Death Penalty
SB 1308
Relating to the standards for attorneys representing indigent defendants in capital cases.
AG Orders Info on Lethal Injection Drugs to be Made Public
After requests made from Texas Impact and other groups such as the Austin American Statesmen, the Texas Attorney General has ruled that information regarding the cost, expiriation dates and amount in supply of lethal injection drugs is public information. The entire article from the Statesmen can be found here. Texas has:
- 118 - 1 gram vials of Sodium Thiopental which will expire March 2011.
- 185 - 10 mg vials of Pancuronium Bromide 60 vials of which expire March 2012 and the remaining expiring Dec. 2010.
- 578 - 20 milliequivalen vials of Potassium Chloride. 125 of which expire Sept. 2011 and the remaining 453 vials expire July 2011.
At present, Texas has only one execution scheduled after March. Current executions are set in January, February and July.
TDCJ Should Provide Public Information on Lethal Injection Drugs
Texas Impact filed public comments with the Texas Attorney General arguing that information about the cost, source, expiration date, and amount the State has in its supply of the 3 drugs used in lethal injections is public information. The Texas Department of Criminal Justice, in response to open records requests from several news organizations, has refused to release the information. TDCJ has filed a brief with the Texas Attorney General arguing that he should not find the information confidential and exempted from the Public Information Act.
The source of the drugs and the amount states had in supply became an issue when Hospira, Inc., the sole U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental announced they were out of the drug until January of next year. Sodium thiopental is the first drug administered in the 3 drug lethal injection process. It renders the condemned unconscious before the second drug paralyzes the muscles and the third drug stops the heart. If sodium thiopental is not properly administered, then the condemned could be left conscious, but utterly paralyzed experiencing pain that could equate to experiencing a heart attack while drowning.
Of legal significance is language from Baze v. Rees (a recent Supreme Court opinion from 2008) suggesting that without sodium thiopental, the method of execution would be cruel and unusual punishment violating the 8th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If the Attorney General of Texas rules that the source, expiration dates, and amount of drugs TDCJ possesses is confidential, then there is no way to assure the State of Texas is not violating the laws regarding lethal injection procedure and the Constitution of the United States.
The Call for a Moratorium in Texas
A growing number of groups and individuals in Texas, including many religious groups, are calling on the Legislature to take steps toward a death penalty moratorium. Because of Texas' unique constitutional issues, achieving a moratorium in Texas would likely be at least a two step process. To realize a moratorium in Texas, lawmakers must first designate an individual who is legally able to call a moratorium.
Unlike in many other states, Texas' "post-reconstruction" constitution strictly limites the power of the Governor's authority to intervene in criminal cases. Teh Governor many not commute sentences or grat clemency without the recommendation of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. Most legal experts agree that a Texas governor would probably face a legal challge is he or she were to call a moratorium on executions.
If a moratorium were declared in Texas, all executions would be suspended for a period of time. The period could be as long as specified, or coule be open-ended as in the case of the Illinois moratorium. During the moratorium, Death Row prisoners would remain under the sentence of death while Texas' application of the death penalty is examined.
In the 77th legislature, moratorium proposals were favorably recommended by the House and Senate committees. None of the measures received floor consideration, but legislative observers were surprised at the progress and support the bills received.
During Illinois' moratorium, a panel of legal experts studied Illinois' capital punishment system and recommeded an 85 specific improvements, from police investigative procedures through clemency rules. Even so, the Commission acknowledged that innocent people might still be sentenced to death.
The American Bar Assosciation, which does not have a postion on the death penaly per se, has called for a moratorium on exectuions by jurisdictions with a death penalty. A primary reason for the organization's stance is the lack of standards to ensure competent representation of persons charged with capital crimes.
A moratorium would provide an opportunity to air many concerns, but lawmakers would expect the moratorium review to focus on application of the death penalty. Relgious groups can certainly support reforming the system, but many people of faith see the death penalty as inherently unreformable. These Texans should support a moratorium as an opportunity to look at the ethical issues of capital punishment.
