I'm not among the ranks of Democrats jumping for joy that Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I like his movie. It isn't the best documentary I've ever seen, but it is thought-provoking, and certainly praise-worthy. I'm glad it won an Academy Award. If there were a Nobel Peace Prize for environmentalism, I'd be all for him.

I have two problems with the award. First, Al Gore was a significant force behind the Clinton administration's unprecedented expansion of the federal death penalty. State-sponsored execution is not peaceful. Killing people is not peaceful. Supporting a punishment that is racist, classist and arbitrary is not peaceful.

Second, call me corny, but I have always thought of the Nobel Peace Prize as an award for an individual (or group) that has made a significant sacrifice -- of fortune, of political career, of safety -- to promote peace. I don't see Mr. Gore as among those ranks. He's profited handsomely, in reputation and wealth, from his books and film. He's yukked it up with Leo DiCaprio on the world's most glamorous stage. I don't really call that a sacrifice.

The Death Chamber
Video Footage Released of Execution Facility in North Carolina

The warden of North Carolina's Central Prison (Marvin Polk) narrates the preparation and final hours before an execution in Raleigh, where the state execution facilities are located.

Warden Polk takes members of the press through the prison, detailing
hour-by-hour the preparation and carrying out of an execution. Footage includes the table where the last meal is taken, the final holding cell, the IV preparation room, and the witness room. The 10-minute film includes candid discussion by the warden about the role of doctors in lethal injections as well as his own feelings on overseeing the executions.

The film was shot during a media tour in November 2005 by Scott Langley, a Boston-based photojournalist who has been documenting the death penalty for nearly ten years.

Watch the full 10-minute video at:
Link


Contact:
Scott Langley, Langley Creations Documentaries
www.langleycreations.com/photo
photo@langleycreations.com

A new study on the death penalty and deterrence has been making the news lately, as it claims that each execution prevents 18 murders, or something like that. Here in Connecticut, the prosecutor who has sentenced the most to death in this state has publicly acknowledged that the death penalty does not deter.

This post from the Huffington Post was a nice, comprehensive response to this "news":
The Death Penalty Deterrence Myth: No Solid Evidence That Killing Stops
The Killing


Among the many factors in the debate about the death penalty is whether
capital punishment deters violent crime. Although solid research indicates
that there is no valid evidence of such deterrence, recent attention has
been given to a few flawed studies concluding that the death penalty does
deter murder.

A June 10 Associated Press article pointed to statistical studies that
claimed to directly link numbers of executions with numbers of murders
prevented, including a 2003 study from the University of Colorado at
Denver and studies from 2003 and 2006 by researchers at Emory University.
But follow-up studies by top social scientists soundly reject those
conclusions as well as the flawed methodology used to reach them. Jeffrey
Fagan, a professor at Columbia Law School and an expert on statistics,
testified to Congress that the Emory and Denver studies were "fraught with
numerous technical and conceptual errors," and "fail[ed] to reach the
demanding standards of social science."

The truth is that it might be impossible to determine a true statistical
relationship between homicides and executions because the number of
executions is so small compared to the number of homicides. But what we
can say with certainty is that there is no legitimate statistical evidence
of deterrence.

John Donohue, Yale Law School professor and Research Associate at the
National Bureau of Economic Research, and Justin Wolfers, Wharton School
of Business professor and Research Affiliate at the NBER, analyzed the
same data used in the Emory and Denver studies, as well as other studies
by the same researchers and many other nationwide reports. They found that
if anything, executions increase homicides, concluding: "The view that the
death penalty deters is still the product of belief, not evidence ... On
balance, the evidence suggests that the death penalty may increase the
murder rate."

Donohue and Wolfers analyzed data from the 2006 study by the Emory
researchers using non-death penalty states as a control group, a basic
statistical tool used to study causation not used in the Emory study. When
they compared death penalty states with non-death penalty states, they
found no evidence of any effect of executions on murder rates, either up
or down. Donohue and Wolfers also analyzed the data from the 2003 Emory
study that concluded that each execution prevented 18 murders and found
that the reduction or increase in murders was actually more dependent on
other factors used in the study than whether or not the states had the
death penalty. For example, when Donohue and Wolfers slightly redefined
just one of the factors included by the Emory researchers, they found that
each execution caused 18 murders.

