The Banality of Death: Manuel Valle

You may not have noticed this. There were no big demonstrations. There was no widespread Internet campaign. The traditional media didn’t react. In fact, as in most cases, the state killed its prisoner without much notice. And so it was that on Wednesday, after the Supreme Court denied a last minute stay, Florida executed 61-year old Manuel Valle. Valle was killed for the 1978 murder of a police officer, Louis Pena. That is not a typographical error. Valle was facing death for more than thirty years. He was not nearly the oldest person ever executed in the US, nor did he set a record for the time between the crime and the execution. Valle was just another execution. There was nothing remarkable about his execution. He was the fourth inmate killed in the United States in a week, and he was the first killed in Florida with just sodium pentobarbital

Predictably, relatives of the victim, according to a Florida Corrections press release, expressed “great relief that after 33 years, justice has finally been served for Louis and his family.” What else could they possibly be expected say? Put another way, the usual, well developed Kabuki accompanied the execution. The seemingly medical procedure used to kill. The press release stating the time of death. The dubious expressions by prosecutors and law enforcement that “justice was done.” A drama observers are entirely too used to.

The execution was opposed by the Danish drugmaker Lundbeck, the producer of Nembutal, the brand name of pentobarbital. Nembutal is intended for treatment of epilepsy. In July Lundbeck restricted distribution of the drug after learning that it was being used in executions. And on Monday a neurologist submitted a petition to the Florida Supreme Court requesting a halt to Valle’s execution, claiming that use of the drug in executions is illegal because the controlled substances act prohibits using it for non-medical purposes. An execution, no matter how it is made to appear to be a medical procedure, is not one. The court dismissed that suit on Tuesday.

The execution was also opposed internationally. Spain intervened at the last minute, asking the United States to stop the execution on humanitarian grounds and suggesting that Valle might be eligible for Spanish nationality. The US and Cuba do not have full diplomatic ties.
“We took up this case because under our constitution we are a country that opposes the death penalty,” Spain’s Consul General in Miami, Cristina Barrios said. But all that was to no avail. Nothing could stop the execution.

The death penalty is like that. Sometimes there is something special that galvanizes public opinion about state killing. Maybe it’s possible innocence or age or mental condition or racism or sexism or some other factor. But in general, state killing is banal. It’s ordinary. It continues unchecked. It fades into the background. It persists. It remains generally unnoticed. Until the next “special” execution.

State killing is carried out with such frequency that it is utterly exhausting to try to chronicle each and every execution and to explore the many facets of each that civilized people find shocking. The death penalty is like that. As it kills, it desensitizes. It exhausts. It’s like mercury, it is absolutely lethal and it runs away from our grasp.

The Shame Of State Killing.

This is George J. Stinney, Jr. This is his mug shot. He was born on October 21, 1929, and he was executed by the State of South Carolina on June 16, 1944. He was then fourteen years old. He was just 5'1" tall and weighed 95 pounds. He was the youngest person executed in the United States.

The Murders. Two white girls, Betty June Binnicker, age 11, and Mary Emma Thames, age 8, disappeared while out riding their bicycles. They were looking for flowers to put on their bicycles. As they passed where Stinney lived, they asked George Stinney and his sister, Katherine, if they knew where to find some "maypops", a kind of flower. When the girls did not return, hundreds of people joined search parties. The bodies of the girls were found the next morning in a ditch filled with muddy water. Both had suffered severe head wounds.
Stinney was arrested a few hours later and was interrogated alone by several officers in a locked room. Within an hour a deputy announced that Stinney had confessed to the crime.

The Confession. Stinney wanted to "have sex with" 11-year old Betty June Binnicker and could not do so unless her friend, Mary Emma Thames was removed from the scene. So he decided to kill Mary Emma. When he went to kill Mary Emma, both girls "fought back." So he decided to kill Betty June, too. He used a 15 inch railroad spike that was later found in the same ditch as the bodies. According to deputies, Stinney had somehow been successful in killing both at once. Somehow one of them did not escape. He inflicted major blunt trauma to their heads, shattering their skulls into at least 4-5 pieces. The confession was never recorded in any police files. There were even rumors that he was offered ice cream by the police if he cooperated by providing a confession.

The Town exploded. The next day, Stinney was charged with first degree murder. The town's grief grew rapidly into seething anger. People threatened to storm the local jail to lynch Stinney, but he had already been moved to Charleston. Stinney's father was fired from his job at the local lumber mill and the Stinney family fled during the night in fear for their lives.

The Trial. Because his family had fled, the fourteen year old faced the death penalty jury trial by himself. Jury selection took just two hours. It began at 10 am and ended just after noon, when a lunch recess was taken. The evidence began at 2:30 pm. Stinney's court appointed lawyer was 30-year-old Charles Plowden, a tax commissioner. Plowden was no Atticus Finch. He did not cross-examine a single witness. His defense apparently was that Stinney was too young to be held criminally responsible for the crimes. No such luck. South Carolina law was that anyone over the age of 14 as an adult. Summations ended at 4:30 pm, and after jury instructions, the jury retired just before 5 pm. The jury deliberated for all of 10 minutes. Stinney was found guilty with no recommendation for mercy and was sentenced to death in the electric chair.

There was no appeal. When asked about appeals, Plowden replied that there would be no appeal, as the Stinney family had no money to pay for a continuation.

The Execution. George Stinney was electrocuted at the South Carolina State Penitentiary on June 16, 1944. At 7:30 p.m., Stinney walked to the execution chamber with a Bible under his arm. Standing 5'1" and weighing just over 90 pounds, he was small for his age, which presented difficulties in securing him to the frame holding the electrodes. The state's adult-sized face-mask didn’t fit him. His convulsing exposed his tear streaked face to witnesses as the mask slipped free. Stinney was declared dead within four minutes of the initial electrocution.

From the time of the murders until Stinney's execution a total of eighty one days elapsed.

I doubt that this shameful case received much public attention. In June, 1944, the newspapers were filled with the events of D-Day and news from Europe. And it's hard to re-construct what happened in the trial now. There are apparently no transcripts of the testimony. What remains is just the horror and revulsion of this repellant execution.

The Supreme Court finally ruled in 2005 (Roper v. Simmons) that juveniles who had committed crimes under the age of 18 could not be executed for them. Even before the Court's ruling 19 states did not allow the execution of juveniles. But 22 juveniles were executed in the modern era for crimes committed before they were 18, including Stinney. That is the part of the shameful, disgraceful legacy of state killing.

