The StandDown Texas Project

O'Malley Should End State Death Sentences

That's the title of an editorial in today's Frederick News-Post in Maryland.

After years of contentious debate, Maryland last year did away with its death penalty. The legislation, however, did not apply to the four individuals who were already awaiting execution on the state’s death row.

That exception to the new law has created a controversy that needn’t have occurred, but can be easily put to rest by Gov. Martin O’Malley — if he has the political will to do so.

To begin with, when Maryland finally decided it was against executing people, the new law should not have left four prisoners on death row. The General Assembly should have resolved the matter completely and made the law applicable to everyone. Failure to do that has created the current controversy.

Earlier coverage from Maryland begins at the link.

Double Jeopardy

That's the title of an article in the November 17 issue of the New Yorker, written by Paige Williams.  It's subtitled, "In Alabama, a judge can override a jury that spares a murderer from the death penalty."  Here's a brief excerpt from this must-read:

Most states with the death penalty require a unanimous vote of twelve in order to impose capital punishment. Alabama requires ten. In this case, the jury unanimously rejected the state’s request to send Jackson to the electric chair. The jurors were reluctant to condemn a teen-ager to death, especially in a case with such conflicting evidence. “I had concerns about whether Shonelle Jackson was the shooter,” a juror named Jan Burkes later said, in a sworn deposition, adding, “Other jurors also had concerns about whether Mr. Jackson was responsible.”

Judge Gordon thanked the jurors and sent them home.

In Alabama, though, a capital case doesn’t necessarily end there. The state’s judges can exercise an unusual power: they can “override” a jury’s collective judgment and impose the death penalty unilaterally.

Earlier coverage of Alabama's practice of judicial override begins at the link.

New AG in Nebraska

"Lincoln attorney will replace Bruning as state attorney general," is by JoAnne Young of the Lincoln Journal Star.

For the first time in a dozen years, Nebraska has a new attorney general.

Doug Peterson, a Republican, will replace Jon Bruning, who entered the governor's race and was defeated in the primary. Peterson defeated Janet Stewart, a Democrat who practices law in Fremont.

And:

On some of the bigger issues, Peterson, like his predecessor, has said he would be aggressive in trying to find the appropriate lethal injection drugs to effectively carry out Nebraska's death penalty and believes Nebraska’s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to that between a man and a woman is constitutionally sound.

Earlier coverage from Nebraska begins at the link.

The Kansas Judicial Elections

"Kansans vote to retain justices Lee Johnson, Eric Rosen," is by Tim Potter of the Wichita Eagle.

Two Kansas Supreme Court justices facing a vote in Tuesday’s election on whether they should be retained held on in statewide election results, although Sedgwick County voters wanted to oust them.

Justices Lee Johnson, 67, of Caldwell and Eric Rosen, 61, of Topeka faced opposition over the court’s decision in a Wichita quadruple homicide.

And:

Members of the Kansas Supreme Court face a vote every six years on whether they should be retained. Of the seven justices on the Supreme Court, Johnson and Rosen were the only two standing for retention votes this year.

Since the state adopted merit selection in 1958, apparently there has never been a Kansas Supreme Court justice not retained by voters.

Governor Sam Brownback was also re-elected.

Earlier coverage from Kansas begins at the link.  Related posts are in the politics category index.

Returns in Key Governor Elections

"Hickenlooper declares victory; Beauprez refuses to concede in Colorado," is by John Frank and Joey Bunch for the Denver Post.

A bleary-eyed John Hickenlooper declared victory in the governor's race Wednesday morning after a long night and early morning waiting for the ballot count in a razor-thin contest against Republican Bob Beauprez.

Though the death penalty was a highly visilbe part of the Colorado race, earlier polling indicated that it was not a significant issue to the overwhelming majority of voters.  Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

"Hassan wins second term as N.H. governor," is by Kathleen Ronayne of Associated Press, via the Boston Globe.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan defeated Republican businessman Walt Havenstein on Tuesday to win a second term in office after a campaign dominated by the economy.

Hassan, leading into the final days of the campaign, was never down in the polls.

The Philadelphia Inquirer reports, "Wolf defeats Corbett," by Thomas Fitzgerald.

Democrat Tom Wolf, a businessman from central Pennsylvania, was elected governor Tuesday in his first campaign for political office.

Republican Tom Corbett became the first governor to lose a bid for reelection in the state's modern history.

Wolf stated during the campaign that he believed Pennsylvania needed a moratorium on capital punishment.

Related posts are in the politics category index. 

Colorado Death Penalty Politics, Continued

"Dunlap 'full clemency' ad abandons reality," is by the Denver Post Editorial Board.

Criticizing the governor over his handling of the Dunlap case and his position on the death penalty is fair game. Claiming he has threatened to release a mass murderer onto the streets is utter fiction. And yet some viewers no doubt end up believing it.

To be clear, Hickenlooper's opponent, Republican Bob Beauprez, had nothing to do with the ad. Moreover, Beauprez himself has been the target of sleazy ads from outside groups that falsely characterize his stewardship of Heritage Bank before it was sold in 2007, when there is no evidence that his role with that bank was anything but honorable.

However, the claim that the governor supports a policy that could release a mass murderer may take the cake for this political season's whoppers. And even "whopper" may be too kind a word. More like a malicious falsehood.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.  Related posts are in the politics category index.

News Coverage of the Gallup Poll

The Guardian posts, "Six in 10 Americans support death penalty despite recent botched injections," by Jessica Glenza.

Though Americans’ opinions held steady over the past six years, support for executions has slid considerably since the mid-1990s, from an all-time high of 80% approval.

Democrats are responsible for a majority of the shift: 49% support the death penalty now, down 26 points from 1994. Over the same period, support among Republicans slipped from 85% to 76%.

Support is nowhere near its lowest point. In 1967, fewer than half of Americans approved of the death penalty.

As in many surveys, changing a question’s framing changes the answer. Support for the death penalty drops when people have the option to choose life in prison without parole. When given the alternative, half of Americans favor the death penalty.

"American support for the death penalty hasn’t budged since botched executions," is by Mark Berman for the Washington Post.

A new Gallup poll, released Thursday, shows that American support for the death penalty hasn’t really moved in the last five years:

It is worth noting that the gap between those who support and oppose the death penalty was more narrow in a Pew Research Center survey taken last year, which found that 55 percent of Americans supported it and 37 percent opposed it.

Public support for the death penalty has dropped over the last two decades, something found by the Pew poll last year and the Gallup poll this year. Gallup’s survey found that four out of five Americans supported the death penalty in 1994, a number that has declined considerably since then. (The Pew survey shows a similar dip since the mid-1990s.)

"Support for death penatly holds steady," is by Benjamin Goad at the Hill.

“The broader trend over the last two decades has been diminished support for the death penalty, including a 60 percent reading last year, the lowest since 1972,” Gallup concluded.

There remains a partisan divide in support for the death penalty, with 76 percent of Republicans in favor of the practice and just 49 percent of Democrats supportive of capital punishment for murderers, the survey finds.

But among those of all political stripes, including Republicans, support for the death penalty has waned over recent decades.

Earlier coverage of this year's Gallup polling begins with the preceding post.

In Colorado

"Dunlap death row decision by Gov. John Hickenlooper haunts victim’s father but not other family members," is by Lynn Bartels of the Denver Post.

A heartbroken father whose daughter was killed during a rampage at a suburban Chuck E. Cheese blistered Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper for granting an indefinite reprieve to death row inmate Nathan Dunlap.

Dennis O’Connor called Hickenlooper a “coward” in a tough-to-watch 13-minute video released Monday by A Better Colorado Future, a political 527 overseen by Republican political operatives Andy George and Kelly Maher. His daughter, Colleen, was 17.

And:

O’Connor’s former wife, Jodie McNally-Damore, has a different opinion of Hickenlooper’s decision. Dunlap, she told CNN, “deserves to stay exactly in the hole that he’s in … let him rot.”

And Colleen’s cousin, Gillian McNally, told Colorado Public Radio that she “fully supports” Gov. Hickenlooper’s decision. “I actually thought it was very brave,” McNally said.

"Hickenlooper’s Death Penalty Problem," is Wall Street Journal analysis by Kimberley A. Strassel.

Democrats have wanted nothing more than to make this midterm about local issues, hoping to distance the party from the unpopularity of President Obama’s Washington. It’s working in a few states, much to the peril of Colorado Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper.

A video debuted in the Centennial State this week, one that has the potential to supercharge an already contentious local issue playing big against Mr. Hickenlooper’s re-election: the death penalty.

Earlier unrelated coverage from Colorado begins at the link.  You can jump to news of Colorado politics; polling that shows few voters are concerned about capital punishment in the governor's race.

Politics & Capital Punishment in Kansas

The Topeka Capital-Journal reports, "Former D.A. criticizes Brownback ad depicting Carr brothers," by Tim Carpenter.  Here's an extended excerpt from the beginning:

The district attorney who prosecuted Sedgwick County’s notorious Carr brothers for murder condemned on Wednesday a new campaign advertisement from Gov. Sam Brownback that pivots on the case in a bid to weaken support for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Paul Davis.

The spot from Brownback’s campaign released Tuesday questioned the Kansas Supreme Court’s decision overturning death penalty sentences for Reginald and Jonathan Carr, who were convicted in the 2000 slayings of five people in Wichita.

The GOP governor said the commercial was designed to inform voters that Davis would appoint high court justices willing to impose on Kansans their personal views of capital punishment.

Nola Foulston, former Sedgwick County district attorney, said in a statement that use of the Carr brothers’ murders as a political wedge by Brownback’s campaign was damaging to victims’ families and could be viewed as unprofessional conduct by an attorney.

“This case has devastated our community for almost 14 years,” said Foulston, a Democrat who retired from the prosecutor’s office in 2013. “It is beyond disgraceful that Sam Brownback would exploit this tragedy and make the victims’ families relive that horrific crime every time they turn on their television just for the sake of getting re-elected."

Earlier coverage from Kansas begins at the link.  Related posts are in the politics category index.

Death Penalty Referenced in the Final Florida Gubernatorial Debate

"Final Florida gubernatorial debate heated and personal," is by Dara Kam of the News Service of Florida, via the Tallahassee Democrat.

In another pointed exchange, the two candidates wrestled over the death penalty. Scott, who has signed a record number of death warrants in his first term in office, pushed lawmakers to pass a measure this spring that supporters said was aimed at speeding up the time between convictions and executions.

The question about executions prompted an intense back-and-forth between the two governors over an execution that Scott rescheduled last year at the request of Attorney General Pam Bondi. The attorney general asked to have the execution delayed because it conflicted with a fundraiser slated for the same evening for her re-election campaign.

