Not In Our Name!

Overview

Since 1976 668 people have been executed. Texas has lead the parade with 225 (as of 08-01-00. The existence of the death penalty for most people is as familiar as McDonalds. Celluloid visions of the guy in the black hat getting his just reward at sun up. Wide eyed children eating cotton candy staring at the spectacle of death. The modern day version replacing this picture with one of a sanitary like room, bare except for a gurney with leather restraints.

The discussion of capital punishment is far ranging and emotional. Numbers, nouns and verbs. At its very core the justification for the use of this final judgment assumes infallibility of the judicial system. In turn it assumes the infallibility of human judgment which created the system. There exists no empirical evidence which proves that either assumption is valid. If anything the evidence points out clearly the system does not work. Even if one were to state that the death penalty is a necessary tool of deterrence, by all evidence it clearly falls short of accomplishing its stated goals . Specifically that of protecting the present social order.

This position paper will examine some of the main issues surrounding capital punishment. It will also present unique perspective of how it affects non capital punishment Prisoners.

The Specter Of Just-Us

In 1972 the Supreme Court ruled in Furman v. Georgia that state juries and judges had so much discretion in imposing death as to make their decision making arbitrary and irrational. Four years later, the court opened the door to the reinstitution of the penalty, approving new procedures adopted by 25 states giving juries guidelines that markedly diminished their discretion. In the interim, more than 600 convicts were taken off death rows as a result of the ruling.

When most people think of the death penalty their first thought that comes to mind is "Well they were found guilty, so they deserve it." This view assumes that the judicial process is fair and is structured so that the truth be known as expressed in the system's final conclusions. Nothing could be farther from reality. The judicial system which is in place now is at its best an adversarial one. That is you have two sides the defense and the prosecution which present their interpretation of the event in question. A clashing of views. Out of this adversarial event the truth is supposed to magically appear. As such a critical view of the judiciary arrives at the correct conclusion that the legal system is not about finding out the truth of the matter but in finding a person who we can stick the blame on and punish. In a dysfunctional opinion, the Supreme Court in Herra v. Collins 506 U.S. 390 (1993) first ruled that the Constitution bars the execution of someone who conclusively demonstrates they are actually innocent. Then it stated that in absence of other constitutional violation(s), new evidence of innocence was no reason for federal courts to order a new trial. While 80 people have been released from death row since the Herra ruling, many of these case were not discovered through the adversarial process we are speaking of but through efforts of journalism students, volunteer lawyers and new scientific techniques. These resources are not readily available to every death row Prisoner.

At its very core the adversarial system assumes wrongly that both sides are equal and or that there are safeguards in place to insure there exists a level playing field. But is that true?

Many capital trials such as Hank Skinner's 1 are full of prosecutorial misconduct and many times new evidence is prohibited from finding a forum to exhibit itself. For example, President Clinton signed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. This new law severely restricts the opportunity for evidentiary hearings, it establishes tighter deadlines for filing and limits federal review of convictions. In short this situation can be compared to you the reader defending yourself from a traffic violation for speeding and not being able to show the radar gun was malfunctioning at the time even though the police admit their equipment was faulty! Another way to view the legal system is to take two pieces of paper and on one write yes and on the other no. Place both in a shoe box, shake it up and randomly choose one. Theoretically you have a one in two chance (50%) of picking the yes chit. But what happens if we make the yes chit slightly larger or out of cardboard in essence change the conditions of the random pick. Obviously the likelihood that you pick the yes chit are greater. In a Capital trial, based on the adversarial process, it is weighted in favor of the State because it has far greater resources that it can call upon. Keep in mind now the before stated point that the current legal system assumes there is an even playing field which we now know to be in error because of the unequal amount of resources each side brings to the field. Beyond that, many capital cases feature not only prosecutorial misconduct; 2 but also suppressed evidence3 , ineffective or inexperienced defense counsel 4 recanted testimony ,5 and out right fabrication of facts to suit the circumstances .6 Thus the yes chit is not slightly larger but is the size of an elephant.

When one examines capital prosecutions it is obvious that the State is the larger chit because it has almost untold resources which it can call upon. But when like in the O.J. Simpson trial, the defense brings an equal or greater amount of resources, then and only then is the playing field leveled.

Despite the continual tinkering with the judicial process governing capital cases, it is obvious that any system which is based on adversarial relations can not inherently be a correct manner in which to derive at the truth, and as such, a cognitive person may reasonably assume that errors are made which result in the innocent being executed.

