death penalty
CT’s top death prosecutor in federal probe
Aug 10th
I stumbled across this brief news item today, which could have monumental consequences for the death penalty in Connecticut, among other criminal justice issues. Waterbury’s chief prosecutor and former Commissioner of Public Safety John Connelly is apparently the subject of a Federal grand jury investigation, with allegations of improper consideration of his good friend, defense attorney Marty Minella’s clients, in exchange for gifts and vacations, swirling around the courthouse.
Connelly is known by most in the State as the prosecutor who put most of CT’s death row inmates on the row. The proportion of death row inmates from his jurisdiction have prompted valid calls for an examination of the application of the death penalty in Connecticut and allegations of racial and geographical disparity in sentencings and death penalty prosecutions. Connelly has a reputation for being a ruthlessly efficient prosecutor, who makes juries melt in his hands, and up to now, has been beyond reproach.
One can only begin to ponder the implications on the future of the death penalty and the criminal justice system as a whole if this story has any legs, if the federal probe turns into an indictment and a prosecution.
According to several sources who asked not to be identified, the feds are looking into whether Connelly’s ties with Atty. Martin Minnella have grown improperly close, and whether prosecutorial behavior in certain court cases can be connected – directly or indirectly – to gifts, vacations and other emoluments. The sources say federal investigators have seized records from both Minnella and Connelly, and that the list of potential witnesses is growing. Tom Carson, a spokesman at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Haven, said only, “We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of a grand jury investigation.”
Connelly has been on the job in Waterbury since the 1980s. Over 25 years, he has developed a reputation as a take-no-prisoners prosecutor who has, among other things, sought, and won, the death penalty in several big cases.
By last count, there were 6 inmates sent to death row by Connelly, of which two had their death sentences reversed. There are currently 9 on death row, excluding those two.
[It's really important for me to state this here: this is based on "anonymous sources" and it is about the very, very secretive federal grand jury. The extent of the investigation may be different, its focus may be different. But I've now heard this from several sources (yes, I have sources), who have other "anonymous sources", so it's pretty clear there's something going on, we just don't know exactly what.]
One man’s regret is another man’s disparity
Aug 2nd
Statistics at most may show only a likelihood that a particular factor entered into some decisions. There is, of course, some risk of racial prejudice influencing a jury’s decision in a criminal case. There are similar risks that other kinds of prejudice will influence other criminal trials. See infra, at 315-318. The question is at what point that risk becomes constitutionally unacceptable,” Turner v. Murray, 476 U. S. 28, 36, n. 8 (1986). McCleskey asks us to accept the likelihood allegedly shown by the Baldus study as the constitutional measure of an unacceptable risk of racial prejudice influencing capital sentencing decisions. This we decline to do.
Justice Powell, writing for the majority in McCleskey v. Kemp.
["I have come to think that capital punishment should be abolished."] Asked whether he would change his vote in any of the cases that had come before him, the Justice replied: “Yes, McCleskey v. Kemp.” Indeed, he added that he now found capital punishment itself unworkable and would vote against it in any case.
Justice Powell, to his biographer John C. Jeffries, from this contemporaneous account. McCleskey, courtesy of that opinion by Justice Powell, was the (pardon the pun) death knell for Constitutional challenges to the death penalty itself. Sure, in Federal courts we now challenge the method of the imposition of the death penalty, but any direct challenge to its Constitutionality is foreclosed by a cursory cite to McCleskey. McCleskey was a classic ivory tower opinion: it eschewed the actual effect of a law on the individuals of the country in favor of a more elusive “discriminatory purpose” test. A test that is simply impossible to meet. So while the evidence continues to pile up that there is a severe disparity in the application of the death penalty, the conscience of the country is placated by the hollow mantra that while that may be true, it doesn’t matter, because no State would ever intend to discriminate against minorities. The effect is an unfortunate side-effect.
Indigent defense on trial
Jul 12th
The stereotype of the over-worked, under-paid public defender exists for a reason. Even though I’ve personally fought against the stereotype here on the blog and in real life, I must necessarily admit that in a lot of States, the caricature is not a caricature at all, but an accurate representation of the state of indigent defense. Often, the public defender is only as good as the resources and time available to her. The best lawyer may seem incompetent if overburdened and underfunded.
