New York Court of Appeals Continues to Practically Prohibit Death Penalty

(I use the adverb "practically" in the proper sense here; it is meant to mean "in all practicality," not "almost" or "basically." The American Heritage Dictionary provides some illuminating commentary on this:

The word [practically] has an extended meaning of “for all practical purposes,” as in After the accident, the car was practically undrivable. That is, the car can still be driven; it is just no longer practical to do so. Language critics sometimes object when the notion of practicality is stripped from this word in its further extension to mean “all but, nearly,” as in He had practically finished his meal when I arrived. (The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)

In sum, those who strip the notion of practicality from the word practically make the word practically practically useless and constitute strong arguments for linguistic-related capital punishment.)

New York's highest court yesterday tightened a loophole in New York's death penalty laws that would possibly allow for death by lethal injection. In 2002 the jury in People of New York v. Taylor unanimously convicted John Taylor of 3 shooting deaths in a Queens restaurant in 2000. During the 2002 trial, the judge sentenced Taylor to execution, but also made "coercive" remarks to the jury during jury instruction, telling them that "if they didn't agree unanimously on the death penalty or life in prison without parole, he could give Taylor a sentence that would allow him to be eligible for parole in 20 or 25 years," Newsday reports. The New York court ruled today that this constituted coercion of the jury and "nullified the capital punishment verdict."

Beyond the narrow legal argument of whether or not the jury was technically coerced into making Taylor New York's only Death Row inmate, there were more complex issues at stake. The New York Civil Liberties Union and various other civil rights groups filed an amicus curiae brief arguing that the subjective nature of the jury's sentencing inevitably contained racial bias. It seems almost impossible for a high-profile capital punishment-related issue to pass without serious arguments regarding racial bias surrounding and influencing the case. Not only is this auxiliary issue an emotionally impactful strike at the death penalty, it is supported by considerable empirical evidence regarding the racial equity of the application of the death penalty. Seeing the issue of race rear its head in yet another important case merely reinforces the depth of unanswered questions about both the fundamental nature of the death penalty and its application.

Two Separate ABA Studies Find Inequity and Inaccuracy in Death Penalty

Studies on the application of the death penalty by the American Bar Association in Pennsylvania and Ohio have both returned a negative verdict on the accuracy, effectiveness, and racial equity of the death penalty in those states. In Pennsylvania, only 7 of the 93 standards put forth by the ABA for the fair and effective execution of executions were met. Furthermore, "'an astonishing 98.6 percent' of jurors failed to understand at least some of their instructions." The Ohio report went further than its Pennsylvania counterpart, suggest a complete moratorium on executions in the state due to serious, fundamental flaws in the system. Just 4 of 93 ABA's standards were met by the Ohio system.

Both studies also found serious racial inequity in the application of capital punishment in their respective states. The Pennsylvania report flatly stated that blacks were sentenced to death more frequently than whites, and the Ohio report said that the application of the death penalty was "prone to racial and geographic imbalances."

World Day Against the (still popular) Death Penalty Observed

As the 5th annual World Day Against the Death Penalty was observed this week (October 10th), a Gallup poll showed little change in the attitudes of Americans towards capital punishment, with 69% of Americans supporting it. In contrast, in the European Union, 26 of 27 members states (Poland objected) condemned capital punishment across the globe, criticizing the argument that it deters crime and arguing that it makes terrorism harder to fight by attracting martyrs.

Also on October 10th, the Supreme heard 90 minutes of oral arguments in Medellin v. Texas. Mr. Medellin was convicted of murder in Texas and sentenced to death. However, as a Mexican citizen, Medellin argued that "the state violated his rights as a foreign national to consular access under the Vienna Convention." The International Court of Justice actually ruled in his favor, but the lower Texas courts did not. While the Court's ruling in this case is going to pertain more to Presidential power with respect to the Judiciary (the Bush administration filed a controversial brief in the case), this is yet another case pertaining to capital punishment in the Court's very full docket.

Supreme Court's Pending Decision has Wide Ripple

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case questioning the humanity of lethal injection, which is used by 37 of 38 states to carry out executions. The suit was brought by two Kentucky death row inmates, who are arguing that the process of lethal injection causes severe pain, and therefore violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Litigation of this sort has already affected current capital punishment proceedings in nine states, and this specific hearing has led to both Oklahoma’s attorney general calling for a delay to executions in his state and a likely, if temporary, slowdown in the rate of Texas’ executions. It is unlikely that this ruling will affect the constitutionality of capital punishment in general, as it is likely to focus the very specific question of how painful and human the drugs used to kill the inmate are not on the humanity of taking a life in general.