Human Rights

In Trop v. Dulles 356 U.S. 86 (1958) the Supreme Court decided that the "Eighth Amendment contained an "evolving standard of decency that marked the progress of a maturing society." Upon examination of the history of capital punishment we clearly understand the courts reasoning
. 1612 the legal system provided that the death penalty can be applied for such offenses as stealing grapes, killing chickens and trading with Indians.
1630 you could be put to death for striking your mother or father or denying the true god. 1834 Pennsylvania became the first state to move executions out of public view.
1838 in order to make the death penalty more acceptable to the public employed discretionary death penalty laws and moved away from mandatory executions.
1971 Supreme Court issued its opinion in Furman v. Georgia 408 U.S. 238 (1971) which set the standard that a punishment would be "cruel and unusual" if it was too severe for the crime, if it was arbitrary, if it offended society's sense of justice, or if it was not more effective than a less severe penalty.7

In 1976 the Supreme Court threw away its previous decisions by approving sentencing guidelines established in Florida, Georgia and Texas and opened the door for executions to begin once again. The Court's ruling dealt with the procedural issues of the legal system and did not address the "evolving standard" as in ruled earlier in Trop v. Dulles.

It also ignored the United Nations General Assembly's Universal Declaration of Human Rights which proclaimed a right to life. The Court continues its error by ruling in 1989 that the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit the death penalty for crimes committed at age sixteen or seventeen. This is in violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights Article 6(5) which requires that the death penalty not be applied to those under 18. It should be noted that despite the United States ratifying this document it did so by declaring it reserved the right to execute juvenile offenders.

While not out right declaring use of the death penalty as a human rights violation, the European Convention on Human Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights clearly demonstrates that the world community's moral standard has evolved away from the use of state execution. In fact Russian President Boris Yeltsin in June of 1999 commuted the death sentences of all facing the death house and Western Europe has severely restricted its use of capital punishment. But the Courts have moved in the opposite direction and ignored these concrete examples that society is no longer willing to continue using this punishment.

When other reasonable options are presented such as life without parole, support for the death penalty drops tremendously Among those who do not support the death penalty is Pope John Paul II who in a 1999 visit to the Untied States called for an end to the death penalty.. But the truest measure of society's moral standard today is that in April 1999 the United Nations Human Rights Commission passed the Resolution Supporting Worldwide Moratorium On Executions. it specifically called on countries to severely restrict its use of the death penalty. The United States Government was among ten countries who voted against the resolution. Not the United States people but the government which ranks among the highest for executions in 1998.8

STOP IN THE NAME OF THE LAW!

"One argument states that the death penalty does not deter murder. Dismissing capital punishment on that basis requires us to eliminate all prisons as well because they do not seem to be any more effective in the deterrence of crime."9 Mr. Lowe goes on to quote an economist at the University of North Carolina Stephen K. Layson who states in a 1985 study "that every execution of a murderer deters on average 18 murders.." An uncritical person would simply accept this on face value. But besides the obvious question of the source, the other is how does is this figure arrived at?

In order to be effective, and Mr. Lowe agrees, "capital punishment like all other applications, must be used consistently in order to be effective." This one statement puts to rest Mr. Lowe's previous comment about eliminating prisons because unlike capital punishment other penalties are applied somewhat more consistently. Let us for a moment step to the other side of the road and agree with Mr. Lowe and others that capital punishment is a necessary tool of deterrence. If at present it is so effective hidden away behind prison walls, how much more so if we went back to public executions? Mr. Lowe wouldn't you want to her the snap of an offenders neck, smell that killers singed flesh, blood vessels popping, hear that last gasp? If the death penalty is such a great thing lets stop pussy footing around and televise the next execution. Yes indeed if we can stop 18 murders, how many more could you halt before the fact if you televised the next state homicide? Oh but lets not just stop there. Retribution, closure? Why shucks lets give those who are directly affected by the "mad dog" killer an opportunity to pull the lever, open the valve, throw the switch. Why let the state do it for you? High costs of executions? Why let's auction off front row seats on e-bay. Imagine this. We could get your friend Stephen Layson and you to do color commentary. "Well Governor Bush, you are about to set a new United States record for total number of executions in a year." "How do you feel right now?" "Well Wes, I'm very excited, we have an excellent tie down team, not a pansy among them and our Chaplain is making sure God sends this sorry bastard to hell where he belongs." Just think of all the advertising revenue you could get from Colgate Palmolive. TV guide could rate which state has the best show. Why we could bring new meaning to reality based TV and stop at least 18 more murders in the process. What a deal! Is this so far fetched?