I noted a while ago that a battle was brewing on the state of indigent defense and two recent news items seem to validate that observation. First, via CrimProf, a troubling decision out of Florida, where the intermediate appellate court reversed a trial court’s ruling granting a public defender’s motion to withdraw from one particular case because he could not adequately represent the defendant due to his high caseload. Then, on July 7, the Third District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that the mere word of a public defender that he was unable to provide constitutionally adequate representation was not enough to establish that the defendant would suffer prejudice:
Our analysis of the record in this case, however, leads us to conclude that there was no evidence of actual or imminent prejudice to Bowens’ constitutional rights. If the trial court’s order stands, all that the PD11 must do to show prejudice is swear that he or she has too many cases or that the workload is so excessive as to prevent him or her from working on the client’s case prior to the scheduled trial, and that he or she will be forced to file for continuance, thereby waiving the client’s speedy trial rights. This “prejudice” is not the type of prejudice that this Court referred to in State v. Public Defender. Prejudice means there must be a real potential for damage to a constitutional right, such as effective assistance of counsel or the right to call a witness, or that a witness might be lost if not immediately investigated. And this is the critical fact — the PD11 has not made any showing of individualized prejudice or conflict separate from that which arises out of an excessive caseload.
This conclusion is on the back of Florida statute that explicitly prohibits public defenders from withdrawing from cases because of excessive caseloads or inadequate funding:
(d) In no case shall the court approve a withdrawal by the public defender or criminal conflict and civil regional counsel based solely upon inadequacy of funding or excess workload of the public defender or regional counsel.
Here’s a statute that so blatantly conflicts with the professional and ethical responsibility of a lawyer to withdraw from the representation of a client if he feels he is unable to provide adequate and competent representation. Court, making the determination of whether to permit counsel to withdraw, do so on a case-by-case basis, but to exclude a very real and prevalent reason for that inability to provide adequate representation seems to be problematic on many levels, not the least of which a violation of the separation of powers.
It’s 5 p.m. Do you know where your bills are?
Mar 29th
Today, at 5:00pm, the Judiciary Committee of the state legislature closed for business, just like any other day. But today is important for two reasons: 1) It was the last day on which the committee could vote on bills; 2) This marked the first year that the eyewitness identification reform bill passed and will now head to the legislature for a full vote.
There are several bills I’ve been tracking for a while now, of interest to me and the regular reader. We now know the fate of all those bills (here’s a list of all bills voted out of committee and here’s a list of those that were on the agenda).
Good news:
The biggest news, in my opinion, is that the eyewitness identification reform bill received enough votes to make it out of committee (it died in committee last year). This is a tremendous step forward in the quest for adoption of best practices in lineups and photo arrays.
In addition, the sex offender residency restriction bill was never called to vote, and so unless it’s added as an amendment to a bill that did pass, it has died. (My problems with this bill were documented in this post.)
Another year and another assault on the dignity of The Great Writ has been turned away. The habeas corpus “reform” bill also died in committee, never being called to a vote.
For the second year in a row, the Adam Walsh fearmongering and bleeding money Act also failed to make it out of committee.
The innocuously titled “Act Concerning Subpoenas for Property” also wasn’t called to a vote and went away quietly. Don’t get fooled by the title. This was a very, very dangerous investigative subpoena bill, essentially granting the state to subpoena whatever the hell they wanted from whomever they wanted, even in the absence of a pending criminal prosecution/investigation. It essentially spat in the face of the Fourth Amendment.
An act seeking to create a mandatory-minimum sentence for assault of a public safety officer made it out of committee, but if I recall correctly, without the mandatory minimum.
Three bills hell bent on pushing Connecticut closer to fulfilling Orwell’s prophecy, one to remove the statute of limitations on perjury in murder cases; one to remove the statute of limitations for hindering murder prosecutions and one making it a crime to fail to report a “serious crime” against a child.
The “sexting” bill made it out of committee. But that could be a good or bad thing depending on your point of view. Me, personally? I don’t care either way.
