rind village near Sehwan in 2023.

The convicts, who were close relatives of the victims, carried out the double murder over suspicions the father and her daughter had disgraced the family, according to an FIR registered by ASI Mohammad Saleem Rind at Sehwan police station.

The court, besides handing down the capital punishment to the father and son, also imposed on them Rs200,000 each fine.

The judge emphasised in the verdict that the crime had been committed with premeditated intent and a blatant disregard for human life, hence the severity of the punishment.

The tragic incident highlights widespread menace of honour killings in the area, which sparks public outcry from time to time.

(source: dawn.com)

MALAYSIA:

Death sentence commuted to 40-year prison for murder, rape convict

A former lorry driver who raped, sodomised and murdered an 85-year-old woman in 2019 has had his death sentence commuted to 40 years in prison by the Federal Court on Monday (Jan 13).

A 3-judge panel consisting of Justices Datuk Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal, Datuk Nordin Hassan and Datuk Abu Bakar Jais, dismissed K. Sathiaraj's appeal to overturn his murder conviction.

However, they allowed his appeal to commute the death sentence to a 40-year prison term, to be served from the date of arrest, which was Oct 9, 2019.

Justice Harmindar, who chaired the panel, also ordered Sathiaraj, 32, to be given 12 strokes of the cane.

In Aug 2022, Sathiaraj was found guilty and sentenced to death by the High Court for killing the woman in a flat in Kampung Tasik Tambahan, Ampang, Selangor between 11.40am and 1pm on Sept 19, 2019.

Before that, Sathiaraj had pleaded guilty to raping and sodomising the woman and was sentenced to 13 years in jail and 5 lashes of the cane by the Ampang Sessions Court. He did not appeal against this decision.

His appeal against his murder conviction and death sentence was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in February last year.

In Monday’s proceeding at the Federal Court, Sathiaraj's lawyer, Anwar Ezzad Zainal, requested the court to commute his client's death sentence to a 31-prison term, in line with the Abolition of Mandatory Death Penalty Act 2023.

However, deputy public prosecutor How May Ling argued for the death penalty to be maintained, describing Sathiaraj’s acts as horrifying, cruel, and diabolical in a most exceptional case.

She detailed how Sathiaraj had pretended to ask for water from the elderly woman, then followed her into her home and locked the doors behind her.

She said Sathiaraj proceeded to stuff the woman's mouth with layers of cloth, wrapped her head tightly with clothing to suffocate her, and then tied her hands behind her back before raping and sodomising her without any mercy and leaving her to die.

(source: thestar.com.my)

ISRAEL:

'Death sentence to all 10/7 terrorists,' says senior official in State Attorney's office

Attorney Moran Gez, former head of security cases in the Southern District Attorney's Office, is calling for the death penalty for all the terrorists who took part in the October 7th massacre.

"The longer we delay the filing of indictments, the more this works against us, especially in regard to world public opinion. It all depends on the Attorney General and the State Attorney," Gez said in an interview with Kan Reshet Bet.

Gez was part of the 0710 team, which is responsible for preparing indictments against terrorists who took part in the October 7th massacre. She claims that the filing of indictments has been delayed because "they are more focused on legal issues, than with making quick legislative amendments that will lead to a solution." This investigation, she claimed, "will never end while IDF forces are there."

Gez said that litigation is taking place, in which the political echelon is hardly involved, and that several offenses might enable the filing of indictments which will lead to the death penalty.

According to Gez, "Some of the most senior position holders think that filing for the death penalty could harm the hostages and they would be executed."

On the other hand, she emphasized that while the team in charge of filing the indictments is discussing the various offenses, "there are those who have said unequivocally that if the goal is not death penalty, they will not be part of the management of the case."

(source: israelnationalnews.com)

IRAN:

Kurdish National Front calls on Iranian authorities to reverse decision to execute Bakhshan Azizi----Amid the escalation of reactions condemning the death sentence of Kurdish activist Bakhshan Azizi in Iran, the Kurdish National Front called on the authorities to retract it.

The Kurdish National Front called on the Iranian authorities to reverse the death sentence issued against the Kurdish activist, Bakhshan Azizi, stressing that these decisions contribute to deepening the problems in Iran.

After the Iranian Supreme Court approved the death sentence issued against the Kurdish activist Bakhshan Azizi, reactions condemning and rejecting the decision are escalating from humanitarian organizations and national figures.

In this context, the Kurdish National Front issued a statement in which it denounced the death penalty issued by the Iranian authorities, demanding that they rescind it.

Through the statement, the Front announced its solidarity with the family of Bakhshan Azizi, and called on the Iranian authorities and concerned parties to withdraw the death sentences issued against Bakhshan Azizi and other political detainees.

The Kurdish National Front also confirmed that the unfair decisions contribute to further deepening the problems.

Bakhshan Azizi was arrested for the 1st time in 2009 during a student protest, and was released 4 months later on bail.

On August 4, 2023, she was arrested again in Tehran, and was subjected to physical and psychological torture during her detention. On July 24, the Revolutionary Court in Tehran issued a death sentence.

(source: hawarnews.com)

JANUARY 12, 2025:

FLORIDA----impending execution

Florida man convicted of killing couple set to die in state's 1st execution of 2025----Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the death warrant for James Ford on Friday. Ford is slated to be put to death on Feb. 13 at Florida State Prison

A Florida man convicted of murdering a husband and wife during a fishing trip nearly 30 years ago is set to be executed next month in the state's 1st scheduled execution of 2025.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed the death warrant for James Ford on Friday. Ford is slated to be put to death on Feb. 13 at Florida State Prison.

Ford was given the death penalty for the killings of Greg and Kimberly Malnory, whose bodies were found at the South Florida Sod Farm in a remote part of Charlotte County on April 7, 1997. According to court documents, the Malnorys had been bludgeoned and shot, with both suffering multiple blunt force head injuries.

Kimberly had also been raped. Her body was found near the couple's truck, where their 22-month-old baby had been left for more than 18 hours, exposed to the elements and covered in her mother's blood.

Ford was also convicted of sexual battery and child abuse.

Ford’s execution would be the 1st in Florida in 2025. 1 person was put to death in 2024, down from 6 in 2023, when DeSantis was campaigning for the Republican presidential nomination. During the previous 3 years, the governor didn't sign off on any executions.

(source: nbcmiami.com)

*************

Veterans on Florida's Death Row, Part I----Welcome to the latest series from Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty: Veterans on Florida’s Death Row. This series explores information about veterans who are or have been on Florida's death row.

Welcome to the latest series from Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty: Veterans on Florida’s Death Row.1

Patrick McDowell’s 2024 death sentence raised the issue of veterans being sentenced to death following their service. (Read more here.) A 2015 study by the Death Penalty Information Center found that approximately 10% of prisoners on death row across the country are veterans, and “many more [have] been executed.” 2

Florida has executed at least 14 military veterans since 1976. This accounts for more than 10% of all of Florida’s executions since 1976. Florida’s full list of executions can be found here.

Chadwick Banks----Chadwick Banks was sentenced to death for 2 counts of 1st-degree murder following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 9-3.3 While the trial court found that Banks served in the military, it was assigned “little weight” because it, along with other factors, was “no more than society expects from the average individual.”4

Banks was executed on November 13, 2014.

Oba Chandler----Oba Chandler was sentenced to death for 3 murders that occurred in September 1994. Chandler previously served in the Marine Corps and was honorably discharged. At sentencing, “the trial court only found that his honorable discharge from the U.S. Marine Corps” was “established as nonstatutory mitigation” but assigned it little weight.5

Chandler was executed on November 15, 2011.

Bennie Demps----Bennie Demps was sentenced to death in 1978 for killing a fellow inmate.6 Regarding his military service, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit wrote in 1989:

On November 20, 1969, Demps enlisted in the United States Marine Corps for a two year period. His service record revealed one special court-martial conviction and two nonjudicial punishments for five assaults, communication of a threat, and disobeying a lawful order. Due to these offenses, after eleven months of service, Demps received a dishonorable discharge in November, 1970. In January, 1979, under a special discharge review program, Demps' dishonorable discharge was upgraded to a general discharge. . . . [T]he record reflects no evidence indicating any overseas combat experience. Rather, the record shows that Demps had been stationed at Camp LeJeune, North Carolina.7

Demps was executed on June 7, 2000.

David Funchess----David Funchess was sentenced to death, and his sentence became final in 1981. Funchess was executed by electrocution on April 22, 1986.

While the opinions discussing his case do not mention his military service, news coverage of his execution report that he was a Vietnam veteran.8 One report stated that Funchess had been “diagnosed as suffering from stress stemming from duty in Vietnam.”9 Another report stated that Funcess “returned from the Vietnam War with leg wounds that earned him the Purple Heart, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and eventually an addiction to self-medicating drug addiction.”10

Patrick Hannon----Patrick Hannon was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1991 following a jury’s unanimous recommendation for death.11 His sentence became final on February 21, 1995.12 The record in his case indicated that Hannon “had been unsuccessful in the military.”

Hannon was executed by lethal injection on November 8, 2017.

Paul Howell----Paul Howell was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1992 following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 10-2.13 At sentencing, the trial court considered that “Howell had served in the military and received an honorable discharge,” which the Court assigned “little weight.”14

Howell was executed on February 26, 2014.

Larry Johnson----Larry Johnson was sentenced to death, and his sentence became final in 1984.

In January 1993, when Johnson was under an active death warrant, the Florida Supreme Court issued a decision denying Johnson’s requests for relief. Justice Kogan wrote a specially concurring opinion focusing on Johnson’s military service that, according to Justice Kogan, was not given adequate consideration at trial. Justice Kogan wrote:

When this death warrant is executed, Florida will electrocute a man injured and most probably maimed psychologically while serving in his nation's military in Vietnam and elsewhere. . . . The court record in this case leads me to the disturbing conclusion that the legal system has failed to give Larry Joe Johnson even one particle of credit for his honorable service to his country or for the injury and disability he suffered while in the armed forces of the United States.

Prior to injuries he sustained while on military duty in 1974, Johnson was a man with a good military record of more than twelve years' duration, including stints in the Navy and National Guard. People described him as bighearted and friendly despite being abandoned at birth by both parents and left to his grandmother's care. He was decorated during two tours of duty totaling some fifteen months in Vietnam. Johnson enlisted to serve in Vietnam, and he did so because he had admired the military all his life. His grandmother's home was next to a National Guard installation, where Johnson as a child had watched the men in arms, wanting to be like them. He fulfilled that dream.

One of the men assigned to Johnson's unit in the National Guard testified that, prior to the 1974 accident, Johnson was a good and friendly man who had risen to the rank of sergeant. . . .

But after a freak head injury on military maneuvers in 1974,4 Johnson descended into madness so severe he was hospitalized for ten months. He was ruled disabled, unable to continue his military service. After his later release from hospital and medical discharge from the military, Johnson could not control himself in the military manner he once had mastered. One psychologist said it was shameful that the military psychiatrists had failed to continue treatment of a man whose injury had transformed him into a “time bomb,” a man who had even urged these psychiatrists to see that his own children be taken from him because he knew he could not control his temper any longer.

. . . .

There was psychological testimony at trial suggesting the reasons why Johnson lost control of his own mind. An expert in post-traumatic stress disorder suffered by Vietnam veterans indicated that the 1974 injury not only may have left some brain damage, but it also reawakened the nightmarish experiences Johnson had endured in Vietnam.

One experience in particular had bothered Johnson tremendously: He had witnessed a close friend named Mack drive a truck over a Vietnamese land mine, which exploded. Almost nothing identifiable was left of Mack's body, but Johnson had run forward to try to help. Johnson had searched through the debris and couldn't understand why he could not find Mack. On other occasions in Vietnam, Johnson had a bulldozer blown out from under him; he was held at gunpoint by two Vietnamese; and he witnessed a Vietnamese stab a friend standing next to him.15

Chief Justice Barkett and Justice Shaw joined in the opinion.

Johnson was executed by electrocution on May 8, 1993.16

Michael Lambrix----Michael Lambrix was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1983.

Lambrix went to basic training for the army, where he suffered an injury that caused him to be honorably discharged.17 Throughout the litigation related to his death sentence, Lambrix raised numerous claims. Evidence bout the injuries he sustained at basic training were at the center of his fifth successive postconviction relief, in which he argued that he was “entitled to relief because he recently was able to locate his ex-wife, who allegedly made herself deliberately unavailable until [that point], and she has prepared an affidavit discussing the injury that Lambrix suffered during the army's basic training, which caused him debilitating pain and led him to self-medicate by turning to alcohol and illicit drugs. In addition, Lambrix presented a decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals and a report by privately retained defense expert Dr. Thomas M. Hyde.”18 In 2013, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s denial of the Lambrix’s claims.19

Lambrix was executed by lethal injection on October 5, 2017.

Bobby Joe Long----Bobby Joe Long was sentenced to death in 2 separate cases. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, Long served in the Vietnam War and was diagnosed with “Traumatic Brain Disease” by the Veterans Administration “as a result of injuries sus­tained dur­ing his mil­i­tary ser­vice. . . . Following his diag­no­sis, he was dis­charged and giv­en a ?’ser­vice-con­nect­ed dis­abil­i­ty rat­ing,’ but received lit­tle or no treat­ment from the mil­i­tary or the VA for his brain dam­age.”20

Long was executed by lethal injection on May 23, 2019.

Glen Ocha----Glen Ocha was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in the fall of 1999. Although evidence of his military service was presented at sentencing, the trial court afforded “no weight to Ocha’s military service” as mitigation.21

Ocha was executed on April 5, 2005.

Manuel Pardo----Manuel Pardo was sentenced to 9 sentences of death in 1988. In mitigation, the trial court considered that Pardo “he had served in the military.”22 In addition, Pardo served as a police officer before the crimes.23 His sentences of death became final in 1991.

Pardo was executed on December 11, 2012.

Daniel “Danny” Rolling----Danny Rolling was sentenced to death in 1994 for killing 5 University of Florida students in 1990 following the jury’s unanimous recommendations for death.24 According to a news article, Rolling was “[k]icked out of the Air Force in 1972 after getting busted for drug possession.”25 His father was a “decorated Korean War veteran.”26

Rolling was executed on October 25, 2006.

Arthur Rutherford----Arthur Rutherford was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1985 following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 7-5.27 At trial, the defense presented mitigation evidence “regarding . . . the fact that his involvement in Vietnam had changed him in that he had become jittery and nervous, had nightmares, and experienced night sweats. Rutherford testified on his own behalf in the penalty phase . . . regarding his military service, including his horrifying experiences in Vietnam and his numerous military commendations.”28 While the trial court considered this (and other) evidence, it did not find any nonstatutory mitigating circumstances.29

On postconviction, the Florida Supreme Court noted that trial counsel testified that “‘Rutherford did not want [him] to use any military background or record, and would not discuss Vietnam service or his Marine Corps service in general’ until he unexpectedly did so on the stand during the penalty phase.”30

Rutherford was executed by lethal injection on October 18, 2006.31

Newton Slawson----Newton Slawson was sentenced to 4 sentences of death for crimes that occurred in 1989. The jury’s votes for death were 8-4, 7-5, 7-5, and 9-3.32 The record reflects that Slawson “served in the Navy for slightly over two years as an operations specialist and received an honorable discharge.”33

Slawson was executed on May 16, 2003.

1--This post was updated after it was originally posted to add information thanks to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Due to the age of some records and the unavailability of some information, it is possible that the lists in this series are incomplete. If you know of a veteran who is not included on the lists in this series, please let me know. Also, for purposes of thoroughness, this series includes those who were discharged from the military.

2--Dr. Thornton has also written about veterans on Florida’s death row here.

3--Banks v. State, 842 So. 2d 788, 790 (Fla. 2003).

4--Banks v. State, 700 So. 2d 363, 365 (Fla. 1997).

5--Chandler v. State, 702 So. 2d 186, n.3 (Fla. 1997).

6--Demps v. Dugger, 874 F.2d 1385, 1386 (11th Cir. 1989).

7--Id. at 1390.

8--AP, Vietnam Veteran Is Put to Death in Florida, N.Y. Times (April 23, 1986), https://www.nytimes.com/1986/04/23/us/vietnam-veteran-is-put-to-death-in-florida.html; Headsman, 1986: David Funchess, Vietnam War veteran, Executed Today (April 22, 2020), https://www.executedtoday.com/2020/04/22/1986-david-funchess-vietnam-war-veteran/

9--AP, supra note 3.

10--Headsman, supra note 3.

11--Hannon v. Sec’y, Dep’t of Corrs., 622 F. Supp. 2d 1169, 1178 (M.D. Fla. 2007).

12--Id.

13--Howell v. State, 109 So. 3d 763, 766 (Fla. 2013).

14--Id.

15--Johnson v. Singletary, 612 So. 2d 575, 577-80 (Kogan, J., concurring specially).

16--Johnson executed in Florida electric chair, UPI (May 8, 1993), https://www.upi.com/Archives/1993/05/08/Johnson-executed-in-Florida-electric-chair/9346736833600/.

17--Lambrix v. State, 124 So. 3d 890, 903 (Fla. 2013).

18--Id. at 900-01.

19--Id.

20--Florida Executes Mentally Ill Vietnam Veteran Diagnosed with “Traumatic Brain Disease, Death Penalty Info. Ctr. (May 23, 2019), https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/florida-executes-mentally-ill-vietnam-veteran-diagnosed-with-traumatic-brain-disease

21--Ocha v. State, 826 So. 2d 956, 960 (Fla. 2002).

22--Pardo v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corrs., 587 F.3d 1093, 1096 (11th Cir. 2009).

23--Id.

24--Rolling v. State, 695 So. 2d 278, 283 (Fla. 1997).

25--Danny Rolling: The True Story Behind the Killer Who Inspired ‘Scream’, Biography (last updated Oct. 14, 2020), https://www.biography.com/crime/danny-rolling-scream-killer-gainesville.

26--Id.

27--Rutherford v. State, 727 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 1998). At his original trial, the jury’s recommendation for death was 8-4. Id. at 217. However, the trial court declared a mistrial. Id.

28--Id. at 218.

29--Id.

30--Id. at 225.

31--Nathan Crabbe, State executes convicted killer, Gainesville Sun (Oct. 19, 2006), https://www.gainesville.com/story/news/2006/10/19/state-executes-convicted-killer/31500018007/.

32--Slawson v. State, 796 So. 2d 491, 493 n.1 (Fla. 2001).

33--Id. at 497.

********************

Tracking Florida's Death Penalty

Veterans on Florida's Death Row, Part II----Welcome to Part II of the latest series from Tracking Florida’s Death Penalty: Veterans on Florida’s Death Row, exploring information about veterans who are or have been on Florida's death row.

Died on Death Row

In addition to the 14 who have been executed, at least 11 military veterans died while on Florida’s death row under a sentence of death.2

Lloyd Chase Allen (Monroe County)----Lloyd Chase Allen was sentenced to death following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 11-1.3 On direct appeal in 1995, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence of death.4 In its opinion, the Court wrote:

As noted in the sentencing order in this case, even though the two nonstatutory mitigating factors of family background and military service were not argued to the court, the court found evidence of these factors contained within the record. Both the presentence investigation report and the psychological evaluations, which are part of the record in this case, contain evidence to support the mitigating circumstances found by the judge.5

Allen died on July 29, 2015, after over 20 years on Florida’s death row. He was 69 years old.

Stephen Booker (Alachua County)----Stephen Booker was sentenced to death following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 9-3.6 Booker testified at the penalty phase, in part about his military service. He served in Okinawa and spent time “in various hospitals, including Camp Codie Medical Center on Okinawa and Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C. while he was in the armed services.”7

Booker died on November 3, 2022, after almost 50 years on Florida’s death row. He was 69 years old.

James Card (Bay County)----James Card was sentenced to death in 1982. At sentencing, the trial court considered Card’s “good military record” as mitigation. Specifically, the trial court considered that “Card served in the Army National Guard and received an honorable discharge” and assigned it some weight.8

Card died on April 10, 2021, after almost 40 years on Florida’s death row. He was 74 years old.

Andrew Gosciminski (St. Lucie County)----Andrew Gosciminski was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 2002 following the jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 9-3.9 At sentencing, the trial court considered Gosciminski’s military service as mitigation. Specifically, the trial court considered that “Gosciminski served in the United States Air Force and was honorably discharged,” which the court assigned moderate weight.10

Gosciminski died on November 13, 2020, after 11 years on Florida’s death row. He was 67 years old.

Harold Hooper (Nassau County)----Harold Hooper was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in mid-1982. As mitigation at sentencing, the trial court considered that Hooper “served in the U.S. Army in 1960.”11

DOC’s records do not reflect Hooper’s death. However, a Tampa Bay Times article published April 24, 1992, says Hooper died from cancer while on Florida’s death row after “fighting for nearly a decade to stay out of the electric chair.”12 At the time of his death, he had a claim of innocence pending.13

Eddie Sexton, Sr. (Hillsborough County)----Eddie Sexton, Sr. was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1993 when Sexton was 52. The jury recommended death by a vote of 8-4.14 In the Sentencing Order, the trial court stated that it considered Sexton’s “military service” in mitigation.15 However, Sexton’s trial counsel decided not to present much information about Sexton’s army service because “he id not think that information would have been helpful or mitigating.”16

Sexton died on December 29, 2010, after 12 years on Florida’s death row. He was 68 years old.

Lawrence Singleton (Hillsborough County)----Lawrence Singleton was sentenced to death for crimes that occurred in 1997 following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 10-2.17 At sentencing, the trial court considered that “Singleton had served honorably in the armed forces” as mitigation.18

Singleton died on December 29, 2001, after 3.5 years on Florida’s death row. He was 74 years old.

William Turner (Duval County)----William Turner was sentenced to death for killing his estranged wife and her roommate. At trial, his attorney presented evidence of his military service.19 Specifically, there was testimony that Turner “was in the military, had served in Viet Nam, had served in some combat, had at one time achieved the rank of sergeant, had gotten in some difficulty and lost a stripe and had an honorable discharge.”20

Turner died on July 30, 2014, after almost 30 years on Florida’s death row. He was 69 years old.

John Vining (Orange County)----John Vining was sentenced to death following a jury’s recommendation for death by a vote of 11-1.21 At sentencing, the trial court considered Vining’s military service as mitigation but gave it little weight.22 “[T]he court concluded that it was entitled to little weight as it ended over 30 years ago, involved no sacrifice, and amounted to a government job from which Vining received a number of benefits.”23

Vining died on April 8, 2014, after 24 years on Florida’s death row - almost exactly to the day. He was 83 years old.

Fred Way (Hillsborough County)----Fred Way was sentenced to death on 2 counts of 1st-degree murder following the jury’s recommendations for death by a vote of 7-5.24 As mitigation at sentencing, the trial court considered Way’s “4 years of service in the Air Force and 12 years of service in the air force reserves.”25

Way died on May 15, 2006, after 22 years on Florida’s death row. He was 61 years old.

James Winkles (Pinellas County)----While serving a life sentence for another crime, Winkles confessed to murders that occurred to murders that occurred in 1980 and 1981.26 The confessions came decades after the crimes. Winkles waived his right to penalty phase jury and was sentenced to two sentences of death.27 At sentencing, the trial court considered Winkles’ military service as mitigation but assigned it no weight.28

Winkles died on September 9, 2010, after 7 years on Florida’s death row. He was 69 years old.

1--Due to the age of some records and the unavailability of some information, it is possible that the lists in this series are incomplete. If you know of a veteran who is not included on the lists in this series, please let me know. Also, for purposes of thoroughness, this series includes those who were discharged from the military. Thank you to the Death Penalty Information Center for their assistance with research.

2--Information regarding prisoners’ sentences and deaths can be found on the Florida Department of Corrections (DOC) website here. In addition to those listed in this post, the Death Penalty Information Center reports that William Elledge, who died on Florida’s death row in on April 22, 2008, and Michael Lockhart, who was executed in Texas while under a Florida sentence of death, were veterans. I was not able to independently confirm their military service, so they are not included here.

3--Allen v. State, 662 So. 2d 323, 327 (Fla. 1995).

4--Id. at 332.

5--Id. at 330.

6--Booker v. Wainwright, 703 F.2d 1251, 1254 n.5 (11th Cir. 1983).

7--Id. at 1257.

8--Card v. State, 803 So. 2d 613, 618-19 (Fla. 2001).

9--Gosciminski v. State, 994 So. 2d 1018, 1022 (Fla. 2008).

10--Id.

11--Hooper v. State, 476 So. 2d 1253, 1258 (Fla. 1985).

12--It’s a long wait to die on state’s death row, Tampa Bay Times (Apr. 24, 1992), https://www.tampabay.com/archive/1992/04/24/it-s-a-long-wait-to-die-on-state-s-death-row/.

13--See id.

14--Sexton v. State, 997 So. 2d 1073, 1077 (Fla. 2008).

15--Id. at 1078.

16--Id. at 1082.

17--Singleton v. State, 783 So. 2d 970, 972 (Fla. 2001).

18--Id. at 973.

19--Turner v. Dugger, 614 So. 2d 1075, 1078 (Fla. 1992).

20--Turner v. Crosby, 339 F.3d 1247, 1255 (11th Cir. 2003).

21--Vining v. State, 637 So. 2d 921, 924 (Fla. 1994).

22--Id.

23--Id. at 928.

24--Way v. State, 760 So. 2d 903, 907-08 (Fla. 2000).

25--Id. at 920.

26--Winkles v. State, 894 So. 2d 842, 843-44 (Fla. 2005).

27--Id. at 845.