"ABC's "20/20" did a segment on "reality shows" that included brief footage of a TV series in Guatemala that televises government executions. There on the slab, connected to wires, was a man in the process of being put to death. Barbara Walters gave it the old icky-poo response, as if that brand of death, in contrast to others, was just too hideous to watch." 10

Wow isn't that great? No constitutional laws to get in the way, no liberals standing outside the prison gate with their damn picket signs. just take em out, tie em down and zap their sorry ass.

When one speaks of deterrence and or making the punishment fit the crime the last option one should be thinking of is state murder. Oh no that's way to easy. I know there are those people who wail about how long it takes to actually kill somebody but death is so immediate. I mean after numerous years of appeals and court procedures which is demanded by this nasty thing called due process you tie some poor sap down and in two minutes kill them. if you really want to accomplish deterrence, take that same individual and cage them in the center of any major urban environment. Just like a caged tiger people could come by and taunt your killer, feed the vicious homicidal maniac peanuts that you sell to the public After all it costs money to keep this individual locked up. Allow the public to spit and throw things at your exhibit. Mommy could bring little Johnny to the town square. "See Johnny if you kill people this is where you wind up," she instructs her little charge. Johnny is wide eyed as he watches the crowd abuse and vilify the Prisoner. Can you imagine years and years of this. Rain, snow inclimate weather? Who cares after all we are dealing with a manslayer. Iimagine the deterrent value of this punishment for it serves as a constant public reminder of the fate that awaits you blood thristy killer. Here it is folks this is what happens when you kill somebody even in a drunken rage, are incapacitated mentally or by age. Imagine the educational value. "And hear folks we have a fine specimen of a mad dog killer, blah, blah.". To be really effective though you need to included a vivid description of the crime itself along with poster size color photos that you can make at Kinko's. Yes indeed Mr. Lowe I think we may have something here.

Do you know why we don't do any of this? Because it offends the standard of decency that marks this society and its deterrence effect is minimum. Lets cut to the chase and stop fiddling around with all these surveys that have been done in the past. the question Mr. Lowe should be asking on his website is "Do you favor public executions?"

The Agenda of Death

The death penalty represents far more then the public arguments of cost, morality, justice, retribution, closure, due process, the law and so forth. What has not been publicly recognized to any extent and surely not even discussed on any wide basis is what we shall term the hidden agenda of capital punishment.

We live in a hierarchical society that has evolved from individual self-sufficiency and mutual aid to one where we either consciously or unconsciously assign control of our very lives over to some entity called the government. They make sure the buses run, the lights get turned on, water spurts out of the shower head, etc. From when we are wee ones in grade school we are taught that the present method of social organizing is the best that life can offer here in the United States. That with without "representative democracy" everything would fall apart. We also assign our personal and public safety to things called police and courts. In fact it is illegal for you to defend your community from unwanted intrusion such as crack dealers or other anti-social elements. Oh no you have to call the police and let them deal with it. The very essence of capital punishment is a tacit recognition of this situation. We have in essence institutionalized state murder in the sincere belief and hope the "government" will act in our best interests. This feeling can be best summarized by the statement "Well the government is doing it so it must be right." But is it?

Capital punishment has been used historically to quash public dissent such as in the case of Joseph Hillstrom (Joe Hill) ." Hill was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of two storekeepers. The prosecution was based on sketchy circumstantial evidence and was in part the result of collusion between the prosecution and the trial judge in an atmosphere of anti-union hostility." "... Hill appears to have been an innocent victim of "politics, finance and organized religion..."11

Or the case of Nicola Sacco,, and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.