Bad news:
I’ve always viewed the eyewitness ID bill and the videotaping of interrogations bill as two peas in a pod. Fraternal twins, if you will. Where one goes, so should the other. Unfortunately that wasn’t the case today. I’m not even sure the videotaping of interrogations bill was called for a vote. One step at a time, I guess. There’s always next year (says he, sounding awfully like a Red Sox fan. I need a shower).
The big-ticket news item of the day is the passage of the bill eliminating the statute of limitations for civil suits in child sexual assault cases. It’s not criminal, per se, but a stupid idea nonetheless.
A statewide ban the box proposal was called for a vote, but derailed and then “held”, which is lege-speak for killed.
For the second year, a bill seeking to reduce the zone around schools within which drug offenses triggered an enhanced penalty from 1500 feet to 200 feet. In addition, the penalty would have been triggered only for sales made within school hours. This was a much needed bill and I’m sad that it died.
I’m sure there are others that I’ve missed. Which bill did you want to see make it out of committee and which bill are you glad/mad didn’t?
Bad ad-Weis: spitting on Barker
Mar 28th
To,
Jamie Ryan Weis
Soon to be on death row
Georgia, USA
It is your fault. It is your fault that your lawyers didn’t get paid. It is your fault that there wasn’t any money to hire investigators and mitigation experts. It is your fault that the two lawyers with whom you’d built up a relationship had to be replaced.
It is your fault that the lawyers they were replaced with weren’t experienced and didn’t have the time or resources to represent you. It is your fault that your Constitutional right to counsel of choice cannot be fulfilled. It is your fault that your new lawyers sought be replaced.
It is your fault that your old lawyers were promised funding if they returned to represent you. It is your fault that they never saw a dime of that money.
It is your fault that the public defender system has broken down. It is your fault that the State of Georgia doesn’t give a shit about indigent defense.
It is your fault that you now have to go to trial for a capital felony, still without any money.
Don’t you see? It’s so simple.
Love,
Georgia Supreme Court (well, at least four of us.)
Wishful Wednesday
Mar 9th
In what has by now become a ritual dance, every year the state legislature toys with bills meant to enact some real reform in the criminal justice system. Every year, like the sucker I am, I get seduced, dancing the dance, enjoying the promise of a moonlit sonata. Every year, like the battered spouse, I know it will be different. I believe and I hope and I pray.
So here we go again.
Tomorrow, the judiciary committee is set to conduct public hearings on three very important bills:
S.B. No. 230 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE VIDEOTAPING OF CUSTODIAL INTERROGATIONS.
H.B. No. 5273 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION.
H.B. No. 5445 (RAISED) AN ACT CONCERNING THE DEATH PENALTY.
The bills seem to fall under the umbrella of “fixing the death penalty” and in some sense they may do so. But the real action in these bills is the adoption of best practices when it comes to interrogations and identifications. The death penalty bill also has some very interesting proposals. But let’s start at the very beginning. The interrogations bill is a hoot to read:
First, it applies only to those accused of a capital felony or Class A or Class B felonies. Second, any statement made by such person is presumed inadmissible unless 1) recorded and 2) the recording is not substantially altered. The bill then lists 9 exceptions pursuant to which a non-recorded statement is made admissible, but squarely places the burden on the state to prove by a preponderance that the exception is met. But there’s this odd subsection, which in my opinion, seeks to invalidate the entire bill:
(h) The presumption of inadmissibility of a statement made by a person at a custodial interrogation at a place of detention may be overcome by a preponderance of the evidence that the statement was voluntarily given and is reliable, based on the totality of the circumstances.
Since there is no further clarifying information, one must assume that this reverts back to the current standard for admissibility of statements: that they are reliable given the totality of circumstances. What, then, is the purpose of the bill requiring videotaping of interrogations? Am I reading this wrong?
The eyewitness identification bill is the standard bill that has been introduced for the last few years, so there’s nothing really to remark on. It is the death penalty bill that is the piece de resistance in this trifecta.
The bill starts tepidly enough and one might even confuse it for a bill proposed by a Republican to further limit the rights of criminal defendants in death penalty cases (oh wait, that’s exactly what it was…). But then it just takes off into neverneverland in a delightful way.