28--Id.

(source for both: fladeathpenalty.substack.com)

JAMAICA:

No eye for an eye

What is the point in asking for something that you know that you are not going to get? After all, in the practice of law, speaking as an outsider, one of the fundamental tenets from my understanding, is that one does not litigate something, where in one’s own mind, and conscience, one believes that there is little chance of success.

It was 1988, the very last time that we carried out an execution in Jamaica. And inasmuch as a number of persons have been sentenced to death since that time, there is very little reason to believe that the death penalty, even if imposed, will ever be carried out in this country.

2 years ago, the government was speaking with great enthusiasm about amendments of The Offences Against the Person Act.

With a strong stance in the wake of a then recalcitrant homicide rate, Prime Minister Andrew Holness declared, “we have to increase the penalties, so that they carefully consider…”

In the prime minister’s comments, there is a clear message that the death penalty is a deterrent.

Certainly, it is a preventative, post facto, because once incarcerated, an influential prisoner can direct criminal activities from behind bars. Intelligence and information from police have linked hits, extortion and other major crimes to persons, who are serving not just long sentences, but paragraphs. This has been possible from before cell phones, though still illegal, were available.

As long as evil convicts are able to communicate with their cronies, who are roaming free, murderers in captivity will always continue to direct other homicides.

LITTLE TO DISPUTE

If this is the argument, then, there is little to dispute. A dead man absolutely cannot kill again. Yet, that is the only logical reasoning behind the death penalty.

(source: Orville Taylor, jamaica-gleaner.com)

ZIMBABWE:

Zim has turned its back on retributive punishment

(see: https://www.sundaymail.co.zw/zim-has-turned-its-back-on-retributive-punishment#google_vignette)

INDIA:

Crime on women: CPM seeks rethink on death penalty----Harassment through digital and electronic means has also been brought under the ambit of the 1998 Act.

The Assembly on Saturday adopted 2 bills which award stringent punishments, including death sentence, for offences committed against women and children. The bills, introduced by Chief Minister MK Stalin are for amending the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for the state and the Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act of 1998. Harassment through digital and electronic means has also been brought under the ambit of the 1998 Act.

VP Nagai Maali (CPM) said though the punishments have been made stringent, the police should investigate the case expeditiously so that the offenders could be punished swiftly. He said there should be no political interference to safeguard the accused. Also, awareness campaigns should be conducted regarding the crimes against women. Topics like gender equality should be incorporated into the textbooks. For certain crimes, the death penalty is proposed in the amendment. At a time when there are views against the death penalty, the government should consider that also.

SS Balaji (VCK) proposed a modification regarding Section 70 of the Central Act which specifies similar punishment for committing different natures of crimes. He said according to the nature of the crime, the degree of punishment should vary. T Velmurugan (TVK), ER Eswaran (KMDK), T Ramachandran (CPI), and K Selvaperunthagai Spoke on this Bill. Members also said misuse of these amendments should also be prevented.

(source: The New Indian Express)

SAUDI ARABIA:

Saudi Arabia Sees Unprecedented Number of Executions in 2024

A new report by the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights (ESOHR) highlights the record-breaking number of executions carried out by Saudi Arabia in 2024. Averaging an execution every 25 hours, the nation carried out a historic 345 executions in 2024, a dramatic increase from the 172 executions the previous year.

The death penalty, supposedly reserved for the most extreme cases, continues to serve as a primary tool for punishment, intimidation, and political and social oppression.

The report highlights the increased discretionary imposition of the death penalty, as 141 of executions were for taazir offenses, which often include non-serious offenses such as political accusations, expressing opinions, and drug-related offenses. 2024 also saw a newfound lack of transparency from the Ministry of Interior, who did not disclose the type of sentence in 39 cases. According to ESOHR, these were also likely taazir death sentences, as most of these rulings were handed down by the Specialized Criminal Court for terrorism. In total, the report notes an increase of more than 11% for taazir executions (specified and unspecified), which comprised 48.7% of all executions.

Of those executed, 138, or 31%, were foreign nationals, representing a significant increase from the 38 foreign nationals executed in 2023. ESOHR identified 15 nationalities among those executed, with Yemenis (27) and Pakistanis (25) being the most represented. On January 1, 2025, Saudi Arabia announced the execution of 6 Iranian nationals for smuggling hashish. Moreover, 2024 saw the highest number of women executed in the country’s history at nine, marking a 50% increase from 2023.

Executions for drug-related offenses dramatically increased from 2 in 2023 to 122 in 2024, comprising 35% of all executions. Of those executed, 77% were foreign nationals. After a 9-month pause, executions for drug-related offenses resumed in May 2024. The report notes that drug-related executions highlight Saudi Arabia’s “inconsistency, confusion, and lack of trust” and undermine faith in recent pledges to reform.

(source: esohr.org)

IRAN:

Political Prisoners in Iran Urge Action to Halt Executions of Fellow Activists

In a forceful statement issued from Qezel-Hesar Prison, a group of political prisoners has condemned the Iranian governments increasing reliance on executions as a tool of repression. The statement specifically denounces the recent Supreme Court decision upholding death sentences for three political prisoners—Pakhshan Azizi, Behrouz Ehsani, and Mehdi Hassani—and calls for urgent international action to save their lives.

The political prisoners, who include Saeed Masouri, Sepehr Emam Jomeh, Mohammad Shafei, Meysam Dehbanzadeh, and Loghman Aminpour, highlight the regime’s use of capital punishment to suppress dissent and intimidate Iranian society. Despite these efforts, they emphasize the resilience and defiance of those resisting oppression, including the three condemned individuals, who were active in the “No to Execution Tuesdays” campaign—a grassroots movement to halt state-sanctioned killings.

The Death Sentences and Broader Context

The Supreme Court recently upheld the death sentences of Ehsani and Hassani on charges of “rebellion,” “waging war against God” (moharebeh), and affiliation with the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (PMOI/MEK), a group banned by the Iranian government. These charges are frequently used by Iranian authorities to target political activists. Pakhshan Azizi, faces similar accusations.

This development comes amid reports of more than 50 other political prisoners currently on death row in Iran, as the regime intensifies its crackdown on dissent.

The statement attributes these actions to Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, accusing him of orchestrating a campaign of state-sanctioned killings to suppress an increasingly restive population.

The statement warns that such measures are losing their effectiveness, describing Iran as “a powder keg” ready to ignite. It emphasizes the symbolic power of those standing at the gallows, whose courage challenges the regime’s grip on power.

Calling on both Iranian citizens and international organizations, the prisoners urge a united effort to save the lives of Azizi, Ehsani, and Hassani and to end the regime’s systematic use of the death penalty as a tool of repression.

The prisoners specifically appeal to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Iran, and other human rights organizations to take immediate action.

Full text of the statement:

Once again, the decrepit and decaying regime, nearing the brink of collapse, resorts to increased executions and massacres in an attempt to intimidate the tormented society into submission and regression. The latest evidence of this is the Supreme Court’s approval of the death sentences for three political prisoners, Pakhshan Azizi, Behrouz Ehsani, and Mehdi Hassani. Meanwhile, more than 50 other political and ideological prisoners remain on death row.

The criminal Supreme Leader, under whose approval, supervision, and essentially direct orders all executions are carried out, believes that through a wave of killings and executions, he can frighten the tormented people into silence. However, this ultimate and primary tool of repression—execution—is no longer a remedy for his incurable plight. Just as we have witnessed the resilience of parents at the graves of their loved ones, we now see the spirit of those standing at the gallows. Notably, these three political prisoners sentenced to death were part of the “No to Executions Tuesdays” campaign to save death-row prisoners. This signifies that even executions have lost their effectiveness and may instead ignite the powder keg of an explosive Iran, setting fire to the Supreme Leader’s cloak and the entire hollow regime.

Despite all this, we, the political prisoners in Qezel-Hesar Prison, while condemning these death sentences, call upon our fellow free-spirited compatriots to use all available resources and urge all international and human rights organizations, particularly the UN Human Rights Council and the Special Rapporteur, to take immediate action to save the lives of these 3 political prisoners.

The statement is signed by the following political prisoners in Qezel-Hesar Prison:

Saeed Masouri

Sepehr Emam Jomeh

Mohammad Shafei

Meysam Dehbanzadeh

Loghman Aminpour

(source: iran-hrm.com)

JANUARY 11, 2025:

CONNECTICUT:

Connecticut lawmakers propose ban on sale, manufacture of lethal injection drugs----The move comes after a Hamden company produced pentobarbital for use in federal executions.

3 Democratic lawmakers have proposed a bill that would make it illegal in Connecticut to manufacture or sell any drug or medical device meant to carry out a death sentence.

The move comes after news reports from last year that the Hamden company Absolute Standards manufactured the lethal injection drug pentobarbital for use in lethal injections by the federal Bureau of Prisons during the first term of President-elect Donald Trump.

Absolute Standards seemed to confirm those reports, at least in part, in a letter last June to state Sen. Saud Anwar, D-East Hartford, and state Rep. Josh Elliott, D-Hamden. At the time, the company said it stopped manufacturing the drug in 2020 and had no future plans to make or sell it.

"We have no intention to resume any production or sale of pentobarbital," company president John Criscio wrote Anwar and Elliott.

Despite that assurance, Anwar said the new legislation is still needed to uphold Connecticut's long-held opposition to capital punishment. The General Assembly banned any further death sentences in 2012 but did not revoke those already in place. The state Supreme Court revoked those death sentences in 2015.

"This bill just confirms the values that the people of Connecticut have endorsed for quite some time," Anwar told CT Insider on Friday in a phone interview.

The bill is co-sponsored by Elliott and state Sen. Ceci Maher, D-Darien. Elliott did not immediately return a request for comment Friday.

In a phone interview Friday, Maher said Anwar brought this issue to her attention long before the HBO news comedy show Last Week Tonight with John Oliver ran a segment about Absolute Standards last April, thrusting the issue into the spotlight.

"I just think this is something we need to do to make sure we here in Connecticut are living our values, which is that we do not condone the death penalty," Maher said.

In its current form, the bill, S.B. No. 430, would make it illegal for people who are "licensed, registered or doing business" in Connecticut to "manufacture, compound, sell, test, distribute, dispense or supply any drug or medical device for the purpose of executing the death penalty." The proposed bill does not provide specific penalties for a violation.

The bill has been referred to the General Law Committee.

Legislative leaders struck a cautious tone when asked about the possibility of such a proposal last June.

At the time, House Speaker Matt Ritter, D-Hartford, said he understood the purpose behind the legislation but wanted to make sure it wouldn't run afoul of federal law or regulations.

"That’s where a public hearing would be helpful," he said.

Todd Murphy, Ritter's communications director, said Friday in a text message that the speaker "will be reviewing the details of the legislation with Rep. Elliott and is looking forward to learning more about it."

House Majority Leader Jason Rojas, D-East Hartford, was more skeptical in June.

“There’s probably lots of things that are produced by companies in Connecticut that people would take issue with,” he said at the time. “So I don’t know where it ends if you begin applying that logic to the situation.”

On Friday, however, Rojas seemed more open to hearing the proposal out.

"Is this really necessary, is the process we want to find out," Rojas told CT Insider in a phone interview.

Rojas did express concern about whether the bill could have unintended consequences for Connecticut companies that manufacture or sell drugs that can be used in lethal injections but also have other, non-lethal, uses.

"I oppose the death penalty and wouldn’t be opposed to it (banning the sale or manufacture of lethal injection drugs) but want to see what the implications of it are," he added.

Senate President Pro Tempore Martin Looney, D-New Haven, referred requests for comment to Sen. James Maroney, D-Milford, who co-chairs the General Law Committee. Maroney did not immediately respond to a request for comment Friday.

A spokesperson for Senate Republicans did not return a request for comment Friday.

In a phone interview Friday, House Minority Leader Vincent Candelora, R-North Branford, called the proposal a bill "in search of an issue."

"We don’t have any facilities in Connecticut that manufacture these type of drugs, so I don’t think it has much of an impact on our state," he said.

Candelora also criticized Democratic lawmakers whom he said support banning the sale of lethal injection drugs while, at the same time, supporting medically assisted suicide.

"Banning products that achieve those goals seems hypocritical," Candelora said.

The debate over the death penalty in Connecticut comes as a change in administrations is likely to dramatically swing federal policy.

Trump and his then-attorney general, Bill Barr, restarted federal executions in 2020 after a 17-year pause, ultimately overseeing the execution of 13 federal death row inmates while he was in office. The Biden administration paused executions after it took office in January 2021.

With Trump's re-election last November, some anti-death-penalty advocates had pushed President Joe Biden to commute federal death sentences before leaving office. Biden did just that in December, commuting 37 of the 40 federal death sentences to life in prison.

That leaves just 3 inmates left on federal death row. Trump has said he wants to expand the federal death penalty.

(source: ctpost.com)

NORTH CAROLINA:

Gov. Cooper commutes 15 death sentences, but North Carolina still needs comprehensive justice reform

This action is the most significant act of clemency for death row in our state’s history.

During his last weeks in office, Governor Roy Cooper issued pardons of forgiveness and commutations. This includes the commutation of sentences for 15 people on North Carolina’s death row. These come at the end of a series of almost 50 pardons and commutations granted during Cooper’s time as Governor. The commutations would not have been possible without the people behind the clemency petitions, their families, and the community members who have relentlessly fought to uplift their stories.

The North Carolina Justice Center commends Governor Cooper for addressing the injustices embedded in our state’s death penalty, yet we acknowledge that there is much more work to be done.

“The NC Justice Center and its allies have worked to redefine clemency as a pivotal mechanism to address the deep-rooted inequities embedded in our justice system,”

NC Justice Center Executive Director Reggie Shuford says. “The governor’s power of clemency is not just a legal mechanism. It’s a powerful symbol of our capacity for growth, forgiveness, and redemption.”

Cooper’s clemency action underscores the importance of the advocacy work championed by the Decarcerate Now! NC Coalition and the Vigil for Freedom and Racial Justice. The Vigil reminds us that the fight is far from over, and every commutation or pardon brings hope to families still waiting for a second chance for their loved ones.

“This clemency action is a reminder that every case represents a human life impacted by our flawed system, and each human life has value.” says Quisha Mallette, a Staff Attorney with the NC Justice Center’s Fair Chance Criminal Justice Project. “Moving forward, North Carolina needs bold, comprehensive reforms to ensure that more people have opportunities to return safely to their communities. Justice should not be determined by race, wealth, or outdated policies.”

121 people remain on death row in North Carolina, and countless others are behind bars still waiting for their 2nd chance.

We call on Governor Josh Stein to build on this momentum and use his powers of clemency.

“It’s critical to recognize that justice delayed is justice denied,” Shuford says. “We hope that our new governor, Josh Stein, will seize the moral obligation of this moment to enact comprehensive changes to our broken criminal legal system.”

(source: ncjustice.org)

FLORIDA----new execution date

Gov. DeSantis signs 1st death warrant of 2025 for man convicted in Charlotte County case

James D. Ford, who was convicted in the 1997 murders of Greg and Kimberly Malnory, a Charlotte County couple, is set to be executed after Gov. Ron DeSantis signed his death warrant Friday.

The execution is scheduled for 6 p.m. Feb. 13.

According to a 2007 Sarasota Herald-Tribune report, Ford was sentenced to death in 1999 for brutally killing the Malnorys, who were found shot and bludgeoned to death at South Florida Sod Farm in a remote part of Charlotte County, on April 7, 1997.

The couple had a toddler in their truck and were out on a fishing trip with Ford, who worked with Greg Malnory at the farm. The baby girl was later left inside the truck for more than 18 hours.

Records show Ford shot Greg Malnory in the back of the head, then repeatedly beat him in his face and head with a blunt instrument. Ford also slit his throat nearly ear to ear.

Kimberly Malnory's body was found near the truck, according to records. She had nine blunt-force injuries to her head, a gunshot through her mouth and defensive wounds on her arms. Ford was also convicted of sexual battery and child neglect.

State and federal courts have rejected Ford’s appeals, the latest coming in 2018 when the Florida Supreme Court rebuffed his attempt to overturn the death sentence.

The signing of the death warrant kicks off another appeals process. The Florida Supreme Court set out a schedule requiring an appeal to be filed by 9 a.m. Jan. 27, with briefs filed by 3 p.m. Jan. 29. Oral arguments, if needed, could also be scheduled.

If the execution is carried out, Ford would be the 10th inmate put to death since DeSantis took office in 2019.

(source: heraldtribune.com)

TENNESSEE:

Tennessee reverses course, releases redacted execution manual with vague details

Tennessee on Thursday released a redacted version of its newly completed execution manual, blacking out sporadic titles and team names throughout the notably trimmed-down document that now provides vague guidelines and omits previously detailed steps on carrying out the death penalty.

The Tennessee Department of Correction initially refused to hand over the manual when pressed by The Associated Press, arguing that the state had to keep the entire manual secret to protect the identities of the executioner and other people involved.

However, on Thursday, the agency abruptly reversed course and provided the AP with a copy of the lethal injection protocol. Their only explanation for the change was that the state was revising its decision.

The 44-page manual is noticeably shorter than the 2018 version the state had been operating under, which contained nearly 100 pages, including 11 pages detailing how lethal injection drugs should be procured, stored and administered. The state’s failure to follow those procedures forced Republican Gov. Bill Lee in 2022 to call a last-minute halt to the execution of Oscar Smith and then place a moratorium on new executions while the process was under review.

An independent report later found that none of the drugs prepared for the 7 people executed since 2018 had been fully tested as required by the manual. The report also revealed that state officials even considered trying to acquire drugs through a veterinarian or even importing them internationally. Later, the state Attorney General’s Office conceded in court that two of the people most responsible for overseeing Tennessee’s lethal injection drugs “incorrectly testified” under oath that officials were testing the chemicals as required.

The new manual contains only a single page on the lethal injection chemicals with no specific directions for testing the drugs. It also removes a requirement that the drugs come from a licensed pharmacist. Yet the new protocol does include several new additions, including now authorizing the state to deviate from the protocol whenever the Correction Department commissioner deems it necessary.

In Tennessee, the 2018 lethal injection protocol required a series of three drugs administered in sequence. The new version unveiled last week requires only a single dose of pentobarbital. One other change — the people most responsible for carrying out the execution will now be outside contractors. The manual requires an IV team of at least 2 people and a physician who are not Tennessee Department of Correction personnel.

When ordering the pause in 2022, Lee stressed that it was his administration’s duty to “ensure continued transparency” for Tennesseans surrounding the death penalty and that he expected “the Tennessee Department of Correction to leave no question that procedures are correctly followed.”

Kelley Henry, chief of the federal public defender’s habeas unit that represents many of the people on Tennessee’s death row, told the AP in an email that the new manual “fails to address the many concerns raised by the independent investigation.”

“As of today, we still do not know the source of drugs, whether they are compounded, or whether they have been diverted from the market into a gray market, how they will be procured, stored, tested, and administered,” she said. ”This level of secrecy is inconsistent with the promises of transparency made by the Governor 2 years ago.”

Across the U.S., executions have remained at historic lows for years, but the small group of states still carrying out the death penalty have only increased the secrecy surrounding the procedures, particularly over how and where the state secures the drugs used for lethal injections.

Many states argue that secrecy is critical to protect the safety of those involved in the execution process. Yet in a 2018 report, the Washington-D.C.-based nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center found that this argument often led to these states refusing to provide information about the qualifications of their execution teams. Meanwhile, some courts have dismissed states' claim that more public disclosure would result in threats against prison officials over a lack of evidence.

(source: Associated Press)

OHIO:

Cost of defense nears $150,000 in Rowan Sweeney murder case

What is the cost of justice?

In the 2020 murder of 4-year-old Rowan Sweeney, one of the costs — the money paid to attorneys and expert witnesses for two of the killers — is now at $147,822.

That bill is paid by taxpayer money from various sources.

3 men were sentenced to life in prison for their role in Rowan’s murder and the shootings of several adults in a home in Struthers early Sept. 21, 2020. They are Brandon Crump Jr., 22, Kimonie Bryant, 28, and Andre McCoy Jr., 24, all of Youngstown.

In March of 2024, shortly after Crump was convicted at trial of aggravated murder and other offenses in Rowan’s death, The Vindicator added up the amounts paid at that point and reported that it was $100,850, based on court records. Another $46,972 has been paid since then.

The $147,822 represents the amount paid to 2 lawyers and 1 expert witness for Crump and for 2 lawyers and three expert witnesses for defendant Kimonie Bryant. Most of the cost was for Bryant, who was facing the possibility of the death penalty within 2weeks of the killing and shootings and was described as the shooter.

Crump, who was 17 at the time of the crimes, was implicated publicly for his role in the killing about three months later and was indicted on aggravated murder and other charges a couple of months after that. Crump was never thought to be in danger of getting the death penalty because Ohio law does not permit use of the death penalty for individuals who commit murder as a juvenile.

Defense costs are much higher for a person facing the possibility of the death penalty. Two defense lawyers are required for such a defendant, partly because of the need to file more motions, such as ones questioning the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Since the March 2024 Vindicator story, additional legal fees have been paid to the attorneys for Crump and Bryant, and the final bill arrived Monday for an expert witness for Crump, Dr. Jennifer Alpert of Forum Ohio of Columbus.

Alpert’s bill was $6,663 for conducting a review of the records related to Crump’s childhood, including records from Youngstown City Schools, Mahoning County Children Services and the Mahoning County Juvenile Court.

Crump’s attorney, Lou DeFabio, asked in a 2024 filing for Judge Anthony D’Apolito to allow DeFabio to hire Alpert, stating that “In a series of Ohio cases, courts have made clear that a trial court must separately consider the youth of a juvenile offender as a mitigating factor before imposing a sentence.”

DeFabio cited an Ohio law that required the judge to consider “the chronological age of the offender at the time of the offense and that age’s hallmark features, including intellectual capacity, immaturity, impetuosity and a failure to appreciate risks and consequences.”

At Crump’s sentencing hearing, DeFabio spoke about Dr. Alpert’s findings, saying, “I’ve been doing this for 32 years. I’ve never read a report like this. I’ve never looked at thousands of pages of CSB records that start off when this defendant was 2 months old, born marijuana addicted because his mother was smoking weed.”

Crump went to live with his grandmother because Crump’s father “disappears from Brandon’s life early on,” DeFabio said. Crump’s mother “pawned Brandon off on any number of people throughout his life, such that by the time he is 11, he is living on the streets,” DeFabio said.

His mother used him to “steal food to feed the family or sell a gun to a guy, which ended up in him getting shot during the gun sale,” DeFabio said.

The other fees that were paid since the March 2024 story are the legal fees paid to DeFabio — $22,095 for his representation of Crump, including Crump’s trial, which began Feb 5 with jury selection and ended with Crump’s conviction on all 16 charges Feb. 15. DeFabio had previously been paid $10,025. So his total is $32,120.

Also paid recently were attorneys John Juhasz and Lynn Maro (now Mahoning County prosecutor), the attorneys for Bryant. Juhasz was paid an additional $9,310, added to the $38,962 he was paid earlier for a total of $48,272. Maro was paid an additional $8,904, added to the $24,800 she was paid earlier for a total of $33,704.

In addition to that, the $6,663 to Crump’s expert witness, Alpert, totals an additional $46,972 since the March 2024 story. That amount added to the $100,850 reported in the March story totals $147,822.

There are no records of the costs for defendant Andre McCoy Jr. because he paid for his own lawyer, whereas the public paid for legal services for Crump and Bryant because they were deemed too poor to pay for their own.

Many other costs could be considered, in addition to the $147,822, such as salaries for assistant prosecutors and other prosecutorial staff for their work on the case; salaries for court personnel, such as D’Apolito and his staff; court reporters taking down everything said at hearings, the trial and providing transcripts for various reasons, such as appeals; juror fees and costs; deputies providing court security; and the salaries of Struthers police officers and Ohio Bureau of Criminal Investigation agents investigating the case and testifying at the trial.

Additional bills will be submitted by attorney Rhys Cartwright-Jones to handle Crump’s appeal of his convictions and sentence, which is 52 years to life in prison. Cartwright-Jones has a deadline this month to file his merit brief, which lays out the specific errors or omissions he believes took place in Crump’s trial and sentencing.

DeFabio said he was surprised when he discovered that his total bill was $32,120 and not higher than that. A 2nd lawyer who worked on the Crump case early on, Ed Hartwig, was paid $9,912 earlier and was not required after Crump was indicted a second time because the death penalty was formally removed from Crump’s charges at that time.

DeFabio noted that he was paid $125 per hour when Crump was initially indicted on a capital offense, meaning he was eligible for the death penalty. DeFabio’s hourly rate dropped to $75 after the possibility of the death penalty was formally removed. Hartwig made $125 per hour while he was part of the Crump case.

DeFabio said one of the things that made the defense costs in the case as high as they are is the amount of evidence that was created and provided to the defense, especially evidence provided by Ohio BCI agents as a result of analysis of cellphone messages, calls and locational data and the scientific analysis of evidence such guns, bullets and blood.

“If you would have printed all of that stuff out, which I didn’t because that would have been stupid, it probably would have been 15 banker’s boxes. As it was, I got like six banker’s boxes,” DeFabio said.

“This was a technology case. They had DNA, they had shell casing testimony. There were a lot of forensic things. There were a ton of BCI agents. Every one of them generated multiple reports, multiple DVDs,” DeFabio said.

He said that type of evidence also takes time to review and understand.

“That’s not easy (evidence) because I’m not a scientist. You will be looking through these things and saying ‘What the heck is that?’ And you’ve got to go find out,” he said.

