Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Death penalty USA – News from Texas; the Rodrigo Hernandez case



With the first US execution of 2012 scheduled this week, here is a thought provoking guest blog on the issue. Many thanks to the fabulous Mike Farrell & Law Blog One.


Death penalty USA – News from Texas; the Rodrigo Hernandez case



 

Written by Mike Farrell in collaboration with Juliette Frangos.

This week on Thursday 26th January after 6 p.m. the state of Texas is scheduled to execute Rodrigo Hernandez by lethal injection, the first execution in Texas this year that looks likely to go ahead pending last minute appeal.

Case Background

Hernandez was convicted in 2004 of the 1994 kidnap, rape and murder of Susan Verstegen, an act following which he attempted to conceal the victims body in a 50 gallon drum.

Unfortunately during the original investigation a lack of evidence meant that the case went cold, remaining in limbo for 8 years. However when Hernandez was later imprisoned in Michigan for an unconnected offence, and on release in 2002 legally compelled to give a DNA sample for the national DNA database, his sample was matched with unidentified DNA samples recovered from the Verstegen case also on the database. Hernandez was then arrested and charged with murder.
On questioning he gave a detailed confession to the murder claiming to have been under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time. He was subsequently found guilty on trial in Bexar County, Texas, and sentenced to death in April 2004, allegedly showing no remorse. He has been on death row since.

In light of the confession, DNA and the absence of any evidence that  the trial was flawed, there is nothing suggesting the conviction was unsafe, and it is therefore not in question, Hernandez deserves to be punished. Only the capital sentence is in question here.

Since conviction, Hernandez has made numerous appeals against sentence, including applying for a writ of habeus corpus to the Texas State Criminal Appeals Court and the Supreme Court, all of which have been rejected. Appeals continued this month up until the 23rd January, again without success (A full procedural history is here).

Therefore pending any further appeals or last minute stays between now and Thursday night, sentence is on course to be carried out..

Capital punishment – Texas

Texas is far and away the most prolific proponent of capital punishment in the USA (see also here), averaging more than one execution per month, more than twice the rate of any other state. Texas has also conducted 477 executions since 1976, more than 4 times that of the next most prolific states, Virginia and Oklahoma.

These are extraordinary figures, especially considered against other states such as California which has a much larger death row population, and yet has undertaken only 13 executions since 1976.

The high number of executions in Texas may of course largely be explained by the republican / conservative background of that state, a political outlook which traditionally leans to capital punishment. There may be other reasons some of which can be considered here which relate to the history and constitutional makeup of the state with regard to elected appellate judicial office. Whatever the reason, the figures appear excessive, and regardless of public or political support capital punishment is rightly becoming more unacceptable as indicated by the recent positive moratorium on capital punishment issued by the Governor of The state of Oregon. In addition, Texas is not the only republican state in the USA, so something or someone else may be responsible.

The Governor

In the ten years that he has held office, Rick Perry as Governor of Texas has authorised and overseen the largest number of executions in the history of the USA for a single Governor, more than 230 executions in the last decade, almost half the number of executions that have occurred over the last 35 years in Texas, indicating a marked and certainly questionable acceleration of capital punishment over a decade. He is known for radical views on capital punishment, gun ownership, same sex relationships and religion and has in the past vetoed a ban on the death penalty for mentally retarded inmates.

He recently launched a presidential campaign, but withdrew in January 2012 following widespread criticism of a homophobic video that he released to ‘support’ his campaign.

With regards to capital punishment, Mr Perry claims not to lose much sleep over it, has stated that he has no problem authorising capital sentences to be carried out, and has never worried that Texas may ever have executed any innocent persons. This in itself is quite disturbing given the reported case of Cameron Todd Willingham, executed in 2004 for the alleged murder of his three daughters in what was claimed at the time to have been an act of arson on his own home. Following Willingham’s execution however it was discovered and reported that in fact there was no evidence of arson at all, bringing the entire trial, conviction and sentence sharply into question.

An investigation was carried out, but just prior to it reporting, the chair of the committee undertaking it was replaced by Perry, an act which effectively cancelled the inquest, and swept the entire affair under the carpet.

The question however remains; was an innocent man executed, and if so, wouldn’t this case have raised an irrefutable argument against continuing capital punishment in Texas? The possibility that it may well have been is argument enough to support an end to capital punishment in Texas and elsewhere. Instead however it appears that the Governor would rather bury the case in favour of his own personal political stance.