The bill first mandates that all relevant agencies must maintain exact records of the expenses incurred in pursuing and defending the death penalty. Some of you might recall how last year the public defender’s office was able to provide a dollar amount for the money spent, but the State “didn’t keep such records”.
But wait, it gets better. And how:
Individual Skill-ing
Mar 1st
Just when I was on the precipice of not writing any further on the individual voir dire “debate“, I got sucked back in. So here is this half-baked post with some references to studies that you may consider the written equivalent of diarrhea and a few other thoughts that are slightly more well-formed.
First, having already disproven the notion that Connecticut is the only state in the country that conducts individual voir dire, I point you, discerning reader, to some studies that highlight the relative benefits of ISVD. In 1999, then Federal Judge Gregor Mize wrote a paper about an experiment he conducted wherein he questioned jurors individually, regardless of whether they’d self-identified any biases in the “introductory” phase of voir dire. Here is his conclusion:
In view of these results, one cannot help but get a strong sense of the essential and revealing juror data that can be obtained by interviewing citizens who do not initially respond to open-court voir dire questions. The sometimes shocking, and always noteworthy, quality of the statements given above, have caused me to require that I interview all silent venire members. I am convinced that even if individual questioning took up significant amounts of time (which it has not for me), it would be well worth expending the effort in order to avoid juror UFO’s and the consequent danger of mistrials caused by impaneling biased or disabled citizens.
In 2003, he followed it up with another paper: “Be cautious of the quiet ones.” Voir Dire, 10, pp. 1-4.
In Judge Mize’s research, in the criminal trials, 1 in 5 of the silent jurors offered a highly relevant comment in individual voir dire that was withheld during group voir dire; at least one, and up to four, silent jurors were then struck for cause in 27 of the 30 criminal trials. Silent jurors in criminal trials withheld being the defendant’s fiancé, being related to the police, being predisposed toward the police, being predisposed against the police, having self or someone close shot with a gun, having lied in group voir dire, and religious convictions conflicting with duties as a juror.
In the civil trials, 1 in 10 of the silent jurors disclosed a highly relevant comment in individual voir dire, which translates into one significant disclosure for every two civil jury trials. Silent jurors in civil trials withheld having been represented by an attorney in the case, being in an auto accident one month before being called in an auto accident case, overhearing others discussing frivolous lawsuits, predispositions against the plaintiff, and predispositions against the defendant.
In both civil and criminal trials, silent jurors withheld medical conditions/hardship, financial hardship, and limited English proficiency.
The most common excuses jurors gave for failing to answer questions in group voir dire were shyness, embarrassment, and a belief that their answers weren’t very important.
Judge Mize concluded that individual voir dire is an indispensable means of identifying juror bias.
In 2005, Dax Urbszat published another study entitled The challenge for cause: Does it reduce bias in the jury system? I am unable to locate a free copy of the paper on the interwebs, so you’ll have to make do with this excerpt and summary:
Urbszat (2005) recently conducted three studies examining the effectiveness of voir dire in identifying jurors with bias or prejudice in a case. The challenge for cause was found to be ineffective in identifying and rejecting biased jurors. In addition, when the jury pool remains inside the court during voir dire, jury pool members were less likely to admit being prejudiced, and less overall rejections occurred. Individual voir dire, conducted outside the presence of other jurors, increased admissions of prejudice.
In addition, since the original series of posts, I did informally ask several local attorneys who have experience both in the Federal system and in other States, and to a person they all affirmed that they would prefer individual voir dire over group. But that is neither here nor there since I am anonymous/pseudonymous and it is only anecdotal.
However, I may not even have written this post, were it not for oral argument today in Skilling v. United States (transcript) before SCOTUS. There are two issues before the Supreme Court, both interesting in very different ways. The first is of relevance here. Skilling claims that his “trial was unfair” (and I’m paraphrasing) because of the immense pre-trial publicity his case received that rendered it impossible to empanel an impartial jury, especially given the manner in which voir dire was conducted. For a case of this magnitude, an entire jury was selected in just 5 hours, with limited questioning by the judge and even more limited questioning by the attorneys. Their primary reliance was on a 14 page questionnaire that each potential juror had filled out well in advance of jury selection. It is especially important to note that in Skilling, the voir dire was individual voir dire (and this is the much vaunted Federal “quick pick” system).