The only case prior to this one he was involved with that compares in terms of the amount of evidence was the murder trial of Columbus Jones, who was convicted in 2012 of killing Jamail Johnson at a large party on Indiana Avenue on Youngstown’s North Side on Feb. 6, 2011.

10 other people were injured after more than 20 bullets were fired from 2 guns. Jones is serving a 90 years to life sentence on murder and 10 counts of felonious assault.

“That case was similar in that it had a lot of witnesses, a ton of publicity,” DeFabio said. DeFabio said being a lawyer in a high-profile murder case today requires a lawyer to spend more time reviewing evidence than in the past.

DeFabio called the amount of evidence he had to review for the Crump case “overwhelming.”

He noted that with Crump, there was an additional step involved than when the defendant is an adult. That step was obtaining juvenile records and having Alpert review them and provide a report so that DeFabio could present information about the challenges Crump faced growing up.

“That was almost like a separate proceeding,” DeFabio said. “We get this 60-page expert opinion report. There were literally over 1,000 pages of school records, juvenile records, Children’s Service records. It was insanity,” he said.

He noted that because this was a high-profile case, the Struthers Police Department had to follow every angle that came their way, even if it was a long shot to have any bearing on the case.

“As a lawyer, you still have to read through it, as do the prosecutors,” DeFabio said. “God knows how much time they spent, and they had three of them,” he said.

He said there are other types of criminal cases that pay better because they take less time, such as DUI cases.

He said he could handle 14 DUI cases that would take about 42 hours of his time, counting time in court and outside of court, and make about $35,000. He made about $32,000 on the Crump case over more than three years, including a lengthy trial.

He said the one thing that reduced defense costs and time in the Crump case was that Crump never truly faced the death penalty, so many of the filings that were filed by Bryant’s attorneys were not necessary in the Crump case.

(source: The Vindicator)

ARIZONA:

Arizona prosecutors seek death penalty after a 2-year pause in executions

Prosecutors in Arizona are seeking to execute a prisoner in what would mark the state’s 1st use of the death penalty after a 2-year pause. The Arizona Attorney General’s Office asked the state Supreme Court on Friday to issue a warrant for the execution of Aaron Brian Gunches, who pleaded guilty to murder in 2007.

The court had issued a death warrant for Gunches nearly 2 years ago, but the sentence wasn’t carried out because the state’s Democratic attorney general agreed not to pursue executions during a review of the state’s death penalty protocol.

The review ended in November when Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs dismissed the retired federal magistrate she had appointed to examine execution procedures.

In Friday’s filing, prosecutors said the state is prepared to carry out the execution and that Gunches has waived a state post-conviction review of his case and failed to start a federal constitutional review.

Gunches, who isn’t a lawyer but is representing himself, had asked the court last week to skip legal formalities and schedule his execution earlier than authorities had planned, saying his death sentence was “long overdue.” The state Supreme Court later rejected his request.

The Associated Press left a phone message on Friday with Emily Skinner, a death penalty lawyer who is serving as Gunches’ advisory counsel.

Gunches pleaded guilty to a murder charge in the 2002 shooting death of Ted Price, his girlfriend’s ex-husband, near the Phoenix suburb of Mesa.

Arizona, which has 111 prisoners on death row, last carried out three executions in 2022 following a nearly 8-year hiatus brought on by criticism that a 2014 execution was botched and because of difficulties obtaining drugs for execution.

Since then, the state has been criticized for taking too long to insert an IV for lethal injection into a condemned prisoner in 2022.

(source: Associated Press)

USA:

Biden strikes a blow against flawed death penalty

Running for president in 2020, Joe Biden promised to repeal the federal death penalty but didn’t have the votes in Congress. Preparing to leave the White House with the pledge unkept, he did the next best thing by commuting the sentences of 37 of 40 men on federal death row.

Biden drew a line at perpetrators of “terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.”

He left the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on death row, the antisemite who killed 11 worshippers at a synagogue in Pittsburgh, and the white supremacist who killed nine African American worshippers at a church in Charleston after they had welcomed him to their prayer meeting.

Biden’s exceptions will not appease people who resolutely oppose executions on religious, ethical or practical grounds. His decision is a nudge toward a more rational death penalty and perhaps its eventual abolition.

America as an outlier

Ours is one of the few developed nations that still professes a necessity to execute people. The only nations that carried out more state killings last year are the authoritarian states of China, Iran, Somalia and Saudi Arabia, places we should never emulate.

The reality of capital punishment defies logic, morality and common sense. Death penalty advocates scarcely argue any longer that it is a deterrent, because it isn’t. In practice it is arbitrary, capricious, irrationally selective, up to 5 times more expensive than non-capital incarcerations, poisoned by racial bias and prone to the only miscarriage of justice for which no possible atonement exists.

According to the Death Penalty Information Center, 200 current or former death row inmates have been exonerated of all charges since record-keeping began in 1973. Florida leads all states with 30.

That many miscarriages of justice strongly suggests that other innocent people were put to death. A former chief justice of the state Supreme Court, Gerald Kogan, said he believed there had been three. He did not identify them.

Inconsistency abounds

Capital punishment has no rightful place in a modern society, especially not when used so inconsistently. Fewer than 2% of all murderers are sentenced to death. Discretion by police, prosecutors, judges and juries filters out so many that the resulting executions are only symbolic, a mockery of common sense.

Presidential power to commute sentences is absolute. The immediate effect is to block Donald Trump from carrying out another flurry of executions like the 13 he ordered before the 2020 election.

Trump’s all-caps reaction to Biden’s action shows why capital punishment is as inappropriate to a modern civilization as the Roman circuses that spilled blood for sport.

“I refuse to wish a Merry Christmas to those lucky ‘souls,’” Trump posted on Truth Social, “but instead, will say GO TO HELL!”

That’s consistent with what Trump often voices in other contexts, such as encouraging police brutality and urging the Jan. 6 rioters to “fight like hell.”

Life without parole

To hear Trump, one might think Biden had set the 37 men free. He did not. They will spend the rest of their lives in harsh prisons — where they belong, with no chance of parole.

“Make no mistake. I condemn these murderers, grieve for the victims of their despicable acts and ache for all the families who have suffered unimaginable and irreparable loss,” Biden said. “But guided by my conscience and my experience as a public defender, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Vice President, and now President, I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level.”

The death penalty persists because it’s a tough-on-crime weapon for politicians and a tool for prosecutors to extract confessions and make criminals rat on co-defendants.

But its use has declined sharply in the U.S. Twenty-three states have banned it. There were 24 executions nationwide last year, compared to 98 at the modern height in 1999.

Florida threatens to lead the nation in state killings now because of Gov. Ron DeSantis’ new law, the nation’s harshest, allowing as few as eight of 12 jurors to recommend execution instead of a unanimous verdict. He sought that change after a jury voted 9-3 to spare the life of the Parkland mass murderer. The state Supreme Court has also killed a concept known as “proportionality review,” which is meant to ensure that the death penalty is reserved for the so-called “worst of the worst,” and made it easier to execute people with intellectual disabilities.

The death penalty is fatally flawed. Florida remains an outlier within an outlier. The Supreme Court should seize the first opportunity to overturn it.

(source: Editorial; Orlando Sentinel and South Florida Sun Sentinel Editorial Boards, Orlando Sentinel)

*************

Federal judge delays 9/11 deals that would have found terror mastermind guilty----Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 2 al-Qaeda operatives were expected to plead guilty to planning 9/11. Instead, a D.C. court put those plans on ice, leaving them for the incoming Trump Administration.

A federal judge put a plea deal on ice that would have enabled the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks to avoid the death penalty and bring closure to families who have sought justice for over 2 decades.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and two of his top al-Qaeda lieutenants were set to admit to planning the terrorist attacks in exchange for life in prison this month. The plea deal would have effectively ended over 20 years of wrangling and closed the book on one of America's most infamous legal chapters.

Families of those who lost loved ones in the attacks, reporters and others had all flown on a special charter flight from Joint Base Andrews in Maryland to hear the trio admit guilt in person at a military court at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where they’ve languished for years.

Instead, on Thursday, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered an administrative stay on the case. The stay gives the court more time to review the issue before deciding if the deals can proceed. It’s unclear how long the review will take. It comes a day after attorneys for Mohammed, often called KSM, and lieutenants Mustafa al Hawsawi and Walid Bin Attash had told a judge that their clients were fully prepared to plead guilty.

“That was really remarkable to see he’s willing to do that,” said Elizabeth Miller of Mohammed’s commitment to plead guilty this week. Miller lost her father, Douglas Miller, a firefighter in 9/11. “It was just unfortunate that it’s not legally binding and then we had the stay, so it’s back to total pause.” The family members will have to return home with the case still up in the air.

The court’s stay on the case is not the first delay to happen. The plea agreements have been hotly contested since they were announced at the end of July. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin quickly moved to scrap the deals. A judge had ruled the deals could proceed in November.

Many family members of victims and political leaders have also vociferously opposed the plea deals, saying the trio deserve to die.

“Taking the death penalty off the table was outrageous,” said Terry Strada whose husband Tom died on the 104th floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower on 9/11. “They murdered nearly 3,000 Americans on American soil.”

Attorneys for the al-Qaeda operatives did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In court filings responding to the stay, they decried the pause in proceedings.

“The government’s plea for this Court’s eleventh-hour intervention is profoundly contrary to the interest of justice,” the attorneys wrote. “The victims, the defendants, and American people deserve finality in a case that has hung open for a quarter century. They deserve their long delayed day in court.”

Elizabeth Miller, whose father Douglas Miller, a firefighter, was killed in 9/11 is among the family members of victims of the terrorist attacks who traveled to Guanatanmo Bay, Cuba, to hear the plotters behind the attacks plead guilty. Question of a lifetime:Families prepare to confront 9/11 masterminds

Long wait for justice

Justice feels long overdue for those who lost loved ones in 9/11 and many view the plea agreements as the only way to proceed. The torture the men experienced at the hands of CIA operatives has made some evidence against them inadmissible in court.

Miller was among about 10 family members of victims to take the special charter flight down to the base in Cuba to hear proceedings. She and many others were also hoping to get a chance to ask Mohammed and the others questions about the terrorist strikes as part of the guilty plea agreements.

“I thought I would get to hear the man who came up with the plan to kill my dad, the man responsible for the idea to kill all these people, admit guilt,” she told USA TODAY. “I thought I would hear that from his mouth.”

It’s expected the court will not make any further decisions regarding the case until at least next month, said Ron Flesvig, a spokesperson for the Office of Military Commissions. The case will instead be left to the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

“That could derail this even further, which is disheartening,” Miller said. “It’s so frustrating and sad that it’s almost comical because if you can't laugh at some dysfunction you would just sit and cry.”

What did KSM and the others do?

Mohammed’s planned attacks on the Twin Towers, the Pentagon and attempt to hit the Capitol building were the crowning achievements of a prolific terrorist career.

“The Hunt for KSM” by journalists Terry McDermott and Josh Meyer compiles an extensive list of the Kuwait-raised terrorist’s activities where he had a direct hand in the plots or at least directed funding to them. The prolific terrorist directed Richard Reid the Shoe Bomber’s plot; it’s expected he was connected to the 2004 bombings in Madrid that killed 191 people; helped fund the 2002 bombings in Bali that killed 202 people; masterminded the 2002 bombing of a synagogue in Tunisia that killed 19; and he horrifically murdered American Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl by decapitation.

Hawsawi, a citizen of Saudi Arabia, helped launder money to the hijackers from the United Arab Emirates, according to McDermott and Meyer’s book. He was captured with Mohammed in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, in 2003.

Bin Attash hoped to be a hijacker but failed to get a visa to the U.S. because he was from Yemen. Several Yemeni al-Qaeda operatives failed to get visas to the U.S. because they were viewed as potential economic migrants, McDermott and Meyer write.

They have grown old at Guantanamo since then. Miller described their underwhelming appearance in court this week. Hawsawi sits in a special chair due to a prolapsed anus from CIA torture, she said.

“You think they’re going to be monsters,” she said, “and they really just look like men, men who’ve been imprisoned for a long time.”

(source: USA Today)

****************

Joe Biden’s most peculiar rejection: Why 2 death row inmates are refusing his clemency offer----The decision of 2 death row inmates to turn down clemency sounds unthinkable, but they are not the first to do it

When President Joe Biden announced last month that he would commute the sentences of 37 out of 40 people on federal death row to life in prison without the possibility of parole, along with the lengthy sentences of 1,500 other people held in federal prisons, no one, especially the president, could have imagined that anyone would turn down his merciful gestures. But now 2 men on the federal death row in Terre Haute, Indiana, have thrown a monkey wrench into Biden’s decision. As the Washington Post reports, “Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis were among the 37 federal inmates whose sentences were reclassified on Dec. 23 by Biden from execution to life in prison without parole. Both men have refused to sign the paperwork accepting their commutations and filed emergency motions on Dec. 30 to block them.”

Agofsky and Davis find themselves in something of a catch-22. They do not want to be treated mercifully lest it compromise their legal position, but likely, they are stuck with Biden’s commutation.

Those actions seem unusual, but they are by no means unprecedented. Such rejections have happened from time to time throughout American history. But every time, turning down clemency has raised eyebrows and caused headaches for the legal system. Those actions set up a clash between the almost unlimited power of the president to commute sentences and the wishes of individuals with something different in mind.

In fact, if they can get away with it, Agofsky and Davis’ decision to say no to Biden’s clemency would be about the only effective check on that power. Neither seeks to die or is volunteering for execution, a practice I oppose. Instead, they are making calculations about what gives them the best chance to get off death row.

Agofsky contends, as the Post notes, that “accepting the commutation would complicate his ongoing appeal, while Davis objected to the ‘constitutional conundrum’ of the executive branch changing his sentence without his approval.” Such arguments will no doubt whet the appetites of law professors everywhere and may set up a clash that the Supreme Court will ultimately resolve.

Agofsky has been on death row for more than twenty years. When he was already serving time for robbery and murder, he was convicted of stomping to death a fellow inmate.

As NBC News notes, in his first case, he was not convicted of the murder but “received a life sentence for the robbery.” He is now seeking an injunction to stop his transfer off death row. NBC reports he is “disputing how he was charged with murder in the stomping death” and trying to “establish his innocence in the original case for which he was incarcerated."

Agofsky wants to take advantage of the heightened scrutiny that courts are supposed to accord to death cases, something not generally required in any other kind of case. In his handwritten petition to the federal district court in Indiana, Agofsky wrote that reducing his sentence to life would remove the protection granted to him under the concept of “heightened scrutiny.”

Though the heightened scrutiny doctrine does not necessarily lead to convictions being overturned, Agofsky Biden’s commutation “constitutes an undue burden, and leaves the defendant in a position of fundamental unfairness, which would decimate his pending appellate procedures.”

In no uncertain terms, he told the court that he “never requested commutation. The defendant never filed for commutation. The defendant does not want commutation and refused to sign the papers offered with the commutation."

Davis, who also doesn’t want his death sentence commuted to life in prison without parole, is “a former New Orleans police officer, (who) was convicted in the 1994 murder of Kim Groves… Prosecutors said Davis hired a drug dealer to kill Groves and charged the officer with violating Groves' civil rights.”

Davis, as NBC reports, “has always maintained his innocence.” He also contends that the federal court “had no jurisdiction to try him for civil rights offenses.”

In his petition to stop Biden’s commutation of his sentence, Davis claimed that having a death penalty attached to his case “would draw attention to the overwhelming misconduct” he contends characterized the Justice Department’s handling of his case.

He highlighted “a host of constitutional violations associated with the executive branch’s attempt to sentence (him to) life…without his agreeing to commutation.” He did not specify what those violations were.

How odd that two men facing a death sentence would believe that the best way to correct what they see as miscarriages of justice is to hold onto that sentence as if it were a life preserver. As Ohio State University Law Professor Douglas Berman explains, they may be right.

“If nothing else, these efforts to refuse a capital commutation seem likely to help ensure these defendants get more attention for their claims of innocence than many others. And I have often asserted to students in my sentencing classes that convicted murderers claiming to be wrongfully convicted on death row are likely to get more attention for their claims of innocence than convicted murderers given LWOP (life without parole).”

Throughout our history, others have refused or tried to refuse clemency. Some did so because they thought accepting it would amount to an admission that they had done something wrong.

Others have done so because they didn’t like a condition or stipulation that came with clemency. Still others, like Agofsky and Davis, thought accepting clemency would jeopardize one of their legal rights.

Several of those cases were the subject of litigation and eventually found their way to the Supreme Court. Over time, the Court’s position has changed from siding with the people who said they would not accept a pardon or commutation to favoring the authority of the executive to grant clemency without the recipient's consent.

Want a daily wrap-up of all the news and commentary Salon has to offer? Subscribe to our morning newsletter, Crash Course.

In the first of those decisions, the 1833 case of United States v. Wilson, a man sentenced to death refused a pardon from President Andrew Jackson because he didn’t like the conditions attached to it. Chief Justice John Marshall held, "A pardon…not complete without acceptance. It may then be rejected by the person to whom it is tendered, and if it be rejected, we have discovered no power in a court to force it on him.”

In a cruel twist of fate, Wilson’s victory was short-lived. He was hanged.

In 1915, the Supreme Court again called a pardon a “private” act that had to be accepted to be valid. The court affirmed “the necessity of the acceptance of a pardon to its legal efficacy… whatever the alternative of acceptance, whether it be death or lesser penalty.”

But 12 years later, the Court changed its mind.

At that time, the Court rejected the conception of pardon as a private act, instead describing it as “the determination of the ultimate authority that the public welfare will be better served by inflicting less than what the judgment fixed. Just as the original punishment,” the Court continued, “would be imposed without regard to the prisoner’s consent… the public welfare, not his consent, determines what shall be done.”

It held that in the case of a “commutation of death to imprisonment for life, it is hard to see how consent” has anything to do with it. If someone does not “accept the change, he could not have got himself hanged against the executive order….The considerations that led to the modification had nothing to do with his will. The only question is whether the substituted punishment was authorized by law.”

And that is where we are today.

? Agofsky and Davis find themselves in something of a catch-22. They do not want to be treated mercifully lest it compromise their legal position, but likely, they are stuck with Biden’s commutation.

Like tough love, sometimes mercy is not merciful at all.

(source: Commentary; Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College. His most recent book is "Lethal Injection and the False Promise of Humane Execution."----salon.com)

*****************

An Overview of Capital Punishment: Pros and Cons

Former mayor of New York, Edward Koch (pro death penalty), posited that one may argue the death penalty is barbaric.

Detractors of the death penalty tell tales of horror - how the victims of the death penalty swing and choke on the gallows, electric chairs often misfired and required several shocks to kill the victim, often causing to victim to burst into flames.

The question of whether the victim of the gas chamber feels pain is yet to be unequivocally answered.

Admittedly, capital punishment is not a pleasant topic, however it is not necessary that one like the death penalty to support it. For example, one does not like the idea of radical surgery, chemotherapy, or radiation, but these medical procedures are all that modern science has at its disposal to fight various forms of cancer. A truism that prompts the proponents to claim that the death penalty (as a deterrent) is the only punishment that matches the crime.

Another argument against the death penalty is that no other democracy uses it. Of course, the counter to that argument is that few other countries are plagued with the murder rates extant in the United States.

It is, though, interesting to note that in countries like Iraq, Iran, and similarly situated middle eastern provinces, punishment can be equally brutal. A thief in Iran is subject to having his hands amputated in a public place as a punishment for the theft. A repeat offender is subject to losing more of his extremities commensurate with the repetition and the severity of the offense.

It is alarming that the murder rate in America spiked during the period between 1963 and 1990 by 122 percent. While during that same time period, the murder rate in New York spiked by 400 %.

A study conducted at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggested that a person was more likely to be murdered in a large metropolitan than was an American combat soldier in World War II.

There is a large camp of detractors of the death penalty that argue, convincingly, that there is always the chance that an innocent person might be executed. The opposite side argues, also convincingly, that it is rather a false sentimentality to argue that the punishment should be abolished simply because of the abstract possibility that an innocent person might be executed.

Hugo Adam Bedau, moral philosopher, cites a study covering the period from 1893 to 1971, encompassing over 7,000 executions, and the record, according to Bedau, fails to show that such errors occur so infrequently that it negates the argument of the death of innocents.

Contrary to modern abolitionist arguments, “The inherent morality of the death penalty does not stand or fall on the fallibility of judges, jurors, and lawyers, or the government’s ability to administer justice" fairly. A compelling argument against capital punishment from a purely moralistic and philosophical standpoint posits that it is wrong ab initio to treat one person in a way that is tailored to serve the needs of others. This approach is akin to the teachings of J.S. Mill (Utilitarianism) and Joseph Stalin. The failings of the system lie not in the fallibility of the instruments who execute justice, but rather in our failure to acknowledge and implement an abiding moral standard.

Left in the hands of moral philosophers who exalt sentiment over substance, society’s framework for criminal justice becomes devoid of moral accountability and inevitably turns on those who are to benefit from its protection.

One fact, though, immune from criticism of the death penalty, is that there are no recidivist concerns.

(source: James Studdard, B.A., M.A., JD, D.Rel ---- upsonbeacon.com)

JAMAICA:

State seeks death penalty in Barbara Gayle killing

The prosecution has given notice that it will be seeking the death penalty for the man accused of murdering journalist Barbara Gayle.

Justice Lorna Shelly Williams was informed yesterday in the Home Circuit Court that the death penalty is being sought as the murder was committed during a robbery.

24-year-old Travis Ellis has been accused of the murder, and is facing murder and robbery with aggravation charges.

He made his 1st appearance in court yesterday, after his case was transferred from the St Catherine Parish Court via a voluntary bill of indictment, which allows for a matter to bypass proceedings in the lower court.

He was remanded until his next court appearance on May 26.

In the meantime, the judge has ordered that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation.

During yesterday’s proceeding the court was also informed that the case file was incomplete and that material such as the arresting officer’s statement, video footage from Gayle’s house, forensic biology report, Communication Forensics and Cybercrime Division report, and the buccal swab report from the defendant are outstanding. The police, when asked how long they would need to complete the file, indicated six weeks and a March date was proposed by the prosecutor, but the judge said a further date was better, consequently, the matter was scheduled for May.

Meanwhile, King’s Counsel Tom Tavares-Finson told the judge that although he was retained along with Donahue Martin by Ellis’ family, they would not be able to meet the financial obligation and as a result requested that a legal aid assignment be made.

In response, the judge assigned both lawyers to the case.

While noting that he will not be paying attention to any criticism about his representation, Tavares-Finson told The Gleaner that it is important that people recognise the constitutional right of every citizen to legal representation when they are charged.

“I just wish to highlight that any citizen of this country who is charged for a criminal offence is entitled to be represented by counsel. It is a constitutional right that no doubt Ms Barbara Gayle would have appreciated and understood,” he said.

Ellis was arrested and charged last December after Gayle was found dead at her home on December 17. She was found with multiple stab wounds and blunt force trauma to her head.

Ellis was last seen with her on Monday, December 16. Investigators alleged that the defendant had broken into another person’s house on the day Gayle was last seen alive.

It is alleged that after breaking into that house, the suspect, in a bid to elude security personnel, ran to Phase One where he went to Gayle’s home.

He allegedly later attacked Gayle inside her house after engaging her in a conversation.

Her GLA 180 Mercedes-Benz was found along the Dyke Road in Portmore, St Catherine, a day after she was found dead. It is believed that Ellis drove the vehicle to the location after Gayle’s murder.

(source: stabroeknews.com)

DR CONGO----executions

Congo executes 102 ‘urban bandits’, plans death penalty for 70 more

The Congolese government says it has executed 102 men in the past week, with plans to execute 70 more.

Constant Mutamba, the country’s minister of justice, detailed in a statement that 45 were killed in late December, with 57 executed in early January.

He said the men, aged 18 to 35, were armed robbers and “urban bandits” known locally as Kulunas.

Mutamba added that the executions took place at Angenga prison in north-west Congo.

A flight of 70 more people arrived at Angenga but the government is yet to comment on the status of the prisoners.

Mutamba, who is overseeing the executions, said the “third batch will be executed, so the first 2 have already undergone the measure of execution by the death penalty”.

While some have welcomed the government’s decision to execute the prisoners as a means of restoring order and security in the cities, others are concerned about the risks of abuse and human rights violations.

Congo abolished the death penalty in 1981, but it was reinstated in 2006. The last execution took place in 2003.

However, in March 2024, the Congolese government announced the resumption of capital executions.

The reinstated death penalty was intended for military personnel accused of treason.

(source: thecable.ng)

ZIMBABWE:

Resentencing of death penalty inmates begins

(see: https://www.sundaymail.co.zw/resentencing-of-death-penalty-inmates-begins)

INDIA:

MCOCA death penalty section slapped on Beed sarpanch's killers

(see: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/mcoca-death-penalty-section-slapped-on-beed-sarpanchs-killers/articleshow/117158473.cms)

PAKISTAN:

Woman gets life term, accomplice death penalty for killing husband

A sessions court has sentenced a woman to life imprisonment and her accomplice to death penalty for the murder of her husband.

Asma and Ghulam Nabi, alias Deedar, were convicted of murdering Shah Zaman, 35, by strangling and giving him electric shocks at his house in Manghopir on November 4, 2019. Additional District and Sessions Judge (West) Aurangzeb Shah also ordered the convicts to pay Rs500,000 each as compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased or undergo an additional 6-month imprisonment on default.

