FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Murderous Errors

But I am in
So far in blood that sin will pluck on sin:
Tear-falling pity dwells not in this eye.

Richard III

Since 1973, 111 people waiting execution on death row have been released because they are actually innocent. That means 111 could have been wrongly executed in our names. How many of the nearly 900 executed during these years have been innocent? We will never know for sure, though there is a long list of possibilities based on reporting by journalists and filings by attorneys.

A handful of federal judges are troubled by the thought of innocent people dying. But as welcome as it was to hear that Boston federal district court Judge Mark A. Wolf is troubled by this prospect, his refusal to act on his misgivings makes one wonder. What in the world has happened to “justice” in a country that will let one innocent man die? And think it is just fine?

According to a report in The New York Times, Wolf said, “In the past decade, substantial evidence has emerged to demonstrate that innocent individuals are sentenced to death, and undoubtedly executed, much more often than previously understood.”

But…(and that there is a “but” is appalling), he said, “The day may come the when a court properly {emphasis supplied} can and should declare the ultimate sanction to be unconstitutional in all cases. However, that day has not yet come.”

And what will it take for “that day” to come? Why, we, as a country, must decide “how large a fraction of the executed must be innocent to offend contemporary standards of decency.”

The “offend contemporary standards of decency” line comes from the Supreme Court’s rationale for considering if a punishment is sufficient to fail the 8th Amendment’s constitutional protection against “cruel and unusual” punishment.

Is it cruel and unusual punishment to execute a retarded man? The Supreme Court said last year, by a slim 5-4 margin, that it was.

Is it cruel and unusual to execute someone who was a juvenile at the time of the offense? The Supreme Court has said it is not.

Is it cruel and unusual to execute an innocent man? The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that it is not concerned if innocent people die, as long as the state or federal government followed its laws and procedures.

Are you offended by that? Judge Wolf was not.

The case that gave rise to Wolf’s ruling has John Ashcroft’s dirty bootprints all over it. Gary Lee Sampson admitted to killing three men while he was hitchhiking in Massachusetts and New Hampshire in 2001. He offered to plead guilty to state murder charges in Massachusetts and receive the maximum punishment of life in prison without parole. The State of Massachusetts does not have the death penalty.

Enter John Ashcroft and his war on state’s rights, especially states with antipathy toward the death penalty. In his admitted effort to bring the death penalty to every state that does not have this sanction, Ashcroft directed the prosecutors to bring federal kidnapping charges against Sampson that would make him eligible for the federal death penalty. Ashcroft did this recently in Alexandria, Virginia, in the case of Jay Lentz. Not content to see Lenz tried for the murder of his ex-wife (this was a case with no body, no crime scene, and no weapon) in state court, Ashcroft had him charged with murder and kidnapping. Though the jury convicted Lentz, they sparred his life, much to the distress of Ashcroft and his prosecutors.

But Judge Gerald Bruce Lee threw out the conviction, saying there was no evidence at all of kidnapping to warrant the federal charge, let alone to support a conviction. Naturally, the government is appealing that decision.

Judge Wolf, a Reagan appointee and former federal prosecutor, noted that “juries have recently been regularly disagreeing with the attorney general’s contention that the death penalty is justified in the most egregious federal cases involving murder.”

Wolf is right. The latest count shows that Ashcroft is 1 for 20 in his making a federal case out of murder just to get the defendant executed. The most recent acquittals were this month in Puerto Rico, which does not have the death penalty. The Lenz case, in which the jury rejected the death penalty, preceded that one. Virginians have no problem with the death penalty–their love for it is second only to George Bush’s Texas.

What does Ashcroft have to say about executing innocent people? As reported by The Times, a “Justice” spokesperson, Monica Goodling, said the Department has an obligation to ensure the fair and consistent application of the federal death penalty.

And what does that mean, pray tell? It means to kill everyone that is remotely eligible.

Ashcroft is a blight on America. State and federal governments kill in our name. We all have the blood of innocents on our hands.