In Skilling, 60 percent of the jury venire affirmatively acknowledged in the responses to questionnaires that they would be unable to set aside their deep-seated biases or doubted their ability to do so, or that they were angry about Enron’s collapse, an anger that was manifested in the vitriolic terms in which Skilling was referred to repeatedly both in the questionnaires and in the community more generally.
Here, in CT, a similar trial is underway in New Haven. I mentioned this in a previous post and it seems that this trial is the gunpowder that has ignited some calls for doing away with ISVD. Any such reliance on highly-publicized trials is misguided. As with the Skilling trial, there is an overwhelming percentage of people called to serve who immediately are disqualified due to the immense publicity in the press and the overwhelming emotions the case evokes. That, in of itself, takes up a lot of time. In the Hayes case in New Haven, it is my understanding that only 14 jurors have actually been questioned on their suitability, with 4 of them being selected to serve. The rest have either been excused for hardships or for cause.
And yet some would have us pick a jury in a capital case which evokes the strongest of emotions in a matter of hours. I wouldn’t do it if my life were on the line, would you?
And if you cannot answer the above question in the affirmative, then we must stop calling for a truncated process when the lives and freedom in question are of those who trust us with them.
In the vast amounts of time that I have to myself, dragging the wheel as an indentured servant of The Man, I have thought about ISVD. Perhaps it is my feeble mind that cannot escape the conclusion that ISVD is a tool to be cherished by the true believer in the fairness of the system. Perhaps it is the lack of dollar signs impeding my vision that does not let me see reason. Perhaps none has been given.
The Georgia peach has turned rotten
Dec 20th
not cool, GA. You made lolcat swear.
I’m going to throw some numbers at you. See if you can recover sufficiently to read the rest of this post. Ready?
475, over a year, $160,000, 187 and finally 2 and a 1/2.
Any guesses? If you guessed active cases, time pending, funding for contract attorneys, clients without counsel as of November ’09 and finally, the number of appellate attorneys state-wide in GAs pd system, then you either deserve some sort of prize or have read this.
That’s right. Two full time and one part time appellate public defenders. Handling a caseload of 475.
I don’t think you understand.
475 divided by 2.5 = 190 appeals per lawyer. Appeals. Per. Lawyer. And it isn’t like the State of GA has stopped prosecuting and convicting people.
This is the latest stand in the war against the rape of Constitutional rights in GA. The Southern Center for Human Rights has filed a fourth lawsuit against the State of GA, seeking to ensure that adequate funding is provided. This, from their press release, nearly made me cry:
From the ass’s mouth
Dec 2nd
Or: Didn’t your mother ever teach you not to speak ill of the dead, David Martin? David Martin, of course, is the man who “represented” Cameron Todd Willingham, the possibly innocent man executed by Texas on the basis some rather dubious arson evidence.
Willingham is dead, there is a controversy over his innocence and David Martin was apparently missing the limelight. So he decided to give an interview to the press in which he said the following:
The veteran defense attorney represented Willingham at trial. He looked at all the evidence. And he has no doubt that his client deserved to die.
“I never think about him, but I do think about those year-old babies crawling around in an inferno with their flesh melting off their bodies,” Martin said. “I think that he was guilty, that he deserved death and that he got death.”
This is a man that, at least in name, represented Willingham. A lawyer, a member of the bar and a capital criminal defense attorney. I use the quotes around the word represented because:
Martin’s case was brief, with just two witnesses. The first was the family baby sitter, who testified there was an oil lamp in the hallway, suggesting it might have spilled and spread flammable liquid. The second was a jail inmate, who was going to dispute the testimony of a jailhouse snitch who claimed Willingham had confessed. But the judge forbid most of his testimony as hearsay.
But of course, one cannot keep a champion fool like Martin quiet. This is not the first time he’s opened his mouth about Willingham and his belief in Willingham’s guilt. A mere few months ago, when the arson story broke, he gave an interview on Anderson Cooper:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5cFKpjRnXE[/youtube]
I must’ve missed it, but my good friends over at Defending People and Simple Justice didn’t (see Mark’s post for links to other posts on Martin’s stupidity).