Sacco & Vanzetti

"Sacco and Vanzetti were convicted of murder in the course of armed robbery, sentenced to death, and executed in 1927. Their case is probably the most controversial death penalty case in this century. They were arrested and tried in an atmosphere dominated by "the Red Scare" of the early 1920s; the defendants---described as "anarchist bastards"12

The overwhelming reason for capital punishment which neither the abolitionist or the pro death penalty side recognize is that of control. In fact and deed we have vested so much power in the government that it can legally murder people. What is wrong for an individual is some how right for an organization called government. The government has so much power that if you dare question it you are subject to long term incarceration such as the case of Rob "Los Ricos" Thaxton. if you dare to dissent and even bolder yet to publicly criticize the status quo you could very well wind up like Joe Hill or Sacco and Vanzetti. Without a pause the government can say "If you dare to question our policies and or act in a dissentfull manner we can do to you what we have done to Mumia Abu Jamal." Mumia with over a million supporters has yet to win a new trial despite the fact there is overwhelming evidence that if it doesn't out right point to his innocence at least brings into question his conviction. Mumia Abu Jamal who has been described as the voice of the voiceless. Who dared to stand up and say to the police and the government that the bombing of innocent people is not acceptable. Mumia Abu Jamal who continues to dissent, who continues to write scathing commentaries even while facing the ultimate penalty. Mumia Abu Jamal a voice that can and will not silenced. But he can't seem to receive his day in court which is America's promise. Why? Because as long as Mumia is held despite all the clamoring for his release, the government send out a clear message of its absolute power. For if it was truly acting in our interests it would allow Mumia his day in court and he would be free.

Behind prison walls the death penalty acts as a cornerstone of a climate of fear. Prisoners are reluctant to voice an opinion on matters which affect their very ability to serve their time. After all how can you as an individual reasonably expect to question rule changes and their legality against a machine which can kill people without any consequence? In short, the thought "You can't win against us so why even try" continually sits in the back of ones consciousness. This coupled with a somewhat highly organized, armed gang of rule enforcers creates a situation that has a chilling effect on Prisoners willingness either as an individual or collective to challenge abusive conditions. Like the Massers whip, capital punishment serves as a tool of control and enforcement.

The Missouri Prisoners Labor Union15 is the only formation of prison workers who have dared to take a stand against state homicide. We do so because we clearly understand that as long as it exists, the climate of intimidation it creates will continually cause those who would others wise rise off their knees to remain stooped while all sorts of nefarious schemes are perpetrated upon Prisoners and their families. After all how can you hope to win minimum age concessions, safe working conditions from the state when it has so much authority and power?

As non-capital punishment Prisoners we also embrace the proposition that capital punishment quashes Human and Civil Rights of ALL who live in this society whether confined or not. It is those same international bodies which have addressed the question of state execution who we turn to when attempting to discover a solid basis and legal reasoning for our right to organize. If international treaties and law is not upheld when it comes to capital punishment then how can we expect that the situation will be somewhat different when it comes to our rights as workers? We can't and as such it is in our best economic interests to take a solid stand against this most heinous of punishments.

We are not content to stand around and beat our chests and bray about the death penalty. On July 1, 2000 we took a bold step in actively fighting the illegal and capricious behavior of the state by declaring an international boycott against Colgate Palmolive. One of the main points we are seeking beyond recognition is that we demand Colgate Palmolive live up to its social obligation as a corporate citizen and actively lobby for a moratorium on the State of Missouri 's use of capital punishment. This step is but an opening salvo in the war against the ultimate penalty. We have taken this step with the realization that we have nothing to loose but our chains. That is the economic chains which binds us to the factory machine suffering either under paid and or non-compensated labor and dangerous work conditions. The same people who defend and actually implement capital punishment are the same ones who feel it is perfectly acceptable to exploit our labor to the detriment of other workers.

For those persons who continually work so hard to halt the death machine we say to you that if you wish to break the gears which threaten to grind us all a cornerstone of your campaign must be to support the right of Prisoners to organize in our own economic self-defense. For our organization while primarily focused on issues related to Prisoner slavery, also acts as a forum to address issues such as the death penalty. We do so not only from an intellectual standpoint but also one that incorporates practical work at great risk to ourselves as individuals and collectively. Clearly it is our perspective that an abolitionist position that does not defend the Human and Civil Rights of all Prisoners is ineffective at best. For the same government which threatens to make you the next Mumia Abu Jamal is the same entity which wields that power to enslave us. A power which all of us either consciously or unconsciously have bestowed on it. Now is the time to seize back that power and suspend use of capital punishment.

CONCLUSION

There are many cognitive arguments raised in opposition to the death penalty which we have not addressed here. Issues of morality, cost, innocence, racism, etc. Each one by itself points out its own reason why capital punishment is a morbid interpretation of the evolving moral standard of today's society. One thing that is the thread that links all of these arguments is that obviously those without the capital get the punishment. If you are poor you get zapped. Additionally if dare to question the power of the state you could wind up fighting for your life as in the case of Mumia Abu Jamal.