What will it take before the horror of executing juveniles, of executing the developmentally disabled, of executing those who did not commit murder, generally applies to all state killing? How long will it take?

Troy Davis, RIP

As I write this, the Georgia authorities are killing Troy Davis. He was let down by the "justice" system. And the Supreme Court. And by those of us who are horrified when the state kills innocent people. There is nothing more to do or say. He is being killed. Please join me in 24 hours of silence in honor of his memory.

Fasting With Troy Davis on 9/21

The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied Troy Davis's request for clemency. It appears that Georgia will kill him by lethal injection at 7 pm ET on September 21, 2011. And it appears that execution cannot be stopped.

From Ben Jeanlous at the NAACP an eloquent, moving request that we fast tomorrow evening and mark the time of Troy Davis's execution:

This morning, our worst fears came true. Despite widespread doubt, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles upheld the decision to execute Troy Davis this Wednesday.

Still, Troy has refused to have a “last meal.” He has faith his life will be spared.

In the past, his tremendous faith has been rewarded. The last time Troy faced execution, in 2008, the warden brought in what was to be his last meal. But Troy refused to eat. Looking the prison staff in their eyes, he explained this meal would not be his last. He was vindicated when he received a last minute stay. Guards still remember this as a haunting moment, one rooted in Troy’s deep faith.

Still, there is every sign the state of Georgia intends to execute Troy this time--despite calls for them to stop by everyone from the former head of the FBI, William Sessions, to former US President Jimmy Carter.

Troy has prepared himself, and to the extent anyone can, his family, for either outcome.

As he has said many times "They can take my body but not my spirit, because I have given my spirit to God."

Thus, even as we continue to call on the Board of Pardons and Parole and Savannah District Attorney Larry Chisolm to reconsider, we must be prepared for either outcome too.

Please stand with Troy and his family. Join NAACP activists around the country in an evening of solidarity, prayer and fasting on Wednesday, September 21st.

http://action.naacp.org/StandWithTroy

Ask friends to meet up. Ask your family to fast Wednesday evening in solidarity with Troy's family and use the dinner hour to talk. Ask your faith community, if they already have a Wednesday night fellowship planned, to make time for conversation about Troy’s scheduled execution.

However you do it, please mark the 7 o’clock hour on that evening—the time of Troy’s scheduled execution—as a moment to reflect on Troy’s experience, to offer prayers for his family and that of Officer MacPhail, and to talk about what we can each do to ensure our nation never does this again.

This is a moment to rededicate ourselves to the struggle to end the death penalty and otherwise fix our nation's broken justice system.

To honor Troy’s courage, and rededicate ourselves to the cause of justice in America, NAACP activists are asked to fast Wednesday evening. Will you join us?

I am Troy Davis. I will fast on Wednesday evening. I will stand in solidarity with all of the others who consider the state's killing of Troy Davis a lawless, barbarous, inhumane, unjust and disgraceful act. Please join me.

An Outrage In Georgia

The Georgia Pardon and Parole Board has DENIED clemency to Troy Davis. The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

The state Board of Pardons and Paroles on Monday has denied clemency for Troy Anthony Davis after hearing pleas for mercy from Davis' family and calls for his execution by surviving relatives of a murdered Savannah police officer.

Davis' case has already taken more unexpected turns than just about any death-penalty case in Georgia history and his innocence claims have attracted international attention. Its resolution was postponed once again when the parole board late Monday announced it would not be making an immediate decision as to whether Davis should live or die.

Davis, 42, is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection on Wednesday at 7 p.m. at the state prison in Jackson.

I doubt there are other legal steps that can stop the state from killing Troy Davis.

My heart goes out to Troy Davis and his family, and also to the McPhail family. They all deserve better.

I Am Troy Davis

Dublin, 2010

On September 21, 2011, the State of Georgia plans to kill Troy Davis by lethal injection. Again. This is the fourth time the State of Georgia has scheduled Davis for death. In 2007 he was spared with less than 24 hours notice. In September 2008, the hearse was waiting at the door and he was less than two hours away from the gurney. A month later the execution was halted three days before execution. And now, the rollercoaster from hope to despair has come to September 21, 2011.

Troy Davis’s conviction stems from the 1989 death of a Savannah police officer, Mark Allen McPhail. The rollercoaster, for Troy Davis and his family and for the family of the officer, has been lurching back and forth for 22 years. And with each year, doubt about the conviction has grown as witnesses have recanted and as jurors spook their unresolved doubts. Lurking in the background is alarming possibility that the wrong man is waiting for the needle and that the real murderer has escaped.

The Atlanta Journal Constitution reports:

With only days before his scheduled execution, an effort to spare convicted killer Troy Davis is gathering thousands in rallies, vigils and other last-minute events from Atlanta to Peru to Berlin.

Citing doubts about his guilt, national leaders of the NAACP and Amnesty International led hundreds in a protest Friday against executing the man a Georgia jury said killed a Savannah police officer in 1989. Amnesty International declared a Global Day of Solidarity for Troy Davis, with 300 events across the United States and the globe, including in New York, Washington D.C., San Diego, Paris and Oslo.

Former President Jimmy Carter, Pope Benedict XVI and Nobel laureate Desmond Tutu are among those calling for his execution to be halted. And this week, Davis supporters presented 663,000 petitions to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles asking for his life to be spared.

Troy Davis has one last chance to ask for leniency. The Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, which has the sole authority in Georgia to commute death sentences, will meet Monday to consider Davis’s case.

That means that this weekend is the last opportunity to sign a petition and to stand with more than 600,000 others for sparing Troy Davis.

The petition is here.

Details about the case are here from 2006 and here from 2008.

An excellent first person view is here (h/t OPOL).

Spare Troy Davis: The Forest And The Trees

On September 21, 2011, the State of Georgia plans to kill Troy Davis by lethal injection. If it happens, this execution will not be an unusual event. In Texas this year there have already been ten executions. In the United States this year there have been thirty-three executions. In fact, there have been some days in 2011 when there were two executions. But in general most, if not all of these killings have gone unnoticed. It’s as if someone had pressed the mute button, so we could not hear the anguish or see the tears, so we could not see what was being done in our names.

There were two executions planned in Texas this week. On September 13, 2011, Texas killed Steven Woods for 2001 a double murder. And on September 15, 2011, it took the US Supreme Court’s last minute stay to stop the planned killing of Duane Buck. Buck got some deserved attention because his death sentence included egregious “expert” testimony that Black people are more dangerous than whites. But in general, state killing goes on largely unnoticed. And without noticeable scrutiny. Or opposition.