"Now, to me, and my way of thinking, that doesn't sound like somebody is taking that solemn duty as seriously as they should. I don't understand that," Crist said.

Creative Loafing Tampa posts, "Crist takes the final debate," by Mitch Perry.

On the subject of the death penalty, Crist put Scott on the defensive when he mentioned that Attorney General Pam Bondi had postponed a scheduled execution of death row inmate Marshall Lee Gore In September 2013 to attend a political fundraiser, an embarrassing incident that Bondi ultimately apologized for. But Crist was relentless, and accused Scott of signing off on that delay. Scott stumbled in responding, ultimately repeating that Bondi had apologized.

"Rick Scott Refuses To Say If He Knowingly Delayed An Execution For A Political Fundraiser," is by Amelia Rosch for ThinkProgress.

Gov. Rick Scott (R-FL) refused to say if he had knowingly granted a request to delay an execution so that Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) could hold a political fundraiser, repeatedly saying “she apologized” instead.

During a debate Tuesday night, the moderator asked Democratic nominee Charlie Crist if he believed that Scott did not take executions seriously. Crist hit Scott on the delay, saying, “Just this past year, an execution here in Florida was delayed by the governor so the attorney general could go forward and have a political fundraiser…to me and my way of thinking, that doesn’t sound like someone is taking that solemn duty as seriously as they should.”

And:

Since coming to office in 2011, Scott and Bondi have overseen over 18 executions; Crist oversaw five during his term as governor. Scott has been criticized of his support for the 2013 Timely Justice Act, which reduced delays in the death penalty by reducing the amount of time between when the clemency process was exhausted and when the execution was carried out.

Earlier coverage from Florida begins at the link.  You can also jump to the news of Florida AG Pam Bondi's admission.

Skewed Justice

The report, Skewed Justice: Citizens United, Television Advertising and State Supreme Court Justices’ Decisions in Criminal Cases, is available at the link.

"Study: Campaign Spending Skews Justice Against Defendants," is by Marcia Coyle at the National Law Journal.

Skyrocketing spending on television advertising in state supreme court elections has rendered justices less likely to vote in favor of criminal defendants, a new study found.

And in the 23 states whose election bans on corporate and union independent spending fell because of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, justices also were less likely to vote for criminal defendants than before the 2010 decision.

Although their priorities are not necessarily criminal justice policy, outside interest groups, fueling the spending explosion in judicial elections, have discovered the effectiveness of "soft on crime" attack ads, and that is having concrete effects on judicial decision-making, according to the study's authors, Joanna Shepherd and Michael Kang of Emory University School of Law in Atlanta.

The two law professors, with support from the American Constitution Society, collected and coded data from more than 3,000 criminal appeals decided in state supreme courts in 32 states and examined published opinions between 2008 and 2013. The researchers coded individual votes from more than 470 justices in these cases and merged the coded cases with data from the Brennan Center for Justice on the number of TV ads aired during each judicial election during the survey period.

The Greensboro News-Record in North Carolina posts, "Money in Supreme Court elections influences decisions, study says," by Doug Clark.

More money is being poured into these races, in large part because of the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.

For example, a group called Justice For All NC spent heavily in the 2012 North Carolina Supreme Court race and in this year's primary. It receives most of its funding from the Republican State Leadership Committee in Washington, which gets its money from Reynolds American, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, the U.S. Chamber, Koch Industries and other businesses.

The TV ads these groups run typically focus on criminal cases. The ad run against N.C. Supreme Court Justice Robin Hudson tried to portray her as soft on child molesters.As the Skewed Justice study points out, it's not that the groups running the ads really care about criminal matters. They're trying to elect judges who will be more accommodating of their business interests.

 The Texas Supreme Court handles civil cases, while the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the high court in the state for criminal cases.

President Obama to Nominate Vanita Gupta for DoJ Position

National Law Journal posts, "First South Asian-American to Lead DOJ Civil Rights Division," by Katelyn Polantz.

Former American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Vanita Gupta will temporarily lead the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, the department said today.

Gupta will serve as acting assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division and principal deputy assistant attorney general. She steps into the role at a time when the department has zeroed in on civil rights issues with the ongoing tension in Ferguson, Mo., and when a number of department leadership positions, including Attorney General Eric Holder’s, are in transition.

Gupta is expected to be nominated for the position permanently in the coming months, a person familiar with the administration’s conversations told the NLJ. Gupta will then face the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Even as she has done trailblazing work as a civil rights lawyer, Vanita is also known as a unifier and consensus builder.  She has a knack for bridging differences and building coalitions to drive progress,” Holder said in a statement Wednesday.

The Guardian posts, "Obama to nominate Vanita Gupta to head DoJ civil rights division," by Ed Pilkington.

President Obama’s choice to head the civil rights division of the department of justice has been described as a “trailblazer” who has been at the forefront of the movement to end mass incarceration in the US, and has had almost unparalleled success in working across the aisle despite the partisan gridlock in Washington.

Vanita Gupta, 39, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, was appointed on Wednesday as temporary head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, a role to which she is expected to be nominated by the end of the year.

And:

Over more than a decade working on the front line of civil rights law, Gupta has proven herself to be a rare, if not unique, animal: a lawyer who is full-throated in her advocacy of progressive values yet has gained the respect and trust of conservatives, who would normally be considered her political enemies.

"Obama to nominate ACLU lawyer to lead Justice Department’s civil rights division," is by Sari Horwitz for the Washington Post.

Gupta, 39, who was born in the Philadelphia area to immigrant parents, has been praised by a wide array of political activists for her civil rights work, especially on prison reform, an issue on which liberals and conservatives have found common ground.

“In that zone, she’s been good to work with and a serious person,” Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, said in an interview. “She’s been open to working with conservatives on good policy. She has played a strong role in the left-right cooperation in criminal justice issues.”

David Keene, who was president of the National Rifle Association from 2011 to 2013, also praised Gupta’s “collaborative approach.”

“Vanita is a very good person,” he said in an interview. “I’ve worked with her on criminal justice reform issues. Most of the Obama administration people have been so ideologically driven that they won’t talk to people who disagree with them. Vanita is someone who works with everyone. She both listens to and works with people from all perspectives to accomplish real good.”

The Justice Department’s civil rights division has been without a permanent leader since its former head Tom Perez was confirmed as labor secretary in July 2013. Obama then nominated Debo Adegbile, a lawyer from the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, to head the division.

The Los Angeles Times posts, "Obama to name ACLU lawyer to Justice Department civil rights unit," by Timothy M. Phelps.

Obama’s previous nominee for the civil rights job, Debo Adegbile, was rejected by the Senate in March after some Democrats joined Republicans in opposing his appointment because of his previous legal representation of a prisoner convicted of killing a policeman.

Gupta is also likely to run into opposition, though, unlike Adegbile, she has support from some prominent conservatives, including anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist and David Keene, former president of the National Rifle Assn.

Gupta, like Adegbile, is a former lawyer for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. At the ACLU, she rose to become deputy legal director. Former colleagues describe her as a “rock star” among civil rights and criminal justice lawyers. In her first case, she won pardons for 35 mostly African American defendants, whose convictions she showed were based on falsified evidence from a police officer.

Earlier coverage of the Department of Justice Office of Civil Rights begins at the link.

Texas Roundup

The Houston Chronicle posts, "Being pro-life in governor's race doesn't extend to death-row inmates," by Peggy Fikac, the Austin Bureau Chief of the Chronicle's sister-paper, the San Antonio Express-News.

When Attorney General Greg Abbott talks about his opposition to abortion, he often mentions his Catholic faith.

Not so when he talks about his support for the death penalty, whose abolition is advocated by Pope Francis.

And:

Abbott's Democratic opponent, Sen. Wendy Davis, also backs the death penalty - even though as a Fort Worth City Council member in 2000 she voted to impose a moratorium on it, and even though the Texas Democratic Party platform calls for substituting life in prison for capital punishment, saying the death penalty is applied disproportionately to the poor and persons of color.

"Questions of Competence," is by Chase Hoffberger for the Austin Chronicle.

Eighteen years of appeals are ended. In April, nearly two decades after being sentenced to death by the state of Texas, now-40-year-old Larry Hatten told his attorneys and a Corpus Christi court that he didn’t want to waste any more time with what he considered inevitable.

And:

After being declared mentally competent, Hatten was given a final execution date: Wednes­day, Oct. 15. He’ll be the 10th inmate executed this year, and 518th since the reinstatement of Texas’ death penalty in 1976.

Houston's KPFT-FM will host Execution Watch on the web and its HD radio broadcast signal beginning at 6:00 p.m. (CDT), Wednesday.

According to TDCJ, state district courts have scheduled one more execution for 2014, and eight executions have already been scheduled for 2015.

Earlier coverage from Texas begins at the link.

AG Eric Holder Announces Plan to Step Down

NPR reports, "Eric Holder To Step Down As Attorney General," by Carrie Johnson.

 Eric Holder Jr., the nation's first black U.S. attorney general, is preparing to announce his resignation Thursday after a tumultuous tenure marked by civil rights advances, national security threats, reforms to the criminal justice system and 5 1/2 years of fights with Republicans in Congress.

Two sources familiar with the decision tell NPR that Holder, 63, intends to leave the Justice Department as soon as his successor is confirmed, a process that could run through 2014 and even into next year. A former U.S. government official says Holder has been increasingly "adamant" about his desire to leave soon for fear that he otherwise could be locked in to stay for much of the rest of President Obama's second term.

"White House: Holder resigning as Attorney General," is the AP coverage filed by Nedra Pickler and Jim Kuhnhenn.

The White House said that President Barack Obama would announce Holder's departure later Thursday and that Holder planned to remain at the Justice Department until his successor was in place. White House officials said Obama had not made a final decision on a replacement for Holder, who was one of the most progressive voices in his Cabinet.

Advisers to Obama and Holder said the attorney general had been planning his departure with the president for some time. Some possible candidates who have been discussed among administration officials include Solicitor General Don Verrilli, California Attorney General Kamala Harris, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Deputy U.S. Attorney General James Cole and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island attorney general.

"Eric Holder to Announce Resignation, Officials Say," is the National Law Journal post bBy Mike Scarcella of Legal Times.

Holder has long said he did not intend to serve the entirety of President Barack Obama's second term in the White House. Holder in 2012 said "it's been an interesting and tough four years" and that he would ask himself "Do I think that there are things that I still want to do. Do I have gas left in the tank?" NPR first reported the news of Holder's resignation.