He said the death penalty awarded to Nabi was subject to confirmation by the Sindh High Court. According to the prosecution, the complainant, Irfan Ahmed, stated that he was informed on November 5, 2019, over phone by his cousin that Zaman had died of an electric shock and his body was being shifted to Jacobabad for his final rites. He said he inspected the body after it arrived in Jacobabad and found scars on the wrists, chest, feet, ankles and neck.

Upon suspicion, he said the body was shifted back to Karachi for an autopsy, which was later conducted at the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, adding that the postmortem report confirmed that Zaman had died after strangulation and suffering electric shocks.

The state prosecutor contended that Asma had confessed before the judicial magistrate concerned that she murdered her husband with the help of Nabi. The victim's sons, Ahmed Buksh, alias Babu and Sumair, as well as co-accused Asma fully implicated Nabi in the case, he said.

In its written order, the court noted: "From the perusal of record, it appears that after the arrest of accused Asma, her confessional statement was recorded before the concerned Judicial Magistrate, wherein she confessed her guilt being accomplice of accused Ghulam Nabi alias Deedar and stated that she wanted to get rid of her husband namely Shah Zaman and there was no option except his murder."

As per the order, the woman further admitted that Nabi helped her by giving her sleeping pills, which she mixed with milk that she gave to her husband, adding that then she called Nabi who came to their house and after finding him asleep, he took an electric wire, put it around his neck and gave him electric shocks for 10 to 15 minutes. The court said Buksh's testimony showed that there was some relationship between both the accused prior to the incident.

(source: thenews.com.pk)

***********

Man, son awarded death penalty in Jamshoro for killing relative, his daughter over ‘honour’

Jamshoro’s additional sessions court on Friday sentenced a man and his son to death after they were found guilty of murdering a young woman and her father in the name of honour.

The convicts Ali Mohammad Rind and his son Munir alias Farooq Rind had reportedly brutally killed 50-year-old Meer Rind and his 18-year-old daughter Ms Nimani in Joghi Khan Rind village near Sehwan in 2023.

The convicts, who were close relatives of the victims, carried out the double murder over suspicions the father and her daughter had disgraced the family, according to an FIR registered by ASI Mohammad Saleem Rind at Sehwan police station.

The court, besides handing down the capital punishment to the father and son, also imposed on them Rs200,000 each fine.

The judge emphasised in the verdict that the crime had been committed with premeditated intent and a blatant disregard for human life, hence the severity of the punishment.

The tragic incident highlights widespread menace of honour killings in the area, which sparks public outcry from time to time.

(source: dawn.com)

IRAN:

Iran faces international pressure as Supreme Court upholds Pakhshan Azizi’s death sentence----Following the confirmation of Pakhshan Azizi’s death sentence alongside two other political prisoners, a global wave of protests has erupted against the verdict. In addition to statements from five political prisoners in Qezel Hesar Prison, the DEM Party, Nobel Prize laureates, and Amnesty International have all condemned Azizi’s sentencing.

Responding to the confirmation of the death sentence of Kurdish social activist Pakhshan Azizi and 2 other political prisoners, five political detainees in Qezel Hesar prison, Tehran, published an open letter urging international human rights organisations to intervene to stop the executions in Iran and secure Azizi’s release.

In a letter released by Human Rights Activists in Iran (HRANA) on 10 January, these 5 political prisoners denounced the execution of death sentences against Azizi, Behrouz Ehsani, and Mehdi Hosseini, characterising the Iranian state’s actions as a desperate bid to “terrorise society”. The prisoners asserted that the regime, through the “criminal jurist” who sanctions and oversees these sentences, is under the illusion that a spate of killings can silence the populace. However, they declared that this ultimate tactic of suppression—executions—will no longer ensure the regime’s survival. The letter further highlighted that over 50 other political and ideological prisoners, alongside thousands of others, are currently on death row.

In the wake of news about the death sentence for Azizi, families in Sanandaj (Sine) and Bokan, Iranian Kurdistan (Rojhilat), whose loved ones were killed during the 2022 protests, released video messages, protesting the sentences against Azizi and Warisheh Moradi. They called upon international human rights organisations for support.

The Peoples’ Equality and Democracy (DEM) Party Women’s Assembly, issued a statement on 9 January condemning the sentence, attributing it to the “enmity of the mullahs’ fascist regime” towards women. The DEM Party asserted that Azizi was specifically targeted for her defence of her Kurdish and female identity, declaring that they would not remain silent in the face of assaults on women worldwide.

In parallel, Amnesty International condemned the Iranian Supreme Court’s confirmation of the death sentence against Azizi on 10 January, describing it as “unjust” and emphasising that her activities were “humanitarian, human rights-oriented, and peaceful.” The organisation urged Iranian authorities to halt Azizi’s execution and release her immediately.

Hadi Qaemi, director of the Center for Human Rights in Iran (CHRI), described the sentence as “a clear example of injustice”. He stated that Iran’s judiciary entirely disregarded evidence proving Azizi’s work in refugee camps was humanitarian. He further remarked that this death sentence illustrates how the Islamic Republic wields the death penalty to silence activists, especially those from minority communities and women.

On 10 January, the Iranian Human Rights Organisation condemned the issuance and confirmation of Azizi’s death sentence as part of the Islamic Republic’s intimidation policy following the “Women, Life, Freedom” uprising. The organisation called on the international community to intervene to halt the executions and overturn Azizi’s sentence immediately. Mahmoud Amiri Moghadam, the organisation’s director, termed Azizi’s death sentence “illegal”, asserting it was imposed to suppress civil society at the behest of security institutions. He stressed that the international community must robustly condemn this sentence, as only by raising the political cost can this crime be prevented.

The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers Union called Azizi a “helper and activist stationed in the camps of the displaced people of Shengal,” noting her sentence was issued without a proper examination of legal objections and evidence. The council remarked that the Islamic Republic’s decrees underscore that repression and violence are its primary means of survival.

The International Committee Against the Death Penalty, in protest against Azizi’s and other death sentences in Iran, declared: “Amidst high public anger and protest, and with the Islamic Republic in a weakened state, this barbaric regime must not be allowed to use executions to further oppress the people.”

Mozhgan Eftekhari, mother of Jina (Mahsa) Amini, who was killed by the morality police in Tehran in September 2022, wrote on Instagram: “Beyond any disagreement, the right to life is a fundamental human right that must be protected. Supporting life is supporting humanity.”

Shirin Ebadi, the first Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate, described the Supreme Court’s confirmation of Azizi’s death sentence as “unjust and inhumane”, labelling it an attempt by the Islamic Republic to create an atmosphere of terror. She called for unity to cancel the death sentences of Azizi, Warisheh Moradi, Mujahid Korkur, and all others facing execution in Iranian prisons.

Narges Mohammadi, the 2nd Iranian Nobel Peace Prize laureate, currently on medical leave from prison, condemned the approval of Azizi’s sentence as evidence of the Islamic Republic’s resolve to intensify the oppression of women and exact revenge against the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement. (source: medyanews.com)

*************

Joint Statement of 68 Political Prisoners Condemning Death Sentences for 3 Activists

A group of political prisoners from various prisons in Iran has issued a statement condemning the Supreme Court’s recent decision to uphold the death sentences of three political prisoners: Pakhshan Azizi, a Kurdish activist, and Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani, accused of affiliation with the opposition group Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK). The prisoners describe the executions as part of the government’s broader campaign to suppress dissent and instill fear in society.

In the statement, the prisoners strongly criticized the Iranian government, saying:

“The government, worried about the emergence of new protest movements, seeks to maintain a climate of fear in society by dramatically increasing executions. With over 1,000 executions in 2024, Iran accounts for 75% of all executions worldwide this year.”

The statement goes on to label the death penalty as “state-sanctioned murder” and calls for its complete abolition. It expresses concern that the death sentences for Azizi, Ehsani, and Hassani may be carried out imminently and urges Iranian citizens and the international community to take immediate action to prevent the executions.

Iran has seen a sharp increase in executions over the past year, a trend that human rights organizations attribute to the government’s efforts to suppress political dissent. Ethnic minorities and political activists are often disproportionately targeted. The Supreme Court’s confirmation of these sentences is the latest example of how the death penalty is used as a political weapon.

The signatories of the statement demand the complete abolition of the death penalty in Iran, referring to it as an “inhumane and reactionary punishment.” They appeal to international organizations, human rights defenders, and the global community to exert pressure on the Iranian government to halt the executions and work toward ending the use of capital punishment in the country.

Signatories of the Statement

The statement was signed by 68 political prisoners from various prisons across Iran. The full list of signatories is as follows:

Zartosht Ahmadi Ragheb, Hossein Estaji, Shiva Esmaili, Reza Akbari Monfared, Sepehr Emam Jomeh, Loghman Aminpour, Siamak Amini, Mahmoud Ojaqloo, Golrokh Iraee, Mohammad Araki Ashtiani, Shahriar Barati Nia, Vahid Beni Amrian, Yadi Bahari, Sakineh Parvaneh, Morteza Parvin, Mohammad Hassan Pooreh, Hossein Piri, Mohammad Taghavi, Forough Taghipour, Isa Chulandim, Ahmadreza Haeri, Mohammad Habibi, Nahid Khodajo, Nasrin Khezri Javadi, Shahrokh Daneshvarkar, Meysam Dehbanzadeh, Mehran Raouf, Reza Rezaei, Kamran Rezaeifar, Davood Razavi, Khosrow Rahnama, Khashayar Safidi, Hamzeh Sowari, Shiva Shah Siah, Mohammad Shafiei, Hossein Shanbehzadeh, Hossein Shahsavari, Moloud Safaee, Zahra Safaee, Sepehr Ziaei, Fatemeh (Hoorieh) Ziaei Azad, Hooman Taheri, Jamshid Azizi, Babak Alipour, Marzieh Farsi, Nasrollah Fallahi, Elaheh Fouladi, Pouya Ghobadi, Azar Korvandi, Esmail Gerami, Saeed Masouri, Reza Mohammadhosseini Tameh, Mohammad Ali Mahmoudi, Amirhossein Moradi, Varisheh Moradi, Babak Moradi, Farzad Moazami Goudarzi, Javad Manbari, Abolhassan Montazer, Mohammad Najafi, Tahereh Noori, Hoora Nikbakht, Asadollah Hadi, Ali Haroon Alrashidi, Maryam Yahyaei, Ali Younesi, Mir Yousef Younesi.

(source: iran-hrm.com)

**************

Iranian political prisoners protest executions, demand end to death penalty

68 political prisoners across multiple Iranian prisons have sounded the alarm over the imminent execution of three fellow inmates, highlighting the escalating number of executions in the country.

In a letter issued on Saturday, the signatories condemned the death sentences of Pakhshan Azizi, Behrouz Ehsani, and Mehdi Hassani, currently held in Evin Prison, urging society to take urgent action to prevent their execution.

“While the ruling political system in Iran continues its crisis-inducing domestic and foreign policies, it seeks solutions through intensified repression in social, political, and cultural spheres,” read the letter.

The political prisoners emphasized that the Iranian government is escalating executions as a tool of control, particularly targeting political dissidents amid growing protest movements.

The letter called the death penalty "state-sponsored premeditated murder" and demanded its total abolition. It also highlighted the stark reality that over 1,000 executions have taken place in Iran in 2024 alone, with the country now responsible for nearly 75% of all global executions this year.

"This is not just a statistic but a method of silencing the oppressed," the prisoners wrote.

Amir Raisian, a defense attorney, confirmed on Wednesday that the death sentence of Pakhshan Azizi had been upheld by Iran's Supreme Court despite what he called numerous procedural flaws in the case. Azizi's brother, Aso Azizi, added that her case had been forwarded to the execution unit.

The Supreme Court also upheld the death sentences of Behrouz Ehsani and Mehdi Hassani on the same day, according to reports from HRANA, a human rights monitoring group.

Fear of growing protest movements

The letter’s signatories warned that the increasing use of executions is part of a broader strategy to stifle dissent.

"The regime, worried about the emergence of new protest movements, is attempting to maintain an atmosphere of fear and terror in society," they wrote.

In response to the sharp rise in executions, protests have erupted both domestically and internationally, with global human rights organizations calling for immediate action.

The issue has become more urgent amid the ongoing hunger strikes by prisoners in the "No to Executions Tuesdays" campaign, which entered its 50th week on January 7. Initially launched in February 2024, the campaign has spread to 30 prisons across Iran, demanding a halt to executions.

On January 6, HRANA reported that 54 prisoners across the country now face execution on political or security-related charges, a significant rise from 33 in February 2024. This increase underscores the growing crackdown on dissent, with at least 21 new individuals added to the list of political prisoners facing death sentences in the past year.

A call for action from inside Evin

Sepideh Gholian, a political prisoner held in Evin Prison’s women’s ward, also reacted strongly to the Supreme Court’s confirmation of Azizi’s death sentence. In a letter obtained by Iran International, Gholian called on people to form a "chain of life to combat the regime's culture of death."

She described the atmosphere as war-like, saying that prisoners are living in constant fear of execution.

"Behind these tall walls and barbed wires, we are women who whisper the names of those sentenced to death every day," Gholian wrote. "The death sentence of Pakhshan Azizi, a woman who once protected war-stricken children, has been confirmed."

Azizi, a Kurdish social worker, was arrested in Tehran on August 4, 2023. After enduring nearly five months of solitary confinement and torture, she was transferred to Evin Prison’s women’s ward in December. In July, Azizi was sentenced to death by Judge Iman Afshari of Branch 26 of the Tehran Revolutionary Court for charges of "rebellion" (Baghi). The Supreme Court upheld her sentence on January 8, and her case is now in the hands of the execution unit, her family confirmed.

Azizi's case has drawn widespread attention to the Islamic Republic’s practice of using the death penalty to suppress political activism and dissent. International human rights groups continue to demand her release and the abolition of capital punishment in Iran.

(source: iranintl.com)

JANUARY 10, 2025:

TEXAS:

Texas Continues Sending People to the Execution Chamber, Innocent or Not----Year-end report focuses on inmates with innocence claims

Politicians like Greg Abbott and Ken Paxton project an image of being tough on crime, but they’re also tough on those who are innocent, per a year-end report from the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

The annual report tells the stories of several individuals who faced execution in 2024 despite evidence that they were not guilty of the crime for which they were convicted. Three of the eight people the state planned to execute this year tried to present evidence of innocence. The state killed Ivan Cantu on Feb. 28, despite evidence not heard by his trial jury – or any court – which demonstrated that the main witness against him lied on the stand about important details of the case. In July, Ruben Gutierrez received a last-minute stay from the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to decide whether he should be allowed to sue the state of Texas to compel them to conduct DNA testing on items involved in his conviction. Gutierrez has said for years that such testing will show he is innocent. The state of Texas has fought the testing every step of the way.

As death sentences decline, they continue to be applied disproportionately to people of color.

The most glaring example of that kind of intransigence was the case of Robert Roberson. Roberson was convicted in 2003 of killing his chronically ill 2-year-old daughter Nikki on the basis of the dubious medical hypothesis known as “Shaken Baby Syndrome,” now regarded in many circles as junk science. Roberson’s advocates have tried for years to get Texas’ criminal justice system to consider evidence showing that Nikki died of undiagnosed pneumonia, not being shaken. The courts have refused to grant him a new trial. Gov. Greg Abbott, Attorney General Ken Paxton, and the members of the Board of Pardons and Paroles have supported his execution.

The Texas Supreme Court stayed the execution on Oct. 17 at 9:45pm, four hours after it was to have begun, to allow the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence to bring Roberson to the Capitol to testify on his innocence. Paxton stopped the testimony last month, allowing the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to ignore a subpoena from the committee. Roberson’s supporters expect another execution to be set for him in the coming year.

In two other death penalty cases, courts decided that Melissa Lucio and Kerry Max Cook were innocent of the crimes for which they were convicted. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is considering whether to accept the recommendation of Lucio’s trial court and overturn her death sentence. She remains locked up as she awaits the decision. Cook was officially exonerated by the TCCA nearly 50 years after his conviction and is now free.

The TCADP’s report shows that Texas juries are continuing to sentence fewer and fewer people to death. Only six new people were sent to death row this year. However, as death sentences decline, they continue to be applied disproportionately to people of color. Five of the six men sentenced to death this year are people of color: three are Black, one is Hispanic, one is Native American. According to the report, nearly 70% of death sentences over the last 5 years have been imposed on people of color. More than 40% were imposed on Black defendants. This disparity hasn’t changed over the years. Although Black people constitute about 13% of Texas’ population, they represent 47% of death row.

But the total number of people awaiting execution is down. As of Dec. 16, TDCJ lists 174 people on the row, the lowest number since 1985.

(source: austinchronicle.com)

USA:

Jubilee: Tangible signs of hope along way to Jubilee of Prisoners----Catholic Mobilizing Network, the leading Catholic anti-death penalty advocacy organization in the United States, takes us behind the music of “Redemption Way,” a unique hymn written by a prisoner following his visit to death row.

In December 2023, the deputy warden at Chillicothe Correctional Institution in Ohio, asked the prison’s male choir to sing for the men on death row at Christmastime. Moved by his death row experience, an incarcerated choir member wrote a hymn entitled “Redemption Way.” In 2024, the NIA men’s choir performed and recorded the song during a prison concert.

Catholic Mobilizing Network (CMN) presented the public premiere of the choral music recording on January 3, during our first monthly prayer vigil of the Jubilee Year 2025. It was a privilege to share this moving music with our network of faithful prayer warriors and advocates who seek to dismantle systems of death and build up a culture of life.

Through his words “every man has dignity, every man has a soul, we see you, we hear you,” the composer Brian Hudak conveys respect for the human dignity of each person living on death row. His renaming of death row to “redemption way” reflects his own spiritual journey.

This week, he shared his reflections on the music in a letter that his choir director shared with CMN. I found his words to be so deeply touching and edifying — surely in the spirit of “Hope Does Not Disappoint” — that I offer them without interruption.

His choir director, Dr. Catherine Roma, follows with additional perspective to round out this hope-filled story.

Excerpt of Incarcerated Composer Bryan Hudak’s Reflections on Writing “Redemption Way”

It saddens me to think that any life can be extinguished by our government. Every man (and woman) has a soul. When I look at someone, I do not base his/her value on their worst moment. Imagine a world where everyone had to publicly state their worst ever thought, action, or sin. There would be such incredible mistrust, fear and anger, that no one would feel safe or loved.

I want those living on death row to know that they are loved by me and by God. The lack of feeling loved leads to loneliness, self-hatred and hopelessness. These crimes against the soul happen long before the crimes against society.

This song is not just about the men and women serving on death row, but about all of us. Physical death is inescapable on this earth. Don’t we all want and deserve to be loved? Don’t we all deserve to ‘step into the light?’ Who doesn’t want someone to remember him/her and to fight for him/her? The great news is that not only are there people who have learned through the Grace of God to truly love others, but God truly loves all people.

For the men sentenced to die by the hands of the state, there is joy to be found. Each life is valuable. Each life has purpose. Each soul has an opportunity for everlasting life in heaven. It is not up to people to make the decision on the value of life or the value of a soul.

Whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me. By some people’s standards, those on death row are the least of our brothers. Jesus teaches us to love them as ourselves. This does not mean that if someone does not like himself that he does not have to like others. It means that every soul has beauty and value just by existing. Love your enemy means that by making an enemy a friend, you no longer have enemies.

There is also a wider context of this song about other prisoners. Many men and women die while in prison. To them, they served a death penalty. Someone who has a life sentence is also on death row in a different way. With a life sentence, someone is unable to see his or her family, friends, or others except during short, supervised visits. The life they once had is dead.

We all need redemption; we all need love. The reason I was called to change the name from “Death Row” to “Redemption Way” is that it changes the whole perception of the people serving this time from being useless, discardable animals into men with souls, with dignity, and with love.

I knew that planting seeds of hope could overtake and blossom amongst seeds of hatred. The men who were living here moved to another prison. I am now writing this sitting in a cell that just a few months ago was the cell of a man on death row. I feel only love in this room. Love is contagious, spread it! Together we can truly change death row into redemption way.

Perspective from Dr. Catherine Roma on Directing “Redemption Way”

Dr. Catherine Roma, professor of music emerita at Wilmington College in Ohio, leads a music ministry that includes several prison choirs. She has directed the NIA choir since its inception in 2023.

NIA, which means “purpose” in Swahili, was the choir name chosen by its members. The 26 men in the choir have varied ages (23-78), backgrounds and musical experience.

Dr. Roma said the choir is a “diverse group devoted to becoming an artistic prison community arts organization, a liberating space within the confining walls.” She has been encouraging the men to write choral music for the ensemble.

“Singing in a choir is somewhat unusual for the men inside,” said Dr. Roma. Yet she explained that they are “enthusiastic to be part of a singing ensemble, something bigger than themselves, something that brings them joy, and focus, beauty, and community in an environment that nurtures none of these.”

Dr. Roma said that she discussed the death penalty with the choir members when they learned the “Redemption Way” song. She said the men made clear that “being in prison for life is a kind of death sentence, a kind of death penalty. They could identify with the men on death row because they, too, are considered savages, inhuman, not part of the fabric of humanity. The men are constantly reminded that they are offenders, criminals, who should be removed from the world, locked away, a number defining who they are.”

With Dr. Roma’s stewardship, the men sang the song first for their families and now share it with the world, including an upcoming concert with the World House Choir.

Music that honors dignity of people inside prison

It has felt like witnessing a prayer to see and hear these incarcerated men deliver hope to their brothers and sisters on death row and to their families. What a beautiful, tangible example of the hope that the Holy Father has called us to share.

We have been struck by the power of love shared through this prison choir, lifting up their voices to the inspired words written by one of their own. In the Jubilee spirit of “Hope Does not Disappoint,” Brian Hudak’s unique musical composition proclaims the hope of Jesus — the door of our salvation — always, everywhere and to all. Even from inside a prison. Amen.

* Headquartered in Washington, D.C., Catholic Mobilizing Network is a national organization that mobilizes Catholics and people of goodwill to end the death penalty, advance justice solutions in alignment with Catholic values and promote healing through restorative justice approaches and practices. (source: vaticannews.va)

SOMALIA:

Armed clan militia storms Galkayo prison to free death row inmates

Armed clan militiamen stormed the central prison in Galkayo early Friday morning, targeting the Puntland-administered section in an attempt to free inmates sentenced to death.

The assault marks the latest escalation in clan-related conflicts that continue to undermine security in Somalia's Mudug region.

The attackers clashed briefly with correctional officers, resulting in one fatality. It remains unclear whether the militia succeeded in freeing their targets. Puntland authorities have yet to issue an official statement, leaving questions about the prison's current status and the fate of the inmates.

Sources suggest the attack was an effort to liberate individuals convicted by the Puntland Supreme Court of murdering businessman Ahmed Tahliil, who was well-known in the region. The court recently sentenced the perpetrators to death and lengthy prison terms.

The Mudug region, straddling the border between Puntland and Galmudug, remains a flashpoint for clan-based conflicts and militant activity. Analysts say incidents like these reflect deeper challenges in establishing law and order in one of Somalia's most volatile areas.

The recent attack has reignited concerns over the effectiveness of security measures at Galkayo's central prison, highlighting ongoing weaknesses in Puntland's detention system. The facility's troubled history of escapes, including a 2024 jailbreak in which several militants fled, has raised questions about the security apparatus. While there is no indication of Al-Shabaab's involvement in this latest incident, the attack highlights ongoing vulnerabilities in Puntland's detention facilities.

(source: hiiraan.com)

INDIA:

Triple murder: HC orders paper book to review death sentence

(see: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/nagpur/triple-murder-hc-orders-paper-book-to-review-death-sentence/articleshow/117096000.cms)

SAUDI ARABIA:

Saudi Arabia sees record surge in executions in 2024

Saudi Arabia carried out at least 338 executions in 2024, a sharp rise from 170 in 2023 and the highest annual total in decades, according to an AFP tally. This marks a significant increase from previous records, with Amnesty International noting earlier highs of 196 executions in 2022 and 192 in 1995.

Drug trafficking cases accounted for at least 117 of those executed last year, following the end of a moratorium on the death penalty for drug-related offences in 2021. The resumption coincided with a nationwide anti-drug campaign, which included highly publicized raids and arrests targeting traffickers and users.

Saudi Arabia has faced growing scrutiny from human rights organizations over the rise in executions, particularly for drug offences. In September 2024, more than 30 Arab and international rights groups criticized the surge, calling it a “sharp increase” in the use of the death penalty.

Foreign nationals comprised a significant proportion of those executed in 2024, with 129 individuals from countries including Yemen, Pakistan, Egypt, and Nigeria. The kingdom has defended its use of capital punishment as a deterrent to crime and a measure to maintain public order, emphasizing that all executions follow the exhaustion of appeals.

Saudi Arabia’s execution rate is among the highest globally, surpassed only by China and Iran in recent years, according to Amnesty International. The kingdom’s strict enforcement of its legal code reflects its commitment to upholding its interpretation of justice, despite international criticism.

(source: shiawaves.com)

IRAN----executions

The Rise in Executions: A Continued Policy of State-Sanctioned Killings

The government of Iran justifies its high execution rates by claiming that these individuals involved in criminal activities, such as drug trafficking or terrorism. However, human rights organizations point out that many of those executed are often subjected to forced confessions and lack access to legal representation. These executions frequently carried out without proper legal procedures, and the families of the victims are often denied the opportunity to say goodbye to their loved ones or hold funerals.

The execution of political prisoners, often in secret and without trial, remains a key tactic for the Iranian government to instill fear and maintain control over dissent. Executions also frequently used as a tool of intimidation against opposition groups, including ethnic and religious minorities, whose activism challenges the government’s authority.