Troy Davis is an exception to the silence and what appears to be acquiescence to state killing. Thank goodness. And that may be because Troy Davis is likely innocent. The case against him has disintegrated since his trial. It has fallen apart as witnesses recanted their testimony and explained the police coercion in interrogations that made them perjured themselves at his trial. Troy Davis appears to be innocent, a circumstances that Justice Scalia has opined in this very case is of no constitutional significance. Despite all of this Georgia relentlessly pursues killing him. So Troy Davis has managed to attract attention, which he completely deserves, and has elicited remarkable and justified eloquence in his defense. I wish others who have faced execution had received similar support, but I can understand completely why they have not. And I am pleased that the execution of Troy Davis has evoked such strong opposition.

I have twice before written about Georgia’s desire to kill Troy Davis, on July 7, 2006 and onAugust 9, 2009, and here I am again more than five years later saying the same thing, trying to ask you to ask the State of Georgia to spare the same man, Troy Davis. I won’t repeat all the reasons.

Troy Davis should be spared.

Alll I can do now is urge you, dear reader, to join the 663,000 people who have already signed a petition to go to spare Troy Davis by signing the NAACP petition and by taking the additional recommended steps to spare Troy Davis.

And also, please, whatever may happen to Troy Davis, please recognize that there are going to be more Troy Davises, recognized or not, as long as the United States has the death penalty. The only way to prevent that is abolition of state killing. Let’s spare Troy Davis. And let’s also stop state killing.

Connecticut Clings To State Killing. Barely.

State killing, the death penalty, isn't the product of rational thought. Never has been. It's about raw emotions, and chief among those are anger and revenge. To no one's surprise, despite virtually worldwide condemnation of state killing, when it comes to killing killers to show other potential killers that killing is wrong, politicians' lack of principle is breathtaking. And all too common. So the news from Connecticut this afternoon isn't a surprise. No. It's just another example of the barbarian illogic that keeps states in the killing business.

The Day reports:

Proponents of capital punishment were declaring victory this afternoon after two state senators from southeastern Connecticut abruptly changed their minds about supporting a death penalty repeal bill.

State Sens. Edith Prague, D-Columbia, and Andrew Maynard, D-Stonington, said they initially planned to vote for the repeal if it came up, but no longer intend to. The bill, which passed through the Judiciary Committee last month, would end the death penalty in Connecticut for future murders.

Several legislators said today that without the two senators’ votes, they didn’t expect the bill to pass the Senate.

For both Prague and Maynard, the deciding factor was a meeting late last week with Dr. William Petit, whose wife and two daughters were brutally murdered in a 2007 Cheshire home invasion. Petit is in favor of the death penalty.

“I just feel that if there is anything I could do to help this man at all, I’ve got to do it,” Prague said, adding that it’s unusual for her to flip her vote. “I don’t think I’ve ever changed my mind on something that I had made up my mind to vote for.”

Steven Hayes was sentenced to death last year for the Petit murders. The trial of the second accused killer, Joshua Komisarjevsky, starts in September.

Please pause and look at that. The bill would prevent the state from executing for murders convicted in the future. The bill would have no affect at all, none, on murders committed before its passage, and it would have absolutely no affect on the state's plans to execute Steven Hayes or, should be be convicted, Joshua Komisarjevsky. The proposed law would have no affect on these cases. None.

So what does the learned legislator mean when she says, "I just feel that if there is anything I could do to help this man at all, I’ve got to do it." How, inquiring minds would like to comprehend, does leaving the door open so that the state can execute for murders that have not yet been committed "help" Dr. Petit? It doesn't bring back his loved ones. It doesn't help him get vengeance for the crime committed against his family. That he will unfortunately get soon enough. It doesn't get him closure (if anything can do that). In point of fact, it has nothing whatsoever to do with Dr. Petit, whose family was brutally slain, and with the state's obvious intention to execute the two people who committed those crimes.

How does Dr. Petit's understandable loss, anger, and grief add up to continuing state killing in Connecticut? If you think about it rationally, the victim, the person who has suffered the huge loss of his family, is the last person who should decide what the state's response to murder should be. Ceding to that person's impulses leads to public revenge killings in football stadiums, as if there were Iran or Afghanistan under the Taliban.

And how does Senator Maynard explain his sudden timidity?

“We don’t think the timing is particularly good for Dr. Petit and what he’s going through,” Maynard said. “I won’t vote for a repeal and I hope we don’t actually call it up for a vote this year."

What? The timing? In other words, Dr. Petit's justified grief and anger require that no law be passed concerning future crimes, because, well, because one of the alleged murderers of the Petit family has not yet been convicted. But, you say, but the bill doesn't affect those cases. Well, yes, but well never mind, because Dr. Petit cannot move on from his loss, everyone in the State of Connecticut should also be frozen in amber.

If the best we can do for Dr. Petit and the thousands of other people who have lost family members to murder is to keep on killing convicted murderers, we've got a real problem in the US. Killing these people helps no one. It's a travesty that we continue to argue that it does.

Ohio Kills Benge For 1993 Murder

Ohio today killed its eighth prisoner this year, setting a state record. Michael Benge was executed for the brutal January, 1993 murder of his lover, Judith Gabbard, at 10:38 am.

The routine of state killing remains so pervasive that it's unlikely you even noticed this execution, even though it was carried out in your name. Such is desensitization. In fact, there's very little that was unusual about this execution. The execution ended 17 years of Benge's confinement on death row. And yet again, it managed to dehumanized each of us.

The Columbus Dispatch provides details about the crime for which Benge was killed by the state:

Binge was convicted and sentenced to death for beating his girlfriend, Judith Gabbard, 38, with a tire iron, then weighting down her body with concrete and dumping it in the Miami River. The murder happened Jan. 31, 1993....

According to records of his clemency hearing, the relationship between Benge and Gabbard soured when he began smoking crack cocaine. He stole Gabbard's jewelry and other things to pawn to get money to feed his drug habit.

He became violent, with the aftermath of the beatings so obvious that she skipped family gatherings at the holidays in 1992 to avoid embarrassment.

They fought the night of the murder after drinking in a bar for several hours; Benge smoked crack. Eventually, he stole her ATM card and beat her to death. After disposing of the body, he swam across the river and hooked up with friends. They used the card to drain $400 from Gabbard's bank account, records show.