Holder said he intends to remain at his post until a successor is named, according to published reports. NPR said Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. could be picked to replace Holder, who joined the Justice Department from Covington & Burling. The Justice Department in July published a long list of accomplishments under Holder's leadership.

Pennsylvania’s Lethal Injection Fiasco

That's the title of Christopher Moraff's report at Daily Beast.  Here's the beginning:

Fifteen years after its last execution, Pennsylvania is finding it difficult to fire up its death machine again.

If the commonwealth gets its way, it will soon strap 58-year-old confessed murderer Hubert Michael Jr. to a gurney inside the State Correctional Institution at Rockview, insert an IV into his vein, and fill his body with lethal chemicals until his heart stops beating. There’s just one little problem. The Department of Corrections can’t seem to get its hands on the drugs it needs to do the job.

On Friday, Gov. Tom Corbett announced that he is postposing Michael’s September 22 execution because the department doesn’t have a stock of lethal chemicals on hand and is still seeking a supplier. Michael, who is rapidly approaching the end of his appeals, would be the first prisoner executed in the Keystone State since 1999, when a judge ruled that condemned torture-killer Gary Heidnik’s desire to end his own life could not be used as evidence of his mental incapacity.

The implications for Pennsylvania are great: The last time the commonwealth executed an inmate who hadn’t voluntarily waived his right to appeal, John F. Kennedy was president. Corbett is eager to break that streak. He’s signed 35 death warrants during his tenure in office, all of which have been stayed. And he has gone on record saying he is “committed to carrying out the sentence” against Michael.

Earlier coverage from Pennsylvania begins at the link.

Conservatives Push Repeal in North Carolina

"NC conservative group wants death penalty reviewed," is the AP report, via WRAL-TV.

Some North Carolina political conservatives want state lawmakers to consider whether to replace the death penalty with life in prison without parole due to recently vacated murder cases.

The group North Carolina Conservatives Concerned about the Death Penalty said this week the General Assembly should re-evaluate capital punishment.

And:

The group's coordinator is Republican consultant Ballard Everett. Group members include current or former GOP chairmen in Nash, Wake and Durham counties.

Earlier coverage from North Carolina begins at the link; also available, more on the conservative case for abolition.

The Federal Judiciary

"Building Legacy, Obama Reshapes Appellate Bench," is by Jeremy W, Peters for the New York Times.  There is an infographic at the link.  Here's the beginning:

Democrats have reversed the partisan imbalance on the federal appeals courts that long favored conservatives, a little-noticed shift with far-reaching consequences for the law and President Obama’s legacy.< p/ >p>For the first time in more than a decade, judges appointed by Democratic presidents considerably outnumber judges appointed by Republican presidents. The Democrats’ advantage has only grown since late last year when they stripped Republicans of their ability to filibuster the president’s nominees.

Democratic appointees who hear cases full time now hold a majority of seats on nine of the 13 United States Courts of Appeals. When Mr. Obama took office, only one of those courts had more full-time judges nominated by a Democrat.

The shift, one of the most significant but unheralded accomplishments of the Obama era, is likely to have ramifications for how the courts decide the legality of some of the president’s most controversial actions on health care, immigration and clean air. Since today’s Congress has been a graveyard for legislative accomplishment, these judicial confirmations are likely to be among its most enduring acts.

Earlier coverage of federal judicial nominations and confirmations begins at the link.  Related posts are in the judiciary and politics category indexes.

Pennsylvania Commentary & News

"Disclose drug source," is the editorial published by the Scranton Times-Tribune.

Executions in Pennsylvania are carried out in the name of the commonwealth, the people of Pennsylvania. The state government has a duty to the people to disclose details about the irrevocable punishment it intends to administer.

Unfortunately, U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane, of the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, sealed the name of the compounding pharmacy for a feeble reason: According to the state, the company might not provide the drugs if its name is revealed.

That’s the company’s problem, not a reason to keep Pennsylvanians in the dark about an execution to be conducted in their name.

"Crack open the secrecy surrounding execution drugs," isMitchel Olszak's column in the New Castle News.

The commonwealth claims the provider of the drugs wants to remain secret and if identified, the firm will halt delivery of its product.

Perhaps you don’t care where these drugs come from and whether or not they are safe. Convicted killers aren’t a particularly sympathetic lot, so those views are understandable.

But government secrecy has a habit of spreading. Citizens should always demand openness and accountability from government as a matter of fundamental policy.

Do you really want a system where government information is concealed based on little more than a whim on the part of a private business? If that is the standard, be prepared for all sorts of new secrecy to come down the pike.

"Lawsuits, drug scarcity preventing Pa. executions," is AP's summary of recent developments, written by Mark Scolforo.  It's via the Observer-Reporter.

Gov. Tom Corbett’s decision this week to indefinitely delay the execution of a convicted murderer illustrated some of the practical and legal challenges the state faces these days in carrying out the death penalty.

And:

Corbett, a former prosecutor, signed 35 execution warrants, but he’s trailing badly in the polls as he seeks re-election. The Democratic candidate, Tom Wolf, said he won’t sign the warrants and will issue temporary reprieves while the state studies the issue of wrongful convictions.

Earlier coverage from Pennsylvania begins at the link.  With no drugs to carry out executions, Pennsylvania has a de facto moratorium on executions.

New California Public Opinion Polling

The Field Poll news release on death penalty polling, with detailed results, and Field Poll Tabulations are available at the links.

The Sacramento Bee reports, "Field Poll: Death penalty support slips in California," by Sam Stanton.  Here's an extended excerpt:

Support for the death penalty in California is at its lowest point in nearly 50 years, although more than half of the state’s registered voters still favor it, a new Field Poll has found.

The poll found 56 percent still believe the death penalty should be kept as a punishment for serious crimes, with 34 percent opposed and 10 percent undecided.

The findings come as states nationwide are grappling with a shortage of drugs used for lethal injections and critics who say some recent executions have been botched and left inmates suffering as they died. They also come after a July ruling by a federal judge in Los Angeles that found lengthy delays in executing California inmates have made the death penalty unconstitutional in the state.

Support for the death penalty in California has been eroding steadily for years, falling from a high of 83 percent in 1985 and 1986 Field Polls to its current level, the lowest since a 1965 survey found only 51 percent approval. The last Field Poll done on the issue, in 2011, found 68 percent in favor of keeping the death penalty, compared to 27 percent opposed.

“To me, it’s interesting that a small plurality is continuing to support the death penalty,” said poll director Mark DiCamillo, who noted that the Field Poll has asked the same question of voters since 1956, when support for the death penalty was 49 percent, the only year it has fallen below 50 percent.

AP coverage is, "Support for California death penalty slipping," by Juliet Williams, via the San Luis Obispo Tribune.

Support for California's death penalty has fallen to its lowest level in more than 50 years after a judge ruled it unconstitutional, according to a Field Poll released Friday.

The poll found 56 percent of registered voters support keeping the death penalty, a decline of 12 percentage points in just the last three years, when Field found 68 percent support for the death penalty. The new survey found 34 percent of respondents support abolishing it and 10 percent have no opinion.

It is the lowest level of support since 1971, when 58 percent of Californians supported the death penalty and 34 percent opposed it.

U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney in Los Angeles ruled in July that California's death penalty is unconstitutional because it takes too long to carry out, and that unpredictable delays are arbitrary and unfair. The judge noted that since the current death penalty system was adopted more than 35 years ago, more than 900 people have been sentenced to death but only 13 have been executed.

The San Francisco Chronicle reports, "Support for death penalty falls to 50-year low, Field Poll shows," by Bob Egelko.  There is an infographic at the link.

The poll numbers may actually understate public opposition, in view of the narrow defeat of a 2012 ballot measure that would have repealed California's death penalty and replaced it with life in prison without parole. More than 47 percent of those who went to the polls supported the proposal.

A spokeswoman for the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, which backed the 2012 initiative, said the latest survey is a further indication that capital punishment is losing support.

"I think that the public is becoming very aware that the California death penalty is broken beyond repair ... that we're spending millions on a system that fails to deliver the promise of justice, is wildly unfair, doesn't deter crime, and it will always risk (taking) an innocent life," said the spokeswoman, Daisy Vieyra.

And:

The Field Poll also asked voters about a federal judge's ruling in July that declared California's death penalty unconstitutional because of delays of 25 years or more in carrying out executions, which the judge said have led to an arbitrary and irrational system.

Asked how the state should respond, 52 percent said it should speed up the execution process, 40 percent said it should replace the death penalty with life without parole, and 8 percent voiced no opinion.

"Poll: Support of death penalty in California slipping," is by Howard Mintz for the San Jose Mercury News.  There are infographics at the link.

The Field Poll found that Republicans, conservatives and Central Valley voters were more likely to back retaining the death penalty, while Democrats, Bay Area residents, younger voters and African-Americans favor its abolition.

Despite the declining death penalty support, groups that have organized to get rid of the law in California have not cemented plans to try another ballot measure. Only voters can scrap the death penalty because it is in the state constitution.

Earlier coverage from California begins at the link.  You can also jump to news of the 2012 SAFE California ballot initiative, in which repeal of capital punishment narrowly failed.

Denver Post Polling Released

"Poll: Death penalty not major factor for Colorado voters," is by Jon Murray in today's Denver Post.

While the death penalty has been at the forefront of debate in the Colorado governor's race this year, a new Denver Post poll suggests the issue may lack bite.

It's failing to play much of a role in most voters' decisions, with only 18 percent of likely voters in the SurveyUSA poll saying the issue is a major factor. Most of those who say the death penalty is a major factor are backing Bob Beauprez, the Republican challenger to Gov. John Hickenlooper.

Hickenlooper has faced criticism from death penalty supporters since he granted Chuck E. Cheese killer Nathan Dunlap a reprieve on his death sentence in May 2013, leaving the decision to the next governor. Recently Hickenlooper suggested he might grant Dunlap clemency if he does not win reelection.

Countering that, Beauprez has vowed on the campaign trail to execute Dunlap, making the issue into an applause line.

And:

Sixty-three percent of respondents said they support the death penalty, and 28 percent are opposed while 10 percent are unsure. The margin of error is plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

"Colorado governor: Hickenlooper and Beauprez neck and neck in poll," is also by Jon Murray.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper's race against Republican Bob Beauprez was too close to call in a new Denver Post poll in which voters nonetheless indicated they were still getting familiar with the challenger.

Five weeks before the start of the mail-in election, 45 percent supported Hickenlooper among likely voters polled by SurveyUSA, and 43 percent supported Beauprez. The result is within the margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

The poll makes clear that the Democratic governor — who has faced controversy over gun control, the death penalty and his unconventional leadership style — is mostly a known quantity, and a polarizing figure. Forty-six percent of respondents had a favorable opinion of him, while 47 percent had an unfavorable opinion, a one-point deficit.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.  Related posts are in the politics and public opinion polling category indexes.