(source: en.iranhrs.org)

*************

Prisoner Executed in Dastgerd Prison, Isfahan

At dawn yesterday, January 9, 2025, the execution of a prisoner previously sentenced to death on charges of murder was carried out in Dastgerd Prison, Isfahan.

The identity of the prisoner, Samad Najar-Asl, father of 2 and a resident of Behbahan, has been verified by HRANA.

Based on information received by HRANA, Mr. Najar-Asl was arrested in 2019 during a financial dispute in Isfahan that escalated to murder. He was later sentenced to death by the criminal court.

As of the time of this report, the execution has not been officially announced by prison authorities or relevant institutions. In 2024, judicial authorities or domestic media in Iran officially announced only 6% of executions, underscoring a deeply troubling lack of transparency in the country’s legal and judicial processes.

(source: en-hrana.org)

JANUARY 9, 2025:

NORTH CAROLINA:

The death penalty is slowly fading away

There are a lot of reasons that the death penalty is almost never imposed anymore.

As a growing cadre of experts has demonstrated, the death penalty is hugely and uniquely expensive to apply and doesn’t deter crime –indeed, there’s compelling evidence it spurs more of it.

What’s more and more importantly, stacks of evidence now confirm the death penalty has long been applied unjustly. Not only is it mostly reserved for cases involving defendants who are poor and of color and victims who are white, there are many cases in which the horror of innocent people being sentenced to death has occurred.

It’s for these reasons and many others that most of the world and 1/2 of U.S. states have now abolished the death penalty and that President Joe Biden and former Gov. Roy Cooper should be congratulated for their recent actions to convert several death penalty sentences to life in prison.

The bottom line: The death penalty is fast becoming an obsolete relic. North Carolina would do well to make this official by removing it from its statute books.

< (source: Commentary, Rob Schonfield; ncnewsline.com)

FLORIDA:

Convicted killer Joseph Zieler's death penalty appeal to be heard by Florida Supreme Court

An appeal from a convicted killer in the 1990 murders of a Cape Coral girl and her babysitter is heading to the Florida Supreme Court.

Joseph Zieler was sentenced to death for the murders of 11-year-old Robin Cornell and 32-year-old Lisa Story.

He was sentenced following the 33-year-long cold case investigation.

The Florida Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in February for Zieler's appeal of his death penalty sentence. It is scheduled for Wednesday, Feb. 5, at 9 a.m.

Zieler was arrested in 2016 and later convicted for Robin Cornell and Lisa Story's deaths in May 2023.

The jury recommended the death penalty in a 10-2 vote before the judge sentenced him to death.

Zieler filed an appeal in July 2023.

All death penalty cases in Florida are automatically granted an appeal.

(source: NBC News)

KANSAS:

Kansas’ death penalty under scrutiny in pretrial hearings in 2019 homicide case

A long-shot constitutional challenge to Kansas’ death penalty unfolding in preliminary court proceedings for a man charged in the death of four people at a Wyandotte County bar centers on claims the state’s process of jury selection is racially biased in favor of executions.

In an unusual court proceeding that began in October, a coalition of attorneys that included counsel with the American Civil Liberties Union asserted the law should be struck down because the practice of jury selection in capital cases dictated prospective jurors had to be willing to impose the death penalty to serve. They argued the system for excluding certain potential jurors disproportionately discriminated against Black people, women and people of faith more likely to oppose capital punishment.

Their objective of pretrial wrangling is to use the 2019 murder case against Hugo Villanueva, who was charged in the shooting outside Tequila KC Bar in Kansas City, Kansas, to convince Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper to declare application of the state’s death penalty unconstitutional.

Cassandra Stubbs, director of the ACLU’s Capital Punishment Project, said more than a dozen expert witnesses outlined for the judge reasons the death penalty in Kansas violated the Kansas Constitution.

“Every step of the capital process is rife with racism and error, from who gets charged to who sits on capital juries,” Stubbs said. “The expert testimony has conclusively proved what we have long known to be true: If you are charged with capital murder, you are effectively denied your constitutional right to a fair trial.”

No quick decision

Klapper, a 2013 appointee of Republican Gov. Sam Brownback, didn’t issue a decision Wednesday following closing arguments by Villanueva’s lawyers regarding the “death qualification process” applicable to juries in capital murder cases.

The court granted Wyandotte County prosecutors several weeks to submit written closing arguments. Villanueva’s attorneys would be given an opportunity to respond to the filing by District Attorney Mark Dupree’s office.

Those killed in the October 2019 shooting allegedly involving Villanueva were Alfredo Calderon Jr., 29; Everardo Meza, 29; Francisco Garcia Anaya, 34; and Martin Rodriguez-Gonzalez, 58. Five people were wounded. Villanueva’s trial is scheduled for 2026.

In 2022, the Kansas Supreme Court rejected arguments state law on jury selection in capital punishment trials was constitutional as written. The justices at that time didn’t resolve questions about whether implementation of the law resulted in racial bias when selecting juries.

The Kansas Senate 15 years ago declined to advance — on a 20-20 vote — a bill that would have converted all Kansas capital punishment sentences to life without an opportunity for parole. Proponents of the bill said the death penalty conflicted with ideas that all life was sacred, while others said capital punishment didn’t serve a deterrent purpose.

Despite reimposition of the death penalty in 1994, Kansas hasn’t executed anyone since 1965. George York and James Latham werethe last to be executed — in a double hanging — for the 1961 murder of Otto Ziegler, 62, in Wallace, Kansas.

The testimony

In the current Wyandotte County case, attorneys with ACLU of Kansas, the Kansas Death Penalty Defense Unit, Hogan Lovells, Democracy Forward, and Ali & Lockwood worked through a roster of witnesses offering insights into why they believed the state’s jury-selection process undermined fundamental rights.

Mona Lynch, a professor of criminology at University of California-Santa Cruz, said results of studies in Sedgwick and Wyandotte counties reinforced what national research demonstrated about death qualificiation standards for juries.

Black prospective jurors were significantly more likely to oppose the death penalty and distrust the criminal justice system, Lynch said. And, she said, Black individuals were more likely to be excluded from a jury for opposition to the death penalty. The result was configuration was juries biased in favor of a death sentence, Lynch said.

The distortion of juries has been compounded by discriminatory use of peremptory strikes by lawyers in jury selection, said Elisabeth Semel, a professor of law at University of California-Berkeley.

Frank Baumgartner, a professor of political science at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said a statewide study of Kansas showed death sentences were sought more often when the victim was white or female. A separate analysis of Wyandotte County cases showed the race of victims had an influence on charging decisions by prosecutors, said Brent Never of the University of Missouri-Kansas City.

‘Life and death’

Stuart Swetland, president of Donnelly College in Kansas City, Kansas, testified about the jury system in terms of his religious perspective.

“In death penalty trials across the country,” he said, “people like me are excluded from serving on capital juries simply because of our faith. This exclusion undermines the principle of a jury as the conscience of the community and silences a large segment of the population in critical decisions about life and death.”

Carol Steiker, a law professor at Harvard University, said researchers had concluded 4% of capital murder cases in the United States potentially resulted in mistakes based on an extrapolation from the known number of people exonerated off death row.

“If someone said one in 25 airplanes will crash, no one would fly,” she said. “And, yet, we accept the fact that one in 25 people convicted of a capital crime are innocent. It is clear that the American death penalty is irretrievably broken. It cannot be fixed.”

(source: lawrencekstimes.com)

ARIZONA:

Potential date revealed for Arizona’s 1st execution since 2022

Convicted killer Aaron Gunches could be put to death as soon as mid-March under a newly set timeline for Arizona’s 1st execution in over 2 years.

The Arizona Supreme Court issued a briefing schedule on Wednesday and rejected a request by Gunches, who is on death row for the 2002 murder of Ted Price, for an expedited process.

On Dec. 6, Attorney General Kris Mayes filed a motion to establish a briefing schedule in the long-running death penalty case.

Gunches, meanwhile, submitted a filing last week seeking a Feb. 14 execution date.

The state Supreme Court reviewed the filings and set the following briefing schedule:

The state’s motion for a warrant of execution must be filed by 3 p.m. on Friday.

Responses to the motion are due by 3 p.m. on Jan. 24.

Replies, if any, must be filed by Jan. 31.

When will court decide about execution warrant for Aaron Gunches?

The high court is expected to issue a decision about the warrant on Feb. 11.

Under state law, executions must be carried out 35 days after a warrant is issued. Therefore, Gunches’ execution would be scheduled for March 18 if the warrant is granted on Feb. 11, according to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.

Arizona hasn’t carried out a death sentence since executing three death row inmates in 2022. Those executions ended a nearly eight-year hiatus following a 2014 execution that critics say was botched. The state later had difficulties obtaining lethal injection drugs.

Why wasn’t previous execution warrant for Aaron Gunches carried out?

An earlier execution warrant for Gunches was issued in March 2023, but Gov. Katie Hobbs refused to carry it out and won a legal battle to put it on hold.

Hobbs had ordered a review of the state’s death penalty protocols shortly after taking office in January of that year, and Mayes said she wouldn’t seek execution warrants until the review was completed.

Hobbs hired a retired judge to lead the review, but Mayes said he didn’t produce a useful report. However, the Arizona Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry launched its own assessment of the execution process around the same time.

Late last year, Mayes said the findings of the department’s assessment gave her the confidence to move forward with Gunches’ execution.

Gunches originally pleaded guilty in 2004 to murdering Price, his girlfriend’s ex-husband. He was sentenced to death in 2008 and again in 2013 after the Arizona Supreme Court found an error in the first sentencing proceeding.

Arizona currently has 111 inmates on death row.

(source: KTAR news)

USA:

Appeals court pauses plea proceedings in alleged 9/11 architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's case

A plea hearing to enable alleged 9/11 terror attack mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to avoid the death penalty will not go forward Friday, after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to pause the proceedings to allow the court to receive full briefings and hear arguments in the case on an expedited basis.

The court did not rule on whether Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has the power to reverse the plea agreements with Mohammed and other defendants, but instead said it needs more time to make that decision.

The U.S. government had filed a motion earlier this week seeking to stop a military tribunal in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, from accepting the plea agreements offered to three men accused of planning the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, including Mohammed.

According to the motion, the plea agreements reached over the summer, which are still under seal, would have the three defendants plead guilty to the seven charges against them for their alleged roles in the terrorist attacks, in exchange for allowing them to avoid the death penalty. The charges include murder, conspiracy and terrorism, as well as an eighth charge of intentionally causing serious bodily injury.

Government attorneys also asked the appeals court to stay the proceedings — including Mohammed's plea hearing Friday — while the request was being considered.

Family members who travelled to Guantanamo Bay are devastated that the plea proceedings won't go forward Friday. Eight of them were speaking to reporters when the court granted the administrative stay. All eight supported the plea agreements, though they acknowledged other victims' families do not.

Stephan Gerhardt, whose brother Ralph died in the World Trade Center in the terrorist attack, said, "I think by delaying this to the next administration, the Biden administration failed the families of 9/11. For whatever political agenda they had. We cannot pin our hopes on the next administration to resolve this for us."

Deborah Garcia, whose husband David also died in the World Trade Center, said she had hoped for the finality of a judgment that would be settled by the plea agreements, "because if these guys die (now), they die innocent."

Garcia is here with her son Dylan, whose 28th birthday was Thursday and was just 4 years old when his father died.

"I felt I failed my husband that he was at the Trade Center, and I feel like this adds onto my sense of failure," Deborah Garcia said. "I still can't bring this to justice."

Claire Gates teared up as she talked about her mother, Carol Freund, who has been coming to Guantanamo Bay since 2013. Gates' uncle, Peter Freund, was a firefighter and Carol Freund's brother.

Gates said of the trip with her mother, "I see her in so much pain all the time, and this was the first time I got to be here to see it for myself. And it was supposed to be a time for healing for us, and we'll board that plane still with that just deep sense of pain that never seems to — there's just no end to it."

She added that she had hoped this visit would bring her mother "some sense of resolution after all of these years." She said she was glad to have come to support Freund, but "this is not the ending to this trip that I thought we would be experiencing together."

Soon after the plea agreements were reached, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin tried to revoke them, arguing in a memo that "in light of the significance" of the decision, he alone should have the power to approve the plea deals, rather than the subordinate authority who accepted the deals.

The judge in the 9/11 case and then a military appeals court ruled against Austin and said he had weighed in too late. Austin has since reiterated that he still feels he should be the person who makes the decision on the 9/11 plea deals. On Thursday, during a trip to Germany, Austin was asked again about his decision to revoke the deals.

"I've stated where I am on this, and I haven't changed," he replied. "We are in the process of appealing that ruling, and since we are appealing, I don't have any comment."

There are also two other defendants in the case, but one hasn't negotiated a plea deal, and the other has been ruled mentally unfit to stand trial.

(source: CBS News)

********

Weighing the federal death penalty

The federal death penalty was first enacted in 1790 to punish certain federal crimes, such as treason, piracy and counterfeiting. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court rewrote death penalty jurisprudence in Furman v. Georgia. There subsequently was no effective federal death penalty until Congress reinstated the death penalty for drug offenses and certain murders in 1988 and greatly expanded its scope in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

2 recent events put the federal death penalty into focus. We do not have answers for the questions that we raise, but believe that they merit thoughtful consideration.

On Dec. 19, the Justice Department brought murder charges against Luigi Mangione for the killing of UnitedHealthcare executive Brian Thompson. Although the government has not yet indicated whether it will seek the death penalty against Mangione, the crime with which he is charged includes the possibility of capital punishment.

On Dec. 23, President Biden announced that he would be commuting the death sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row. The three federal inmates who will remain on death row are: Robert Bowers, who shot and killed 11 people at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh; Dylan Roof, who killed nine people at the Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who was responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing in which three people were killed and scores injured.

One impact of the increased scope of the federal death penalty is that persons who commit crimes in states that have abolished capital punishment, such as New York, where Mangione has been charged, and Massachusetts, where Tsarnaev set off bombs at the Boston Marathon, still can face the death penalty. Should the federal government be seeking the death penalty in states where the people of those states have abolished capital punishment?

The Mangione case raises many other interesting questions. The White House’s statement on Biden’s commutations states: “[President Biden] believes that America must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level, except in cases of terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder.”

Although Mangione is charged with only one murder, stalking and shooting a corporate executive for the policies of a major corporation, clearly smacks of terrorism, albeit domestic terrorism.

Some people believe that capital punishment is morally wrong and never should be a penal option. The trend over the past generation to abolish or restrict capital punishment largely has been fueled more by allegations surrounding the administration of the death penalty – such as the conviction of innocent persons, or a claimed wrongfully disproportionate use against certain groups or classes of people.

President Biden’s commutations cannot be justified because of a belief that all capital punishment is wrong; if it is wrong, there should be no exceptions. If there are to be exceptions, especially with the federal death penalty, where should one draw the line? The Mangione case raises some interesting questions.

Mangione’s case falls outside of the usual criticisms of the death penalty. Although Mangione is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, from what has been reported in the media, there appears to be little doubt that he wielded the gun that killed Robert Bowers.

It may be that Mangione was suffering from some form of mental illness, but the federal insanity defense was significantly restricted by the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1994, which was enacted in the wake of John David Hinckley’s successful insanity defense of his shooting of President Ronald Reagan.

Mangione does not belong to any of the classes that disproportionately populate death row. It is often said that there are no millionaires on death row. Mangione, the scion of a wealthy Baltimore County family, would be a notable exception.

Unlike a great deal of the local street drug crime that was federalized in the 1990s, the killing of the chief executive of a national corporation because of the corporation’s decisions clearly is an act that has significant impact on interstate commerce and in which the federal government should have an interest.

A century ago, Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb kidnapped and murdered a 14-year-old. Like Mangione, Leopold and Loeb were from prominent and wealthy families, who hired Clarence Darrow to defend them. Darrow’s argument to spare Leopold and Loeb from capital punishment succeeded, and they were sentenced to prison rather than to the gallows. Leopold was paroled after 33 years in prison; Loeb was killed in a prison shower room by a razor-wielding inmate.

It will be interesting to see if the Trump Justice Department seeks the death penalty against Mangione, and whether a modern-day Clarence Darrow can save his life should Mangione ultimately face a death sentencing procedure.

Editorial Advisory Board member Nancy Forster did not participate in this opinion.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERS

James B. Astrachan, Chair

James K. Archibald

Gary E. Bair

Eric Easton

Arthur F. Fergenson

Nancy Forster

Susan Francis

Julie C. Janofsky

Ericka N. King

George Nilson

Catherine Curran O’Malley

Angela W. Russell

Debra G. Schubert

Jeff Sovern

H. Mark Stichel

(source: The Daily Record Editorial Advisory Board is composed of members of the legal profession who serve voluntarily and are independent of The Daily Record)

ZIMBABWE:

Tracking the path to Zimbabwe’s abolition of the death penaltyThe country has joined the global majority that has consigned the sentence to the past.

Zimbabwe hasn’t executed anyone who was sentenced to death since 2005. With the passing of the Death Penalty Abolition Act 2024 on 31 December, Zimbabwe has become the 127th country in the world to end the death penalty.

This process began with the introduction to parliament of an opposition private member’s bill led by Edwin Mushoriwa, though some amendments were made by the government.

Other countries, too, have been moving away from the death penalty. In Africa, only seven of the 55 states in the African Union are “actively retentionist”, meaning that they sentence people to death and have carried out executions in the last decade. These states include Egypt, Somalia and South Sudan.

Twenty-six African countries have abolished the death penalty in law.

The most recent countries to do so include Ghana, the Central African Republic and Zambia. Another 14 within the African Union have moratoriums on executions.

Some governments that retain the death penalty, such as Kenya, claim that they can’t abolish it while there is considerable public support for capital punishment. Until now, this had been true in Zimbabwe, too.

Over a decade ago, Zimbabwe’s then minister of justice, now president, Emmerson Mnangagwa, expressed his commitment to abolition, condemning the death penalty as an “odious and obnoxious provision”. But a change in policy was not forthcoming because some Zimbabwean politicians claimed in discussions with rights organisations that the public was committed to retention.

The Death Penalty Project has done research in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean that has shown repeatedly that such perceptions – about public opinion being strongly in favour of the retention of the death penalty – are false.

In 2017, we conducted a survey of 1 200 Zimbabweans for data on public attitudes toward the death penalty. We found that most people knew and cared little about capital punishment. While 61% said they supported the death penalty, most said they would accept abolition if it were government policy.

In 2019, we carried out in-depth interviews with 42 Zimbabwean opinion leaders. They included politicians, legal practitioners and religious, civil society and media leaders. An overwhelming majority (90%) were in support of abolition.

There remain many legitimate concerns about Zimbabwe’s criminal justice system and wider abuses of human rights, which will not be fixed by abolition. Nevertheless, Zimbabweans should feel proud to have joined the global majority that has consigned the death penalty to the past.

In so doing, Zimbabweans have discarded a punishment that breaches the human rights of all those subject to it, risks the execution of innocent people, has a disproportionate impact on the poor and uneducated, and doesn’t reduce violent crime any more than a long prison sentence would.

The road to abolition

The Zimbabwean path to abolition began about a decade ago, with a roadmap to gather evidence for advocacy and engagement with influential local institutions and politicians.

The Death Penalty Project – a UK-based charity that provides free legal assistance to those facing the death penalty around the world and commissions research to assist advocacy efforts – and Veritas, a Harare-based NGO, set out to publish empirical studies on public views on the death penalty. This would test government claims that there was majority support for capital punishment.

In Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, public knowledge about things like the number or method of executions was limited.

When we carried out our survey, we found that six out of 10 people supported retention. However, less than half were certain that the death penalty should definitely be kept. When presented with a range of typical death penalty cases by way of a series of scenarios, most respondents were against the imposition of the death penalty in 5 out of the 6 cases.

When asked what policies were likely to be most effective at reducing violent crimes, only 8% referred to executions. Most respondents favoured better moral education of young people and reducing poverty – social policy rather than criminal justice responses.

Perhaps most importantly, 80% of those who supported the death penalty made it clear that they would be willing to accept abolition if it were to become government policy.

In our study of opinion leaders, we found that those who could shape policy in Zimbabwe were much better informed on the death penalty than the public. Almost 2/3 didn’t trust the criminal justice system to prevent miscarriages of justice. Most respondents were concerned about wrongful convictions and innocent people being sentenced to death.

The 90% who supported abolition weren’t only concerned about safety. Most believed the death penalty to be an abuse of human rights, against their religious beliefs, a poor deterrent and a stain on Zimbabwe’s international reputation.

Like the public, the majority of opinion leaders felt that social policies to reduce poverty and educate the young were likely to be more effective in reducing violent crime than recourse to the criminal process. Furthermore, most (rightly) assumed that the public would accept a decision by parliament to abolish the death penalty.

Research for policy

In dismantling this perceived barrier to abolition, our research attracted Mnangagwa’s support. In a foreword to the opinion leaders’ study, the Zimbabwean president wrote:

Most Zimbabweans know that the death penalty is a subject on which I feel deeply. As I have said in the past, I believe it to be a flagrant violation of the right to life and dignity …. It is my sincere hope that, in the near future, Zimbabwe will formally abolish the penalty by removing it from our statute books.

While ultimately abolition in Zimbabwe, as elsewhere, was achieved through political leadership, efforts by local and international civil society organisations played a significant role, and our empirical research was crucial in supporting this endeavour.

(source: Carolyn Hoyle, director of the University of Oxford Death Penalty Research Unit, Centre for Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Oxford and Parvais Jabbar, co-founder and co-executive director, Death Penalty Project and Visiting Professor of Practice, University of Oxford----moneyweb.co.za)

SINGAPORE:

Ending capital punishment is not a false hope Hope could very well be the defining force behind the drive to abolish capital punishment: hope for redemption, hope for personal improvement, hope for national betterment, and above all, hope for humanity.

In August 2022, I wrote a piece about the death penalty that was published in this paper, based on an interview with Kokila Annamalai, an anti-capital punishment activist based in Singapore.

“We all know it is not easy to be a civil society activist in Singapore. It is even harder if you campaign against the death penalty with relentless determination and an overarching commitment to justice, together with the hope that things might one day change,” Kokila said, as quoted at the beginning of that opinion article. The events that have unfolded in the last few months confirm the truth of these words.

Kokila has been at the center of a storm caused by the Singaporean government trying to silence her beliefs and convictions about the death penalty. The controversy has turned into something far more tumultuous because she has refused to comply with a correction order, issued in October under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA), to “correct” her opinions on capital punishment. Boldly, she is refusing to comply, and has become the 1st Singaporean citizen to do so.

Her decision could cost her a substantial monetary fine and prison time, or both.

The legislation, however, has been weaponized by the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) to silence dissent. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

For example, 15 Singaporeans are being investigated simply because they held vigils to mourn the deaths of 2 death row inmates, Rosman Abdullah and Masoud Rahimi Mehrzad, who were executed last year on Nov. 22 and 29, respectively. The European Union, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom issued a strongly worded statement to express their disapproval over their executions.

“The death penalty fails to act as a deterrent to crime and makes possible miscarriages of justice irreversible. Moreover, rehabilitation as an objective of modern criminal law is rendered impossible by the application of capital punishment,” read the EU statement. While a number of nations around the world still support the death penalty, like Singapore and Indonesia, a shift is occurring.

On Dec. 17, Malaysia voted in favor of the 2024 United Nations General Assembly resolution for a moratorium on executions. This was a significant step and part of a recent pattern in Malaysia, which has been undertaking a serious process of rethinking its historical stance on capital punishment.

Singapore instead led a proposal to amend the same resolution, highlighting the “sovereignty” of nations in deciding their own course in judicial matters.

Here, I want to thank journalist Kirsten Han, who runs the online newsletter We, The Citizens, for helping readers worldwide to understand what’s going in Singapore.

Han, together with Kokila, is part of the Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), a group of activists in Singapore that are bravely pushing a counternarrative against capital punishment.

Back in October, TJC wanted to organize an initiative called Putting the Death Penalty on Trial to create more awareness on why it believes the death penalty is unjust and inhumane. One of the initiative’s main events was a multimedia exhibition called “Fighting for Life”, but was not allowed to hold the event because it “undermines national interest”, according to a TJC release. An article on the ruling PAP’s online publication Petir stated the following: “Perhaps when anti-death penalty activists stop their chase for virtue, they might start seeing drug traffickers for what they are. Scourge of the earth and proxy murderers who do not deserve our sympathy.”

I am wondering if, by extension, the same message would apply to all officials across the political spectrum in Europe who vehemently oppose capital punishment.

Would it also apply to outgoing United States President Joe Biden? He just fulfilled his promise of commuting all death sentences at the federal level, except in cases of terrorism and hate-motivated mass murder. Despite being mocked by authorities at home, TJC is not giving up its fight, and is even doubling down instead.

Stop the Killing is TJC’s powerful new initiative, a petition calling for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty in Singapore. So far, 1,767 citizens of the island state have physically signed it.

Singapore should welcome people like Kokila, Han, Terry Xu and Thum Ping “PJ” Tjin, as well as many others. The reason is simple: They bring a different perspective that might be inconvenient for the PAP, but can help Singapore truly become a better place. And now few words on the People’s Manifesto, which serves as powerful proof that there is a different type of Singapore and a different type of citizenry that dare to dream about a better nation.

Launched in August 2024, the manifesto is an attempt to show there is an independent civil society that wants some bold changes.