The theft of the ATM card was apparently the aggravating factor that made brutal murder a death penalty offense. All of Benge's appeals were fruitless. It took the state almost 18 years finally to end his life. One wonders what his death accomplished that his continuing confinement in prison would not.

While he was strapped to the gurney, Benge offered an apology to Gabbard's family, several of whom were present to observe the execution:

His last words, as family members of his victim looked on: "I can never apologize enough. ... I hope my death gives you closure. That's all I can ask. Praise God and thanks."

Asked about Benge's apology, the victim's sister made it clear that the reason for the killing was revenge for the death of her sister:

After the execution Kathy Johnson, sister of the victim, said, "It makes us feel there was justice for my sister. That's what this was all about."

When asked about Benge's last words, she said, "I don't feel like Mike Binge was remorseful. He has blamed everyone else but himself."

Is there any other way to read this comment, is there any way to perceive it that does not encompass revenge, an eye for an eye, a life for a life? I don't see it. And I don't agree that this is justice. This is not justice. This is barbarianism. This degrades us to the level of the killer. It has us adopt the killer's lack of regard for the sanctity of human life.

I mention this hear so that the ritual of state killing and as important, the ritual of our silence and our failing to notice when the state kills in our names may be abolished.

Howling At The Moon

Can you hear that? That's me, howling. It's not complicated why. Last night I started to write a blog post, in fact, this blog post. I had maybe 500 words typed into the box and then I moved the mouse and the next thing I knew, poof, there was nada, zilch, nothing. All gone. Totally vaporized. That's when I started howling. I continue even now.

The blog post, well, this blog post is/was about state killing. There have been two horrendous, macabre executions in the last weeks. Let me briefly recall them for you before I move on to what I think might be my point.

First, Virginia killed Therese Lewis. Lewis, you will recall, has an IQ of 72. She didn't pull the trigger in the double murder for which she was executed. The two men who were triggermen got life. They, as far as I can tell, were not developmentally disabled. Therese Lewis's crack trial lawyers had her plead guilty to a capital murder (the DA never committed to taking the death penalty off the table). Then, believing that a judge would give her life and not order her to be killed (again I don't know what they thought that), they gave up her right to a jury on the punishment phase. And guess what? The judge decided that even though she had an IQ of 72 (it's not clear that the judge knew this) she should die by lethal injection. Governor McDonnell, harking back to Bill Clinton's execution of Ricky Lee Rexford 18 years ago, denied her clemency. Virginia killed her. This, I said, wasn't justice. If it was, the law is an ass.

Then, George killed Brandon Rhode. Talk about setting new levels of macabre. Rhode decided to kill himself, using a razor, on the eve of his scheduled lethal injection. He cut his throat and his arms. He almost killed himself, but alas, Georgia would have none of that. Only the state, in Georgia's view, could kill him. So they sewed him up, and restrained him, and added security, and then, last night, they killed him. Let's review. Rhode had no regard for the lives of the three victims, two of whom were children. He had no regard for his own life, which he tried to take. And Georgia had no regard for his life, and by killing him our names, they reduced us to his level, the level of people who don't think life is important.

These two executions right next to each other raise all of the usual reasons why state killing is barbaric. And should be abolished. There's nothing new in them. Not really. The state kills its most marginalized members out of proportion to their population numbers: the poor, people of color, immigrants, the developmentally disabled (who can test of 70 IQ), the mentally ill, GLBT people. The state claims that the killings deter other killings. The statistics don't bear this out. But that means that the state thinks that somebody with an IQ of 72 is able to figure out whether what she's doing amounts to capital murder. Or doesn't. And, of course, there's the age old revenge reason for killing killers. An eye for an eye might make the whole world blind, but the logic of that doesn't eclipse the state's determination to kill.

No, there's nothing new. But I've been haunted by two ideas this week that for some reason hadn't occurred to me before. First, maybe we should be conceptualizing state killing as if it were a vestige of pre-Colombian human sacrifice. It's a lot like what Montezuma, for example, did. You capture people, you confine them, you feed them and take care of them. And then, after time goes by, when the need arises to pacify the gods, to make supplication for rain, or a crop, or prosperity, or fertility, you take the appropriate number of prisoners, and you ritually kill them.

The Aztecs had temples and furniture and plates and altars designed for this killing. Cortez was horrified when he arrived and saw the racks of skulls. Now we don't have anything quite as grizzly. Now we do it with medical trappings: a gurney, an injection, the person tied down to the table. It's all very neat and quite bloodless. But it's still killing. And it has a late 20th century sterility to it. Maybe state killing should be seen as a last vestige of human sacrifice.

Don't like that idea? Don't want to be associated with that kind of barbarism? That kind of lack of regard for the value of human life? Don't want own the savagery of state killing?

Then there's the other idea that's bothering me. The Thirteenth Amendment ended chattel slavery in the United States, except as punishment for a crime. The Constitution has the very 18th Century conception in it that convicts are the slaves of the state. Now remember that when this lingo was written down, there was in fact slavery in the US. The people who wrote this understood precisely what was involved in slavery. And when slaves rebelled, or refused to do what their owners demanded, what happened to them? They were imprisoned and beaten. Were they also killed? Of course. Is being killed by the slave holder for something you did a "badge of slavery"? So is it possible then to see state killing as the transfer of the power of life and death from private slaveholders (who could no longer hold slaves) to the state, the only ones permitted in the US to hold slaves? And is this revenge killing, now with lethal injections, just a continuation of slavery? Yes, I know. It's all dressed up now, with medical instruments, and special rooms, and nice courthouses with walnut paneling, and judges wearing robes. But in essence, how close is it to the continuation of the prerogatives of the slave holder?

What's the difference between state killing and lynching? The difference, if it is one, is that state killing is supposedly based on a fair trial. Lynching doesn't have any process other than violence. If a persons trial is grotesquely inadequate and she is convicted of capital murder and executed, the distinction between lynching and state killing is illusory. Put another way, what are the real differences in Georgia's killing Brandon Rhode and Georgia's lynching Leo Frank?

I remain mortified by state killing. This week has been a pinnacle of ugliness. The only saving grace is that California's moratorium continued this week because of judicial ruling. And because they ran out of a chemical they need to kill. They won't have the chemical again in sufficient quantity for about 18 months.

State Killing: Georgia Saves A Prisoner's Life So It Can Kill Him

As long as there is a death penalty in the United States, as long as the government persists in the barbaric practice of having the state kill those convicted of the most egregious murders, as long as the government continues to kill by lethal injection, there will continue to be egregious, shameful, disgraceful, inhuman, unfathomable executions.