Norm Ornstein Commentary

The respected Congress-watcher writes, "A Matter of Life and Death: The Danger of an Out-of-Control State," for the Atlantic.  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

The power of the State—of government, in other words—is awesome. And nowhere is that power greater than when it controls life, death, and liberty. The Framers knew this kind of power can corrupt and believed in the principle, articulated much later by Lord Acton, that absolute power corrupts absolutely. They also believed that such power could be grossly misused in the hands not just of individuals acting on behalf of the State but also on behalf of the majority population, creating, in the words of John Adams, "tyranny of the majority." The whole constitutional structure, and the civil liberties built into the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, are grounded in those beliefs.

That immense power over liberty and life is especially evident in the criminal-justice system, in the hands of police and prosecutors.

Related posts are in the prosecutorial misconduct category index.

Ornstein references the recent North Carolina exonerations; earlier coverage, at the link.

Colorado Polling

"Rasmussen poll gives Bob Beauprez first lead in governor's race," is by Joey Bunch in the Denver Post.

Though incumbent Gov. John Hickenlooper and Republican challenger Bob Beauprez have been divided by only a few points at or near the margin of error for weeks, the first poll that put Beauprez ahead came out Monday.

The generally right-leaning Rasmussen Reports statewide survey put Beauprez ahead with 45 percent to the incumbent's 44 percent among likely voters. Third-party or independent candidates combine for 4 percent, leaving potentially 7 percent undecided two months from Election Day. The margin of error was gauged at 3.5 percent.

The representative sample of 800 Coloradans also were asked, "How would you rate the job John Hickenlooper has been doing as governor?" The result: 47 percent disappoved, 45 percent approved.

The article notes that a Post poll will be coming out later this week.

"Hickenlooper out of step with Colorado voters on death penalty: poll," is by Valerie Richardson for the Washington Times.

A poll released Monday shows Colorado voters favor the death penalty by more than 2 to 1, which could spell trouble for Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper’s re-election bid.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released Monday found that a whopping 59 percent of likely Colorado voters surveyed support capital punishment in general, while 25 percent are opposed and 16 percent aren’t sure.

The survey also found Republican candidate Bob Beauprez leading Mr. Hickenlooper by 45 to 44 percentage points, within the margin of error. A poll released Sunday by NBC News/Marist found Mr. Hickenlooper ahead by 43 to 39 percentage points among likely voters.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

What Will Doom the Death Penalty

That's the title of an OpEd in today's New York Times by Daniel LaChance.  It's subtitled, "Capital Punishment, Another Failed Government Program?"  LaChance is an assistant professor of history at Emory University, in Atlanta.

TO opponents of the death penalty, recent accounts of botched executions and DNA-based exonerations of death-row prisoners have revived hope that judges and voters will finally see capital punishment for what it is: an intolerable affront to human dignity.

But while such optimism is understandable, it is misplaced. Support for capital punishment is, in fact, in decline — but it’s less the result of a moral awakening on the part of the public than a symptom of a 40-year-plus process of disillusionment.

And:

Resources for fighting the death penalty are scarce, and for too long, abolitionists have spent them appealing to the humanistic ideals they wished most Americans shared, instead of one they actually do: distrust of government. Arguing that the death penalty is an affront to human dignity just doesn’t work. But portraying it as another failed government program just might.

Related posts are in the OpEd category index.

Colorado Roundup

"Death penalty is the enemy of speedy justice," is the Sunday Denver Post editorial.

With the death penalty having become an issue in the governor's race, it's worth contrasting these cases and asking ourselves, as Coloradans, which choice makes the most sense.

Is it worth pursuing the death penalty in a few select cases knowing it will postpone justice literally for years, cost many times the alternative of life without parole, and, given the appeals, won't actually resolve the murderer's fate for decades even if a jury agrees to the ultimate penalty?

Or should we embrace the opportunity for relatively quick pleas that ensure the killer will never walk again as a free man?

"Death penalty highlights governor's race debate," is by Ivan Moreno of AP, via the Denver Post.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez challenged Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper to answer whether he intends to grant clemency to a death-row inmate before Hickenlooper leaves office, prompting one of the liveliest exchanges during their first debate Saturday.

"I have no plan to revisit my decision, so my decision stands," Hickenlooper said. He added: "The government shouldn't be in the business of taking people's lives."

Republicans have blasted Hickenlooper in ads for his decision to grant an indefinite reprieve to Nathan Dunlap, who was convicted of killing four people at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese's restaurant.

"CNN show on Nathan Dunlap case stirs Colorado's death penalty debate," is also in the Denver Post.

A CNN documentary on Nathan Dunlap's 1993 murder rampage and death sentence aired Sunday night amid growing debate about capital punishment in Colorado — and about two weeks after the governor said in an interview for that show that he could grant Dunlap clemency.

The documentary did not include Gov. John Hickenlooper's clemency comments — which were obtained by a political blogger through an open-records request for the interview recording — though it did outline how the case has become a political talking point in this year's gubernatorial election. Hickenlooper told CNN he could grant Dunlap clemency if he is not re-elected in November.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

Continuing Coverage of the North Carolina Exonerations

Today's Raleigh News & Observer publishes the editorial, "NC brothers are cleared after system failed."  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

The chain of evidence that freed Henry McCollum and his half-brother Leon Brown after 30 years in North Carolina prisons was a chain of delicate links.

If the man now suspected of the 1983 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl hadn’t smoked, if an investigator had not stooped to collect a discarded cigarette butt found in the bean field near the victim’s body, if the evidence had not been kept over the decades, if the N.C Innocence Inquiry Commission had not been formed and its staff had not decided to act on Brown’s request to have his case reviewed, if the DNA on the cigarette had not matched Roscoe Artis – a man convicted of a similar rape and murder in the same Red Springs area – the brothers would be still in the prisons they left this week. Henry McCollum would still be on death row. Leon Brown would be serving life.

It is a great thing that these random acts and decisions joined against high odds to free the brothers. But it is also disturbing to consider how close this proof came to never surfacing and how many other people have been wrongly convicted and never redeemed by such rare good fortune. In the United States since 1989, 312 people convicted of crimes have been exonerated by DNA evidence.

"Freed pair will seek pardons; Could then seek compensation," is the AP report by Jonathan Drew, via the Robesonian

Henry McCollum and Leon Brown are planning to ask for pardons after they were freed this week from North Carolina prisons following the discovery of evidence that they didn’t kill a young girl 30 years ago.

Vernetta Alston, an attorney for McCollum, says lawyers representing him and Brown, his half brother, are preparing petitions for a pardon of innocence and plan to file within the next couple of weeks. McCollum was freed from death row after three decades, while Brown had been serving a life sentence.

If the men are pardoned, they would be eligible to claim compensation under a state law that allows up to $750,000 for people wrongly convicted of felonies. Alston said Brown and McCollum had not yet explicitly discussed petitioning for compensation.

"McCrory praises vacated convictions," is by Joseph Neff in the News & Observer.

Gov. Pat McCrory said he was pleased by recent headlines about the exonerations of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown, who were freed this week after almost 31 years in prison.

"Yesterday, I was heartened to see the convictions of Henry McCollum and Leon Brown vacated by the court," McCrory said in a statement released Thursday. "My office has a process in place to review applications for pardons of innocence. If they apply, we will begin reviewing their applications as soon as they are received."

And:

"That's awesome," said Vernetta Alston, attorney for Henry McCollum. Alston said she has begun the pardon application.

"We're thrilled the governor has sentiments that echo what the district attorney said and the court found, that these fellows are innocent," said James Payne, a laywer for Leon Brown.

The Fayetteville Observer reports, "Sabrina Buie's family stunned by release of two men convicted of killing her in 1983," by Nathan Hardin.

Buie was 4 years old when her sister was found in the field half-naked and choked to death by her underwear.

Reliving the murder investigation of her sister, Buie said, is nearly unbearable.

"It's the worst nightmare you could ever imagine," she said.

Buie declined to go into detail about the court's decision or the two men convicted 30 years earlier, but she said the ruling and timing of the hearing - near the anniversary of Sabrina's death - was especially painful.

Earlier coverage of the North Carolina exonerations begins at the link.

Continuing Coverage of Oklahoma DPS Report on Botched Execution

The Oklahoma DPS report,'The Execution of Clayton Lockett is available in Adobe .pdf format.  You can also access it via the New York Times.

Today's Tulsa World publishes the updated report, "IV errors, lack of training cited in Oklahoma botched execution report," by Cary Aspinwall and Ziva Branstetter.  It's the single most detailed news article.

Oklahoma planned to execute two inmates on the night of April 29, but the prison didn’t have key medical equipment or a contingency plan in case things went wrong.

The state’s official investigation, released Thursday, cites problems with the IV that was supposed to deliver the lethal drugs as “the single greatest factor” in Clayton Lockett’s botched execution. The report recommends several remedies to Oklahoma’s execution protocol, including improvements in training, communication, and a backup plan in case something goes wrong.

A paramedic and doctor in the execution chamber made numerous attempts to start an IV that night, but most were ultimately unsuccessful, the report revealed.

"IV Misplaced in Oklahoma Execution, Report Says," is by Erik Eckholm in the New York Times.

An official report released Thursday about a bungled execution in Oklahoma in April says that an improperly placed intravenous line in the prisoner’s groin allowed the drugs to perfuse surrounding tissue rather than to flow directly into his bloodstream.

The report was ordered by Gov. Mary Fallin after the prolonged writhing and gasping of the prisoner, Clayton D. Lockett, during an execution that drew global attention to death penalty procedures and problems associated with lethal injections.

Because the groin area was covered with a sheet as the injections began — first a sedative intended to render Mr. Lockett unconscious, and then paralyzing and heart-stopping agents — the doctor and paramedic on the scene did not see the bulge, larger than a golf ball, indicating a procedure gone awry, said the report by Michael C. Thompson, the commissioner of public safety.

"Oklahoma report: Executioners need more training," is AP coverage by Tim Talley.

Oklahoma turned to a 15-year physician and a medical technician with 40 years' experience to put Clayton Lockett to death, yet his execution still went awry.

Now, investigators are recommending more training for executioners, blaming Lockett's flawed, lengthy lethal injection on April 29 on poor placement of intravenous lines and a warden's decision that modesty was more important than monitoring Lockett for signs of trouble. The three drugs administered were not a factor, the state said.

The findings and recommendations of the governor-requested, state-handled investigation highlight the difficulty that death penalty states face in making sure the people performing a grim medical procedure are properly prepared to see it through.