The Texan method

Texas like many other capital states of the USA currently advocates lethal injection as its preferred method of  supposed humane executions of death row inmates. Please see link above for the full procedure, which in brief involves the following:
  • Hernandez will be transported from his death row facility to the execution unit at Huntsville.
  • He will undergo a strip and cavity search, before being confined in a holding cell.
  • He may be allowed family visits during the morning.
  • He will be offered a last meal but will have no choice in what is offered.
  • After 6 p.m. he will be led to the execution chamber, prepared and secured to a gurney.
  • Intravenous catheters shall be inserted into a suitable vein in his arm or elsewhere in his body.
  • Witnesses will be brought in including victim witnesses, his own family if attending, and select media representatives.
  • The execution will be authorised to proceed.
  • Hernandez will be allowed a brief final statement.
  • The drug team will be instructed then to administer the sentence, with drugs being administered in sequence.
  • The condemned would be expected to be confirmed as medically dead in about 7 minutes from the beginning of  the injections.

This method of execution has long been considered humane by some, however it has generated much controversy, including:
  • A scandal throughout the European Union where it was found that capital states having exhausted their own supplies of the death drugs used for capital sentences were illicitly importing large quantities from Europe, a practice the EU is now apparently seeking to prevent. Some companies took it upon themselves not to supply their products while they were being used for capital purposes.
  • The fact that medical practitioners are barred from administering the drugs under the Hippocratic oath as well as showing a true hypocrisy regarding the ‘justice’ of the procedure, means that administering the sentence falls into the hands of prison employees. There have been alleged stories of incorrect dosages being used, and other instances where the convict has suffered greatly during the procedure. Consider for example the botched34 minute torture ofAngel Nieves Diaz in Florida, 2006.
  • The ongoing search for a more humane form of execution in itself proves that deep down inside, we all know that killing another person is wrong. Someone will always have to have blood on their hands regardless of the method or justification, legal or otherwise.

The view of Mike Farrell & LawBlogOne

As you may know from prior posts, I am completely against the death penalty. In my opinion, it is simply not acceptable to lower yourself to committing the same act in the name of justice that another has been prosecuted for. I do not believe that a society that executes its prisoners can claim to hold a higher moral ground in doing so.

I find capital punishment shameful, not only in concept but in application, particularly due to the fact that during the course of an execution, it is not the judge or the jury or the victims themselves that carry out the sentence, but an unnamed group of individuals who during the moment of sentence effectively become state sanctioned murderers.

Capital punishment is not justice; it is pure and simple revenge and retribution. What it is not about is deterrence, rehabilitation and reparation, all elements which don’t come into it, and as has been widely debated and reported over the years, capital punishment is no more a deterrent against murder than life imprisonment would be.

Lastly, the USA to me should be and has been in the past a leading light for freedom and human rights. However on the issue of capital punishment, and others that I will not debate here, they have fallen behind in that respect, and by continuing to uphold an out of date, unjustifiable and wrong system of capital punishment, they are little better than those other states that they themselves criticise for imposing capital sentences and human rights abuses on their citizen’s, including states such as Iran.

I therefore call on the Great Pioneer State of Texas to urgently reconsider and abolish its current policy on capital punishment, and to show the world that Texas and the USA can be a leading light to the modern world on Human Rights issues.

Jue Frangos’ view

I am something of an idealist and detest injustice in all forms. I believe fundamentally in all human rights, particularly the right to life, and I find it abhorrent that any allegedly civilised nation can continue to support the death penalty – sadly, it seems that the United States and specifically in the case in hand, the State of Texas, holds a different view as they march steadfastly towards another inhumane execution, against the rule of law and dressed up as justice. I also believe that we all bear some responsibility for making things change.

In 2010 at the 65th session of the UN General Assembly a Resolution calling for a global moratorium on the death penalty was reaffirmed – theUnited States was one of only 41 Nations to vote against (with 109 votes in favour and 35 abstentions). The UN has, in fact, been calling for a global moratorium since 2007 yet seems powerless to convince an ever decreasing number of Nation States who continue to be in favour of the mindless execution of their own [and other] citizens. A further reaffirmation is expected from the UN in 2012.

The fact that this UN Resolution exists lends itself to my belief that we all bear responsibility for the continuance of the death penalty, not only collective responsibility but also a personal responsibility. I’d never really thought about it as an issue that I could do something about, I’d never felt that sense of personal responsibility until I experienced the execution of Troy Davis through the joys of social media. The experience of going through that execution as it happened, in real time, with hundreds of thousands of other people around the world made it very real and I felt an incredible sense of guilt and loss that I had not been able to do anything to stop it; It also made me realise that its not OK to look the other way and hope that someone else will speak up – it made me see that we all need to speak up and keep doing so until the death penalty is abolished entirely, globally.