The first chapter is titled “To (Re)build a Democratic Society” and opens with: “Dissent and contestation are healthy, generative features of a democracy. No single person, group or political party has a monopoly on wisdom about how a country should be run.”

I wrapped up my August 2022 piece in the following way: “Wong needs to muster the courage to discuss openly and transparently about the death penalty and the real possibility that his country needs a new narrative,” referring to Lawrence Wong, who was then deputy prime minister.

We truly need more transformative justice, and not just in Singapore. Criminals, while they must be held accountable, can redeem themselves and, even if they are behind bars for their remaining days, can become better. And let’s not forget that real justice is also about forgiveness; something that is too often and too conveniently ignored.

Han recently delivered a public lecture in Western Australia titled “Singapore Must Always Have Hope”.

Indeed, the PAP and Prime Minister Wong should also have hope. Hope beats fear and dogmatism, brings in new possibilities and enables people to think differently, and this is always a good thing. I am sure that one day, such hope will enable Han to deliver her beautiful lecture at the heart of Singapore. And I am certainly hopeful that the new generations of Singaporeans will one day thank Kokila for her principled, values-based opposition to an arbitrary law. (source: Commentary; Simone Galilmberti----The writer is a freelance columnist who focuses on social inclusion, youth development, regional integration and the Sustainable Development Gals in the Asia-Pacific context----Ther Jakarta Post)

IRAN----executions

Execution of 5 Prisoners in Ghezel Hesar Prison

Yesterday, January 8, 5 prisoners were executed in Ghezel Hesar Prison, Karaj.

HRANA has identified 3 of them as Salman Bozorgmehr, Reza Azizian, and Ashkan Pirian. Bozorgmehr and Azizian had previously been arrested on drug-related charges and were subsequently sentenced to death by the judiciary.

According to HRANA’s information, Ashkan Pirian was arrested on charges of murdering a friend during a dispute and was also sentenced to death by the judiciary.

The other two executed prisoners were Afghan nationals, both sentenced to death for murder by Iranian judicial authorities.

As of the time of this report, the executions have not been officially announced by prison officials or relevant authorities.

According to data gathered by the Department of Statistics and Publication of Human Rights Activists, Ghezel Hesar Prison in Karaj witnessed the highest number of executions in 2024.

(source: en-hrana.org)

***********

Prisoner executed for murder-related charges in Kermanshah

Prisoner Farman Afristam, a prisoner sentenced to death for “premeditated murder”, was executed in the early hours of 7 January in Dizel Abad Prison in Kermanshah, Kermanshah Province.

Afristam, a father of 2 from of the village of Milkeh-ye Shir Khan in Kermanshah, Kermanshah Province, was arrested 4years ago on murder charges.

Earlier, the Kurdistan Human Rights Network (KHRN) reported on the execution of 3other prisoners – Ashkan Kazemi, Mohammad Shahidi, and Mozaffar Shahsavari – in the same prison on the same day.

(sourvce: kurdistanhumanrights.org)

**************

Death sentence confirmed for Pakhshan Azizi despite unfair trial----Amir Raisian, lawyer for Kurdish socio-political activist Pakhshan Azizi, has confirmed that the Supreme Court of Iran has upheld her death sentence. Raisian denounced the verdict as a violation of fair trial standards, citing significant case flaws, and announced he will seek a retrial. Azizi's confirmed death sentence coincides with a surge in executions in Iran, raising alarms. Narges Mohammadi and Volker Türk have urgently called on Iran to halt all executions.

On 8 January 2025, the Iranian Supreme Court upheld the death sentence for Kurdish political prisoner Pakhshan Azizi, ignoring significant procedural flaws and evidence of her peaceful humanitarian work. This decision comes amid a broader context of increasing executions in Iran, with at least 54 political and security prisoners currently facing death sentences.

On 24 July 2024, Judge Iman Afshari, head of Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court of Tehran, issued the original death sentence for Pakhshan Azizi.

According to her legal counsel, Amir Raisian, “Branch 39 of the Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence against Pakhshan Azizi, disregarding numerous procedural and substantive flaws in the case”. Raisian emphasised, “Azizi was never involved in any armed operations or military organisations. The court ignored critical evidence demonstrating that her activities in northern Syria refugee camps were entirely peaceful and humanitarian in nature”.

He further stated that the sentence was issued in violation of fair trial standards, with the court failing to address the significant errors in the case.

In an interview with Sharq daily, Raisian elaborated, “The Supreme Court has given no consideration to investigative shortcomings or evidence”, demonstrating that the imposition of the death penalty on Azizi, alongside 54 others on political-security charges, has ignited widespread concern. In response to the death sentences, Narges Mohammadi posted a reaction on her X (formerly Twitter) account that Azizi’s aid activities in refugee camps in northern Syria were “purely humanitarian and apolitical”.

Expressing grave concern regarding the confirmation of his client’s death sentence, Raisian emphasised that the defence team will promptly file a formal petition for retrial with the Supreme Court. He stated his hope that the assigned judicial panel will give due consideration to the substantive objections raised within the case and rectify the identified procedural deficiencies.

Iran International TV Network, citing an exclusive source, reported that the Iranian judicial system has succumbed to the demands of the security apparatuses, and has disregarded evidence substantiating Azizi’s humanitarian work in northeast Syria, thereby placing her at imminent risk.

The imposition of the death penalty on Azizi, alongside 54 others on political-security charges, has ignited widespread concern.

In response to the broadcasters’ death sentences, Narges Mohammadi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate, posted a reaction on her X account:

“The confirmation of Pakhshan Azizi’s death sentence by the Supreme Court reflects the regime’s determination to escalate the suppression of women and take revenge on the magnificent and powerful ‘Women, Life, Freedom’ movement. The IR [Islamic Republic] seeks to intensify fear & vengeance by beginning the execution of a female political prisoner. It is our duty not to remain silent. I call on all freedom seekers worldwide, international human rights organisations & the United Nations to unite against the policy of executions”.

In parallel, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk expressed grave concern over the alarming surge in executions in Iran, particularly highlighting the unprecedented rise in women facing capital punishment.

Türk emphasised the disturbing trend, stating, “It is deeply troubling that yet again we see an increase in the number of people subjected to the death penalty in Iran year-on-year”. The situation reached a critical point in December 2024, when approximately 40 people were executed in a single week.

The High Commissioner underscored the urgency of addressing this issue, declaring, “It is high time Iran stemmed this ever-swelling tide of executions”.

(source: medyanews.net)

**************

Death sentence confirmed against activist Bakhshan Azizi----The lawyer of Kurdish activist Bakhshan Azizi, who is detained in Tehran's Evin prison, announced the confirmation of the death sentence against her by the Iranian Supreme Court.

Amir Raisiyan, the lawyer of Kurdish activist Bakhshan Azizi, has confirmed his client's death sentence in Iran's Supreme Court.

"Following the death sentence issued by Branch 26 of the Revolutionary Court in Tehran in the case of Bakhshan Azizi, we filed an appeal, and the application was considered by Circuit 39 of the Supreme Court, and unfortunately, regardless of the many flaws in the case, the appeal was rejected and the death sentence was confirmed," Raisian wrote on his Instagram account.

On the court's failure to respond to the objections, the lawyer stated that "none of the objections raised in relation to Bakhshan Azizi's case were answered by the Supreme Court, and the objections in this case, including formality and substantive objections, were ignored, as were the flaws of the investigation, evidence and documents that showed that Bakhshan Azizi's case is not subject to the death penalty, and that its activity in the NE Syria and in the Shingal camp was a peaceful activity that did not have any political aspect, it was about providing aid, and no attention was paid to it."

Amir, 2 main rulers, explained that such a ruling fundamentally contradicts the country's judicial procedures, previous rulings issued even in the same branch of the Supreme Court, and contradicts the country's judicial policy regarding life-threatening sanctions.

Kurdish activist Bakhshan Azizi was arrested along with her father and sister in Tehran on August 4, 2023, and after searching them, security forces transferred them to the Ministry of Intelligence detention center known as Wing 209 in Evin Prison. On the 4th of July 2024, the death sentence was announced against her, which sparked widespread anger among women's circles, who demanded the immediate cancellation of the decision and the release of the activist.

(source: hawarnews.com)

JANUARY 8, 2025:

TEXAS:

Documentary explores death row inmates attempt to connect with victims son

John Henry Ramirez was executed in Texas in 2022 after being convicted of murder in the 2004 death of 46-year-old Pablo Castro.

In her documentary “I am Ready, Warden,” director Smriti Mundhra tells the story of Ramirez’s attempt to reach out to the victim’s son, Aaron Castro.

ABC News’ Linsey Davis sat down with Mundhra, also known for the Oscar-nominated “St. Louis Superman,” and Castro to discuss the documentary.

ABC NEWS: Is redemption or retribution possible for a murderer? Director Smriti Mundhra examines this question and more in a new Oscar-shortlisted documentary from MTV called “I’m Ready, Warden.” Let’s take a look.

Smriti Mundhra and Aaron Castro join us now. Thank you so much for coming on the show. Now this film highlights John Henry Ramirez; he had been on death row for 14 years, in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day.

Smriti, I understand you heard about his story by reading an article by The Marshall Project. What about that article made you decide you wanted to do a film about his death row experience?

SMRITI MUNDHRA: I wanted to specifically examine a story of a person on death row who had admitted to committing the crime. There was no question of innocence or guilt. And, you know, who had had the time, you know, in prison to really reflect and, you know, atone for what they’d done. And also look at the perspective of the victim side, you know, of the impact on the family of, you know, on the other side of things.

So that’s sort of how this project really came to be. And I read an article by a journalist who had — Keri Blakinger — who had done a lot of work, you know, writing about men in the prison system and on death row, and we collaborated.

ABC NEWS: And Aaron, Ramirez killed your father. What made you decide that you wanted to participate in this film?

CASTRO: I think not hiding from the problem and being able to talk about it is always those first steps, right? They always say talk about it, don’t hold things in.

And this allowed me to kind of give more of my father’s side of things as not just a Mexican immigrant who was murdered, but call him by his name, Pablo Castro. And, you know, share a little bit more about him and how it affected us.

ABC NEWS: I understand that Ramirez reached out to you when he was on death row, when he was saying his goodbyes to his own family. And your response? Have you changed your opinion at all about him or the idea of giving people a 2nd chance?

CASTRO: I think something that the film really shows is that change. That change of mindset. You know, because the film is showing something so raw and authentic within the moment you’re able to capture through even moments of silence in the documentary, moments where I am thinking and understanding and following my heart, how do I feel? How has this really affected me?

And, you know, I’m a human being. I’m empathetic, and I have emotions as well. So I had to really dig deep.

ABC NEWS: What did you learn about death row while you were doing this film?

MUNDHRA: I think probably the most profound thing I learned about death row and the death penalty overall is that it doesn’t always offer the closure and justice that it promises, you know, and that there’s victims on all sides. There’s a ripple effect, right, when a person is incarcerated, you know, to families on both sides.

ABC NEWS: Does it offer closure?

CASTRO: I think that’s something that I have thought about for a long time, that’s the difference between, for me, deciding to choose hate and anger or forgiveness and compassion. And I think each individual human being has to search that for themselves.

ABC NEWS: Smriti, this is your 2nd Oscar film or film that’s been shortlisted for the Oscars about violence in America. What is it that you hope that the viewers will take away with regard to this theme?

MUNDHRA: I feel it’s my responsibility to really understand, you know, these subjects, these institutions that are really designed to protect me, but that victimize others, to really understand what they’re about, you know, and really take stock of my own values and really pose that question to the viewers. You know, as, you know, what is our value system as a culture, as a society?

ABC NEWS: Smriti, Aaron, we thank you both so much for coming on the show. And you can watch “I am Ready, Warden,” available on streaming.

(source: fingerlakesdailynews.com)

PENNSYLVANIA:

We oppose the proposed death penalty bill in PA

We are writing on behalf of the statewide organization Pennsylvania Association for Rational Sexual Offense Laws (PARSOL.org) to express our deep concern over State Representative Ryan Warner’s proposal to allow the death penalty for individuals convicted of child sexual offenses. While protecting children is a cause we all share, this proposal is fraught with ethical, legal, and practical problems that demand our attention.

First, the death penalty is irreversible, and the criminal legal system is not infallible. Numerous cases have shown that innocent people can and do face wrongful convictions, particularly in highly emotional cases like sexual offenses. A single mistake under such legislation would have catastrophic and irrevocable consequences.

Moreover, harsher penalties can have unintended effects on victims themselves. Studies indicate that extreme punishments, such as the death penalty, may discourage victims who oppose capital punishment from coming forward, especially when the perpetrator is someone they know — as is true with 93% of sexual harm cases (rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence). Instead of supporting victims, this policy risks silencing them and compounding their trauma.

Beyond these ethical concerns, Representative Warner’s proposal directly conflicts with established legal precedent. In Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty for crimes where the victim does not die is unconstitutional. Attempting to circumvent this binding precedent would embroil Pennsylvania in costly legal battles while offering no real benefit to public safety.

Additionally, the death penalty is a punishment that disproportionately affects marginalized communities. Economic and racial inequities plague its application, ensuring that the wealthy and privileged are better able to escape its consequences while vulnerable populations bear the brunt of this ultimate sanction.

Even law enforcement officials have raised red flags about this proposal. Beaver County District Attorney Nate Bible has warned that imposing the death penalty for child rape might incentivize perpetrators to kill their victims in an effort to avoid detection. This tragic consequence would only heighten the danger to children rather than protect them.

PARSOL believes there is a better way. By expanding prevention programs, increasing support for survivors, and ensuring fair sentencing that balances accountability with the possibility of rehabilitation, we can address the root causes of sexual abuse while upholding justice and human dignity.

Protecting children is too important to be undermined by measures that defy constitutional principles, ethical norms, and practical realities. We urge lawmakers to reject this dangerous proposal and to pursue evidence-based reforms that safeguard our communities.

Josiah Krammes (Pottsville)

Randall Hayes (Harrisburg)

Co-Chairs, PARSOL.org

(source: Opinion; pikecountycourier.com)

SOUTH CAROLINA----new execution date

SC Supreme Court orders execution of Marion Bowman Jr. for 2001 murder

Marion Bowman Jr. is scheduled to be executed Jan. 31 for the 2001 murder of 21-year-old Kandee Martin in Dorchester County.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has issued an order of execution for Marion Bowman Jr., who has been on death row since 2002 for the 2001 murder of 21-year-old Kandee Martin. Bowman, 44, is scheduled to be executed Friday, Jan. 31, at the Broad River Correctional Complex in Columbia. He would become the third inmate put to death since the state resumed executions this past September.

Bowman was convicted for the February 2001 murder of Martin in Dorchester County. Martin’s body was found in the trunk of a burned car, and prosecutors said Bowman shot her in the head before attempting to cover up the crime. Investigators recovered evidence such as shell casings, blood stains and Martin's shoe near the crime scene. Bowman’s defense team, however, argued the evidence did not meet the standards for a death penalty conviction and raised concerns about the fairness of the trial, claiming witness manipulation and unreliable testimonies.

In his final appeal filed this past December, Bowman’s defense team argued his conviction was flawed due to ineffective legal representation and the suppression of key evidence. They claim Bowman’s trial attorney pressured him into a guilty plea, influenced by personal biases rather than sound legal strategy.

Lindsey S. Vann, executive director of Justice 360, released a statement on behalf of Bowman’s legal team. Vann asserted that the case relied heavily on the testimony of co-defendants who received leniency in exchange for cooperation. Vann also highlighted the failure to disclose crucial evidence, including a confession from an alleged eyewitness who later admitted to the crime.

“Marion Bowman Jr. has maintained his innocence since he was arrested at the young age of 20 and has spent more than half of his life on death row,” Vann said. “His conviction was based on unreliable, incentivized testimony from biased witnesses who received reduced or dropped sentences in exchange for their cooperation.”

Vann also said the state withheld key evidence from the defense and the jury, including the fact the only alleged eyewitness confessed to committing the murder.

“Marion did not receive a fair trial or effective legal representation,” according to the statement. “Marion’s own attorney pressured him to plead guilty instead of preparing an adequate defense and made other poor decisions based on his racist views rather than strategic legal counsel. Allowing the execution to proceed despite significant and unresolved doubt about Marion’s conviction and the serious flaws in the original trial is unconscionable.”

Bowman has consistently maintained his innocence over the past two decades. In a statement, he expressed regret for his involvement in Martin’s life but denied having committed her murder.

“I know this won’t bring [her family] satisfaction, but this is my truth,” he said.

He also spoke about the personal toll the case has taken on him, mentioning his daughter, who was born while he was awaiting trial, and his deep love for his family.

Bowman’s defense team continues to seek a new trial, questioning the integrity of the original conviction. The state restarted executions after a 13-year hiatus due to difficulties obtaining lethal injection drugs. In addition to lethal injection, the state has made the firing squad an option for death row inmates.

Since the reinstatement of the death penalty in 1976, South Carolina has executed 45 prisoners, according to the Department of Corrections. The most recent executions took place in September and October 2024, when Freddie Owens and Richard Moore were put to death by lethal injection.

Bowman is one of 30 men currently on death row in South Carolina. While Bowman’s legal team continues to push for a reprieve or clemency from Gov. Henry McMaster, his execution is set to proceed unless further legal action is taken.

(source: postandcourier.com)

FLORIDA:

State appeal of death penalty ruling delays trial in Palm Beach Gardens boy's 2021 killing

A judge has formally delayed a murder trial scheduled to begin this week while prosecutors and public defenders argue over whether the man accused of killing a Palm Beach Gardens teen should face the death penalty.

Circuit Judge Cymonie Rowe on Monday granted the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office's motion to stay the trial of Semmie Lee Williams, who is accused of first-degree murder in the 2021 fatal stabbing of 14-year-old Ryan Rogers.

The state wants the 4th District Court of Appeal to reverse Rowe's December ruling that Williams is ineligible for the death penalty because he suffers from an intellectual disability. Prosecutors have sought the death penalty for Williams since January 2022.

It is unclear how long the delay will last. A State Attorney's Office spokesperson said the Florida Attorney General's Office would handle the appeal. An Attorney General's Office spokesperson said it could be months before a formal motion is drafted and filed. A 3-judge panel would then rule on it, according to the 4th DCA's website.

Williams, now 42, is accused of killing Rogers on Nov. 15, 2021, in what Palm Beach Gardens police described as "a random act" while the teen was riding a bicycle along Central Boulevard. Investigators found Rogers’ body the next morning along near the Interstate 95 overpass.

Attorneys from the county Public Defender's Office have argued that Williams suffers from a “long-standing and persistent mental illness” and had been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Yet two psychologists who evaluated Williams found him competent to stand trial.

For intellectual disability to be a bar to execution under Florida law, a defendant must show significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning; deficits in adaptive behavior; and a manifestation of these conditions before age 18.

The state said the defense failed to prove those factors. It also argued that "there is significant evidence of insufficient effort and purposeful feigning" by Williams that calls into question the IQ scores produced by two clinical psychologists, Dr. Joette James and Dr. Michael Brannon.

Assistant State Attorney Jo Wilensky said in a written argument filed last month that Williams made misleading statements to Brannon regarding his inability to read and write.

(source: Palm Beach Post)

KANSAS:

Is Wyandotte County the beginning of the end of Kansas’ death penalty? Judge to decide

Wyandotte County residents who oppose the death penalty are potentially much more likely to be kept off juries in capital murder cases, a judge heard Wednesday as he weighs whether to strike down Kansas’ death penalty.

Over the past few months, the murder case against Hugo Villanueva, a Hispanic man in his mid-30s accused in a 2019 shooting outside a Kansas City, Kansas, bar that left four dead, temporarily transformed into a trial of sorts against the state’s death penalty.

Attorneys for Villanueva, including lawyers with the ACLU, spent weeks building a case that the way Kansas practices the death penalty is unfair and racially biased. More than a dozen witnesses testified on aspects of the state’s death penalty and jury selection process.

“The people who are opposed” to the death penalty are “more likely to be excludable,” Mona Lynch, a professor of criminology, law and society at the University of California-Irvine, testified, summarizing the findings of a survey of 500 Wyandotte County residents.

Wyandotte County District Court Judge Bill Klapper drew the mini-trial to a close on Wednesday after testimony from Lynch, Villanueva’s final expert witness. Klapper, who has sat on the bench since 2013, didn’t immediately rule and no timeline for a decision was announced. A jury trial on the criminal charges is currently set for February 2026.

Klapper’s decision could set the stage for a pivotal legal fight over Kansas’ death penalty that may wind up in front of the state Supreme Court. Kansas’ last execution took place in 1965, but the state’s modern death penalty has been on the books since 1994 and nine men in Kansas prisons have death sentences.

At the core of Villanueva’s challenge is the argument that how Kansas seats jurors in death penalty cases – a process called death qualification – skews capital trials. The process, which requires potential jurors to affirm they would be willing to impose the death penalty, discriminates against potential jurors on the basis of race, gender and religion, they argue.

The Kansas Supreme Court in 2022 rejected a facial argument against the state’s death qualification process. In other words, the court ruled the process itself wasn’t unconstitutional as written. The court affirmed the death sentences against Jonathan and Reginald Carr, who killed five people in Wichita in December 2000.

But the Kansas Supreme Court’s justices wrote in the decision that allegations that the death qualification process is racially biased “most certainly warrant careful analysis and scrutiny” – a statement that death penalty opponents have interpreted as an invitation to further challenge the system.

Lynch’s survey of jury-eligible Wyandotte County residents, conducted between August and October 2024, found that death qualification significantly changed the percentage of people in the jury pool who favored the death penalty – raising the percentage from 57% to 68.8%. Death penalty opponents were overwhelmingly excluded – 60.4% of opponents were excluded compared to roughly 34% of supporters.

About 36% of white residents who participated in the survey opposed the death penalty, compared to nearly 59% of Black respondents. And women were much more likely to be excludable from capital juries than men – about 84% to 58% – because they were never willing to impose the death penalty.

In a nearly hour-long closing argument, Megan Byrne, an ACLU attorney representing Villanueva, recounted Kansas’ long history of violence against Black residents and how discrimination had contributed to distrust of the legal system over time. As that distrust builds, Black residents in turn become more likely to be kept off death-qualified juries.

“It really kind of creates a vicious cycle,” Byrne said.

Wyandotte County prosecutors said little during Wednesday’s hearing. Assistant district attorney Nick Campbell chose to deliver a written closing argument, due in three weeks. Villanueva’s attorneys will then have a week to respond.

During a roughly 10-minute cross-examination of Lynch, Campbell emphasized the limitations of the professor’s study, noting that the questions posed to the survey respondents are different than what a real-life jury would be told.

“In a trial, it’s a lot more nuanced,” Campbell said at one point. “This is a prediction,” he asked of Lynch at another.

Prosecutor’s stance

In court documents, Wyandotte County District Attorney Mark Dupree has argued that both the United States and Kansas Supreme Courts have upheld the death qualification process. Jury selection in Wyandotte County “does not establish a program of systemic discrimination designed to eliminate prospective jurors based on race or gender,” he wrote.

“Whether citizens from a racial or gender specific category view the death penalty differently than another category of citizens, their exclusion from jury eligibility is a response to their stated belief, not their race, gender, religion, political preferences, or strongly held regional biases,” Dupree wrote.

Villanueva had previously been jointly challenging the death penalty with Antoine Fielder, who was charged with murdering two Wyandotte County sheriff’s deputies in June 2018 as they transported him back to jail. But Fielder pleaded guilty in December, effectively taking a death sentence off the table.

If Klapper rules against the death penalty, it’s unclear whether Villanueva’s trial would proceed on time. If the challenge ends up before the Kansas Supreme Court, a decision could take months or years.

(source: Kansas City Star)

OKLAHOMA----new execution date

Oklahoma sets date for its 1st execution of 2025

Oklahoma has set a date for its 1st execution in 2025. Wendell Arden Grissom is scheduled to receive a lethal injection on March 20 for a murder he committed in 2005.

Now 56, Grissom was charged with the murder of Amber Matthews during a Blaine County home invasion. During the invasion, Grissom shot Matthews twice in the head. His accomplice, Jessie Johns, is serving life in prison without parole.

Grissom was convicted at trial of 1st-degree murder, shooting with intent to kill, grand larceny and possession of a firearm after a felony conviction.

A clemency hearing for Grissom is tentatively set for Feb. 5. His attorneys are expected to present evidence that brain damage prevents him from controlling impulses and explosive behaviors. Grissom could also waive his hearing altogether.

During a clemency hearing, Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board is tasked with deciding whether to execute as planned or waive it. Gov. Kevin Stitt has the final say on whether clemency is recommended.

In 2024, Oklahoma executed 4 people — only Texas and Alabama put more to death. Last year’s executions included Michael Dewayne Smith, Richard Norman Rojem Jr., Emmanuel Antonio Littlejohn and Kevin Ray Underwood.

Executions are carried out by lethal injection at the Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester.

Originally, Grissom’s execution was set to take place on Jan. 11, but changes in state procedure and delays for last year’s final execution pushed the date back. The Court of Criminal Appeals now generally sets executions about 90 days apart.

(source: KOSU news)

NEVADA:

Prosecutors seek death penalty in Las Vegas Strip mass stabbing

Prosecutors intend to seek the death penalty against the man accused of killing 2 people and injuring 6 more in a mass stabbing on the Las Vegas Strip should a jury convict him, the 8 News Now Investigators have learned.

On Oct. 6, 2022, Yoni Barrios, 34, asked a group of showgirls to take a photo with a foot-long kitchen knife he was trying to sell before allegedly stabbing them, police said after his arrest. Video shows a man prosecutors identified as Barrios then randomly stabbing several other people before security and police subdue him.