It is dysfunctional at best for a society through its elected representatives to speak about human rights when it employs the greatest violation of human rights, capital punishment when there are equally effective methods of dealing with a certain type of anti-social behavior. MPLU National Representative Bruce "Yero" Cummins states an even more poignant fact. ""The truth be known Mike, Missouri is probably the only state in the nation with death row Prisoners in (a) general population. I know other Prisoners with as less time as "ten", five and three years remaining before being released from prison! Not to mention the fact that some of us grow up with a lot of Missouri's death row Prisoners. Yes we are involved in seeing a "Death Penalty Moratorium" for the State of Missouri! Hey not one more execution?" 16

Currently the number of innocents released from death row stands at 80 persons. There are some that would argue that the risk of killing the innocent is acceptable in the name of protecting society. This misses the point that the recent wave of released persons is an indication that the system is seriously flawed. Even if the ultimate penalty is a viable and necessary tool of controlling anti-social behavior, the present way that a decision is arrived at to legally murder someone needs to be reexamined. As such we call for an immediate moratorium on the use of capital punishment so all the relevant issues can be examined.

It is tantamount upon each one of us to take a personal stand today and join the ever growing number of voices shouting "Not In Our Name." most importantly it is incumbent on each one of us to defend the right of Prisoners to organize in their own self interests. To do anything less insures that you will become the next Hank Skinner17.

Footnotes

1 http://www.cdinet.demon.co.uk.

2 Jerry Banks (Georgia, Conviction: 1975) Sentenced to death for two counts of murder.The conviction was overturned because the prosecution knowingly withheld exculpatory evidence. Banks committed suicide after his wife divorced him. His estate won a settlement from the county for the benefit of his children.

3 Clarence Brandley (Texas, Conviction: 1980) Awarded a new trial when evidence showed prosecutorial suppression of exculpatory evidence and perjury by prosecution witnesses. All charges were dropped. Brandley is the subject of the book White Lies by Nick Davies http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html

4 Federico M. Macias (Texas, Conviction: 1984) Convicted of the slaying of Robert Haney. He was granted a federal writ of habeas corpus because of ineffective assistance of counsel and possible innocence. A grand jury refused to reindict because of lack of evidence http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html

5 Mumia Abu Jamal http://www.mumia.org

6 Joseph Green Brown (Florida, Conviction: 1974) Charges were dropped after the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecution had knowingly allowed false testimony to be introduced at trial. Brown came within 13 hours of execution. The decision was vacated by the Florida Supreme Court because of improper use of evidence. At his retrial, he was acquitted http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html

Gary Nelson (Georgia, Conviction: 1980) Nelson was released after a review of the prosecutor's files revealed that material information had been improperly withheld from the defense. The county district attorney acknowledged: "There is no material element of the state's case in the original trial which has not subsequently been determined to be impeached or contradicted." http://www.essential.org/dpic/dpic.r06.html

7 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
history2.html#SuspendingtheDeathPenalty

8 http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/
DPIC quoting Amnesty International 1999.

9 http://www.geocities.com/~lurch7/cp.html)

10 (e-mail forwarded from Prison News Network http://www.prisonnewsnetwork.com)

11 http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list

12 http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list.

13 Collins was convicted of rape, sentenced to death, and executed in 1937. The conviction was affirmed on appeal. Collins testified that the "victim" (white) had consented, which caused a near-riot in the courtroom and led the woman's husband to pull out a gun and fire it at Collins. Collins was almost lynched and received only a perfunctory defense. The all-white jury deliberated for only four minutes. Subsequent interviews with several jurors revealed that although they believed the act was consensual, they also thought that Wilson deserved death simply for "messin' around" with a white woman. Even the judge, off the record, admitted his belief that Collins was telling the truth. "An innocent man wentto his death." http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list

14 Mays was convicted of murder in the killing of a white woman and sentenced to death. A white lynch mob terrorized the entire black community in Knoxville, and several blacks were killed by white rioters; the National Guard had to be called out. ... http://sun.soci.niu.edu/~critcrim/wrong/mike.list

15 https://www.angelfire.com/sc2/mplu/press.html

1610-09-2000 letter to Mike Lee National Communications Officer

17 See sidebar