As Texas prepares to execute Rodrigo Hernandez this week, it can be sure that I am watching and shouting that not only is it wrong but that it is a clear breach of human rights, it is against the rule of law and against the moral code of societies all around the world. Texas and the rest of the United States is in an ever decreasing minority and it can rest assured that I along with the rest of the genuinely civilised world will continue watching until it agrees to cease its inhumane practices and evolve, morally and socially, to adopt the same standards as we have.

Capital punishment is nothing more than barbaric retribution in its lowest form; State sanctioned murder for which there can be no justification. We are all able to play a part in putting an end to the death penalty in America and around the world. We can all make a difference and I call on Governor Rick Perry to make his difference by stopping the execution of Hernandez and immediately installing a moratorium on the death penalty in Texas.

What you as reader can do

  • Write to Governor Rick Perry and express your opinion on capital punishment. The governors office can be be contacted here. May be slight difficulty with accessing this system from countries outside theUS as it is address specific, but worth a try.
  • Take to twitter and signal your discontent with the situation
  • Likewise do the same with Facebook
  • And any other social networking sites you use
  • Post links to this post, or re-blog it yourself to spread the word.
  • Follow the Hernandez case on ‘Execution Watch’ which will be broadcasting online radio live on the night of the execution reporting from the site on any developments that may occur particularly regarding any last minute appeals.
  • Support organisations including Reprieve and Amnesty International who campaign for the abolition of capital punishment, in theUSA and worldwide.
  • Write to your MEP to express your opinion and ask them to place the death penalty firmly back on the EU agenda this year.

Links

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

When the world cried

Wednesday 21st September. Midnight GMT. The world seemed to stop and cry together while it waited for news of the barbaric execution of Troy Davis by the American state of Georgia. 


In a sickening and heart wrenching few minutes it seems that the right thinking people of this world united in grief, not only grief for the man about to die but grief for a lost moral code that could have prevented this from happening in the first place. Yes, while Troy Davis was strapped to a gurney awaiting death by lethal injection, I was watching my twitter feed. 


I have never before felt so close to an execution and it is utterly soul destroying - god only knows what it must feel like to actually be there; I hope that I never find out. As I watched, I cried bucket loads of tears, I felt physically sick and I did something I haven't done for many, many years - I said a prayer (blame the catholic upbringing, it appears to kick in when I feel completely helpless).


I doubt very much that it was my prayer which did it but Troy Davis has been granted a temporary reprieve. It seems though that this in itself is nothing short of torture, reportedly being the 4th time and, just to make it even better, i'm currently watching various reports that the poor soul may still be in the execution chamber waiting to hear whether or not the state intend to kill him tonight. I feel sick again.


Currently #thewholeworldiswatching is trending, right up there at the top of the list, and the whole world is watching. 


Whatever the outcome tonight, tomorrow, next week, next year, the world needs to keep watching and keep shouting and put an end to this barbaric practice once and for all.


I said earlier this evening that I was hanging my head in shame for not making a difference when it was needed. I was told that it wasn't my fault but it is. It is the responsibility of each and every one of us to keep watching and to put this right.






Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Guilt by association?

Am I guilty? Am I corrupt? Am I lacking morals and am I failing to adhere appropriately to the Code of Conduct I have agreed to be bound by? These are the questions that keep flying around my head. Disturbing questions that may make you wonder exactly what I could have done to warrant them being asked at all.


What I have done is be a member of the legal profession.


I am, at the moment, deeply disturbed by the apparent readiness of others in my profession to ignore the rules and guidelines that have been carefully considered and written down over time, in favour of unquestioningly accepting the demands of political leaders. Yep, i'm talking of the sentencing guidelines and the manner in which they are being currently disregarded by Magistrates...Magistrates who are advised by people like me (though, I hasten to add, not me).


Now its a long time since I first studied the law but I do recall one of the first things I was taught was the need for there to be a level of certainty in how the law is applied and what sentences are passed. As its been such an age, I thought I should check so I wandered off to the website of the Sentencing Council. The Council, on the homepage of their website state:
The Sentencing Council for England and Wales promotes greater consistency in sentencing, whilst maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Council produces guidelines on sentencing for the judiciary and aims to increase public understanding of sentencing.
Nowhere that I can see on that website, does it say that guidelines don't really matter if a politician says otherwise.


I am far from an expert in this area, having studied it only as part of my academic legal training in the dim and distant past. I have never practiced criminal law. What I can offer is some level of understanding of how legislation and guidelines operate along with some basic commonsense. Applying these, I find the current situation lacking, seriously lacking.