How much blood is too much?

ELAINE CASSEL practices law in Virginia and the District of Columbia, teachers law and psychology, and follows the Bush regime’s dismantling of the Constitution at Civil Liberties Watch. She can be reached at: ecassel1@cox.net

 

More articles by:
bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550
December 09, 2019
Jefferson Morley
Trump’s Hand-Picked Prosecutor John Durham Cleared the CIA Once, Will He Again?
Kirkpatrick Sale
Political Collapse: The Center Cannot Hold
Ishmael Reed
Bloomberg Condoned Sexual Assault by NYPD 
W. T. Whitney
Hitting at Cuban Doctors and at Human Solidarity
Louisa Willcox
The Grizzly Cost of Coexistence
Thomas Knapp
Meet Virgil Griffith: America’s Newest Political Prisoner
John Feffer
How the New Right Went Global — and How to Stop It
Ralph Nader
Why Not Also Go With “The Kitchen Table” Impeachable Offenses for Removal?
M. K. Bhadrakumar
Sri Lanka Continues Its Delicate Dance With India
Robert Fisk
Meet the Controversial Actor and Businessman Standing Up Against Egypt’s el-Sisi
Dahr Jamail
Savoring What Remains: Dealing With Climate PTSD
George Wuerthner
Bison Slaughter in Yellowstone…Again
Scott Tucker
Premature Democratic Socialists: Reasons for Hope and Change
Julian Rose
Polish Minister of Health Proposes Carcinogenic 5G Emission Levels as National Norm
Dean Baker
Coal and the Regions Left Behind
Robert Koehler
Envisioning a United World
Weekend Edition
December 06, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Jeffrey St. Clair
Eat an Impeachment
Matthew Hoh
Authorizations for Madness; The Effects and Consequences of Congress’ Endless Permissions for War
Jefferson Morley
Why the Douma Chemical Attack Wasn’t a ‘Managed Massacre’
Andrew Levine
Whatever Happened to the Obama Coalition?
Paul Street
The Dismal Dollar Dems and the Subversion of Democracy
Dave Lindorff
Conviction and Removal Aren’t the Issue; It’s Impeachment of Trump That is Essential
Ron Jacobs
Law Seminar in the Hearing Room: Impeachment Day Six
Linda Pentz Gunter
Why Do We Punish the Peacemakers?
Louis Proyect
Michael Bloomberg and Me
Robert Hunziker
Permafrost Hits a Grim Threshold
Joseph Natoli
What We Must Do
Evaggelos Vallianatos
Global Poison Spring
Robert Fantina
Is Kashmir India’s Palestine?
Charles McKelvey
A Theory of Truth From the South
Walden Bello
How the Battle of Seattle Made the Truth About Globalization True
Evan Jones
BNP Before a French Court
Norman Solomon
Kerry’s Endorsement of Biden Fits: Two Deceptive Supporters of the Iraq War
Torsten Bewernitz – Gabriel Kuhn
Syndicalism for the Twenty-First Century: From Unionism to Class-Struggle Militancy
Matthew Stevenson
Across the Balkans: From Banja Luka to Sarajevo
Thomas Knapp
NATO is a Brain Dead, Obsolete, Rabid Dog. Euthanize It.
Forrest Hylton
Bolivia’s Coup Government: a Far-Right Horror Show
M. G. Piety
A Lesson From the Danes on Immigration
Ellen Isaacs
The Audacity of Hypocrisy
Monika Zgustova
Chernobyl, Lies and Messianism in Russia
Manuel García, Jr.
From Caesar’s Last Breath to Ours
Binoy Kampmark
Going to the ICJ: Myanmar, Genocide and Aung San Suu Kyi’s Gamble
Jill Richardson
Marijuana and the Myth of the “Gateway Drug”
Muzamil Bhat
Srinagar’s Shikaras: Still Waters Run Deep Losses
Gaither Stewart
War and Betrayal: Change and Transformation
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail