Texas Kills 510th Person Since Death Penalty Was Restored

The blood-thirstiest state in the Union, Texas, added another killing to its body count at 6:26pm yesterday. The state of Texas executed it's second person this year, and the first woman (Suzanne Basso) since last year. Ms. Basso was the fifth woman to be put to death in Texas since the death penalty was restored in the state in 1976, and the 510th person overall.

I'm not going to tell you Ms. Basso shouldn't have been executed because she's a woman. The crime she did was a particularly violent one, and some women can be just as vicious as men can be. And if you must execute people, there's no reason to distinguish between criminals on the basis of sex.

I do wonder why the state finds it necessary to execute any human being at all though. It doesn't have a deterrent effect on violent crime, it is much more expensive to do than giving life w/o parole, it is more about revenge than justice and brings the state down to the level of the criminal, and it is certain that some innocent people have been executed. Put bluntly, it just makes no sense. Maybe someday Texas will become a bit more civilized.

Texas Executes 500th Person Since 1982

Yesterday, the state of Texas executed it's 500th person since they restored the death penalty in 1982 (about 30 years). That's an average of nearly 17 executions every year. About 40% of all executions in the United States (slightly more than 1,300) were performed in Texas -- making it the most blood-thirsty state in the Union, by far.

This time, Texas executed a woman -- Kimberly McCarthy (pictured at the left). McCarthy was killed because she was convicted of killing a 71 year-old woman (her neighbor, a retired college professor) in a 1997 robbery in Lancaster, Texas. It was a horrific crime, as she killed the elderly lady by attacking her with a butcher knife and a candelabra.

I make no excuses for McCarthy. She committed a vicious crime and deserved to be punished. But I still think it is wrong for the state to punish killing by killing. It doesn't reduce crime, and it sends a bad message to people (that killing is OK). Wouldn't life without parole have been just as effective a sentence? Couldn't the state have punished this woman while sending a message about the sanctity of a human life (all human life)?

This officially-sanctioned killing was done on behalf of all the citizens of the state of Texas. That means for the 500th time, our state government has made us all killers. I'm ashamed. Justice can be served without killing anyone.

Texas Will Violate The Constitution Tuesday

All civilized nations have either discontinued use of the death penalty, or at the very least decided that those inmates who are mentally retarded should not be executed. In 1992, the United States Supreme Court decided that it was against the U.S. Constitution to execute a mentally retarded person. Texas doesn't care about either what the rest of the civilized world is doing, or what the Supreme Court has decided. Tomorrow they will execute a person with an IQ of 61 (well below the official designation of mental retardation).

How can Texas get away with defying the Supreme Court ban? Here's what State Senator Rodney Ellis (D-Houston) says:
"Unfortunately, Texas continues to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court's categorical ban on the execution of offenders with mental retardation by developing its own set of determining factors for who will be exempt from execution."

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/08/04/4154763/state-senator-joins-calls-for.html#storylink=cpy

The problem is that when the Supreme Court banned executing the mentally retarded, they did not define exactly what mental retardation was, leaving it up to the states to do that. I'm sure they expected the states to follow generally accepted definitions of mental retardation. But Texas doesn't play by the same rules as other states do. Texas came up with a definition that will allow them to execute anyone they wish, regardless of the intellectual limits that person might have.

In Texas, a person must have below-average intellectual function, must lack adaptive behavior skills, and must show evidence of both before the age of 18. The inmate scheduled for execution on Tuesday has an IQ of 61 and had that IQ before the age of 18 -- meeting the first and third qualifications. It is the second qualification that gives the state its "out". Anyone not so mentally deficient as to require institutionalization would likely fail that test. The term "adaptive behavior skills" is such a loosely defined term, that basically anyone who can walk and chew gum at the same time can be executed.

Texas may not be violating the letter of the Supreme Court decision (although even that is debatable), but it most certainly is violating the spirit and intent of the decision. The inmate scheduled to be executed meets any reasonable definition of mental retardation -- and Texas is going to execute him anyway. All of us Texans should be ashamed of our state's impending action.

Texas AG Covers Up Execution Of Innocent

The person pictured above is Cameron Todd Willingham. Back in 1991 his family was killed in a house fire. The police department and fire marshal in Navarro County decided that the fire was due to arson. Willingham was convicted of murder and sent to death row. His attorneys tried to get the governor to delay his execution so the evidence of arson could be more thoroughly investigated by experts. Perry refused and Willingham was executed in 2004.

Since then, numerous highly respected national fire and arson experts have examined the evidence. The conclusion they have reached is that Willingham was convicted on worthless "junk" science and false conclusions. In fact, most of these experts don't believe the fire was arson at all -- but an accidental fire. In other words, Texas executed an innocent man.

A couple of years ago the Texas Forensics Commission decided to review the conviction and hear from the best experts available. There was nothing they could do for Willingham, but maybe they could examine the evidence and prevent this from happening again. But Rick Perry was having none of it. He wasn't about to let an official state agency find that Texas had executed an innocent person and he refused to stop it. That sort of thing could hurt his political career.

So about two weeks before the Commission was to meet and investigate the case, Perry replaced the head of the Commission. The new chairman delayed the hearing on the case and requested a ruling from the Attorney General (Greg Abbott) that would stop the investigation. When the new chairman appointed by Perry was not confirmed by the legislature, Dr. Peerwani (Tarrant County Medical Examiner) was appointed to replace him.

But Dr. Peerwani is a truth-seeker (as his job demands), so the investigation into the spurious conviction was again put on the Commission's schedule. And once again it got close to the truth coming out, and then Austin intervened. This time it was Attorney General Abbott who made a strange ruling. He said the law would permit the Commission to re-examine the case, but they could not re-examine the evidence. What good is re-examining the case going to do if the evidence can't be looked at. It was a misuse and misunderstanding of the evidence that resulted in the conviction!

This is nothing more than the Attorney General covering his own butt (and that of the governor). Both of these Republicans have a keen hankering to go a lot higher in elective politics (and Perry wants to even run for President). Neither of them want it on their record officially that they let an innocent man be executed. Even the most blood-thirsty voter doesn't want innocent people executed.

But this is Texas. We kill people. And if we kill the wrong people we can count on our state Republican leaders to cover it up. That's just the way it is.

Texas Violates International Law With Execution

The man pictured above is Humberto Leal Garcia. In 1994, he raped and murdered a 16 year-old girl in San Antonio. He was executed for that crime by the state of Texas on Thursday. There is no doubt of his guilt -- he apologized for the crime repeatedly before being executed. But his execution has received international condemnation by the United Nations, Mexico, and others.

The international furor is not over whether Texas has the right to institute the death penalty. That is something that each country (and in America each state) must decide for themselves. No, the furor is over Texas' refusal to follow international law in trying, condemning, and executing the criminal.

Both the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights say that anytime a foreign national is arrested, the country who arrested that person must notify that person that they have the right to notify the embassy of their own country (giving that country the right to provide any assistance that might be necessary).

Texas did not do that. Humberto Leal Garcia was a citizen of Mexico and Texas officials did not notify the Mexican embassy or inform him that he had the right to notify his embassy. This would have been a simple thing to do, and it would have made the trial that followed his arrest legal according to international law.

Some might wonder why all the fuss is being made over this obviously guilty man. It has nothing to do with his guilt. It is about following the rules that have been laid down for all countries. The United States has agreed to those rules, and it needs to keep its word and follow those rules. The actions of Texas make the United States look like a pariah who flaunts international law while demanding that other countries abide by it.

The president and the Secretary of State had both asked Texas officials to stop the execution (as did many other organizations and countries). It would have been the right thing for Texas officials to commute the sentence (or grant a new trial). Either option would have satisfied international law. The fact that they did neither puts American citizens in danger across the world.

 The obvious question now is why should other countries give American citizens the right to notify the American embassy when they are arrested abroad, when the United States doesn't live up to its obligation to do the same thing? State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said, "U.S. compliance with Vienna convention terms is absolutely critical to insuring our own consular access and our own ability to protect Americans detained abroad."

Texas officials were wrong and have endangered all American citizens visiting other countries -- not because they executed a guilty man, but because they did so without following the rules that all civilized countries have agreed to.

NOTE -- Governor Rick Perry did nothing to correct this situation. He is currently considering running for the Republican presidential nomination. I feel compelled to ask the Republicans, do you really want a candidate who flaunts international law and puts American citizens in danger?

Muhammad Is Executed

It's over. Only three years after his conviction, D.C. Sniper John Muhammad was executed by lethal injection. At 9:11pm on Tuesday night, the Virginia Department of Corrections declared he was dead. Muhammad made no final statement.

Yesterday, Muhammad's attorneys asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stop his execution, because of his "mental illness". The court rejected the request without comment. Today, Governor Kaine also refused to commute or delay the execution.

Gov. Kaine said, "Having carefully reviewed the petition for clemency and judicial opinions regarding this case, I find no compelling reason to set aside the sentence that was recommended by the jury and then imposed and affirmed by the courts. Accordingly, I decline to intervene."

As regular readers of this blog probably know, I do not like the death penalty and would be happy to see it abolished. But to be honest, I'm having trouble working up any sympathy for Mr. Muhammad. His crimes were vicious, and his innocent victims were chosen at random.