Brent Hallett, 47; and Maris DiGiovanni, 30, both of Las Vegas, died in the attack.

In December, following 2 years of mental health treatment, a Clark County grand jury indicted Barrios on charges including terrorism and murder, the 8 News Now Investigators first reported. During the grand jury return hearing, Clark County Chief Deputy District Attorney John Giordani said Barrios stabbed his victims “indiscriminately.”

Documents filed Wednesday imply a death review committee approved a potential death sentence should a jury convict him.

Documents said Barrios told police he was trying to sell his knives so he could return home. According to the arrest report, Barrios went to the Wynn casino to ask about job opportunities as a janitor. He told police he even asked the janitor to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE so that he could return to Guatemala.

Barrios was scheduled to appear in court for his arraignment on the grand jury charges on Thursday. During that court hearing, prosecutors were expected to reveal the committee’s decision.

While Nevada has the death penalty, the state has not put a person to death since 2006. (source: KLAS news)

USA:

Biden Should Go Beyond Commutations for Death Row and Commute Life Sentences Too----It's long past time to repair the harm done by sentencing guidelines that President Biden supported as a senator.

Joe Biden has set a record-breaking number of clemencies and commutations into motion as his presidency comes to an end. On December 12, Biden commuted the sentences of 1,499 people who had committed nonviolent crimes and had “been serving their sentences at home for at least one year under the COVID-era CARES Act.” Less than two weeks later, he commuted the death sentences of 37 out of 40 people facing federal execution to life sentences. With this action, the outgoing president took important steps to address the harm of capital punishment.

Biden must also consider taking action for those already serving federal mandatory life sentences, often called “death by incarceration.”

According to the Sentencing Project, “one in seven people in U.S. prisons is serving a life sentence, either life without parole, life with parole or virtual life (50 years or more), totaling 203,865 people” as of 2021. This is the highest number of people in history — a 66 percent increase since 2003, the first time the census was taken. Many of these people facing “death by incarceration” were sentenced under guidelines that are no longer used. In 1984, the United States Sentencing Commission released uniform guidelines that created statutory mandatory minimum sentences. At the time, Biden supported the creation of these guidelines as a senator representing Delaware. In the decades since, these guidelines have devastated countless families by tearing them apart. Nearly half (45 percent) of adults in the U.S. - 113 million people nationwide - have an immediate family member who has spent at least one night in jail or prison, according to a study released in December by Cornell University and political advocacy group FWD.us.

40 years later, it is long past time for our nation to repair the harm done by these guidelines.

These excessive sentences set the precedent for the war on drugs and mass incarceration, which devastated Black and Brown communities and caused long-lasting harm through multiple generations. Efforts were made to address the harm by making changes to the sentencing guidelines, however, mandatory sentences were not changed.

The Sentencing Project data shows, “More than two-thirds of those serving life sentences are people of color; with one in five Black men in prison serving a life sentence; and Latinx individuals comprising 16% of those serving life sentences.”

I am a survivor of this mass incarceration. In 2005, I was convicted of a drug conspiracy charge, which triggered a mandatory minimum sentence. I was sentenced to a 120-month federal mandatory minimum sentence as a first-time, nonviolent drug offender.

This caused me to be torn away from my firstborn infant son and sent thousands of miles away to the other side of the United States. While in prison, I made the commitment to utilize my time productively by pursuing higher education, job apprenticeship training, personal development courses and volunteer activities before reentering society.

But none of my efforts were able to be taken into consideration when changes were made to the sentencing guidelines. Congress passed the Fair Sentencing Act in 2010, which “reduced the 100 to 1 disparity for crack cocaine offenses compared to cocaine offenses to 18 to 1. The intent was to reduce sentences,” according to Prison Legal News. Sadly, this was not the case.

Sentencing guideline changes have often excluded thousands like myself, who were sentenced to mandatory minimum sentences. According to the United States Sentencing Commission, “59.1% of individuals convicted of an offense carrying a mandatory minimum penalty did not receive relief.”

Since my release from prison, I have been committed to fighting for dignity for incarcerated and formerly incarcerated people and educating the public about the realities of the prison-industrial complex. I founded a nonprofit organization, Block Builderz, which advocates for systemic change through organizing grassroots legislative campaigns, centering voices of directly impacted people and expanding opportunities for people with criminal histories.

From 2016 through 2021, 709 people were sentenced to life in federal prison. This means they will not be offered a chance of redemption without clemency from the president.

The thousands of people sitting in prison have unlimited potential to make a positive difference in their communities (and many of them already did). People like clemency recipient Amy Ralston Povah, who received clemency under the Clinton administration after serving 9 years of a 24-year sentence for “conspiracy.” After her release, Amy started the nonprofit CAN-DO Foundation and has fiercely advocated for freedom for others sentenced unfairly. Hundreds of people have benefitted from Amy’s relentless fight for freedom.

A recent 3-day clemency vigil led by the National Council of Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls uplifted people like Michelle West, Lazara Ordaz, Sara Gallegos, Glenn Metz, Connie Edwards and Roberta Bell, who have shown incredible courage and resilience — in some cases over the course of more than 30 years of incarceration.

The Council is seeking clemency for women who are elderly, seriously or terminally ill, who are long-timers in need of a 2nd chance, who have been sexually abused or have children at risk of moving into foster care. We hope that many people beyond these groups will be granted a chance at release as well.

Legislative reform can also promote the use of clemency. Introduced in 2021, the Fair and Independent Experts in Clemency (FIX Clemency) Act “would create an independent nine-person U.S. Clemency Board, with at least one of the nine being a person who was formerly incarcerated. The board would make all official clemency recommendations to the president, removing the responsibility from the Justice Department, and all recommendations would also be included in an annual report to Congress.”

Unfortunately, it has not been passed.

Now, we ask President Biden to use the clemency tool as intended — to correct disproportionate sentences. These weeks may be the last chance he has to address a destructive part of his legislative legacy. As the nation prepares for the next administration prior to Martin Luther King Jr. Day, it is urgent for the president to bend the moral arc of history towards justice by granting freedom to the ones left behind.

(source: Op-Ed; D’Marria Monday, truthout.org)

************

Will Biden Exonerate Ethel Rosenberg Posthumously? Declassified Docs Show FBI Knew She Was Innocent

Calls are growing for President Biden to posthumously exonerate Ethel Rosenberg following newly publicized documents proving that the FBI knew of her innocence long before she was prosecuted by the federal government more than 60 years ago. Rosenberg and her husband Julius were charged with sharing nuclear secrets with the Soviet Union and executed on June 19, 1953. A federal pardon or exoneration would be “the right thing to do,” says Massachusetts Congressmember Jim McGovern, who is part of an effort led by the Rosenbergs’ son Robert Meeropol “to get history right.” Ethel Rosenberg “was framed,” says Meeropol. “She was not a spy.”

AMY GOODMAN: We’re talking with Massachusetts Congressmember Jim McGovern, who’s also part of a last-ditch appeal for President Biden to posthumously exonerate Ethel Rosenberg, who, along with her husband Julius Rosenberg, was charged with sharing nuclear secrets, conspiring to give them to the Soviet Union. They were executed June 19th, 1953. FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover accused the couple of committing the crime of the century. This is a clip of the newscast after the Rosenbergs’ execution.

NEWSREEL NARRATOR: Someone had passed America’s atomic bomb secrets to Russia. This was an undisputed fact that the whole world knew. The federal government had laid the crime at the doorstep of two native New Yorkers, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg. But to the end, they both protested their innocence of the theft. In April of 1951, the federal court of Judge Irving R. Kaufman found the pair guilty as charged and sentenced them to death in the electric chair to pay for their crime of treason.

AMY GOODMAN: But Congressmember McGovern and others are citing a newly released classified document that shows the National Security Agency knew Ethel Rosenberg was not a spy and that the government executed her anyway.

Congressmember Jim McGovern is with us now to discuss this, along with Robert Meeropol, the younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. He was 6 years old at the time of their execution. He’s author of the autobiography An Execution in the Family: One Son’s Journey. He’s also founder and executive director of the Rosenberg Fund for Children.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Let’s begin with Robert in this call for the exoneration of your mother, Ethel.

ROBERT MEEROPOL: Thank you for having me, Amy. I really —

AMY GOODMAN: So, explain —

ROBERT MEEROPOL: — appreciate it. I —

AMY GOODMAN: Explain exactly what this memo shows and how important this is to you.

ROBERT MEEROPOL: Well, we, my brother and I, and with now the help of the Rosenberg Fund for Children, which is run by — now by my daughter, Jennifer Meeropol, we have been trying for 50 years, using the Freedom of Information Act, to get the government’s own material out, and we’ve collected bits and pieces along the way. And we’ve shown that the only evidence against Ethel presented at the trial was perjured testimony. We’ve shown that prosecutorial documents illustrate that even the government said the case against Ethel was weak. And when the Soviet code was broken and the materials were released in 1995, we discovered that all of the KGB agents were given code names, but my mother was not given a code name.

So, we had all this material, and it convinced us that we could separate my mother from my father, because the same materials showed that while he wasn’t engaged in atomic espionage, he was engaged in espionage during World War II. And that — so we separated the two cases, and we began to look at my mother’s case separately.

And we didn’t find — we had a lot of evidence that showed that she was framed and that she wasn’t guilty, but we didn’t have the smoking gun. My brother and I used to joke, during the 1970s and '80s, we can't wait to get the FBI file where J. Edgar Hoover says “Nice frame-up, guys.” But we never got that. However, this last summer, the National Security Agency, after 74 years, released a memo in which the chief decrypter, the person in charge of the whole project, a legendary figure named Meredith Gardner, concluded, just after my mother’s arrest, that she was not a spy. This is a smoking gun. This is the final piece of the jigsaw puzzle. And that is why we’re calling on President Biden, before he leaves office, to exonerate my mother by declaring her conviction and execution wrongful.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the role of Roy Cohn, one of the lawyers who prosecuted your parents, and his side meetings with the judge, Irving Kaufman? Roy Cohn, of course, who — well, Donald Trump, the president-elect, trained at his knee.

ROBERT MEEROPOL: Yeah, it’s really — here, we’re asking Biden, in some way, to — in exonerating my mother, to basically stick a needle in Roy Trump’s — I mean, in Roy Cohn’s eye, because Roy Cohn was one of the engineers of my mother’s execution. He was an assistant prosecutor. He was the one who got David and Ruth Greenglass to change their story to implicate my mother. That’s one of the amazing things about having all these files. It’s not what we claim; it’s what the government has. You know, this is not our opinion. And that makes it so much more powerful.

So, when you put it all together — you know, you mentioned Judge Irving Kaufman. He concluded, in sentencing my mother to death, that she was, quote, “a full-fledged partner in this crime.” And now we find out that both the KGB and the NSA didn’t consider her a spy. And yet she gets executed as a master atomic spy.

So, that’s why we’re asking President Biden to take this action. It is one more indication of what’s wrong with the federal death penalty, or all death penalty cases. And so, in doing that, we are asking people to sign a petition. I will give you the website address of that petition. It’s a very easy website. It’s www.rfc.org/ethel. You go to that page, you sign the petition. You can also send a very short letter to the U.S. pardon agency asking them to basically ask President Biden, before he leaves office, to declare my mother’s execution and conviction wrongful. You could call it a pardon. You could call it an exoneration. It doesn’t really matter. The point is, we’re doing whatever we can to add pressure to this, because we only have like 12 days.

AMY GOODMAN: Congressmember Jim McGovern, why have you signed on to this effort? Why do you think it’s good for the United States?

REP. JIM McGOVERN: Well, I’ve gotten to know Robert and his family over the years. But I was a history major in college. And quite frankly, I believe that we have to get history right. And as Robert pointed out, the U.S. government knew, a week after Ethel’s arrest, that she was not engaged in espionage, and yet they killed her. And it is important that we be voices for truth in this country. And that’s why this is so incredibly important. You know, we have appealed to President Biden. We — I, along with the ranking member on intelligence, Jim Himes — supported Robert’s attempt to get the NSA document declassified, which I think is a smoking gun. And so, it’s time for the U.S. government to do the right thing. I know sometimes we look back on history, and some of the things our government has done are uncomfortable to reckon with. But you know what? It is important that we get this right. And so, I would urge everybody to go to that webpage, to send communications to the White House, to anybody associated with President Biden, and get them to grant Ethel Rosenberg a pardon, an exoneration or a presidential apology. It is the right thing to do.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank Robby Meeropol for joining us, the younger son of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, joining us from Northampton, Massachusetts.

(source: democracynow.org)

******************

Biden’s commutation message: Some lives are worth more than others----Our community is not monolithic on this issue.

On the morning of Dec. 23, I awoke to discover the news that President Joe Biden had commuted the death sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row. In his statement, the president said, “I am more convinced than ever that we must stop the use of the death penalty at the federal level. In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted.”

I was ecstatic. I have been actively working against capital punishment for 40 years. As a college junior, I decided to go to law school to become a capital defender after attending a vigil for the first scheduled execution in Georgia in nearly 20 years, and found it impossible to reconcile the death penalty with our obligation as human beings created b’tselem Elokim, to partner with Hashem in completing the Creation.

Many of us across the country have sought these commutations for a long time. It was glorious news. And then it dawned on me that the president did not do what his statement said he was doing. The president’s commutation order did not include 3 people: the man convicted of the Boston Marathon bombing; the man convicted of the murders at Mother Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina; and the man convicted of the massacre of 11 Jewish worshipers in the Tree of Life building in Pittsburgh, my home town.

I came to Pittsburgh in 2007 and have been active in our community since then. I was in synagogue at Adat Shalom congregation that Shabbat morning, Oct. 27, 2018, and I, too, was traumatized by the assault on our community. I have clear memories of that awful morning. As soon as services were concluded, I went to a blood bank to donate blood, but was turned away with about two dozen others, told that there had been so many donations in the Pittsburgh area that morning that they had more blood than could be used or stored. By 2:30 that Shabbat afternoon, I’d received a phone call asking whether I attended any of the three congregations that were assaulted in the Tree of Life building, because I was an assistant federal defender in the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Public Defender’s Office, the office that represented the Tree of Life shooter, and he was asking to speak to a lawyer. My office was seeking to determine whether there was a conflict of interest in the office. I saw and see the case as a “Hineni” moment for our community — an opportunity to stand against more death in the wake of the horrific attack on the holy souls who were taken from us and on the others who faced the threat of death on that Shabbat Vayera.

I was not and am not alone. There are some people in each of the 3 congregations that were attacked who oppose capital prosecution. In fact, Congregation Dor Hadash, as well as the rabbi of New Light — two of the three congregations that were attacked — wrote letters to then-Attorney General William Barr in 2019 asking him not to prosecute the case capitally, but to accept the shooter’s offer to plead guilty to all charges in exchange for sentences of life without possibility of parole.

After a change in presidential administrations, other letters were sent to Attorney General Merrick Garland with the same request. There is virtually no one in our community who does not have neighbors, friends, and perhaps even family members who oppose capital punishment, who did not want the outcome of the trial to result in death sentences and who view President’s Biden’s exemptions from his commutation order as bittersweet.

This should not be surprising. While there are members of our community who continue to seek execution of the shooter, and who communicated their desire to the White House, our community is not monolithic on this issue. As with many issues, we are a diverse community.

In Mishnah Sanhedrin 4.5, which discusses capital punishment, the rabbis note that all of us come from a single progenitor, Adam, so that no one can say that his or her lineage is greater than anyone else’s. Every life has inestimable value. By exempting three people from his commutation order, I believe that President Biden sent an unintentional message that some lives have more value than others. PJC

(source: Opinion; Marshall Dayan is a retired attorney and president of Adat Shalom congregation----jewishchronicle.timesofisrael.com)

THE BAHAMAS:

Attorneys raise concerns over proposals to mandate death penalty in The Bahamas

Attorneys have raised concerns about proposals to remove judicial discretion and mandate the death penalty in The Bahamas, describing such changes as a threat to the rule of law and constitutional democracy.

At a public forum hosted by The Bahamas Bar Association in collaboration with the Eugene Dupuch Law School, legal professionals discussed the implications of making the death penalty mandatory. Among the speakers was Damian Gomez KC, who warned that calls for constitutional changes to enforce a mandatory death penalty undermine the value placed on life and the principles upheld by the rule of law.

Mr Gomez argued that such measures would contradict the notion of The Bahamas as a constitutional democracy governed by the rule of law. He emphasised the role of the courts as a safeguard against majoritarian abuses, particularly for marginalised groups.

“Is this the type of society that desires to hang in the balance the lives of the poor, the dispossessed, on the issue of having access to the courts merely on the basis of whether they’re able to afford a good lawyer, or whether, by some luck, the court is appointed as a freebie, so to speak, a crown brief and the chap is interested in winning?” he asked.

He also highlighted the potential impact on cases involving self-defence, where the absence of judicial discretion could lead to disproportionate outcomes. “There are many cases, for instance, where self-defence rests on the razor-thin circumstance of whether you believe, as a member of the jury, that reasonable force and only reasonable force had been exercised... If you are unfortunately a shade over the reasonable one in a mandatory death sense scenario, it doesn’t matter,” he said.

Defence counsel Tai Pinder-Mackey echoed similar concerns, citing the risk of errors in the justice system. She noted her 16 years of experience handling such cases and pointed out fluctuations in murder rates, which she argued show no clear correlation with the presence or absence of the mandatory death penalty.

She referenced data following the last execution in The Bahamas, the hanging of David Mitchell in January 2000. “In that same year of 2000, there was a significant increase in the murder rate of 53.52 percent from the previous year, and the mandatory death penalty was still in place,” she said. “Similarly, after the mandatory death penalty was removed in 2006, there was a decrease in the murder rate in 2008, 2012, [and] 2016. So it is my humble opinion, the focus ought not to be on the death penalty, but the focus ought to be on the prevention of dangerous crimes.”

Former senator and criminal defence attorney Renward Henfield stood out as the sole speaker in favour of the death penalty, arguing it serves as a deterrent despite a lack of conclusive evidence. “If you go online, it actually is phrased that there is no convincing proof that the death penalty deters crimes, not that there’s no evidence... but it’s phrased there’s no convincing evidence by the writer,” he said. He added that criminals fear the consequences of “the law of the land” more than they fear law enforcement.

Henfield’s position resonated with many attendees, including Benjamin Dames, a cousin of Donnell Conover, the teenager whose death led to the Privy Council’s landmark “worst of the worst” ruling in 2011. Mr Dames passionately supported capital punishment.

Other speakers, such as Professor Carsten Zatschler, SC from the Bar of Ireland, urged caution and reflection. He warned against adopting an “eye for an eye” mindset and stressed the importance of procedural safeguards in decisions about capital punishment. “The general question... needs to be well considered, not a knee-jerk reaction to recent events... Ideally, there ought to be procedural safeguards to ensure [the issue] does not fall victim to some social media campaign, some populist campaign,” he said.

Professor Zatschler concluded by emphasising that no law should mandate the application of the death penalty under any circumstances.

(source: tribune242.com)

DR CONGO:

Amnesty Urges DRC To Halt Scores Of Death Sentences

Amnesty international on Wednesday appealed to DR Congo President Felix Tshisekedi to halt the executions of scores of people sentenced to death for belonging to criminal gangs.

Authorities in the Democratic Republic of Congo have since December tried several hundred suspected offenders, known as kulunas, as part of a vast anti-gang operation.

Many face the death sentence for crimes of urban banditry and are being held in high security prisons.

Video footage distributed to media including AFP showed Mutamba insisting the authorities would not show clemency.

"We are going to carry out the death penalty... We no longer want to hear about the kulunas," Mutamba is heard telling one group of detained youths in the local lingala language.

Amnesty cited reports that more than 170 executions were planned.

Its regional director for East and Southern Africa, Sarah Jackson, called the news of the mass prison transfers ahead of the planned executions "absolutely appalling".

"President Felix Tshisekedi must immediately, publicly and unambiguously halt any plans to execute people," she sain in a statement.

"Parliament should adopt a moratorium on executions, pending full abolition of the death penalty."

The kulunas are accused of violent attacks, cutting off the limbs of victims with machetes as well as killing and stealing.

In March, the government lifted a death penalty moratorium in force since 2003.

It said that move was aimed at punishing soldiers accused of treason over an armed rebellion in the east of the country, as well as urban bandits.

(source: Agence France-Presse)

TANZANIA:

TRIO SENTENCED TO DEATH IN KAGERA DURING 2024

3 people have been sentenced to death by hanging in Kagera region, Tanzania, during 2024 after they were convicted of murder.

Kagera Regional Police Commander, Senior Assistant Commissioner of Police (SACP) Blasius Chatanda told reporters in a press briefing at his office that a total of 977 cases were filed in court while 447 were completed and the accused were sentenced to prison terms.

Giving a breakdown on crimes recorded during 2024, he said ten murder cases were filed in court while three accused persons were sentenced to death by hanging while 7 others are serving jail sentences.

ACP Chatanda explained that 22 cases related to rape were filed in court while 6 accused were sentenced to life imprisonment and 16 others will serve 30 years in jail.

According to him, 8 persons who were accused of sodomizing minors were sentenced to life imprisonment, 10 others were sentenced to 10 years while 1 person will serve 20 years’ imprisonment.

Other offenses include armed robbery with 2 persons sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, 1 person was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for unlawful possession of firearms while 6 persons who were accused of cattle rustling were sentenced between 5-15 years.

(source: handsoffcain.info)

IRAN:

Supreme court upholds death sentence for Kurdish political prisoner Pakhshan Azizi

Branch 39 of Iran’s Supreme Court has upheld the death sentence issued against Kurdish political prisoner Pakhshan Azizi.

Azizi’s lawyer, Amir Raeisian, informed Sharq Daily of the decision today and criticised the court for ignoring critical evidence.

“After Branch 26 of the [Islamic] Revolutionary Court of Tehran issued a death sentence against Ms Pakhshan Azizi, we filed an appeal. However, Branch 39 of the Supreme Court reviewed the appeal and unfortunately rejected it without addressing the numerous flaws in the case, thereby confirming the death sentence,” Raeisian told Sharq Daily.

He added: “The flaws in the investigation were ignored, and the evidence and documents showing that Ms Azizi’s case did not warrant a death sentence, and that her activities in northern Syria in refugee camps in Shengal and other camps for those displaced by ISIS attacks were entirely peaceful and humanitarian, lacking any political dimension and focused on relief efforts, were disregarded.”

Earlier, on X (formerly Twitter), Mr Raeisian shared several letters from local and international civil rights organisations working on refugee issues in Syrian Kurdistan, highlighting his client’s role as a relief worker and social service provider, stating: “The evidence against Ms Pakhshan Azizi in this case was insufficient and unreliable. A careful review of these documents would have been sufficient to dismiss the charge of baghi (armed insurrection). Unfortunately, no such diligence has been shown so far. Moreover, while innocence does not have to be proven, we have presented credible documents to the Supreme Court.

Azizi was sentenced to death and four years of imprisonment on 23 July 2024 by Branch 26 of the Islamic Revolutionary Court of Tehran, presided over by Judge Iman Afshari, on charges of “armed insurrection” (baghi) and “membership of opposition groups”.

The court’s verdict found her guilty of “armed insurrection” (baghi) for her alleged “effective activities and efforts using weapons to further the goals of groups engaged in armed insurrection against the Islamic government” and sentenced her to death. She was also sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for “membership of an opposition group” for her alleged membership of the Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK).

Additionally, three members of Azizi’s family were sentenced to one year of imprisonment each for “assisting the perpetrator evade trial and punishment”.

The death sentence against the Kurdish activist came despite the fact that Judge Afshari had initially based his decision on Article 288 of the Islamic Penal Code during the first session of the court.

Article 288 of the new Islamic Penal Code states: “If members of a rebellious group are arrested before engaging in conflict or using weapons, they shall be sentenced to a third-degree imprisonment if the organisation and its leadership remain intact, or to a fifth-degree imprisonment if the organisation and leadership have disbanded.”

However, during the second court session on 16 June 2024, Judge Afshari announced a legal change, moving from Article 288 to Article 287, which subsequently led to the death sentence.

According to Article 287 of the Islamic Penal Code: “Any group that takes up arms against the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran shall be considered rebellious and its members shall be sentenced to death if they use weapons.”

Throughout her interrogations in Ward 209 of Evin Prison and at all court hearings, Azizi has consistently denied any involvement in armed operations or membership of PJAK.

(source: kurdistanhumanrights.org)

**************

Rise in executions deeply troubling - UN Human Rights Chief

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk on Tuesday said he was deeply troubled by the marked increase in executions in Iran last year. At least 901 people were reportedly executed in 2024, including some 40 in one week alone in December. At least 853 people were executed in 2023.

“It is deeply disturbing that yet again we see an increase in the number of people subjected to the death penalty in Iran year-on-year,” said Türk. “It is high time Iran stemmed this ever-swelling tide of executions.”

Most of the executions last year were for drug-related offences, but dissidents and people connected to the 2022 protests were also executed. There was also a rise in the number of women executed.

“We oppose the death penalty under all circumstances,” said the High Commissioner. “It is incompatible with the fundamental right to life and raises the unacceptable risk of executing innocent people. And, to be clear, it can never be imposed for conduct that is protected under international human rights law.”

The UN Human Rights Chief urged the Iranian authorities to halt all further executions, and to place a moratorium on the use of the death penalty with a view to ultimately abolishing it.

? Some 170 States have either abolished the death penalty or imposed a moratorium on its use.