Also from AP, "Oklahoma executions on hold after release of report on botched injection," via the Guardian.

In its report released on Thursday about the troubled 29 April execution of Clayton Lockett — who was declared dead 43 minutes after his execution began — the state department of public safety made 11 recommendations including more training for medical personnel and having additional supplies of lethal drugs and equipment on hand.

The corrections director, Robert Patton, is reviewing the guidelines, Fallin said, adding that she expects the department to implement them before executions resume. Three executions have been set for November and December, the first on 13 November.

Governor Mary Fallin said she still believes the death penalty is a just punishment for those guilty of the most heinous crimes, but that the state must make sure it is carried out effectively.

 There is extensive additional coverage, including:

'Oklahoma report blames intravenous-line woes for problematic execution," by Michael MuskaL for the Los Angeles Times.

"Oklahoma Finds Faulty IV Insertion 'Major Issue' in Botched Execution," by Nathan Koppel in the Wall Street Journal.

"Report: IV difficulties behind botched Oklahoma execution," by Mariano Castillo at CNN.

"Oklahoma investigation into botched execution finds problems with IV insertion, training of execution team," by Mark Berman in the Washington Post.

"Okla. executioners unaware drugs missed inmate's vein," by Gregg Zoroya at USA Today.

"Prison warden present at botched execution handed Oklahoma role," by Katie Fretland for the Guardian.

"IV badly placed in botched US execution," by AFP, via GlobalPost.

"Failed IVs and confusion at Oklahoma's troubled execution -  report," by Jon Herskovitz and Heide Brandes at Reuters.

"Report: IV line incorrectly placed in botched Oklahoma execution," by Frances Burns for UPI.

"Oklahoma report: Botched execution result of poor monitoring of IV line," at Al Jazeera America.

"State Releases Summary of Lockett Execution Investigation," by Matt Trotter at Tulsa Public Radio.

Oklahoma's Skiatook Journal reports, "Rep. Dorman comments on execution report."

Rep. Joe Dorman, Democratic Party nominee for governor, released the following statement on the findings of the state's investigation on Clayton Lockett's botched execution:

"Once again, Mary Fallin has succeeded in creating a biased report in her continued efforts to keep Oklahomans from knowing the full truth. This report was led by Fallin's Cabinet Secretary of Safety and Security, Mike Thompson, who can be fired by Fallin and witnessed the botched execution. I question his ability to conduct an unbiased investigation. Further, until recently her office kept the official execution logs and autopsy report under lock and key, leaving us all to wonder what Mary is hiding.

"Report finds inconsistent accounts of Lockett execution," by Janelle Stecklein of CNHI News Service, via the Muskogee Daily Phoenix.

"Oklahoma DPS commissioner offers remarks on execution investigation," at the Oklahoman.

"Oklahoma halts death row executions after investigation into botched lethal injection," by Amar Toor at the Verge.

"Oklahoma Execution Review Finds Lack Of Training, 'Antiquated' Processes," by Chris Geidner at BuzzFeed.

Earlier coverage of the Oklahoma DPS report on the botched execution of Clayton Lockett begins at the link.

Additional North Carolina News Coverage

"North Carolina Men Are Released After Convictions Are Overturned," is the New York Times report by Jonathan M. Katz.

Henry Lee McCollum had barely slept in days, terrified that his dream of 31 years — being released from North Carolina’s death row — might not come true.

But finally on Wednesday morning, after one more night of delays, he was driven out of the concertina-wire gates of the central prison here and to the waiting arms of his parents.

“I just thank God I’m out of this place,” Mr. McCollum, 50, said. “Now I want to eat, I want to sleep, and I want to wake up tomorrow and see that this is real.”

Despite a judge’s order on Tuesday overturning their conviction in the 1983 rape and murder of a child, Mr. McCollum and his half brother, Leon Brown, remained in custody overnight as officials processed the paperwork for their release. Mr. McCollum finally left the prison around 9:45 a.m. on Wednesday. Mr. Brown, 46, who was serving a life sentence, was released from prison around 1 p.m. He walked out of the prison gates in Maury, N.C., 80 miles east of here, and was embraced by family members. “God is good all the time,” he said.

"Exonerated North Carolina inmate adjusts to outside life after 30 years in prison," is AP coverage, via the Guardian.

After walking out of prison for the first time in three decades, former death row inmate Henry McCollum tried to climb into his father’s car but put his head through the loop of the seatbelt that is supposed to cross his chest. A TV cameraman showed him how it works.

The safety gear isn’t all that’s changed since the 50-year-old McCollum and his younger half brother were sent away for a 1983 rape and killing that new DNA evidence shows they likely did not commit.

McCollum has never accessed the internet or owned a cellphone. And he looked ill at ease on Wednesday in a tie and white dress shirt, the collar at least an inch too large, shedding the red jumpsuit he wore in his cell. His relief was obvious, though.

The Raleigh News & Observer reports, "NC brothers released from prison spend first day in freedom," by Joseph Neff.

Prison is over, but freedom will certainly carry new and bewildering challenges for McCollum and Brown, who’ve been locked up their entire adult lives. Both are mentally challenged, with IQ tests scoring in the 50s or 60s. They struggle with basic reading and writing, and they have lived three decades in a world being ordered around by others.

Like exonerated inmates before them, the two entered the free world with no outreach or help from the state that imprisoned them. They will rely on family, McCollum living with his father and stepmother outside Wilmington and Brown with his sister and cousins in Fayetteville. A social worker from the Center for Death Penalty Litigation has been trying to help establish residency, locate birth certificates and line up social services.

They will likely consider reparations: a pardon of innocence from the governor could bring a maximum of $750,000 each. Other wrongfully convicted inmates have filed civil rights lawsuits that have won settlements in the millions of dollars.

"How the North Carolina GOP Made a Wrongfully Convicted Man a Death Row Scapegoat," is by Michael Daly at the Daily Beast. For those interested in politicians who pushed the death penalty as a political wedge issue, it's a must-read.

From North Carolina comes a multi-twisted, true-life horror story, a Southern grotesque of despicable politics and outrageous injustice.

The supporting characters include a prosecutor who prided himself on being in the Guinness Book of Records for the number of people he put on death row.

There is also a convicted killer who was about to be executed for murdering a teenage girl when he refused his last meal as a protest against abortion.

And there is a woman legislator who got elected after her party smeared her opponent for being soft on crime even though his teen daughter had been raped and murdered. Her first priority upon achieving office was to introduce legislation to criminalize exposing a nipple or even an areola in public.

But the principal figures in this tale are two mentally challenged half-brothers who are being freed only this week after serving more than three decades for a heinous crime they did not commit, the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl.

ThinkProgress posts, "Senate Hopeful On 30-Year Wrongful Conviction: ‘The Process Worked’," by Alice Ollstein.

The same day Republican House Speaker Thom Tillis faced off against Democratic incumbent Kay Hagan in the first debate for her hotly contested US Senate seat, two men were freed from a North Carolina prison after spending decades incarcerated for a crime they didn’t commit.

Now middle aged, the two brothers have been in prison — one of them on death row — since they were teenagers, wrongfully accused of raping and murdering a child. When ThinkProgress asked Tillis if anything needs to change in light of this case, he said that because they were eventually exonerated, “It’s an example of how we have protections in our judicial system in North Carolina.”

“I feel very, very sorry for them and I’m glad to know they’re out,” he said. “At least the process worked, it just took too long.”

But civil and legal rights advocates, including Vernetta Alston at the Center for Death Penalty Litigation, have long argued the “process” has not worked at all for Henry Lee McCollum and Leon Brown.

Earlier coverage of the North Carolina exonerations begins at the link.

Editorials & Commentary on the North Carolina Exonerations

Today's New York Times publishes the editorial,"The Innocent on Death Row."

Cases of capital prosecutions based on flimsy evidence or marred by prosecutorial misconduct, not to mention racial bias, are distressingly common. Yet, even as death-penalty supporters insist that only guilty people are sent to their death, it is now clear that Justice Scalia was prepared 20 years ago to allow the execution of a man who, it turns out, was innocent.

How many more remain on death row today? Can the American people be assured that none will be killed by the state? For this reason alone, the death penalty must end.

"A death penalty symbol goes free," is the Charlotte Observer editorial.

Perhaps you remember Henry Lee McCollum.

His is a name that comes up regularly when the death penalty is discussed, because the crime for which he was convicted – the brutal 1983 rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl – tests the thresholds many of us have regarding when someone should or shouldn’t be put to death.

McCollum, of Robeson County, was part of a death penalty debate between U.S. Supreme Court justices in 1994, and he was featured in a 2010 mailing from the N.C. Republican Party that attacked a Democratic state senator for being soft on the death penalty. The mailing featured a picture of McCollum and described his crimes in detail.

And now, it turns out those crimes are not his.

And:

Can there be a clearer argument against the death penalty? It is this simple: Be it sloppy police work or prosecutorial misconduct or flawed eyewitness testimony, people are wrongly convicted of murder. Some are sentenced to death. And it is not rare.

"DNA frees the innocent, raises questions," is the Fayetteville Observer editorial.

Authorities missed or ignored previous signs of their innocence. They signed police-prepared statements only after hours of aggressive interrogation. Both have been described as mentally impaired. Some aspects of their "confessions" include impossible details that don't fit the known facts. When police did have belated doubts, fingerprint analysis they requested wasn't carried out prior to their trial.

We're glad they have been set free and thankful for DNA. But more of a reckoning may be in order. Maybe we should question everything about the system that failed in 1983, some of which is still with us today.

Dahlia Lithwick writes, "A Horrifying Miscarriage of Justice in North Carolina," at Slate.

Those who believe that we don’t execute the undeserving in America—or who aren’t too concerned about that possibility anyhow—have an ally in Justice Antonin Scalia. He famously insisted in Kansas v. Marsh that “"it should be noted at the outset that the dissent does not discuss a single case—not one—in which it is clear that a person was executed for a crime he did not commit. If such an event had occurred in recent years, we would not have to hunt for it; the innocent’s name would be shouted from the rooftops by the abolition lobby.”

That same Scalia, in an unrelated case before the Supreme Court 20 years ago, name-checked McCollum as the reason to continue to impose the death penalty. In that case, Callins v. Collins, Justice Harry Blackmun famously announced in dissent that he would no longer “tinker with the machinery of death” and would never again vote for the death penalty in any case. As Blackmun put it at the time: “The problem is that the inevitability of factual, legal and moral error gives us a system that we know must wrongly kill some defendants, a system that fails to deliver the fair, consistent and reliable sentences of death required by the Constitution.” In response, Scalia questioned why Blackmun hadn’t chosen a more grisly murder to make this announcement, specifically citing McCollum’s case as the more appropriate vehicle to announce that position. Scalia noted that all sorts of cases of truly horrendous murders came before the court, “For example, the case of an 11-year-old girl raped by four men and then killed by stuffing her panties down her throat. How enviable,” he wrote, “a quiet death by lethal injection compared with that!” Never mind that “quiet death by lethal injection” has little to do with how our executions are carried out these days.