As Scott summed it up:
While no one can make a criminal defense lawyer believe in the innocence of his client, or chose to argue it after his representation has ended, he can be taken to task for doing the unthinkable, the outrageous and the facially wrong. David Martin’s comments are a disgrace of the lowest order. And, for good measure, just as criminal defense lawyers aren’t expected to believe in the innocence of every client, they similarly aren’t endowed with the superhuman ability to know when a person who professes innocence is in fact guilty.
I may lack an explanation for what drove David Martin to condemn his own client publicly, particularly in the face of overwhelming evidence of innocence, but I have no doubt that his statements on Anderson Cooper 360 are some of the most despicable I’ve ever heard from the mouth of a lawyer. Never, but never, smear your own client.
I’m glad to say that no one I know would act like Martin did (although one has come close).
Title bout in GA: death penalty vs. no money
Nov 15th
This seems to have been a week of heavyweight fights. Last night some guy named Pacquaio rearranged the face of some dude named Cotto and earlier in the week, in the state of “even Brian Nichols didn’t get death”, aka Georgia, the well oiled machinery of state sponsored murder took on the almighty dollar.
Yes, that was a very convoluted way of saying that the GA Supreme Court heard oral argument in the case of Jamie Ryan Weis, who’s sat in pre-trial confinement for 4 years awaiting a death penalty trial. For the first two years of his confinement, he didn’t even have counsel. The reason? GA has no money. Not for him and not for the 70 or so other capital defendants.
The state high court’s decision, expected next year, will set an important precedent. Numerous death-penalty trials across the state have been delayed because there has been no money to pay defense lawyers, investigators, expert witnesses and mitigation specialists.
In recent weeks, the state Office of the Capital Defender has not had enough lawyers to fully defend all of the approximately 70 death cases pending statewide. This includes two defendants charged in the July 26 slaying in Atlanta of former pro boxing champion Vernon Forrest.
Georgia court rules call for a capital defendant to be represented by two experienced attorneys. But because of overwhelming case loads, the capital defender office has been able to provide only one lawyer each for Charman Sinkfield and Jquante Crews, two of three men charged with Forrest’s murder.
Not only “Georgia court rules”, but ABA standards as well require two lawyers on each capital case. Anything but is sure to result in a reversal. So why doesn’t Georgia have any money to pay for an adequate defense? I’m glad you asked:
So long, farewell, don’t let the door hit you on your way out
Nov 10th
[Alternate post titles: So long and thanks for all the blog fodder; This just in: The Law now has a weak pulse]
So, it’s probably unnatural and unhealthy to be so giddy upon learning that Gov. Rell has decided not to seek re-election, but as most of you know, I can’t stand the woman. And that’s putting it mildly. I let out an audible yell yesterday when Ann Nyberg tweeted that she wasn’t going to run. My colleagues looked at me, much like they always do, like I had three heads. So maybe my disdain of the American Idol Governor knows no bounds.
But there’s good reason. After all, she has singlehandedly done so much to create such a disregard for the law and the rule of law, that sometimes I wonder who is worse: the law-breaking “criminals” she sought to protect our white community from or the law-ignoring bureaucrat.
She was the most dangerous of the “tough on crime” pols: sweet, nurturing, grandmotherly. She would lull everyone into sleep with her gentle affect and then decree the most outrageous acts of lawlessness this State has seen this decade.
First, there was Cheshire. Oh boy was there Cheshire. The brutal crimes in a white suburban neighborhood served not only to rouse the Governor from her mid-term siesta, but also had the side-effect of completely blinding her to common sense, and well, the rule of law. So the first thing she decided to do (well, sort of) was ban parole. That lasted for 4 months and resulted in severe overcrowding and a tremendous burden on state resources. That’s when Colin McEnroe coined the moniker “The American Idol Governor“. I still can’t get enough of that. She then proposed some truly scary and not very well thought out “reforms” of the criminal justice system, some of which unfortunately made it into law. Then she wanted CT to have a three-strikes law, in the face of all scientific research on its uselessness. Then came the unhinging, aka, “The David Pollitt Project“. I’m not even going to touch that. And finally, the veto of the death penalty abolition bill.