I fail to understand how it can be considered acceptable to apply the harshest possible sentences to cases where there are no clearly aggravating factors, such as the case of the single mum who received a 4 month custodial sentence for handling a pair of stolen shorts. Can the fact that someone else went into a looted store, in the middle of a riot, really be an aggravating factor in her handling charge? I don't know but it certainly feels very, very wrong.


I am ashamed right now to think of myself as part of a profession which is willing to not only allow this to happen but also willing to aid and abet those demanding this despicable kind of rough justice.


Special thanks to Vicky, one of the brightest legal minds I know, for being my sounding board and for always seeing the good. For the record, she keeps the faith in the judiciary which I am still struggling to grab hold of.





Monday, August 15, 2011

Too fast, too furious

Its a funny old world that we live in, particularly so over this past week. We've seen public disorder spread across England on a not too overwhelming scale though it appears to have caused prolific insanity among previously right-minded people along with that best-known of ailments that affects only those in authority, knee-jerkitis.


When I returned from an evening out and first saw the images of burning buildings, police in riot gear, kids smashing shop windows, I was shocked and saddened like everyone else but what I can admit which most don't, is that I also felt the lure of the riots. I felt the excitement of seeing something different happening on my telly, of thinking that maybe now is the time that the average people of the UK would find their voice,  stand up and be counted. It may have been started by angry youths and initially spread by inane ones but I felt the potential for it to turn into something meaningful that would make those in power realise what they have done, over decades, to our society and that maybe, just maybe, the people could effect the change we all need. That possibility made for compulsive viewing...viewing which boosted the ever fantastical reporting and prompted a media frenzy and moral panic, the likes of which haven't been seen in this country since the death of LeahBetts.


Sadly, in my opinion at least, the revolution didn't arrive. Instead of meaningful protest and having our voices heard, the politicians came running home from their comfortable holidays to silence us. I do believe it was right for them to return home and act as the leaders they profess to be but I am disappointed by the clear lack of understanding of the society they claim to represent. I am equally disappointed by the generic stupidity of that society which largely seems only capable of perpetuating all of its bad traits and further diluting the good.


I am fed up of seeing politicians from all sides screaming for justice against a people who need understanding and help. I am sick of having to listen to the likes of Louise Mensch debating issues about which she clearly has no understanding and David Cameron preaching morality when he mixes daily with individuals who have none.


I am angry that the idea of swift and rough justice is being glorified and forced upon us, with courts staying open through the night to process the perpetrators of these terrible crimes. All I see here is a justice system which is as corrupt as the politicians who are manipulating it and by that, I am appalled. 



It frightens me that in dealing with matters so quickly, important points may be missed and mitigating factors ignored simply because our Prime Minister has made clear his own view of justice and how that should be applied to all who are charged...that is, as long as they're not his mates who have fraudulently deprived this society of many thousands of pounds in recent years - very obviously a lesser crime than pilfering a bottle of wine from an already looted store, right under the noses of the police who are looking on quietly; or accepting a pair of shorts that somebody else stole while you weren't even present.


I've pondered long and hard over the possible motivation of those directly involved in the 'rioting' and my conclusion is that people, in general, are thoroughly pissed off, bored, angry and most importantly feel disenfranchised and unheard by those who are supposed to serve, lead and protect us. There is no single reason or even a main reason, it is a great big melting pot of ugly, angry everything.


Such a variety of people have been involved that the blame cannot be pinned solely on a lack of education or respect as much of the media and many politicians would like us to believe; nor can it be put down to any one of the other usual social targets - youth, unemployment, race or gang-culture. No, here we have seen people from all walks of life being enticed by the lure of what the politicians choose to refer to as criminality but what seems to me to be more akin to an opportunity to be seen, heard, understood and to release a lifetime of frustration.



EDIT: After 3 days of writing a mammoth blogpost, 'Blogger' decided to lose the entire thing. Above is about a third of the original which i'd written in Word and had saved. The essence of what is missing is that there is corruption in our society from the very top down to the very bottom. At the top we call it a mistake, at the bottom we call it a crime. It makes me very sad to see the gulf between the haves and the have nots ever widening and my fear is that it will soon be too great to ever be bridged.

Monday, July 11, 2011

United we stand, divided we fall.

Over recent weeks, as the subject of legal aid reform has been hotly debated, there has been much opposition to sweeping reforms voiced from a variety of sources and this is, without question, very positive. Worryingly, one issue which is shining out above most others, is the disjointed approach to campaigning taken by the main players in this crucial battle against Ken Clarke and his Ministry.