When McCollum’s own case came before the high court, Scalia voted not to hear it. Blackmun again wrote a dissent from that decision, again chastising Scalia for failing to understand the stakes: “Buddy McCollum is mentally retarded,” he explained. “He has an IQ between 60 and 69 and the mental age of a 9-year old. He reads on a second grade level. This factor alone persuades me that the death penalty in his case is unconstitutional.” Interestingly, Blackmun never seems to have doubted McCollum’s guilt. He simply believed the man was mentally unfit for execution. What a difference a few decades of DNA exonerations make!

"I just freed an innocent man from death row. And I’m still furious," is the Washington Post OpEd written by Ken Rose, one of the attorneys in the case.

It took the Innocence Inquiry Commission, working for four years and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars, to finally prove my client’s innocence. Sadly, only a handful of defendants ever get that kind of attention and resources. In many other cases, biological evidence is lost, contaminated or never existed to begin with.

Now, with Henry finally free, some people expect me to feel satisfied, or even happy. The truth is: I am angry.

I am angry that we live in a world where two disabled boys can have their lives stolen from them, where cops can lie and intimidate with impunity, where innocent people can be condemned to die and where injustice is so difficult to bring to light.

As I lie awake at night, mulling over the maddening details of this case, I wonder: How many more Henry McCollums are still imprisoned, waiting for help that will never come?

"DNA shows a fifth confess to crimes they never committed," is Jerry Mitchell's column in the Jackson Clarion-Ledger.

When I was younger, I presumed anyone who confessed to a crime was guilty — but DNA is now teaching us that is far from the case.

About a fifth of those proven innocent by DNA testing in recent years in the United States had confessed to crimes they never committed, according to studies by the Innocence Project and others.

The latest case comes from North Carolina, where two mentally disabled half-brothers confessed to the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in 1983 — only to insist later the confessions were coerced.

Earlier coverage of the North Carolina exonerations begins at the link.

Colorado Commentary

"Dialogue still lacking on Colorado death penalty," is the editorial published in today's Denver Post.

We're not surprised that Gov. John Hickenlooper said in a yet-to-be-aired TV interview that he could grant clemency to convicted killer Nathan Dunlap if somehow he did not win re-election in November.

We would expect no less from someone who has deep-seated concerns about the death penalty.

As opponents of the death penalty, we believe clemency would be the right call.

The disappointing aspect of the situation, in our view, lies not with Hickenlooper's stance on sparing the life of Dunlap, but that the governor hasn't fulfilled what we see as his obligation to lead a broader conversation about the death penalty.

"An odd election issue," is the Vail Daily editorial.

There are just three men on Colorado’s death row, but don’t be surprised if the death penalty becomes a significant part of this fall’s gubernatorial campaign.

Gov. John Hickenlooper brought attention to the issue in May 2013 when he indefinitely delayed the execution of Nathan Dunlap, a man convicted of the brutal murder of four people at a Denver-area restaurant in 1993. Hickenlooper’s delay applies as long as he’s governor, meaning he made the literal life-or-death decision some future governor’s problem.

Campaign ads for Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob Beauprez have already raised the subject, and we expect it to become a more prominent part of the challenger’s case against the incumbent.

KUSA-TV posts, "Hickenlooper: Decision on Dunlap death unchanged," by Allison Sylte.

Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper addressed a controversial CNN interview Tuesday during an interview with 9NEWS Anchor Gary Shapiro.

In the as-of-yet unaired CNN interview, which will be part of a special series on death penalty cases, Hickenlooper said he could decide to grant "full clemency" to death row inmate Nathan Dunlap before he leaves office if he's not reelected.

Hickenlooper told Shapiro that despite these comments, he has "no intention" to revisit the decision he made in May 2013 giving Dunlap a temporary reprieve.

"You know, Nathan Dunlap's gonna die in prison, one way or the other," Hickenlooper said. "You know, I personally am against the death penalty. I don't think the government should be taking people's lives, but a number of other people disagree. That was why we did a reprieve: to respect that sentiment within the state."

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

Will Capital Punishment Play a Role in Colorado Election

"Hickenlooper suggests granting clemency to Nathan Dunlap in interview," is by Jesse Paul in today's Denver Post.

Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested in a yet-to-be-aired television interview earlier this year that he could grant full clemency to convicted killer Nathan Dunlap should the governor lose his re-election battle this November.

Hickenlooper, in an interview with CNN, made the comments in response to questions about Republican criticism of his handling of Nathan Dunlap — the ex-Chuck E. Cheese employee who killed four in a 1993 shooting rampage at the Aurora restaurant-attraction — who is on death row.

CNN asked the governor about Republican gubernatorial candidates running on a pro-death penalty platform sparked by the Dunlap case. At the time the interview was conducted in early February, the GOP's nominee, former congressman Bob Beauprez, wasn't yet a candidate. However, the party's then-front-runner — firebrand Tom Tancredo — was adamant that he would execute Dunlap should he win the office.

A CNN interviewer asked Hickenlooper if, "God forbid," a Tancredo-style candidate who continued to make an issue of the death penalty won, what actions could Hickenlooper take?

"If they did do that, and somehow they won, there are obviously remedies that the governor could do," Hickenlooper said of his options. "I could do a full clemency between election day and the end of the year. There are a number of different opportunities to make sure that doesn't happen. Again, human life should not be a political football."

"Hickenlooper opens door to clemency in Dunlap case," is AP coverage, via the Aurora Sentinel.

Gov. John Hickenlooper suggested in a yet-unaired CNN interview that he could permanently end the death sentence of a multiple murderer on death row should he lose his re-election campaign because he gave the inmate a temporary reprieve from execution.

Hickenlooper made in the comments in an interview for a CNN series on the death penalty that is due to air later this week. But the conservative website Complete Colorado obtained an audio recording of the 45-minute interview and posted it over the weekend. In it, the Democratic governor expresses disgust that Republicans were considering making Nathan Dunlap a “political football.”

The Durango Herald reports, "Death-penalty debate enters governor’s race," by Peter Marcus.

In a taped interview with CNN earlier this year obtained by right-leaning commentary site Complete Colorado, Hickenlooper said of the death penalty debate: “If that becomes a political issue ... there’s a period of time between the election, and the end of the year where individuals can make decisions, such as a governor can.

“The issue that a political campaign would make a human life into ... a political football is unacceptable,” Hickenlooper continued in the interview. “If they did do that, and if somehow they won, there are obviously remedies that the governor can do. ... I could give it a full clemency between election day.”

The comments were made public Saturday morning on “The Craig Silverman Show” on 710 KNUS. CNN’s special series, “Death Row Stories,” is expected to air Friday.

Hickenlooper has been attacked by Republicans since his 2013 executive order concerning Dunlap, in which the governor granted a “temporary reprieve” from execution.

Westword posts, "John Hickenlooper: Would He Commute Nathan Dunlap's Death Penalty If He Loses?," by Michael Roberts.

In June 2013, a month after Governor John Hickenlooper granted Chuck E. Cheese killer Nathan Dunlap a reprieve from execution but didn't commute his sentence, a poll showed that Colorado voters disagreed with his decision by a three-to-one margin. Since then, the furor has faded -- but the issue is primed to move front-and-center in Hickenlooper's reelection bid against Republican hopeful Bob Beauprez thanks to a newly released audio recording (hear it below) in which Hick speculates about granting clemency to Dunlap should he lose.

Will the election come down to voters picking who's most likely to kill Dunlap? And how much ugliness will emerge along the way? Continue to get a sense of the possibilities, featuring responses from those on both sides of the controversy.

Today's Colorado Springs Gazette publishes the editorial, "Governor should decide killer's fate before election."

Gov. John Hickenlooper should decide right away whether Nathan Dunlap lives or dies. No more should this man's life be a political football.

Colorado Independent columnist Mike Littwin writes, "Death penalty politics, gutsy and easy."  It's via the Aurora Sentinel.

There are two things we can be sure of, though.

One, the governor’s race won’t be decided by Nathan Dunlap or the death penalty. That’s why when Beauprez talks about Dunlap, he always plays the Hickenlooper leadership card. And the angle on this story is that Hickenlooper has said he wouldn’t revisit the Dunlap decision.

Two, the strangest part of this is that granting Dunlap a reprieve from the death penalty may have been the gutsiest thing Hickenlooper has done in his political life.

The easiest course would have been to let Dunlap die. Only the diehard anti-death-penalty people — most of them Democratic-voting liberals anyway — would have objected. There is no Dunlap constituency. There is no doubt of his guilt or of the horror of his crimes. There would be no political cost for Hickenlooper to pay.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.

Colorado Governor Voices Support for Repeal

"In interview, Hickenlooper offers new anti-death penalty stance, light support for Keystone," is by Eli Stokols of KDVR-TV.  There is video at the link.

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat who faces reelection in the fall, told FOX31 Denver Sunday that he is officially anti-death penalty.

Hickenlooper told voters in 2010 that he supported capital punishment, but granted a temporary reprieve last May to convicted murderer Nathan Dunlap.

And:

“My whole life I was in favor of the death penalty,” Hickenlooper told host Eli Stokols. “When Nathan Dunlap was being tried, it was a couple years after we opened the Wynkoop [Brewery] and it was like a family. We all watched it on TV. Everyone but one person I think felt he should be executed without question.

“But then you get all this information: it costs 10 times, maybe 15 times more money to execute someone than to put someone in prison for life without parole. There’s no deterrents to having capital punishment.

“And I don’t know about you, but when I get new facts, I’ll change my opinion. I didn’t know all of this stuff. There might be legitimate reasons why the U.S. — there’s not a single country in Europe or South America or Mexico or Israel or Australia — none of these countries support the death penalty any more, and there are good reasons for it.”

"John Hickenlooper opposes death penalty, but Nathan Dunlap could still die," is by Joey Bunch at the Denver Post.

John Hickenlooper said Sunday he has changed his mind since his first run for governor and now opposes the death penalty, but the immediate fate of convicted killer-turned-campaign-issue Nathan Dunlap is still unclear.

The next governor will decide when or if the man who killed four restaurant employees, including three teenagers, in 1993 will be put to death.