I don't doubt the world is better off without John Muhammad in it.

Gov. Plays Politics With Innocent Man's Execution

It's certainly starting to look like Texas Governor Rick Perry will do anything to protect his political future -- including covering up the execution of an innocent man. The man is Cameron Todd Willingham, and he was executed in 2004 while Rick Perry was the Texas governor.

Mr. Willingham was convicted of setting a house fire that caused the death of his three children. But as I wrote back in August, there have been three separate investigations since his conviction and nine of the nations top fire scientists have examined the evidence. They all reach the same conclusion -- there was no evidence of arson! The conclusions said that the original fire marshal used "outdated theories and folklore" to reach the conclusion that there was arson.

The last investigation was ordered by the Texas Forensic Science Commission (TFSC). They were to meet today to discuss the findings of that investigation and then issue a report on the case. It was widely expected the commission report would determine that the forensic science used to get the conviction was faulty, and that Texas had executed an innocent man. It would have been the first time an official state agency had admitted an innocent man was executed.

But Perry was having none of it. Earlier this month, Perry derided the top fire scientists as "supposed experts" and said he was sure Willingham was guilty. Perry has another election coming up soon, and he's not about to admit an innocent man was executed during his reign as governor -- and he's not about to let a state commission reach that conclusion either.

Just a couple of days before the TFSC was to meet and consider the case, Perry informed three of the commission members that their services were no longer needed. He has replaced two of them, including the commission chairman (and must wait for a recommendation from the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association before he can replace the third).

Of course, that means the commission will not consider the results of the investigation at this time. The new chairman, Williamson County District Attorney John Bradley, said "I don't see how we can successfully have a meeting with the board turnover and lack of time for an orientation and education for the new board members."

The investigation (and report) have been delayed indefinitely. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to predict it won't happen before next year's election.

Is An Execution A Place For Jokes ?

Is an execution the place for telling jokes? Patrick Knight believes that it is. Knight is scheduled to be executed on June 26th for the killing of his Randall county neighbors, Walter and Mary Werner, about 16 years ago. Now he says he wants his last words to be a joke.

Knight is asking for jokes to be mailed to him, and says he'll tell the best one just before he is executed. But Randall County Sheriff Joel Richardson, who investigated the murders, is not happy with Knight's decision to tell a joke in the death chamber. He said, "The whole thing is not a joke to anybody here unless it is to him. This tells you a little bit about the guy's character, anyway."

But Knight, who says about 250 jokes have been sent in so far, said, "I'm not trying to disrespect the Werners or anything like that. I'm not trying to say I don't care what's going on. I'm about to die. I'm not going to sit here and whine and cry and moan and everything like that when I'm facing the punishment I've been given. I'm not asking for money. I'm not asking for penpals or anything like that. All that I'm asking for is jokes."

Knight went on to say, "I know I'm not innocent. They think they're killing me. They think they're punishing me. They've already punished me. I've already had 16 years of punishment. They're releasing me. They're letting me go. That's helping me out. That's the way I look at it."

Knight said he got the idea of telling a joke at his execution from fellow inmate, Vincent Gutierrez, who remarked as he was strapped to the gurney, "Where's a stunt double when you need one?"

There have already been 14 executions in Texas this year. In addition to Knight, there are four more scheduled for June (including one female). So far, there are ten more scheduled this year after this month.

Most of us would not think it appropriate to tell jokes in the death chamber, but it is not our execution. Personally, I would prefer that Texas not engage itself in legalized killing. But if we must do it, then it is only decent to let the condemned say whatever they want as their last words.

Patrick Knight has chosen to use his last statement to tell a joke. That is his right.

Saddam's Execution Changes Nothing

Saddam Hussein is dead. He was executed yesterday by the current puppet government in Iraq. I am not sorry to see him go. He was a criminal responsible for the deaths of many innocent people.

Bush called the execution a "milestone" in history. If so, then it was a small milestone. The Saddam era was already over. It ended the day he was pulled from his hiding place, a hole in the ground, by U.S. troops. That is why his execution will change nothing in Iraq.

The current civil war in Iraq was not about Saddam. It is about who gets to control Iraq once we leave. The current government will not exercise control over Iraq after our soldiers leave. They cannot even control the country with our help.

Control will fall to one of two groups -- the Shiites [backed by Iran] or the Sunnis [backed by Saudi Arabia]. For a short time after the fall of Saddam's government, it was us against the insurgents. But that time has long passed.

It is now a civil war between the Sunnis and the Shiites, with our soldiers in the middle and hated by both sides. The only thing our troops are accomplishing is to prolong the civil war.

It is time to bring our troops home -- immediately.