Last week it was the Virginia execution of Teresa Lewis, a woman with a 72 IQ who was not the shooter in the double murder that led to her execution on Thursday. The two male gunmen each received life in prison. Little, whose guilt was never in doubt, pleaded guilty, waived her right to a jury trial on punishment, and to her then attorney's surprise, was sentenced to death by a judge without a jury. The judge said she was the "head of the serpent." I wrote that if this execution was justice, justice was an ass.

And now Georgia plans on executing Brandon Rhode on Monday.

Rhode, too, committed a horrendous, brutal multiple murder. Rhode killed two children and their father in the course of a burglary. The Atlanta Journal Constitution described the crime:

Rhode... and a partner, did not set out to commit murder when they broke into the Jones County house of Steven and Gerri Ann Moss on April 23, 1998, according to trial testimony.

Their plan was to commit a burglary.

But 11-year-old Bryan was murdered when he came home from school, then his 15-year-old sister, Kristin, and then their 37-year-old father, Steven Moss....

Bryan Moss was the first to come home.

The boy could see the two men through a front window as they were ransacking the house. The boy, armed with a baseball bat, came in through the back, but he was subdued by Rhode and Lucas, who were armed.

They put him in a chair as they discussed what to do with him. They were still talking about their options when Lucas shot the boy in the shoulder.

Moments later, Kristin Moss was seen coming up to the house, so Lucas took Bryan to a back bedroom while Rhode waited for the boy’s sister.

Rhode put her in the same chair and shot the teenager twice.

Simultaneously, Lucas, in the back with Bryan, shot the boy again.

Rhode shot and killed their father when he got to the house.

Then the partners shot the Moss siblings several more times to be certain they were dead.

There was never a serious dispute that Rhode was guilty of the crime, and Georgia was scheduled to kill Rhode was scheduled by lethal injection. According to a CBS report, Rhode tried to kill himself on Friday before the State of Georgia could kill him:

A federal judge has refused to block tonight's scheduled execution of a Georgia death row inmate who attempted to commit suicide on Tuesday, the day he was originally to be put to death.

According to court filings, 31-year-old Brandon Joseph Rhode used a razor to slash his elbows and his neck, which caused him to go into traumatic shock. Authorities say Rhodes may have also suffered brain damage as a result of immense blood loss.

Rhode was stabilized after his attempt and he's since been put in a restraining chair to prevent him from pulling out the sutures on his neck or doing any other harm to himself, a state attorney said.

Rhode's execution had already been rescheduled to 9:00 a.m. Friday after his suicide attempt, but the state moved his execution back 10 hours to 7:00 p.m. Friday, to allow for several appeals to work their way through the system, says corrections spokeswoman Sharmelle Brooks.

The execution has now been scheduled for Monday. And Georgia has reportedly put two additional guards on Rhode, so that nothing further will disrupt the state's killing him as scheduled. So in Rhode's case, the state finds itself saving Rhode's life so that it can strap him on a gurney and kill him by lethal injection.

There's a grim irony to this. Some prisoners condemned to death "volunteer" to be executed. They withdraw all of their appeals, they tell their lawyers not to seek a stay, they tell prison officials to schedule their execution. They give up. And they are killed. There are many reasons that this happens, and it happens frequently. Chief among the reasons for "volunteering" are the dehumanizing conditions on death row and the knowledge that eventually the state will succeed in killing by lethal injection. Prisoners just give up. That kind of suicide is acceptable on death rows across the country. It is a common occurrence. In fact, the list of those scheduled for execution released by various abolition organizations puts an asterisk next to these "volunteers" names, or states they are volunteers. That kind of suicide is permissible.

But Rhode's suicide evidently is not acceptable. He didn't create a legal framework for the state to kill him, he tried to do it without the state's participation. He tried to do it himself. And this, of course, could not be permitted. So now we have the spectacle of Georgia having saved his life, having stitched him up, having strapped him to a chair, having assigned additional guards, for what? So that Georgia can kill him in our names on Monday.

Put another way, Rhode had no regard for the lives of his victims. He has no regard for his own life. And now, because of the intervention of Georgia prison authorities, we are about to reduce ourselves to his level: we too have no regard for his life.

Yet again, the death penalty reduces all of us to the lowest common denominator of barbarism.

Teresa Lewis, RIP

The New York Daily News reports:

Teresa Lewis died by lethal injection on Thursday night, the first woman in Virginia to be executed in nearly a century.

Lewis was prounounced dead at 9:13 p.m. as a small crowd of supporters stood outside in protest.

Though lawyers for Lewis waged a public campaign for the Gov. of Virginia to intervene, there was no 11th hour reprieve for the 41-year-old woman, who was sentenced to death for plotting the 2002 murders of her husband and stepson.

Lewis reportedly spent her last day meeting with her immediate family, a spiritual adviser, and supporters at the prison where she was executed.

For her last supper, she requested a meal of fried chicken breasts, peas with butter, a slice of German cake or a piece of apple pie, and a Dr. Pepper, according to SkyNews.

And so a woman with the IQ of 72 is killed by Virginia, and those who actually fired the shots that resulted in the double murders received life sentences.

If this is justice, the law is an ass.

BREAKING: Today's Planned Texecution STAYED

UPDATED: 6:20 pm EDT, 3/24/10: The Innocence Project reports that the US Supreme Court has issued a stay that prevents the execution of Hank Skinner.


Hank Skinner

Texas plans to kill death row prisoner Hank Skinner by lethal injection today. Even though DNA from the crime scene has never been tested, and even though Skinner has insisted for more than sixteen years that he is innocent, Texas plans today to have its inexorable revenge against Skinner for a triple homicide. Stopping the execution now so that DNA testing can be conducted depends on long shots: Texas Governor Rick Perry and last minute appeals to the Supreme Court.

The New York Times reports:

Texas death row inmate Hank Skinner doesn't deny he was in the house where his girlfriend was fatally bludgeoned and her two adult sons stabbed to death in 1993, but he insists that DNA testing could exonerate him.

Skinner, scheduled to die Wednesday in Huntsville for the New Year's Eve triple slaying more than 16 years ago, visited with his French-born wife as he waited for the U.S. Supreme Court or Texas Gov. Rick Perry to decide whether to stop his execution.

He and his attorneys contend his lethal injection should be halted for DNA testing on evidence from the crime scene in the Texas Panhandle town of Pampa. Results of those tests could support his innocence claims, they said.