If it’s Hickenlooper’s Republican challenger, Bob Beauprez, there’s little doubt. “When I’m governor, Nathan Dunlap will be executed,” Beauprez said with authority to applause in a Colorado Christian University GOP debate in May.

Hickenlooper’s change of heart comes a year after he undermined a Democratic legislative push to repeal the state’s death penalty by suggesting he would veto it, which was two months before he gave Dunlap a “temporary reprieve” on his death sentence.

"GOP renews death-penalty attacks on Hickenlooper," is Ivan Moreno's AP filing, via the Coloradoan.

On Tuesday, the Republican Governors Association launched a television ad in Colorado hammering Hickenlooper on the death penalty. The ad says that “when it comes to making the tough decisions, Hickenlooper won’t step up to the table.”

In response, Hickenlooper has continued with his pledge to run a positive campaign and not engage with opponents’ attacks. His campaign released a statement countering the Republican Governors Association’s ad by saying Colorado’s unemployment rate is now at 5.3 percent, compared with just over 9 percent when Hickenlooper took office four years ago.

Recent polls have shown the race to be tied, adding more weight to issues that come up on the campaign.

“In a race that is viewed as being competitive, anything can matter,” said Norman Provizer, a professor of political science at Metropolitan State University of Denver. But, he said, he’s skeptical the death penalty is at the forefront of voters’ minds.

Earlier coverage from Colorado begins at the link.  You can also jump to coverage of the 2013 Colorado repeal legislation, or the Nathan Dunlap reprieve.

Kansas Politics

Today's Topeka Capital-Journal reports, "Death penalty opponents see GOP support for practice eroding," by Andy Marso.  It's a detailed article for those following the issue in Kansas.

Opponents of capital punishment say unease with allowing government the power to kill is growing within the libertarian wing of the Kansas Republican Party, and predict it will help with their repeal efforts.

But there's skepticism about the chances of repeal any time soon, in part because of two notorious convicted murderers from Wichita whose death sentence is in doubt.

In early August, the Kansas Republican Liberty Caucus approved a resolution opposing the death penalty, and after a long debate this spring the state Republican Party left support for death sentences out of its official platform.

Mary Sloan, executive director of the Kansas Coalition Against the Death Penalty, said her group is heartened by the developments within the party that controls the Legislature and all statewide offices.

And:

The Kansas Republican Liberty Caucus' stance was far more unequivocal.

Chairman Dave Thomas said the group, which has about 30 voting members, voted to pass a resolution supporting life in prison without parole as an alternative to the death penalty because capital punishment was not appealing from a fiscal standpoint or a "liberty standpoint."

“Any time you give the government a power that can be abused, it will or may be abused in the future," Thomas said. "And taking a citizen's life is kind of the ultimate power the government can have.”

Earlier coverage from Kansas begins at the link.

Die, Death Penalty, Die

That's the title of Nick Gillespie's post at Reason's Hit and Run blog.  It's subtitled, "The Libertarian Case Against Capital Punishment."

Another week, another botched killing under the legal euphemism of capital punishment. After macabre screw-ups in Oklahoma and Ohio, it was Arizona’s turn last week, when double-murderer Joseph Rudolph Wood III took about two hours to die. The specific problem this time around was an apparently unreliable “cocktail” of the drugs used in the lethal injection process.

But let’s face it: There’s no good way to kill a person, even one as completely unsympathetic as Wood (he killed his ex-girlfriend and her father, shooting them at point-blank range). As a libertarian, I’m not surprised that the state is so incompetent that it can’t even kill people efficiently. But I’m far more outraged by the idea that anyone anywhere seriously thinks the death penalty passes for good politics or sane policy. It’s expensive, ineffective, and most of all, deeply offensive to ideals of truly limited government.

His full column, "Why the Death Penalty Needs to Die," is at the Daily Beast.

So the death penalty wastes money, has no effect on murder rates, and is sometimes tossed at innocent people. Those three reasons are more than enough to end it once and for all.

Earlier coverage of the Libertarian and conservative case for repeal begins at the link.

Another Look at Judicial Override in Alabama

"With Judges Overriding Death Penalty Cases, Alabama Is An Outlier," is the NPR report by Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza.

When Courtney Lockhart was tried for murder in Alabama, the jury unanimously recommended a life sentence, but the judge overrode that recommendation and sentenced Lockhart to death instead. Now the convicted murderer is asking the state Supreme Court to examine Alabama's unique process of judicial override.

Alabama is an outlier. It's the only state in which judges routinely override jury decisions not to impose the death penalty.

And:

Lockhart appealed his sentence to the state's Court of Criminal Appeals and lost. This May, Lockhart's lawyers appealed to the state Supreme Court in hopes that it would "reevaluate the propriety of judicial override," according to Bryan Stevenson, executive director of the anti-death penalty group Equal Justice Initiative. The court could take up the case any time in the next several months.

The U.S. Supreme Court, beginning in 2000, has said that juries must decide all key questions affecting a defendant's sentence. And the court has specifically applied that concept to death cases.

The result is that in practice, judicial overrides have all but faded away. Today only Alabama judges still override jury recommendations of life in prison and sentence defendants to death instead. In two other states — Florida and Delaware — laws on the books technically still permit judges to adjust jury-recommended sentences. But both states have enacted restrictions that amount to abolishing judicial overrides in practice. None of Delaware's death row inmates was sentenced by an override, and there have been no such judicial overrides in Florida in the last 15 years.

In contrast, the practice of judicial override in Alabama is so widespread that it accounts for one-fifth of death row prisoners.

Earlier coverage of judicial override in Alabama begins at the link.

Kansas Reactions

Today's Wichita Eagle publishes the editorial, "Court has serious job."

The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision overturning the death sentences for Reginald and Jonathan Carr was a tough reminder that the justices’ job is not to be popular but to hold lower courts accountable – a responsibility at its most serious when the issue before the high court is whether the state should end somebody’s life.

The Carrs were convicted and sentenced to death for a two-man crime spree of robbery, home invasion, beatings, kidnappings, sexual assault and execution-style killings in December 2000 that left five dead and Wichita traumatized.

And:

Twenty years after Kansas reinstated the death penalty, it’s not surprising that many are weary of the glacial pace of appeals and impatient to see executions begin. But lawmakers should allow for the possibility that the problem isn’t the Supreme Court but the costly law itself.

"High court's Carr decision may prompt push to change way justices are appointed" is the AP report filed by John Hanna, via the Topeka Capital-Journal.

The Kansas Supreme Court’s decision to overturn two brothers’ death sentences for a notorious robbery, rape and killing rampage likely will fuel another push by conservative Republicans to give the governor and legislators more say in how the justices are chosen.

Senate Majority Leader Terry Bruce said the judicial selection process will “absolutely” be an issue when legislators reconvene in January because of the court’s rulings last week in the cases Jonathan and Reginald Carr. The Nickerson Republican said the rulings weren’t surprising — the court hasn’t upheld a death sentence in two decades — and many members of the GOP-dominated Legislature believe the justices have shown an “activist” streak.

And:

Supporters of the current nominating process argue that it eliminates partisan politics so the selection process can focus on applicants’ skills and work history.

“There will always be cries for the heads of judges when they make difficult and unpopular rulings,” said Rep. John Carmichael, a Wichita Democrat and attorney. “It’s an imperative that we have independent courts.”

Earlier coverage of the Kansas Supreme Court ruling begins at the link.

Ronnie White Confirmed as Federal Judge in Missouri

"Senate confirms White as federal judge in Missouri," is the AP report, via the Columbia Daily Tribune.

A former Missouri Supreme Court judge whose two previous nominations to the federal bench were blocked in Washington was confirmed a U.S. District Court judge yesterday.

The U.S. Senate voted 53-44 in support of Ronnie White’s nomination by President Barack Obama. White, 61, was previously nominated to the post by President Bill Clinton in 1997 and again in 1999. The St. Louis native and former state lawmaker was the first black judge on the state Supreme Court, serving there from 1995 to 2007, including two years as chief justice.

White now is a lawyer in private practice in St. Louis.

Former Sen. John Ashcroft of Missouri, a Republican member of the influential Senate Judiciary Committee, helped derail White’s second nomination. The former Missouri governor said White, a Democrat, was “pro-criminal” and an activist judge who was soft on the death penalty and drug law enforcement. White’s first nomination expired when it wasn’t voted upon.

The National Law Journal posts, "Denied the Bench Under Clinton, Ronnie White is Confirmed," by Marcia Coyle.

Second chances are rare in the U.S. Senate's judicial-confirmation process. On Wednesday, Ronnie White, the first African-American judge on the Missouri Supreme Court, beat the odds by winning confirmation to a federal district court seat the Senate denied him 15 years ago.

In 1997, President Bill Clinton nominated White, then a state Supreme Court justice, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The Senate rejected the nomination two years later after an aggressive attack led by then Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo.

Ashcroft accused White of being pro-criminal, particularly in his death penalty rulings. He bolstered the attack with opposition from local police groups. White's supporters countered that the opposition was based on race. Ashcroft subsequently convinced Republican senators to vote as a block, which doomed White's nomination.

When Ashcroft was later nominated as U.S. attorney general, the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., said during the confirmation hearings that Ashcroft's role in defeating White's nomination was "the ugliest thing that has happened to any nominee in all my years in the U.S. Senate."

Earlier coverage of federal judicial nominations begins at the link.  Related posts are in the judiciary and politics category indexes.

Earlier, unrelated, news from Missouri is also available.

Florida Editorial Criticizes Timely Justice Act

The Sunday Tampa Tribune published the editorial, "Death penalty law legal but falls short."

The average time for Florida’s death row inmates to await execution is 13 years, below the national average. Rather than focus simply on ways to legislate a shorter wait time, the state also should address the startling number of faulty convictions.

An American Bar Association review from 2006 called upon the state to create independent commissions to examine the causes of wrongful convictions, to better compensate attorneys for the accused and to bring Florida in line with other states by requiring that jury recommendations for death be unanimous, rather than a simple majority. The review found glaring racial, socioeconomic and geographical disparities in death sentences.

So far, the state hasn’t moved to address the more pressing issues surrounding its flawed death penalty process. This neglect can contribute to the legal delays in executions.

The Supreme Court got it right. The Timely Justice Act is constitutional, and largely inconsequential. State lawmakers have more work to do to strengthen the death penalty and justice in Florida.

Earlier coverage from Florida begins at the link.  You can also jump to news of the Timely Justice Act.

Jordan Steiker on the Texas Death Penalty

Today's San Antonio Express-News publishes an OpEd by Jordan Steiker, "Fewer executions but Texas still the death penalty leader."  He is the Judge Robert M. Parker endowed chair in law and director of the Capital Punishment Center, at the University of Texas School of Law.  Here's an excerpt from this must-read:

How did Texas become the leader of American executions?