Becuase a moratorium would not necessarily result in the eventual abolition of the death penalty in Texas, some people of faith are reluctant to support a call for a moratorium, wishing instead to cling to a purely abolitionist stance. However, there appears to be virtially no support for abolition in the Texas Legislature, so purists are unlikely to see any legislative gains from their efforts.
Is it right?
Religious discussion of capital punishment typically focuses on ethics, rather than the pragmatic questions of utility and fairness. Christians and Jews use scriptural passages and basic theological statements to develop a context in which to consider the issue. Within the framework of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the death penalty is relevant to themes of judgment, the human condition, and sin & grace.
Judgment is a major theme in religious discussions. Most religious strains condemn vengeance as a goal of public justice. The note that societies use capital punishment mainly to exact vengeance-- to "get even" or "balance the scales".
"We agree that the death penalty is cruel, unjust, and incompatible with the dignity and self respect of man." American Jewish Committee Statement on Capital Punishment, 1972
"Holy Scriptures clearly mandate that we are note to kill, we are not to render evil for evil, and at we are not to seek retribution with vengeance for the evil done to us."-Christian Church(Disciples of Christ) Resolution Concerning Opposition to the Use of the Death Penalty, 1985
"The United Methodist Church cannot accept retribution or social vengeance as a reason for taking human life. It violates our deepest belief in God as the creator and the redeemer of humankind. In this respect, there can be no assertion that human life can be taken humanely by the state."-General Conference of the United Methodist Church, 1980
Matthew 5:38-39: "You have heard that it was said, 'an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you , do not resist who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also."
The Human Condition: Religious discussions also focus on our role in the world, especially our subordinate position to God. In this argument, people are not qualified to apply the death penalty because only God has the authority to create or destroy life.
"The 1958 General Convention of the Episcopal Church opposed capital punishment on a theological basis that the life of an individual is of infinite worth in the sight of Almighty God; and the taking of such a human life falls within the providence of Almighty God and not within the right of man." -The Episcopal Church, Statement of the 1979 General Conference
"We believe that the government's use of death as an instrument of justice places the state in the role of God, who alone is sovereign; and . . . the use of the death penalty in a representative democracy places citizens in the role of executioner; Christians cannot isolate themselves from corporate responsibility, including responsibility for every execution, as well as for every victim." -Presbyterian Church USA, 197th General Conference
Sin and Grace: Religious discussions of the death penalty usually raise the point that we all live in a condition of sin, including when we try to pas judgment on each other. In this argument, each one of us is redeemed only through God's grace.
"The critical question for the Christian is how we can best foster respect for life, preserve the dignity of the human person and manifest the redemptive message of Christ. We do not believe that more deaths are the response to the question." -U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Committee on Social Development and World Peace 1978
Is it fair?
When the United States Supreme Court suspended the death penalty from 1973 to 1976, it did so out of concern that capital punishment administered at the time violated both the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment and the constitutional guarantee of due process.
Seven condemned Texas inmates have been released on account of actual innocence: they did not do the crimes of which they were actually convicted. These seven account for about one percent of Texans sentenced to death since 1976. They spent an average of ten years on Death Row before they were proven innocent. In most cases, the exonerated inmates had captured the attention of the media or celebrities, and private law firms have provided pro bono (at no charge) the extensive work necessary. Questions of innocence remain about several current Death Row inmates who have not attracted special attention.
In the 1972 United States Supreme Court decision Furman v. Georgia, declaring capital punishment unconstitutional, Justice Thurgood Marshall said, "No matter how careful courts are, the possibility of perjured testimony, mistaken honest testimony, and human error remain all too real. We have no way of judging how many innocent persons have been executed, but we can be certain there were some."
Is it useful?
Many people support the death penalty because they believe it deters future crimes and gives relief to victims' families. These people may have misgivings about the state's killing individuals, but they see execution as a pragmatic issue.
According to FBI data, the presence of the death penalty in a state does not translate into lower homicide rates. A recent study by the New York Times found that since 1976, states that have the death penalty actually had higher homicide rates than states without the death penalty. Law enforcement experts explain that most homicides are unpremeditated crimes of passion-killers who don't usually pause to consider what might happen if they were tried and convicted.