''It's real scary,'' Skinner, 47, said recently from death row. ''I've had dreams about being injected. I didn't commit this crime and I should be exonerated.''

Prosecutors and the Texas Courts have insisted that Skinner isn't entitled to DNA testing of evidence that was not tested before his 1995 trial. His appointed lawyer inexplicably didn't demand it before trial. The remaining evidence in question will probably reveal whether Skinner or another man committed the murders for which Skinner was convicted.

Testing this evidence is important if Texas wants to be sure that it is not (again) killing an innocent person. The amount of evidence is not large; a DNA testing lab has agreed to conduct the testing for free. If testing does not show that Skinner is innocent, there would be slight reason to disturb his conviction. On the other hand, if the testing exonerates Skinner, he should clearly be spared and released from confinement.

What is the role of this physical evidence in this case? Dave Lindorff explains:

The thing about Skinner’s case is it would be relatively easy to prove whether or not he was really the killer of the three. There are two bloody knives that have never been tested for Skinner’s DNA--or for the DNA of Twila’s uncle, the man who had reportedly made several unwanted sexual advances at her earlier that evening, leading her to leave a party early, and who Skinner claims is the real killer. Nor was semen that was found on Twila Busby, who was raped, or skin found under her fingernails, ever DNA tested to see who they belonged to.

There were, to be sure, plenty of circumstantial reasons at the time of the trial to suspect Skinner. It is undisputed that he had been drunk and passed out on the couch in Busby’s house shortly before the murders, which occurred in the same room he was in. The drunken Skinner also staggered from the home in Pampa, TX, his hands bloodied, following the killings. But Skinner maintains that he had cut his hand, falling off the couch, and that the blood was his own. He says he had woken up to find Busby and her sons already dead.

Incredibly, police investigators at the crime scene never took fingernail clippings from Busby, nor did they take a vaginal swab at the scene, though she had clearly struggled and had apparently been raped.

This physical evidence should be tested. The execution, which has waited for more than sixteen years, can be delayed an additional few months so that testing can be completed. If the physical evidence does not exonerate Skinner, claims that Texas is executing an innocent man should be diminished.

The important questions for Texas today are these: what is the rush? Isn't it more important after all of this time, to know the truth about Hank Skinner?

Please sign this Innocence Project petition to Governor Perry.

Law And Disorder: Ending State Killing

It's not every day that I get a welcoming forum to discuss the death penalty and why state killing should be abolished. So I was particularly delighted to appear today on WBAI's "Law and Disorder". Want to hear what I had to say? Click this to play the interview.



A special thanks to Michael Smith, Michael Ratner and Heidi Bogosian for inviting me and to WBAI in New York for broadcasting this show both on the radio and the Internet.

h/t to Edger for embed

"The Autobiography Of An Execution"

David Dow has represented people facing execution for two decades. Now he's written a book, "The Autobiography Of An Execution". It's worth reading. You can get a taste for it at this article by him on HuffPost. Go and buy it this book.

Death Penalty: The Times Speaks Up

It's a reason for optimism in the long battle to end State Killing. The New York Times editorial today called for the abolition of the death penalty. I applaud. The abolition of state killing should be a mainstream, American idea.

The Times is angry and points out the obvious about the change in Ohio from 3-drug state killing to 1-drug state killing:

This is what passes for progress in the application of the death penalty: Kenneth Biros, a convicted murderer, was put to death in Ohio last week with one drug, instead of the more common three-drug cocktail. It took executioners 30 minutes to find a vein for the needle, compared with the two hours spent hunting for a vein on the last prisoner Ohio tried to kill, Romell Broom. Technicians tried about 18 times to get the needle into Mr. Broom’s arms and legs before they gave up trying to kill him. Mr. Biros was jabbed only a few times in each arm.

The Times gets quickly from the barbarism of the Biro and Broom executions to the main point:

The larger problem, however, is that changing a lethal-injection method is simply an attempt, as Justice Harry Blackmun put it, to “tinker with the machinery of death.” No matter how it is done, for the state to put someone to death is inherently barbaric.

It has also become clear — particularly since DNA evidence has become more common — how unreliable the system is. Since 1973, 139 people have been released from death row because of evidence that they were innocent, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

An untold number of innocent people have also, quite likely, been put to death. Earlier this year, a fire expert hired by the state of Texas issued a report that cast tremendous doubt on whether a fatal fire — for which Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 — was arson at all. Until his execution, Mr. Willingham protested his innocence.

Most states still have capital punishment, and the Obama administration has so far shown a troubling commitment to it, pursuing federal capital cases even in states that do not themselves have the death penalty.

The Times conclusion:

Earlier this year, New Mexico repealed its death penalty, joining 14 other states — and the District of Columbia — that do not allow it. That is the way to eliminate the inevitable problems with executions.

Put another way, abolition is the answer to the lingering horror of state killing. Abolition just cannot happen soon enough.

Texecutions: "Skewed Justice"

Here's a trick question. Is there anything wrong with a death penalty jury trial in which the prosecutor trying the case is having an affair while the case is going on with the judge who is trying the case? I know. It looks pretty unfair. It looks pretty sleazy. There really should be something the matter with this, right? Shouldn't the judge recuse herself? Shouldn't the case be assigned to a different prosecutor, all for the sake of the appearance of fairness?

But in Texas, ground zero for state killing, there's no answer to these questions. At least not today Why? Because the majority of the Court of Criminal Appeals, Texas's highest court that considers criminal appeals, is wagging its finger at the defendant's lawyers saying that the affair isn't something that the Court will look at because the defense lawyers waited too long to raise the issue. According to the Court, it's OK to execute Charles D. Hood whether there was an affair or not because the defense waited too long to raise the question. You cannot make this stuff up.

The New York Times reports:

The highest criminal court in Texas ruled Wednesday that a man facing the death penalty for murder could not have a new trial despite a love affair between the prosecutor and the judge who tried his case.

In a 6-to-3 decision, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals said the convicted man, Charles D. Hood, should have raised in earlier appeals the argument that the love affair had tainted his trial.

The affair had been rumored for years in Collin County, just north of Dallas, but was confirmed only a year ago when Mr. Hood’s lawyers compelled the judge, Verla Sue Holland, and the prosecutor, Thomas S. O’Connell Jr., to give depositions under oath. Both officials had since retired.

The case has stirred controversy across the country. Several former judges, prosecutors and experts on legal ethics have said that the affair makes it impossible to know if Mr. Hood received a fair trial and that it should be cause for a new proceeding.