Donohue and Wolfers also recomputed data from the Denver study of select
states to account for overall crime trends, a factor not included in the
Denver study, and reached inconclusive results. For two states included in
the Denver study that had abolished the death penalty, Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, Donohue and Wolfers found that the homicides rates actually
fell after capital punishment was ended.

Other studies also refute the deterrence theory. For example, researchers
Lawrence Katz, Steven Levitte and Ellen Shustorovich analyzed state data
between 1950 and 1990 and did not find a correlation between the death
penalty and crime rates. Moreover, one of the Emory researchers, Joanna
Shepherd, published a state study of her own and found that while the
death penalty deterred murder in 6 states, it actually increased murder in
13 states, and had no effect on the murder rate in eight states.

Other statistical analyses show that states with the death penalty do not
have the lowest murder rates in the country. In fact, according to the
Death Penalty Information Center, states without the death penalty have
consistently lower murder rates than states with the death penalty, even
when comparing neighboring states. In addition, while southern states
account for over 80 % of the executions in this country, they have
consistently had the highest murder rate of the nation's four regions.

Comparing American and Canadian statistics is also telling. While Canada
has not had a single execution since 1972 and the United States has
executed over 1,000 people in that time, the homicide rates in the United
States and Canada have closely tracked each other. If anything, Canada's
experience suggests that ending executions leads to a drop in the murder
rate.

As the death penalty debate continues, it will inevitably be filled with
the emotion and passion that have historically and rightly characterized
it. But when it comes to analyzing data and reaching statistical
conclusions that are used to affect our nation's policy and legislation on
a matter as dire as capital punishment, it is critical that the research
use statistically valid methodology. When we come across studies that are
as specific as to tie a number of executions to a number of prevented
murders, a healthy skepticism is in order, especially in the face of
substantial countervailing evidence. This is, after all, a matter of life
and death.

(source: Opinion, Cassy Stubbs, The Huffington Post)

The "Innocent and Executed" web site launched today! Please check out this new resource from the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. I guarantee you will be shocked into action:

www.innocentandexecuted.org

The dreary weather in New England today matches my mood perfectly. So, when the following email came across my desk this morning, it lifted my spirits, because I realize that every tragedy presents us with a call to take action. Jennifer Jenkins, of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights, is a dedicated death penalty abolitionist and also a tireless campaigner for effective gun control. She lost her sister and brother-in-law to gun violence. I hope this message spurs you to action and helps you with your grief in the process:

"To all my abolition colleagues -

Many of you know that as a gun violence victim's family member as well I have long also given my energies to the gun violence prevention issue.

Of course today was horrible for us.

I have done several interviews already this evening for Chicago radio, etc. It was personally re-traumatizing for many of us.

I just wanted to share with you all, since you were kind enough to express concern about it, that my wonderful employers at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, do amazing work every day to keep the kind of fire power at work today in Virginia out of the wrong hands.

If you are looking for a good way to respond to today's tragedy, you might want to log onto www.bradycampaign.org and consider making a donation or taking action on legislation that could make a difference.

Likely the weapons used today were "assault"-type pistols. All military style assault weapons, capable of killing dozens in less than a minute, as we saw today, are available to ANYONE over the age of 18 at a gun show in Virginia.

As the folks at Brady have long been supportive of my abolition work, today would be a good day for us all to be supportive of them.

Fond regards,
Jennifer Bishop-Jenkins
Illinois MVFHR"

Alberto Gonzales and the death penalty:
A time for candor. A time for fairness.

By Diann Rust-Tierney
Two years ago, as Attorney General Alberto Gonzales faced confirmation hearings, the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty stressed that the nationâ??s chief law enforcement officer â??must demonstrate the highest commitment to fairness, due process and equal protection under the law.â??