The Law Society; The Bar Council; The Judges' Council; Justice for All; LAG; and so the list goes on. All standing up to be counted, all shouting for the right to access justice regardless of social or economic status and each appearing to act in isolation to the others. We have the Sound Off campaign website and the Justice for All campaign website which, whilst complementing each other and showing mutual support, do appear to almost be competing at first glance and that cannot be beneficial - if people feel faced with a choice, it is likely that they will be unsure who to support and may well ultimately decide to support neither. It is a similar story across the board.


Each and every voice that shouts, or group that campaigns is, without doubt, beneficial but how much louder would the voice of the vulnerable be if all of these groups presented a united front and took a truly joined up approach?


It is clear to those within the legal profession that the various voices are all on the same side and fighting, relentlessly, to achieve the same outcome; I do not dispute this. I am however convinced that united we will stand but divided, we fall. 


Now is the time to step forward in complete unity, with a single Legal Aid campaign, and shout louder than ever before to protect our rights and our ability to enforce them without discrimination or prejudice. 



Sunday, June 26, 2011

Lynch mobs at dawn

The naming and shaming of convicted criminals online has been endorsed by Home Office Minister, Nick Herbert. This appears to be yet another government [knee-jerk] plan to appease the masses be seen to be tough on crime, which hasn't really been thought through, in the government's sustained attack on our justice system.


The idea, it seems, is to publish photographs of offenders on 'crime maps' covering England and Wales; the result of which will be to reduce crime. This of course is unlikely to cause a reduction in crime at all; it is likely to do one of two things: create an increase in unsafe convictions whilst pacifying Joe Bloggs and his media bloodhound; or cause a drop in the conviction rate.


Why do I think this? Well stop for a moment and think about what will happen when a person is prosecuted primarily due to them having been identified in a police line up. Its my guess that the CPS will charge blindly toward the easy conviction finish line and the defence will, at a timely moment, gallop up to the front of the race and ask the question "has the victim ever looked at the crime map?" Cue sweaty palmed prosecutor watching his easy conviction slipping through his fingers. 


The naming and shaming of criminals in this way will simply serve the reckless wants of Mr Joe Bloggs, vigilante-style, victim. He will, quite naturally, take an interest in the criminals in his area, look at their images on the map and whether he realises it or not, will commit their faces to memory. When Joe is later required to identify the individual he spotted running away from his house at the time it was trashed by a thieving little toe-rag, he spots the young man from the map - it might be him, same hair, same sort of height, yep, must be that one. Result! When this is raised in the toe-rag's defence it is enough to cast reasonable doubt so he gets to walk out of court rather than taking a ride to HM Holiday Camp.


What about jurors who, before or even during a trial, decide to take a look at the crime map? There is clearly the potential for them to convict on the basis that the accused had previously been handed a custodial sentence for a different crime, rather than ensuring a conviction on the facts of the case before them.


Yet again we find ourselves looking at the proposals of a bunch of halfwits who have failed to consider the negative connotations of their hair-brained schemes.


Note to government: Its not big and its not clever to undermine our justice system in any of the ways you have thus far attempted!


*The author knows little about criminal law but does have a bit of commonsense.



Thursday, June 23, 2011

Day 2 Letter to Ben

Dear Moron,
Following your recent comments regarding lawyers, the Legal Aid consultation and the resulting Bill, I would like to point out the following:
  • I am a lawyer currently earning under £25,000 per year, employed in the not-for-profit sector.
  • I have been subject to a pay freeze for 2 years because my pay is linked to that of the public sector.
  • I studied and worked for 10 years to obtain my professional status, coming from a disadvantaged background and winning a scholarship to complete my legal education on the basis of excellence and my commitment to access to justice.
  • I often work long hours, work weekends and evenings and rarely have time to spend with my family because of my duty to the members of the public that I serve.
  • I care, passionately, about the work that I do with some of the most vulnerable members of society and am disgusted by your inference that I care only about myself.
  • The publication of this idiotic Bill reduced me to tears of despair because it will stop me helping the people who need my help the most.
  • I don't give a damn about money, save for the fact that I must exist and provide food and accommodation for my family.
  • I have no self-interest at all, much less self-interest that is being dressed up as something else.
  • I am adversarial and with good cause. I am trained to be that way when there is a case to fight and a client to defend, as is the case here.
  • I do not whinge and whine, I fight my corner and the corners of those who are unable to fight for themselves. Politicians should do the same.
  • You are clearly one of the government's leading Numpties and may wish to consider putting your brain in gear before trying to discuss matters that you very obviously do not fully understand.

I will expect my personal apology by return of post.


Alice.