(source: reliefweb.int)

JANUARY 7, 2025:

SOUTH CAROLINA:

Secrecy is essential to keep South Carolina’s killing machine killing

South Carolina has cranked up the killing machine again. Next up: Marion Bowman Jr., the third man — the third black man — the state wants to kill since restarting executions in September after a 13-year hiatus.

Everyone, everywhere is for transparency. But when it comes to the death penalty, secrecy is an absolute essential to keep the line moving.

Our pro-life state graciously offers the condemned three ways to die: lethal injection, the electric chair or the firing squad. In each case, the identity of the executioner is kept confidential by state law. The Legislature has also shielded the pharmaceutical companies that supply the drugs for lethal injections from disclosure. Even the costs of the executions are a secret.

And then there’s this: The state of South Carolina has taken the very voice of these men — and they are all men — on death row. Although they can write letters, the prison system prohibits all inmates from making recordings or giving interviews to the media. Those rules are particularly harmful to death row inmates and valuable in protecting the state’s killing machine.

That’s because it’s easier to kill someone you don’t know than someone you do. The state doesn’t want you to know the men on death row; it wants to kill them.

This is wrong. Because they killed doesn’t mean we should; we should be better than that. I don’t want to be any part of it.

The American Civil Liberties Union last year filed a lawsuit asking that Bowman, who has been on death row for more than 1/2 his 44-year life for the brutal murder of his high school friend Kandee Martin, be allowed to give media interviews to tell his story and make his case on why his life should be spared.

The state doesn’t want Bowman or any other inmates to tell their stories. In August, a federal judge dismissed the ACLU lawsuit challenging the Department of Corrections policy that bars the news media and others from recording and publishing inmate interviews. Constitutional protections of free speech don’t extend to prisoners, the judge ruled. The appeals court affirmed the decision last month.

The Corrections Department cites a litany of reasons for its policy, from security to not wanting inmates to gain "celebrity status." It says victims and their families shouldn’t have to see someone who harmed them in the news. Inmates can write letters to anyone, including the media, the prison system says.

But no one can tell your own story like you can, and if you're like most people, you can say it better than you can write it. And that applies as well to the condemned: They should be able to speak for themselves.

We need to hear them, even if it’s painful. Killing anyone should be painful. If the state is going to kill in our name, we should know who we’re killing.

If we could listen to an interview with Marion Bowman, he might tell us that he repeatedly refused a plea bargain all those years ago that would have spared his life because he didn’t kill Kandee Martin.

In a four-page statement written from his death-row cell in Columbia, Bowman talks about knowing 21-year-old Martin since grade school. He’s black, she was white, but it didn’t matter. He sold her drugs, helped addict her, took advantage of her. But he says he didn’t kill her, pointing the finger, instead, at a co-defendant who testified against him.

"I have done some things in life I regret," Bowman writes. "I regret the role I had in dealing to Kandee and know that her addiction probably led to her death. But I did not do this."

Reading his words isn't the same as hearing from or seeing Bowman himself.

If he could get our attention, Bowman, who is 6-feet-4 and almost 400 pounds, might mention that the prison psychiatrist dubbed him the "gentle giant." That he is known for counseling fellow inmates through tough times. That he has only a single infraction on his prison record, for destroying property nine years ago. He would surely tell us about his family — his parents, his wife, his 23-year-old daughter (born six months after his arrest) and his new granddaughter. He talks to them all regularly by phone.

A jury convicted Bowman in the 2001 murder of Kandee Martin, who was shot in the head and whose body was left in the trunk of her burned out car in Dorchester County. State courts have repeatedly upheld his conviction.

How many of us today are the same people we were when we were 20? Is the person we are about to kill the same person the courts say killed 24 years ago?

Bowman will be executed Jan. 31 unless the state’s executioner-in-chief, Gov. Henry McMaster, commutes his sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Don’t bet on it.

We want finality; we want it over. But 200 for­mer death-row pris­on­ers have been exon­er­at­ed nationwide since 1973, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. Two of them in South Carolina and 12 in North Carolina. How many innocent people are you willing to kill?

The death penalty is an important public debate for our time. Quite simply, a matter of life and death. And those with the most at stake — the condemned — need to be heard. Painful or not.

(source: Steve Bailey is a regular contributor to The Post and Courier Opinion section)

ALABAMA----new execution date

Alabama to execute Demetrius Frazier by nitrogen hypoxia

Gov. Kay Ivey has set the execution date for Demetrius Terrance Frazier, who was convicted of capital murder for the 1991 Jefferson County murder of Pauline Brown.

The execution by nitrogen gas hypoxia is set to occur in the 30-hour window from 12 a.m. Feb. 6 to 6 a.m. Feb. 7. A jury convicted Frazier, 52, of the capital murder, rape and robbery of Pauline Brown in her Birmingham apartment, court records show.

If the execution goes forward, it will occur in the death chamber at the William C. Holman Correctional Facility in Atmore, a small town about 130 miles south of Montgomery.

Court records show that Frazier confessed to the Nov. 26, 1991, murder of Brown, who lived on the ground floor of Fountain Heights Apartments. He went into an open window, armed with a .22 cal. handgun and stole about $10. When he heard noise in the apartment, he discovered Brown and raped her at gunpoint.

Court records show that Brown begged for her life during the sexual assault and that Frazier shot her once in the back of the head. Frazier was 19 at the time.

The jury recommended the death penalty by a 10-2 vote, records show.

After Brown's murder, Frazier was arrested in Detroit in 1992 on unrelated charges. Court records show he told Detroit Police Department investigators that he had killed a woman in Alabama in 1991. Detroit officials contacted Birmingham investigators.

Frazier returned to Alabama and was placed on death row on November of 2011, records show. He had served 18 years of a life sentence in Michigan for convictions of felony murder, armed robbery, criminal sexual misconduct and felon in possession of a firearm charges, media reports said.

(source: Montgomery Advertiser)

IDAHO:

Bryan Kohberger’s attorney takes on death penalty — again. This time in a different case

The lead attorney for Bryan Kohberger is once again challenging the death penalty — this time in another one of her client’s criminal cases. In a flurry of motions filed in the last few months, Anne Taylor asked 2nd District Judge Michelle Evans to remove capital punishment as an option for 32-year-old Skylar Meade using the same legal playbook that she tried — and failed — to use in her attempts to squash the death penalty in Kohberger’s quadruple homicide case.

Taylor has been representing Meade, charged with the 1st-degree murder of a North Idaho man, since August. She has filed nearly a dozen motions challenging the death penalty and related proceedings.

In one motion she argued for the criminal proceedings to be broken up into 3 phases — trial, death penalty eligibility and sentencing — instead of 2. In other motions, Taylor argued the death penalty was unconstitutional as it violates the country’s “contemporary standards of decency” along with international law.

“Idaho’s continuing effort to execute its own citizens, including Mr. Meade, does not comport with the evolving standards of a civilized, modern society,” Taylor wrote in one of the filings.

A little more than 1/2 of the county, or 27 states, still use the death penalty including Idaho, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The other 23 states have banned the sentencing option, though 4 of the states that still use capital punishment — including California and Oregon — have halted the practice due to gubernatorial holds.

While Idaho hasn’t executed anyone in over a decade, state officials have made a concentrated push in recent years to restore the practice, including the failed execution of 74-year-old Thomas Creech and the passage of a state law that will allow someone to be executed with a firing squad if lethal injection drugs can’t be obtained. He's now facing a 1st-degree murder charge in Nez Perce County.

The Nez Perce County Prosecutor’s Office announced its intent to seek the death penalty against Meade in August after he was charged with the murder of 83-year-old James Mauney.

“After long and careful consideration I have decided to seek the death penalty in this case,” prosecutor Justin Coleman said in a news release at the time. “The senseless and random killing of Mr. Mauney and the facts surrounding what led to his death, warrants this determination.”

In March, Meade and one of his co-conspirators Nicholas Umphenour ambushed correctional officers at Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise in a coordinated plan to free Meade, who was serving a prison sentence at the state’s maximum security prison. The pair led law enforcement on a 36-hour-long manhunt before they were apprehended in Twin Falls.

They are now linked to 2 North Idaho homicides — the one in Nez Perce County and another in Clearwater County — that happened in that window, according to Idaho State Police. Neither Meade nor Umphenour has been charged in the death of 72-year-old Gerald “Don” Henderson, who was found in his cabin outside of Orofino.

State police have repeatedly said that the case is still under investigation.

Filings questioning the constitutionality and arbitrariness of the death penalty were just some of the similar motions Taylor lodged and argued in Kohberger’s criminal case. Kohberger is accused of killing 4 University of Idaho in an off-campus house in November 2022 and faces 4 counts of 1st-degree murder.

Fourth District Judge Steven Hippler in November denied 12 motions filed by the defense, collectively referred to as the death penalty motions, challenging the prosecution’s intent to seek the state’s most severe punishment against 30-year-old Kohberger.

“There is no basis to depart from settled law upholding Idaho’s death penalty statute as constitutional,” Hippler wrote in the 55-page order.

2nd District Court video conference Nez Perce County Courthouse Taylor accuses prosecution of discovery violations

The prosecution by and large opposed Taylor’s motions challenging the death penalty in Meade’s case and argued that the motions weren’t “ripe” — or timely— since Meade hasn’t been sentenced to death and it’s “hypothetical at this point,” according to an objection filed in December.

“It would be a waste of this court’s time to review and rule on all of defendant’s death penalty motions where the death penalty has not yet been imposed,” Nez Perce County Chief Deputy Prosecutor April Smith wrote in objection. In the same filing, Smith added that if Evans decided to take up the defense’s motions the judge should deny them all because the issues have already been settled in other criminal cases including Kohberger’s.

Smith said Taylor’s motion alleging the death penalty violates international law was “frivolous” and shouldn’t be considered. And, to the argument that the death penalty was unconstitutional, Smith said it was an “unsupported” idea.

She also pushed back against Taylor’s notion that the death penalty was arbitrary and argued that, while capital murder cases are broadly defined in Idaho, the prosecution is expected to establish aggravating factors — or an additional stipulation that narrows the number of people eligible for a death sentence. While many of the motions filed in Meade’s case resembled arguments in Kohberger’s case, Taylor also took aim at the Nez Perce County Prosecutor’s Office for failing to disclose “massive amounts” of evidence that could potentially prove Meade’s innocence, according to a motion.

Taylor added that the prosecution wasn’t “living up to their constitutionally mandated standards.” To remedy that, she asked Evans to dismiss the indictment against her client, or if not then, suppress any evidence that was disclosed after late October, and strike the death penalty to avoid any “unfairness and unreliability,” according to the motion.

Taylor pointed to the Lori Vallow Daybell case, where 7th District Judge Steven Boyce removed the death penalty as an option after the prosecution submitted thousands of documents and hours of audio files weeks before the trial. While Boyce didn’t remove the sentencing option to penalize the prosecution — as he said they had acted in good faith — but that “death is different” and there is a heightened standard that has to be applied in capital cases, according to the motion.

Prosecutors are the ones who receive evidence for a criminal case, and it’s their responsibility to turn over any evidence they gather to the defense. If the evidence is late, it impacts the defense’s ability to properly prepare for trial.

Taylor said in her December motion that the defense wasn’t able to fully prepare for her client’s February 2025 trial because she still hadn’t received records from electronic devices seized by law enforcement. She also asked that any evidence disclosed after late October be suppressed by the judge because of the impending trial.

“Mr. Meade has been prejudiced by the state’s failure to abide by their constitutional obligations and provide full, timely discovery,” Taylor wrote. The judge last month granted a request to push back Meade’s criminal trial until 2026, and any pending motions will be heard in May.

(source: idahostatesman.com)

ARIZONA:

Arizona Supreme Court upholds death penalty from 1994 murder trial

The Arizona Supreme Court, in an opinion issued Monday, Dec. 6, upheld a death sentence for a Tucson-area man convicted of murder in 1994.

Although no execution is yet scheduled, the court’s decision comes on the heels of the state attorney general’s announcement that executions of prisoners on death row will resume in 2025.

Christopher John Spreitz was found guilty by a jury for kidnapping, raping and ultimately murdering 39-year-old Ruby Reid in 1989. Spreitz, who was 22 at the time of the murder, confessed to hitting Reid in the head with a rock and abandoning her body in the desert. The judge who sentenced Spreitz found that the “especially cruel” manner of death warranted the death penalty.

Since then, Spreitz has appealed his sentence multiple times. The Arizona Supreme Court affirmed his conviction and sentence in 1997, and the U.S. District Court in Arizona denied Spreitz’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus --alleging improper legal process during his trial and sentencing -- in 2009.

But the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that denial in a 2-1 decision in 2019, finding that the Arizona Supreme Court had erred in requiring Spreitz to show a "causal connection" between his substance abuse problems and the murder before that substance abuse could be considered as a possible mitigating factor.

Following the Ninth Circuit’s decision, the Arizona Attorney General’s Office asked the Arizona Supreme Court to conduct another review of Spreitz’s case.

In its Jan. 6 opinion, the court wrote that “the mitigation evidence is insufficient to warrant leniency in light of the significant weight of the especially cruel aggravating circumstance.” It upheld the death penalty.

Spreitz is one of more than 100 prisoners sentenced to death and awaiting execution in Arizona. The state last conducted an execution in 2022, after an eight-year period in which none took place.

Gov. Katie Hobbs ordered an independent review of execution procedures in 2023 but dismissed the retired federal magistrate overseeing that review in November 2024 before he completed his report, alleging that he had exceeded the scope of his responsibilities. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes then stated that executions would resume in 2025, telling the Associated Press, “I am confident that executions can now proceed in compliance with state and federal law.”

(source: azdailysun.com)

************

Ariz. inmate asks to be executed sooner than state wants----Aaron Brian Gunches, who is representing himself, said his death sentence is “long overdue” and asked the state’s highest court to skip legal formalities

An Arizona death row prisoner asked the state’s highest court to skip legal formalities and schedule his execution earlier than authorities were aiming for, pushing as he had in the past to have his death sentence carried out.

Aaron Brian Gunches’ execution would mark a resumption of Arizona’s use of the death penalty after a two-year pause while it reviewed its procedures.

In a handwritten court filing this week, Gunches asked the state Supreme Court to schedule his execution for mid-February for his murder conviction in the 2002 killing of Ted Price.

Gunches, who isn’t a lawyer but is representing himself, said his death sentence is “long overdue” and that the state was dragging its feet in asking the court for a legal briefing schedule leading up to the execution.

Attorney General Kris Mayes’ office, which is seeking Gunches’ execution, said a briefing schedule is needed to ensure corrections officials can meet execution requirements, such as testing for the pentobarbital that will be used for his lethal injection.

2 years ago, Gunches asked the Arizona Supreme Court to issue his execution warrant, saying justice could be served and the victim’s families could get closure.

Gunches had been set to be put to death in April 2023. But Gov. Katie Hobbs’ office said the state wasn’t prepared to enforce the death penalty because it lacked staff with expertise to carry out executions.

Hobbs, a Democrat, had promised not to carry out any executions until there was confidence the state can do so without violating any laws. The review Hobbs had ordered effectively ended in November when she dismissed the retired federal magistrate judge she had appointed to head the review.

Gunches pleaded guilty to a murder charge in the shooting death of Price, his girlfriend’s ex-husband, near the Phoenix suburb of Mesa.

Arizona, which has 111 prisoners on death row, last carried out three executions in 2022 following a nearly eight-year hiatus brought on by criticism that a 2014 execution was botched and because of difficulties obtaining drugs for execution.

Since then, the state has been criticized for taking too long to insert an IV for lethal injection into a condemned prisoner.

(source: corrections1.com)

USA:

2 death row inmates reject Biden’s clemency

2 death row inmates have rejected the clemency granted to them by Joe Biden, opting to take their chance in the courts.

Shannon Agofsky and Len Davis filed emergency motions at a court in Indiana blocking the commutation of their death sentences to life in prison without parole.

Both men are refusing to sign the paperwork that will allow their pardons to take effect.

Agofsky’s lawyer said that he “never requested commutation” and said it would “decimate his pending appellate procedures”.

Davis said he hoped that having the threat of the death penalty hanging over him would draw attention to the “overwhelming misconduct” by the department of justice.

The unusual move came after the president issued 37 pardons last month, the largest commutation of death sentences in US history.

President Joe Biden issued 37 pardons last month, the largest commutation of death sentences in US history

Donald Trump, the president-elect, has vowed to ramp up the use of the death penalty once he resumes office.

Agofsky, 53, was already serving life for murdering a bank president when he killed a fellow inmate in 2004, leading to his death sentence.

Davis, 60, is a former New Orleans police officer who was convicted of hiring a hitman to kill a woman in 1994 after she filed a complaint against him.

Both men are incarcerated at the US Penitentiary in Terre Haute, Indiana.

In a legal filing, lawyers for Agofsky said he was trying to “establish his innocence in the original case for which he was incarcerated”.

‘Refused to sign the papers’

It stated: “The defendant never requested commutation. The defendant never filed for commutation.

“The defendant does not want commutation, and refused to sign the papers offered with the commutation”.

The filing added that commuting his sentence would leave Agofsky in a “position of fundamental unfairness, which would decimate his pending appellate procedures”.

Davis called the clemency from Mr Biden a “fast-moving constitutional conundrum”.

Experts said both men had an uphill battle in refusing the commutation of their death sentences.

‘Constitutionally authorised’

Robin Maher, the executive director of the non-profit Death Penalty Information Centre, told NBC News that the vast majority of inmates gratefully received the clemency “which is constitutionally authorised and absolute”.

Despite Mr Biden’s sweeping clemency, he did not grant it for three notorious prisoners who remain on death row.

They were Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the Boston Marathon bomber, Robert Bowers, the Pittsburgh synagogue gunman, and Dylann Roof, the Charleston church gunman

The department of justice and the White House did not respond to requests for comment.

(source: The Telegraph)

AFRICA:

81st Ordinary Session of the African Commission of Human and Peoples’ Rights: In- Person, Advocating Against the Death PenaltyAfrica By the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, on 7 January 2025----The ACHPR (African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights) held its 81st Public Ordinary Session in Banjul, The Gambia, from 17 October – 6 November 2024.

State delegations, international and regional institutions, and NGOs gathered in Banjul, also home to the ACHPR Secretariat. The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty (World Coalition) participated alongside numerous member organizations, including FIACAT (International Federation of ACATs), Women Beyond Walls, COJESKI (Coalition of Youth Associations) and Observatoire Burundais des Prisons. The World Coalition engaged actively between 19 – 24 October to further abolitionist advocacy efforts. Following the trend of the 77th session, and based on members’ feedback, the World Coalition did not participate to the NGO Forum in October and prioritized attendance at the session.

Abolition of the Death penalty at the 81st ACHPR Session

The two countries examined during the 81st Session were Burkina Faso and Angola, and neither retains the penalty. The World Coalition however submitted 2 shadow reports for Mauritius and Ethiopia, which were originally at the agenda for the session before being postponed. The World Coalition therefore engaged in abolitionist advocacy through private meetings with Commissioners, as well as oral declarations. Meetings were arranged with Honourable Commissioner Idrissa Sow, Chairperson of the Working Group on Death Penalty, Extra-Judicial, Summary or Arbitrary Killings and Enforced Disappearances in Africa as well as with Honourable Commissioner Manuela, Special Rapporteur on Prisons, Conditions of Detention and Policing in Africa and with Honourable Commissioner Ramatoulie Sallah-Njie, Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Women in Africa.

An oral declaration was delivered by Sabrina Mahtani, of Women Beyond Walls, representing the World Coalition’s Gender Working Group, under Item 3, to highlight the disproportionate impact of the death penalty on marginalized women in African Union member states. The World Coalition also submitted a declaration under Item 5 for the Activity report of Commissioner Sow, covering the general situation of death penalty on the African continent, and concerns emerging with regards to the lifting of the moratorium in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), although it could not be delivered orally as the presentation of the Commissioner’s report was pushed back.

One resolution championed by NGOs and the ACHPR’s working group on the death penalty was passed during the private part of the ordinary session. Resolution N° 614, entitled “Resolution on the United Nations General Assembly Biannual Vote Calling for a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty,” called on African Union member states to support the UNGA resolution on a moratorium on the death penalty.

Rising concerns over the use of death penalty in the DRC

Honourable Commissioner Idrissa Sow presented intersessional report covering the period from May to October during the last days of the public session. As Chairman of the Working Group on the death penalty, he presented the current landscape, where the number of abolitionist countries remains static, with 24 states abolishing the death penalty for all crimes, 4 for ordinary crimes, and 15 observing a moratorium1. Despite this, he noted that a growing number of African Union member states are showing greater respect for the right to life. He expressed concern regarding the 38 executions recorded over the past year in Somalia, as well as the 170 death sentences issued in the DRC, including 38 in the context of an attempted coup in 2024. He reiterated his concern over the lifting of a 20-year-old moratorium on executions in the DRC in March 2024.

Collaboration with Civil Society Organizations (CSO) and Side-Events

The session provided opportunities to develop CSO collaboration, such as the IHRDA (Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa) networking event. In the margins of the Ordinary Session, no side-events focused specifically on the death penalty but some covered detention conditions and related topics. The World Coalition attended a side event organized by FIACAT on the importance of access for civil society to places of detention. The World Coalition also attended a side event organized by the Committee for Justice and Redress on the compatibility of the death penalty with rule-of-law principles in the new criminal code of Egypt. Such platforms allowed organizations to address broader systemic issues and reinforce international solidarity for abolition.

The next ordinary public session is due to take place in April/May 2025.

At the time of the session, Zimbabwe had not yet abolished the death penalty and Zambia had not yet ratified the Second Optional Protocol to the ICCPR aiming at the abolition of the death penalty.

(source: worldcoalition.org)

DR CONGO:

President Tshisekedi must halt plans to carry out mass executions

Responding to reports that more than 170 people under sentence of death have been transferred to Angenga prison for execution in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Amnesty International’s Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa, Sarah Jackson, said:

“The announcement of these prison transfers is absolutely appalling. We fear imminent mass executions by the authorities amid a lack of reliable information about the status of people sentenced to death.

“President Felix Tshisekedi must immediately, publicly and unambiguously halt any plans to execute people in Angenga prison or elsewhere. Parliament should adopt a moratorium on executions, pending full abolition of the death penalty. We fear imminent mass executions by the authorities amid a lack of reliable information about the status of people sentenced to death.

Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa

“Authorities must also stop mass transfers to remote prisons, including Angenga where dozens of detainees have previously died of starvation and disease. Any person transferred from their local area must be moved to a facility that can be easily reached by lawyers, relatives and human rights organizations and all should be informed of their whereabouts.”

Background

On 5 January 2025, DRC’s Justice Minister Constant Mutamba announced that more than 170 people, allegedly linked to criminal gangs commonly known as “Kulana” or “bandits”, had been transferred from the capital Kinshasa to Angenga prison in northwest DRC for execution.

He said those transferred to Angenga were between 18 and 35 years old and had been involved in urban violence. Authorities have claimed resuming executions would help combat urban gangs, a claim unsupported by any evidence.

President Felix Tshisekedi must immediately, publicly and unambiguously halt any plans to execute people in Angenga prison or elsewhere

Sarah Jackson, Amnesty International Deputy Regional Director for East and Southern Africa

Mutamba has previously threatened people suspected of links to criminal gangs with arrest, conviction and the death penalty, even before trial.

In March 2024, DRC’s government announced it would resume executions following a 2-decade hiatus. Since then, death sentences by military courts have soared. These sentences often follow unfair trials, including against alleged members of criminal gangs and armed groups.

Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all cases.

(source: Amnesty International)

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES:

Housemaid on death row pardoned by victims’ family----She had murdered housewife and set fire to apartment, resulting in death of her child

A housemaid in Ras Al Khaimah sentenced to death for fatally stabbing her employer has been pardoned by the victim’s family after 14 years.

The Court of Cassation has commuted her sentence to 15 years in prison, 14 of which she has served while on death row.

The case goes back to 2010, when the maid, only identified as “S”, arrived from Africa to work for the family in Ras Al Khaimah. 2 weeks into her employment, she murdered the housewife and set the apartment on fire, resulting in the death of the woman’s one-year-old child.

What happened?

One day, while cutting onions at the kitchen sink, the housewife repeatedly poked the maid’s shoulder. She turned around and stabbed her 17 times, killing her. She then stole a bag of money and jewellery from the victim.

To conceal her crime, she set fire to the apartment, where the child was sleeping. The child died in the fire.

After the fire, investigators discovered stab wounds on the mother’s body. This evidence shifted the police’s focus to a murder case, indicating that the fire was an attempt by the perpetrator to conceal the crime. A search led to the arrest of the suspect, who had fled to her friend’s house in another emirate.

During the investigation, the accused claimed that the victim poked her several times in the shoulder while she was cooking, which enraged her and prompted her to stab her. She also set the apartment on fire, aware that the sleeping child was inside, to hide the traces of her crime before her escape.

She was referred to the Public Prosecution on charges of premeditated murder and arson. She was brought before the court, which sentenced her to death.

Despite multiple attempts to appeal from prison, all her efforts failed, resulting in 14 years of waiting for execution. During the time, she embraced Islam, mastered tailoring and demonstrated good behaviour with everyone.

Eventually, with a lawyer’s help, she reached out to the Court of Cassation and after persistent efforts persuaded the victims’ family to drop the charges in exchange for Dh700,000 in “blood money” as compensation. The Court then commuted her sentence to 15 years in prison.

(source: gulfnews.com)

***********************************************