Publications & Testimony

Testimony and Statements on the Death Penalty

FROM DPIC

For testimony by former Executive Director Robert Dunham and former Executive Director Richard C. Dieter, please visit our page DPIC Testimony.

FROM RELIGIOUS LEADERS AND ORGANIZATIONS

FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY

FROM ADVOCACY GROUPS

FROM JUDGES, LEGISLATORS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

FROM MURDER VICTIMS’ FAMILY MEMBERS

Items: 4901 — 4910


Apr 01, 2008

NEW VOICES: Law Enforcement Officers and Judges Address California Death Penalty

“California’s Death Penalty is Broken” On March 28, 2008 two letters were sent to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice — one from members of the law enforcement community and the other from judges, raising concerns about the state’s death penalty. Thirty law enforcement officers, including current and former prosecutors, police chiefs and other officers, signed a letter stating that “California’s death penalty is broken.” The letter cites multiple reasons why the…

Read More

Mar 31, 2008

NEW VOICES: Law Enforcement Officials Say “California’s death penalty is broken”

On March 28, two letters were sent to the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice — one from members of the law enforcement community and the other from judges, raising concerns about the state’s death penalty. Thirty law enforcement officers, including current and former prosecutors, police chiefs and other officers, signed a letter stating that “California’s death penalty is broken.” The letter cites multiple reasons why the state’s death penalty system is not working, such…

Read More

Mar 27, 2008

Maryland Approves Death Penalty Study Commission

On March 24, Maryland lawmakers voted to create a commission to study the state’s death penalty. The House voted 89 – 48 and the Senate by 32 – 15 to establish the Maryland Commission on Capital Punishment to research racial, socio-economical, and geographic disparities in the application of the death penalty as well as evaluate the risk of executing an innocent person. The commission will consider the costs of the death penalty as compared to a sentence of life without parole. Its findings and…

Read More

Mar 26, 2008

STUDIES: “Prosecutorial Discretion and Capital Punishment in Missouri”

A recent Arizona Legal Studies paper on murder cases in Missouri found both geographical and racial disparities in the application of the death penalty. “Life and Death Decisions: Prosecutorial Discretion and Capital Punishment in Missouri,” by Katherine Barnes of Arizona University Law School, and David Sloss and Stephen Thaman of St. Louis Univeristy Law School, studied 1046 cases of intentional homicide in Missouri to determine geographical and racial effects in the rates at which…

Read More

Mar 25, 2008

U.S. Supreme Court Exempts Texas Courts from World Court Ruling

On March 25, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 – 3 in Medellin v. Texas (No. 06 – 984) that the President does not have the authority to order states to bypass their procedural rules and comply with a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The case arose from an appeal by Jose Medellin, a Mexican citizen on Texas’ death row who, along with 50 other Mexican death row inmates, filed suit in the ICJ alleging a violation of their rights under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. The…

Read More

Mar 25, 2008

Georgia Rejects Non-Unanimous Jury Verdicts Proposal

On March 20, the Georgia State Senate overwhelmingly (44 – 7) rejected a proposal that would have allowed non-unanimous jury sentencing verdicts in capital cases. The proposal would have permitted a judge to impose a death sentence when at least 10 of 12 jurors supported it. Current Georgia law requires that the jury vote unanimously for a death sentence. Some opponents of the bill said it would have put Georgia’s entire death penalty law in jeopardy. (All other death penalty states that allow…

Read More

Mar 25, 2008

Medellin v. Texas

On March 25, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6 – 3 in Medellin v. Texas (No. 06 – 984) that the President does not have the authority to order states to bypass their procedural rules and comply with a ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Even apart from the President’s powers, the Court held that Texas is not obligated to give Mr. Medellin an additional hearing because the Protocol governing the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations is not “self-executing” and would require an…

Read More

Mar 24, 2008

After Two Supreme Court Reversals, Texas Man Sentenced to Life

Thomas Miller-El received a life sentence from a Texas judge after pleading guilty to a Dallas murder in exchange for the prosecution’s agreement not to seek the death penalty. Miller-El had originally been sentenced to death in 1986. He raised an appeal asserting that potential black jurors had been improperly stopped from serving at his trial. The appeal was denied by the lower courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court ruled (8 – 1) in 2003 that he should have been granted additional review of his…

Read More

Mar 20, 2008

New Poll Finds Increase in Opposition to Death Penalty

A recent Harris Interactive poll of over 1,000 American adults found that the number of people who oppose the death penalty has increased since 2003. Thirty-percent (30%) of those sampled oppose the death penalty, an increase of 8 percentage points in the past 5 years. The percentage of respondents who “believe in capital punishment” has dropped significantly since 1997, when 75% supported the death penalty. In 2008, that number had declined to 63%, the lowest number in recent years. The poll…

Read More

Mar 19, 2008

Supreme Court Strikes Down Conviction of Death Row Inmate Because of Bias in Jury Selection

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7 – 2 on March 19 that the conviction and death sentence of Allen Snyder should be overturned because the trial judge allowed a potential juror to be rejected on what appeared to be racial grounds. The decision, written by Justice Samuel Alito, focused on the elimination of an African-American man from jury panel. The Court rejected the prosecution’s non-racial reasons for striking this juror: “The implausibility of this explanation is reinforced by the prosecutor’s…

Read More