In other words, according to 6 of the judges of the highest criminal appeals court in Texas, the accused should have told an appeals court more than a decade ago, "I can't prove that there was an affair between the judge and the prosecutor during my trial, there's no proof of that yet, but there's a really big rumor that they were having an affair and so this Court should vacate my conviction." That's not a likely sentence in any brief I've ever seen. Prudent counsel just don't write unsubstantiated allegations to appeals courts accusing judges and prosecutors of having affairs.

Wednesday’s decision overturned the findings of a district court judge who had found that Mr. Hood should be allowed a hearing on a new trial. The decision did not discuss whether the affair had prejudiced his first trial; instead, the court rejected Mr. Hood’s claim on the ground that he should have raised it when he first appealed his 1990 conviction.

Mr. Hood’s lawyers responded to that finding by saying they had long tried to substantiate rumors of the affair. They also accused the majority of ignoring confirmation of it in the testimony of Ms. Holland and Mr. O’Connell.

But there's more to the story than just the questionable outcome of this appeal. The stench of unfairness permeates more than the just the trial. It taints the appeal as well. The Times puts it this way:

[The trial judge in the case] went on to serve on the Court of Criminal Appeals with all but one of the current members. “This decision by a court where eight of the nine judges once shared the bench with Judge Holland will only add to the perception that justice is skewed in Texas,” said Andrea Keilen, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, which represents Mr. Hood.

To recap, the judge has an affair with the prosecutor, but that's a secret, leading only to numerous rumors. The judge is then promoted to the top appeals court. And she and the prosecutor then retire. When the appeal about the alleged affair finally reaches the appeals court, the appeals judges, all of whom were on the bench with the former trial judge, decide 6-3 that the defense waited too long to raise the issue even though it couldn't be raised sooner.

According to the Times, the defendant in the case, Charles D. Hood was convicted of the 1989 murder and robbery of a couple with whom he had been living in Plano, a Dallas suburb. Though he maintained his innocence, his bloody fingerprints were found at the scene, and he was arrested the next day in Indiana driving the murdered man’s car. It goes without saying that Hood has been on death row in Texas for 20 years and that the unfavorable decision will in all likelihood not be the last in his case.

Meanwhile, the DA's office has this comment on the case: “We look at it as a significant procedural victory.”

As long as state killing is permitted, and as long as the legislatures and courts try to truncate the appeals process, we're going to see decisions like this one. In fact, this kind of procedural decision is by now typical. It's what one should expect. There was virtually nothing the defense in this case could do to raise the issue before the affair was admitted by the judge and the prosecutor. But that doesn't matter to these appellate judges. They are just cutting off Hood's appeals, they are moving him one step closer to the injection gurney.

State Killing: Scalia Doesn't Care Whether You're Innocent, You Get Executed Anyway

In the middle of Justice Scalia's dissent in Troy Davis's case, a dissent that Clarence Thomas joined in, we have this remarkable, astonishing, shocking sentence:

“This court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a court that he is ‘actually’ innocent.”

I cannot believe that they wrote this in a Supeme Court opinion. And I'm not alone in thinking I would never, never, never see something like this in a published opinion.

Let's begin with the trial. The State of Georgia tried Troy Davis for murder and it got a conviction. And that conviction was upheld on appeal. In fact, there was nothing the matter with the trial, nothing wrong at all according to the appeals courts except one small thing. The jury convicted an innocent man.

Troy Davis was convicted of the capital murder of Mark MacPhail, an off-duty police officer who as then working as a security guard. You might think that convicting an innocent person was a serious problem with the trial. Unfortunately, Davis's persistent claims that he was innocent of the crime weren't enough to convince anyone. It was only later on, after the trial, after the appeals, that the ugly circumstances in the case emerged.

There were nine witnesses to the crime in which MacPhail was killed. Anthony Davis was apparently in a pool hall with a lot of other people. A man named Sylvester Coles was beating a homeless man outside; people including Davis emerged from the pool hall to see what was happening. MacPhail came to the aid of the person being beaten and was shot and killed. At trial Sylvester Coles was the prosecution's star witness. Seven other people said Anthony Davis committed the crime. The gun was never found. There was no physical evidence of any kind. That was the trial testimony, and it lead to a conviction and the death penalty. And to several affirmances on appeal.

And then, and then, and then, ut oh. Seven of the eight witnesses who claimed under oath and at trial to see Davis shoot MacPhail gave affidavits that their testimony at trial was false and they recanted their testimony. And some said that Coles was the actual killer and not Davis and that police coercion forced them to testify against Troy Davis instead of the real killer.

So Anthony Davis sits on death row. And he's facing execution. And the case goes to the Supreme Court. The majority, thank goodness, sent the case back to federal court for a hearing. Good. But Justices Scalia and Thomas dissented. And it's their dissent that makes me cringe.

Why? Evidently, in Scalia/Thomas World, if the state tries and convicts the wrong man, one who is actually innocent, and there's no Constitutional error committed in the trial according to the state courts, there's no constitutional problem with the state's killing him. Even if he's innocent. In other words, it's 100% legal, 100% ok to kill an innocent person. Law Professor Paul Campos explains:

Scalia takes the position that, from a legal perspective, it no longer makes the slightest difference whether Davis is innocent of the murder he was convicted of committing, and for which, in all likelihood, he will be executed. If a defendant got a fair trial in state court, there’s nothing the federal court can do, Scalia argues, to reverse that verdict—even if new evidence comes to light that convinces the court to a moral certainty that the defendant is innocent.

Scalia represents an extreme example of a certain kind of judge that positively revels in coming to conclusions that are morally revolting but “legally” sound. Judges of this type like these sorts of cases because they demonstrate that law is a supposedly nonpolitical and intellectually rigorous practice, rather than a touchy-feely exercise in doing what strikes the judge as the right thing.

What, after all, could be more nonpolitical and intellectually rigorous than executing an innocent man, simply because “the law” requires that result? In a perverse way, such bloody logic is a kind of advertisement for the supposed objectivity of the legal system, since we can assume that no sane decision maker would reach such a decision voluntarily. (The great legal historian Douglas Hay explained the 18th-century English practice of sometimes acquitting obviously guilty men on absurd procedural technicalities, such as incorrectly calling the defendant a “farmer” instead of a “yeoman,” in similar terms: “When the ruling class acquitted men on such technicalities they helped embody a belief in the disembodied justice of the law in the minds of all who watched. In short the law’s absurd formalism was part of its strength as ideology.”)