We based our opposition to Gonzalesâ?? confirmation on our belief that his track record on death penalty cases in Texas failed to meet this challenge. Time and again the legal analysis he provided to then-Gov. George W. Bush on the eve of executions failed to include any discussion of the most salient issues, including severe mental retardation and mental illness, abysmally poor legal representation and, in more than a handful of cases, even credible claims of innocence.

With the recent revelations that differences regarding the death penalty played a role in the dismissal of at least three U.S. attorneys, our fears, sadly, have been justified.

Then, as now, Mr. Gonzales placed Bushâ??s political agenda above honesty, integrity , and commitment to fairness. In Texas this took the form of cursory review â?" and then denial in every single case but one â?" of clemency applications as President Bush parlayed his â??tough-on-crimeâ?? persona into a successful run for the Republican presidential nomination.

Today, Mr. Gonzalesâ?? failed priorities have contributed to a politicized federal death penalty system instead of one based on fairness and integrity. Consider:

At least three U.S. attorneys â?" Paul Charlton of Arizona, Margaret Chiara of Michigan, and Kevin Ryan of California â?" were dismissed after clashing with the Justice Department over death penalty policy. Although the final decision has always rested with the U.S. Attorney General, a U.S. attorneyâ??s recommendation that death should not be sought has traditionally been given great deference â?" until recently.

During the six years that President Bush has been in office (a span of time marked by Mr. Gonzales and his predecessor, former Attorney General John Ashcroft) the federal death penalty was sought 95 times, or about 16 times a year. Thatâ??s twice as often as the 55 times it was sought during the eight years of the Clinton Administration, roughly seven times a year.

Ominously, the Bush Department of Justice has sought the federal death penalty in states where voters, through their elected representatives, have rejected capital punishment. These jurisdictions include Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Dakota, and Vermont, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C. (New York, a state without a functioning state death penalty, has a stunning 51 potential federal death penalty cases in the works.)

Perhaps the most telling statistic: The size of federal death row has tripled since Bush took office, while state death sentences and executions are down sharply from their historic highs in the late 1990s. Three federal death row inmates already have been executed under the Bush administration; another four federal death row inmates are nearing the end of their appeals.

What does it say that the federal death penalty under Gonzales is inconsistent with state trends, which show capital punishment is on the wane? It says, simply, that the Bush Administration has chosen to politicize the death penalty. That is wrong.

Both death penalty proponents and opponents agree on this: Fairness and integrity must be present at the highest levels of our criminal justice system, especially when a personâ??s life is in the balance. That is why, increasingly, groups such as murder victimsâ?? family members, religious groups, and leaders in the law enforcement community are calling for fairness.

Mr. Gonzales promised fairness in 2005 when he faced confirmation hearings. He was not candid about his record on the death penalty then and he is not candid today. It is past time for General Gonzales to tender his resignation, for the President to nominate, and for the Senate to confirm an Attorney General who will â??demonstrate the highest commitment to fairness, due process and equal protection under the law.â??

Rust-Tierney is executive director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

This article was reprinted with permission.

This Link features an article in the National Catholic Reporter about abolition efforts in Maryland and other states. The bonus is that it provides a nice "snapshot" of the state of the death penalty in America today. Happy reading!

The New York Times Magazine ran an article on lethal injection this weekend, describing the problems with the system and the various developments in states such as California, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina around the issue. The short version of the lethal injection debate concerns the risk of "botched executions," which really are inevitable, and whether the method violates the constitutional protection against cruel and unusual punishment.

As I read the article, I could already hear the voices of the pro-death community ringing in my ear: "What about the victims? Who cares if he suffers at the end -- his victims suffered more?" and so on and so on. There are people who will just never care about this problem, indeed will never see it as a problem.

That's one of the reasons why abolitionists should not focus too much on this issue. What we should be primarily concerned about are the problems with the death penalty that affect us all, no matter what our point of view. Let's review the list:

1. The death penalty costs too much. It costs more to execute someone than it does to imprison them for life without release. This fact has been borne out over and over again. This is money that comes out of taxpayers' pockets, and is money that could be used instead for victims' services and law enforcement.

Why does the death penalty cost so much? Because it has to. No rational person can accept the execution of an innocent person, so we have to have a mandatory appeals process built into the death penalty to help prevent such a horror from happening. That costs money, and lots of it.

2. The death penalty is ineffective. We sound like a broken record at this point, but it amazes me how many people still believe that the death penalty deters murder. It doesn't, and the numbers bear that out (see www.deathpenaltyinfo.org) for the facts.

3. The death penalty can NEVER be error-proof. Despite what Mitt Romney would like you to believe (he tried unsuccessfully to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts by proposing a "foolproof" death penalty law while Governor), as long as human beings are involved in capital punishment, error is always possible. We'll never know how many innocent people have been executed.

The popularity of C.S.I. and other crime shows involving DNA evidence has led many people to believe that the advent of DNA ensures us that the wrong person will not be convicted or executed. But what many people don't understand is that most crimes don't have any DNA evidence to test. Many times, all we have in a crime is circumstantial evidence or the infamously unreliable "eyewitness testimony."

4. The death penalty is arbitrary. Race, class and geography all play a factor in who is executed in this country. Nationally, over 80% of completed death-penalty cases involve white victims, while only 50% of murder victims are white. Here in Connecticut, whether you get death depends largely on where the crime was committed -- the majority of death sentences come from one city (Waterbury). And, of course, the vast majority of people condemned to death are those who could not afford a high-priced "dream team" of defense attorneys to keep them off death row.

If the death penalty doesn't work, costs too much, and is unfairly biased against people based on race, geography and class, what is the "most civilized" nation in the world doing with it?

Over the weekend, I read a news article about Taliban fighters in Afghanistan invading a home and executing two women for the crime of teaching. Aside from the obvious concerns about the point of the millions of dollars and uncounted lives wasted on waging war in that country, it occurred to me to wonder just how different we as a nation are from the Taliban when it comes to capital punishment.

Sure, we don't kill teachers for teaching, and our legal system has a process it goes through before it executes. But does this make us superior to the Taliban? In the end, we are just doing what they are doing -- having the arrogance to assert our right to take the life of another, and carrying through with it. We have people with mental illness and developmental disabilities who are routinely executed. The vast majority of our death row inmates were too poor to afford private attorneys. Isn't that just as abhorrent as killing a teacher for teaching?

While doing some internet research, I came across this 2004 article that discussed the Democratic Party's platform on the death penalty:

Link

Reading the article made me wonder what the party's 2008 platform will look like. Will we have a staunchly pro-death penalty candidate, like Clinton or Gore, or someone who leans the other way, like Kerry? It's hard to say. The party doesn't have any information on the death penalty on its web site, and more often than not candidates are silent on the issue. Could it be that the party's position on a matter of life and death is totally dependent on the candidate who prevails at the primaries every four years?

This morning, I attended a fundraising breakfast for James Tillman. James spent over 18 years in prison -- confined to his cell for 22 hours a day -- for a rape that he did not commit. Thanks to the Connecticut Innocence Project, he was exonerated by DNA evidence.

Why was there a fundraising breakfast for him? Because Connecticut does not have a compensation statute for the wrongfully convicted. That's just wrong.

James is living proof that serious mistakes happen in the criminal justice system. That we can allow the state to kill when stories like James's are out there waiting to be told is beyond reason.

Last night, I had the great pleasure of watching students from Fairfield Prep perform in Tim Robbins' play, Dead Man Walking, at the Regina Quick Arts Center at Fairfield University. The play also runs tonight at 8:00. Don't miss it!

Even if you have seen the movie and read the book, this play really packs a punch. The students were amazing -- I can't imagine having tackled such an intense and disturbing topic with the grace, talent and maturity they did.

After the play, I joined the cast and other abolitionists for a "Talk Back" with the audience. The actors talked about how the play really helped them look inward to examine their feelings about the death penalty, and my fellow abolitionists and I discussed topics of interest such as the impact the death penalty has on the mental health of those involved, and the status of capital punishment in other states.