I write all of this, not to disparage her, but to remind myself and you – voters all – of the absolute effing nonsense we’ve had to put up with these past few years. Will any of the people who’ve announced they’re running for Governor be any better? They almost have to, don’t they, because it can’t get much worse than this.
So while I wish her well in her personal life and hope that her health remains strong, I will not be sad to see her become former Governor Rell. I’m not sure there was a person less equipped to take on that job.
And now, on to the big question. What needs to be done? The first response is obvious: abolish the death penalty. But there are so many more things that need to be changed about the criminal justice system in our State. In my mind, there’s only one candidate who is qualified to do that. So, you guys can be the first to hear it: I am hereby announcing my candidacy for the Governor of the State of Connecticut and I will be running on the Smart on Crime platform for the “It must be easy; she did it for so long” party.
More details about the, well, details of my platform will follow in subsequent posts. I’m now going to go and do a cartwheel.
From the Ministry of “It has to sink in eventually, right?”
Oct 20th
![insp_captkirk[5]](http://apublicdefender.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/insp_captkirk5.jpg "insp_captkirk[5]")
The Death Penalty Information Center, in keeping with its tireless mission of boldly going where no man has gone before abolishing the death penalty has yet another “why didn’t I think of that!” report out today, pointing out (yet again) the stupidity of persisting with the death penalty in these financial times (and the general lack of cost-effectiveness of that method of punishment).
The study (available here) essentially says that the DP is far too costly to be viable these days. The report is a fascinating read for several reasons, but I’ll highlight just two. First, let’s get right to it. How much does the damn thing cost? From the report:
The high costs to the state per execution reflect the following reality: For a single death penalty trial, the state may pay $1 million more than for a non-death penalty trial. But only one in every three capital trials may result in a death sentence, so the true cost of that death sentence is $3 million. Further down the road, only one in ten of the death sentences handed down may result in an execution. Hence, the cost to the state to reach that one execution is $30 million. Sums like these are causing officials to rethink the wisdom of such expenditures.
Although arriving at the actual cost of the death penalty in a state is complicated, in some states $30 million per execution is a very conservative estimate:
In 2008, the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice released an exhaustive report on the state’s capital punishment system, concluding that it was “dysfunctional” and “broken.” The report found that the state was spending $137 million per year on the death penalty. The Commission estimated a comparable system that sentenced the same inmates to a maximum punishment of life without parole would cost only $11.5 million per year. Since the number of executions in California has averaged less than one every two years since the death penalty was reinstated in 1977, the cost for each execution is over $250 million. The state has also indicated it needs another $400 million to construct a new death row.
In Maryland, where a legislative commission recently recommended abolishing the death penalty, a comprehensive cost study by the Urban Institute estimated the extra costs to taxpayers for death penalty cases prosecuted between 1978 and 1999 to be $186 million. Based on the 5 executions carried out in the state, this translates to a cost of $37 million per execution.
In 1988, the Sacramento Bee found that the death penalty cost California $90 million annually beyond the ordinary expenses of the justice system, of which $78 million was incurred at the trial level.45 But the costs have increased sharply since then. According to the Los Angeles Times in 2005, maintaining the death penalty system now costs taxpayers more than $114 million a year beyond the cost of simply keeping the convicts locked up for life. This figure does not count the millions more spent on court costs to prosecute capital cases. The Times concluded that Californians and federal taxpayers are paying more than $250 million for each execution.
The study then goes through an examination of the opportunity costs and why the death penalty costs so much to begin with. But more interesting is the first part of the report, which is a poll of 500 randomly chosen police chiefs. Read pages 9-12 of the PDF report, but here are the highlights:
- The death penalty was considered the least efficient use of taxpayers’ money. Police chiefs ranked expanded training for police officers, community policing, programs to control drug and alcohol abuse, and neighborhood watch programs as more cost-effective ways to use taxpayers’ money
- 69% of those surveyed believed that politicians support the death penalty as a symbolic way of showing they’re “tough on crime”.
- Only 24% agreed that offenders think about the range of punishments before committing a murder.
- Of various statements about the death penalty, the one with which the police chiefs most identified was: “Philosophically, I support the death penalty, but I don’t think it is an effective law enforcement tool in practice.”