For more details on this case, and the recantations, see this.

I have written extensively about the barbarism that lies behind state killing. But I have never before seen anything quite like this statement from Justices Scalia and Thomas. It used to be a fundamental part of the law that it was better to let 99 guilty people go free than to convict 1 innocent person. In fact, the system of criminal justice in this Country was built on this very platform. But now, we have two Supreme Court justices writing that the death penalty can be upheld even when the person executed is innocent, that innocence just doesn't matter. Forget about the fact that if you're killing an innocent person, the person who actually did the crime hasn't been convicted.

That is chilling and simply disgraceful.

And it's another strong reason for ending state killing entirely. The machinery of death is an embarrassment to a civilized nation. Arguments like Scalia's and Thomas's reduce us to barbarians. And we're going to have evil, immoral arguments like these as long as there's a death penalty. That and we're going to continue to make it possible to kill innocent people.

Hypocrisy Watch: Excuses By Fundies, The Death of A Doctor

My wonderful phone company, Credo, sent me the following:

"Tiller the Baby Killer."

That's how FOX News host Bill O'Reilly referred to Dr. George Tiller who was murdered in cold blood Sunday while he attended church.

Tiller's crime? He provided healthcare to women. Including abortion.

Salon.com reports that FOX's "O'Reilly Factor" has featured attacks on Dr. Tiller on no less than 28 episodes:

"He's guilty of "Nazi stuff," said O'Reilly on June 8, 2005; "a moral equivalent to NAMBLA and al-Qaida," he suggested on March 15, 2006. "This is the kind of stuff happened in Mao's China, Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Soviet Union," said O'Reilly on Nov. 9, 2006.

What happened Sunday was devastating. And it might not have happened if it wasn't for the hate mongering of Bill O'Reilly and others.

There are two things you can do.

1. Sign our petition to Bill O'Reilly. Ask him to take responsibility for creating an atmosphere in which the assassination of Dr. George Tiller comes as no surprise. And tell him to stop spreading hateful rhetoric which encourages violence against doctors who provide reproductive healthcare for women.

2. Make a donation to Medical Students for Choice in honor of Dr. George Tiller. We must lift up a new generation of doctors who are willing and able to provide reproductive healthcare to women.

This Epistle to the Subscribers made sense to me. I signed petitions and I sent $$. I thought about it. It made sense, sort of: Billo spews garbage, crazy persons ingest garbage, garbage in garbage out, crazy person kills doctor who provides abortions. So it might go. But, alas, it didn't make that much sense, because if somebody believes that the life of a fetus is precious, how much more precious is the life of a doctor? Even a doctor who allegedly commits cardinal sins. Have we gone insane, I wondered.

Then I had the pleasure to re-read a short story by Jorge Luis Borges, "The Sect of the Thirty." The members of the sect are literal, they are deep fundamentalists. They read the Bible literally. Borges explains how they read this Biblical text, Luke 24-25:

Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and God feedeth them: how much more are ye better than the fowls? The text forbids saving, for If God so clothe the grass, which is today in the field and tomorrow is cast into the over; how much more will he clothe you, O ye of little faith? And seek now what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, neither be ye of doubtful mind

This leads to no saving, and throwing away one's clothing, and going naked, and not planting crops, and so on. Members of the Sect follow this full throttle, the consequences be damned.

And Jesus' admonition Let the dead bury the dead, Borges points out, "condemns the showy vanity of our funerary rites", but it also leads members of the Sect to the belief that dead bodies will actually be buried by spirits of the dead. Hence, no burials. No funerals. Rotting bodies. Vermin eating bodies. Stench. Putrifaction. Pestilence. And public health crises.

I have no intention of spoiling the story. That would be unfair to you. Suffice it to say that the members of the Sect of the Thirty would read the proscription in the Sixth Commandment (Exodus 20:13; Deuteronomy 5:17) literally, "Thou shalt not kill." They would not kill insects, or ants, or animals. Or people. They would not kill anything. There would be no exceptions for killing alleged "killers" either extra-judicially (like Dr. Tiller) or judicially (like Troy Davis). That distinction would be beyond their understanding. As it is beyond mine. Killing would be proscribed. Isn't that what the text says? "Thou shalt not kill" has no provisos, no exceptions, no quibbling, no excuses.

What then are we to make of the assassination of Dr. Tiller? Does it have anything at all to do with fundamental belief systems? Or hypocrisy? Or is it something else entirely? I suspect it is. I suspect it is a species of national, widespread, terrorist mental disease. What else, I ask, can it be? How can the thoughts exist simultaneously in a sane mind that "killing fetuses is wrong" and "those who kill fetuses are justifiably killed?" How can the "killers" of fetuses be condemned and the killers of doctors be called heroes? How can killing to end killing make sense, either as vigilantism (Dr. Tiller) or state killing (Troy Davis)? If killing is wrong, isn't killing always wrong? Will the person who killed Dr. Tiller answer these questions? Will his supporters? Will the news media? I doubt it. I suspect that applause for the killer will continue. And that the rest of us will continue to be stunned, shocked into silence.

I propose this to you for your consideration: There needs to be a new category in the DSM IV, that compendium of recognized mental illnesses, for this. I leave to you naming it. Our society has been breeding a specific kind of dangerous mental illness, and the assassination of Dr. Tiller proves it. Some members of our society have become unglued in their delusions, their religiosity, their violence, and the rest of us stand by in shock and horror as they play out their colossal hypocrisy.

Breaking: NM Legislature Passes Bill To Abolish Death Penalty

cross posted from dailyKos

Long story short, the NM legislature has passed the bill abolishing capital punishment in New Mexico and has sent it on to the governor for signature.

This happened about 15 minutes ago. Here's a first link to prove it's so.

Governor Richardson hasn't announced his decision on whether to sign it.

Now you can open that bottle of champagne and offer a toast to New Mexico and to the abolitionists who worked so hard and well to bring about this wonderful victory.

Bravo!!

The Las Cruces Sun-News tells the story:

The New Mexico Legislature has voted to repeal the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.

The state Senate voted 24-18 on Friday for the repeal bill, sending it to Gov. Bill Richardson for his signature.

The House approved the legislation a month ago.

Richardson, a second-term Democrat, has opposed repeal in the past but now says he would consider signing it.

"I haven't made a final decision," the governor said this week.

According to the Sun-News, New Mexico has two men on death row whose sentences would not be affected by repeal.

What wonderful news!!!