- 57% agreed (and 39% disagreed) that the death penalty is an effective deterrent.
This is just reinforcement for the argument that the death penalty should be abolished. CT came close last year, but was vetoed by the Gov. Good thing she likes polls so much; someone should show her this new report.
And because it’s been so damn long since we’ve had a video on this blog, I give you a related Ministry:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpcqbbrfuzM[/youtube]
Texas kills…..an innocent man? (updated)
Aug 25th
The first half of the title of this post (shamelessly plagiarized from our good friends at CapDefWeekly) should come as no surprise to anyone. Texas is a powerhouse when it comes to executions, rapidly putting people to death.
The second half of the title should also come as no surprise, though. And there’s a new report to back it up [here's a link to the actual report]. The man in question is Cameron Todd Willingham, convicted of setting fire to his house that killed his children in 1991. The new report states that Texas fire marshals had no basis to conclude that the fire was set intentionally and in all likelihood was an accident. Willingham was executed in 2004, maintaining his innocence to the end.
Among [Craig] Beyler’s key findings: that investigators failed to examine all of the electrical outlets and appliances in the Willinghams’ house in the small Texas town of Corsicana, did not consider other potential causes for the fire, came to conclusions that contradicted witnesses at the scene, and wrongly concluded Willingham’s injuries could not have been caused as he said they were.
The state fire marshal on the case, Beyler concluded in his report, had “limited understanding” of fire science. The fire marshal “seems to be wholly without any realistic understanding of fires and how fire injuries are created,” he wrote.
The marshal’s findings, he added, “are nothing more than a collection of personal beliefs that have nothing to do with science-based fire investigation.”
And it isn’t Beyler alone. Nine of the nation’s top fire scientists reviewed the Willingham case and concluded that “the original investigators relied on outdated theories and folklore to justify the determination of arson.”
And that’s not all. There was some other evidence of his guilt: jailhouse snitch testimony. That doyen of reliable information. To paraphrase Radley Balko, junk science and a jailhouse snitch do not a reliable conviction make.
Good job Texas. Good job death penalty advocates.
Dear Governor Rell: death penalty’s broke and we can’t fix it
May 22nd
Dear Governor Rell,
Hi, it’s me, Gideon. This is my second attempt at a letter to you. The last one was somewhat trivial by comparision. I hope you take the time to read this, though, as I’m sure the last one ended up quickly at the bottom of your rubbish bin.
Governor, there is a piece of paper on your desk. A piece of paper that has the power to restore humanity and dignity to our State. A piece of paper that will say to the world: “We are no longer barbaric, we are no longer uncivilized, we are no longer cruel”. A piece of paper that has the chance to shape your legacy and the legacy of our Constitution State. A piece of paper that will close an ugly chapter that is the death penalty in our State.
CT lege abolishes death penalty; veto next?
May 22nd
After an excruciatingly long 11-hour debate that was peppered with vacuousness, cherry-picking and childhood stories, the CT Senate finally got around to voting on whether the State should abolish the death penalty. This historic vote ended in favor of abolition, but just barely. A 19-17 vote in the wee hours of the morning sends the abolition bill to the Governor’s desk. 6 Democrats [5 really, unless you absolutely want to count Joan Hartley of Waterbury] broke ranks to vote against the bill, but the majority got the one vote they needed from a Republican Senator, who voted for the bill.
Just last week, in a more convincing fashion, the State House of Representatives voted to abolish the death penalty as well. It is now up to one superficially loveable woman to decide whether our State will continue to impose this most barbaric of punishments. Almost anyone who pays any attention in CT agrees that the Governor will most likely veto this bill, having stated her preference for the death penalty ad nauseum over the last few weeks.
But those same people may forget that this isn’t just any Governor we’re talking about. This is the American Idol Governor, who seems to make her decisions based on opinion polls and votes. Well, there couldn’t have been a bigger vote than this. Connecticut’s elected members of the legislature voted a combined 107-73 in favor of abolishing the death penalty. Now she has a much tougher decision than anyone, perhaps including her, imagines. Don’t worry, I’ll help her make that decision in an upcoming post.
recent comments