Executions require something of a perfect storm. Prosecutors must seek death; defense lawyers must fail in their quest for a plea or a life sentence at trial; appellate judges must find the underlying trial to have been fundamentally fair; statewide prosecutors must defend the resulting death verdicts; post-conviction courts must sign off on the adequacy of representation and the conduct of prosecutors at trial; and executive officials must stand aside and permit the execution to go forward. While it rarely rains in Texas, this sort of perfect storm has become the norm rather than the exception.

To perform more than 500 executions, a state needs a lot of death sentences, and Texas was very successful in this regard for nearly a quarter-century, never falling below 20 a year from 1980 to 2004.

Earlier coverage from Texas begins at the link.  Also available, more recent commentary.  Related posts are in the OpEd category index.

The Conservative Case Against the Death Penalty

That's the title of a lengthy article in the Sunday Boston Globe by Leon Neyfakh.  It's subtitled, "Can a few thinkers convince their party that a winning GOP issue is actually a costly, ineffective, anti-life government boondoggle?"  Here' the beginning:

Richard Viguerie was driving last Tuesday morning to Washington, D.C., where the 80-year-old founder of ConservativeHQ.com would be meeting with about 100 like-minded leaders as part of a summit on the right’s approach to criminal justice policy. Newt Gingrich would be in attendance, along with Texas Senator John Cornyn and former attorney general Ed Meese. Given the influential guest list, you might have expected Viguerie to use the occasion to try and spread the word about one of his most deeply held ideas about criminal justice reform.

But Viguerie, who was closely involved in the recruitment of evangelicals into the Republican Party during the late 1970s and ’80s, was planning to do no such thing. Though many of the attendees were friends he’d made over the course of his long career in conservative politics, he knew most of them would not be receptive to what he had to say. The fact of the matter, Viguerie said, is that most conservatives just aren’t ready to accept his belief that the United States should abolish the death penalty.

This is not a typical position for a devoted conservative to hold. But Viguerie feels strongly about it, having arrived at it more than 35 years ago by way of his Catholic faith. Since then he has come to see the issue in broader terms, and now believes that capital punishment constitutes a violation of conservatism’s most basic principles.

Viguerie is part of a small but expanding group of conservatives publicly arguing that true conservatism points away from, not toward, the death penalty. One former NRA employee helps lead an organization called Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty, and has been giving speeches promoting abolition at right-wing gatherings around the country. A Republican state representative in Kentucky has introduced a bill to get rid of capital punishment in the state. Conservative commentator S. E. Cupp recently devoted her column in the New York Daily News to the idea that “conservatives...should lead the charge to abolish” the death penalty.

Earlier coverage of the conservative movement for repeal begins at the link.

From Colorado

The Denver Post reports, "For Gov. John Hickenlooper, questions persist about death penalty decision one year later," by Kurtis Lee.

Nathan Dunlap.

It’s a name that, as of late, has become ever-present in Colorado politics.

A year ago today, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper granted Dunlap a temporary reprieve from capital punishment — a sentence handed down to Dunlap, who was convicted of killing four people at an Aurora Chuck E. Cheese’s in December 1993.

And:

Hickenlooper’s move has become persistent political fodder among the four GOP candidates vying to oust him from office this November. Dunlap’s name is often brought up at debates, in campaign videos and in stump speeches. All of the Republican candidates have vowed to execute Dunlap — a practice not used in Colorado since the 1997 execution of Gary Davis.

Earlier, unrelated news from Colorado begins at the link.  You can also jump to coverage of the Dunlap reprieve.

At Newsweek

"An Unlikely Conservative Cause: Abolish the Death Penalty," is by Pema Levy for Newsweek.  There is an infographic at the link.

Marc Hyden was a little nervous as he took the stage in February at a local Republican political conference in Buford, Georgia, where some 300 conservatives looked up at him skeptically. He was about to pitch them on why they should oppose the death penalty.

“Many of them looked at me a little weirdly,” Hyden recalls. “Who is this guy? Is he a liberal acting as a conservative?”

He is not a liberal. A conservative Christian who most recently worked at the National Rifle Association, Hyden is one of two people leading a group called Conservatives Concerned About the Death Penalty. His mission is to convince Republicans that the death penalty fails a “conservative litmus test.” Ultimately, the goal is to see it repealed in every state.

And:

At the February “Conservatism Outside the Box” conference, which drew speakers on issues ranging from homeschooling to the states’ right to nullify federal laws, Hyden walked the audience through his transformation from pro- to anti-death penalty.

Armed with a PowerPoint slideshow, he began with the pictures of men on death row who were executed before potentially exculpatory evidence was uncovered. Next, he hammered on the high costs of the death penalty, largely due to the costlier trials and prolonged appeal process in most cases, which sometimes force counties to commit the cardinal conservative sin of raising taxes. The state of California, for example, has, since 1978, spent $4 billion on death penalty cases and carried out 13 executions.

“This should be offensive to conservatives,” Hyden told the crowd. “We’re supposed to act as stewards of the taxpayers’ hard-earned money.”

He bolstered his speech with quotes from prominent conservatives such as former U.S. Representative Ron Paul of Texas and columnist George Will, whose concerns about the death penalty might come as a surprise to some conservatives.

Earlier coverage of the conservative case for repeal begins at the link.

California Ballot Initiative to Speed Up Executions Hits Bump

"State death-penalty reform initiative pushed to 2016," is the AP report, viat the Manteca Bulletin.

A coalition of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and crime victims announced Friday that it will wait until November 2016 to place a death-penalty reform measure on the ballot.

Backers of the proposed initiative to speed up executions and save money said this delay gives them more time to raise money, build support and gather signatures.

The initiative would have limited appeals by prisoners facing the death penalty and removed them from special death-row housing. It would have also required death row prisoners to work in prisons to pay restitution to victims’ families. Former Govs. George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson and Gray Davis announced in February they would push to reform a system crippled with waste and inefficiency.

Scott Martelle writes, "Good news: Effort to speed up California's death penalty delayed," for the os Angeles Times Opinion LA blog.

Amid great fanfare this year, a prominent group of California politicos — including former Gov. Pete Wilson and Gray Davis — threw their support behind a fall 2014 ballot initiative that would have amended the state Constitution to speed up executions. Organizers announced late last week, though, that they were pushing the effort back to the 2016 election to give themselves more time to raise money and collect signatures — which is political shorthand for the effort failed to gain enough support.

And:

The best solution? Just ban the practice. We came close two years ago when a ballot initiative to abolish executions failed with 48% of the vote; a new run at it might do better were it to come up again, especially given the botched executions this year in Ohio and Oklahoma. California should join the other 18 states that have abolished the death penalty and instead devise a more pragmatic, cheaper and morally defensible way to deal with those convicted of murder. The killers don’t belong in society; they shouldn’t be coddled; but they also shouldn’t be killed by their government.

Today's San Jose Mercury News publishes the OpEd, "San Francisco DA says end the death penalty," by George Gascon.

The truth is, the death penalty is broken beyond repair, will always risk innocent lives, and is a waste of taxpayer dollars. The only viable solution is to replace it with life in prison without the possibility of parole.

Arriving at my current views involved a process that was both highly analytical and deeply emotional. Like many people, I have gone through an evolution in my thinking that has led me to believe that the death penalty is irreparably flawed and marred by a history of incorrect information.

My journey began with the realization that in my 30 years in law enforcement, the death penalty has had no impact on public safety. Strengthening families and neighborhoods, holding criminals swiftly accountable and ensuring that every child receives a quality education are more effective in deterring violent crime than remote threats of execution.

Earlier coverage of the proposed California ballot initiative begins at the link.

Oklahoma State Rep Calls for Independent Inquiry

Today's Tulsa World reports, "Rep. Joe Dorman calls for independent investigation of botched execution."  It's by Barbara Hoberock.

Rep. Joe Dorman called on Thursday for a truly independent investigation into the botched execution of Clayton Lockett.

And:

Gov. Mary Fallin ordered Public Safety Commissioner Michael Thompson to investigate why the execution went wrong.

Fallin appointed him as commissioner. He also witnessed the execution and formerly worked for the Department of Corrections.

"No matter how you look at it, Commissioner Michael Thompson can't be an impartial witness and investigator," said Dorman, D-Rush Springs, who is running against Fallin in her bid for re-election.

Dorman recommended that a blue ribbon panel be formed under the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation. However, that agency is also part of the executive branch, and Fallin appoints its governing board.

"Mary Fallin's actions and inactions are inviting a federal investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, and she alone is setting back the use of capital punishment nationwide for decades," Dorman said. "Gov. Fallin, this is your administration, but it is still our state."

"Fallin Opponent Calls for OSBI Probe of Execution," is the AP coverge, via Tulsa Public Radio.

Governor Mary Fallin's Democratic opponent in the race for Oklahoma governor wants he calls an independent probe into last week's botched execution of a death row inmate.

State Representative Joe Dorman of Rush Springs said Thursday he wants the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to conduct the investigation into last week's execution of Clayton Lockett. A doctor said Lockett's vein collapsed during the lethal injection.

Dorman is among those who have been critical of Fallin's decision to name one of her appointees and cabinet members, Commissioner of Safety and Security Michael Thompson, to head the investigation. Thompson also was a witness to the execution.

Earlier coverage from Oklahoma begins at the link

Friday's Column & Commentaries on the Oklahoma Botch

"A Bad Death in Oklahoma," is by Hendrik Hertzberg for the New Yorker.  Here's the beginning of this must-read:

The most telling moment in Oklahoma’s botched execution of Clayton Lockett came six minutes after the purportedly lethal drugs had begun to enter the condemned man’s body through an intravenous tube. It was a moment that pointed up the contradictions, incoherence, and bad faith of the death penalty as it is practiced in the United States, the only advanced democracy on earth that retains it.

Washington Post syndicated columnist Eugene Robinson writes, "There’s no humane way to carry out the death penalty."

When I read about the crimes Lockett committed, I wish I could support capital punishment. When I read about what Warner did, I want to strangle him with my own hands. But revenge is not the same thing as justice, and karmic retribution is not a power I trust government to exercise. The death penalty has no place in a civilized society.

"The Investigation of the Horrific Oklahoma Execution Will Not Be ‘Independent’," is by David Firestone at the New York Times Taking Note blog.

Did anyone really believe that Gov. Mary Fallin of Oklahoma would allow a truly independent review of the “execution” —  death by torture is more like it — that shocked the conscience of the nation and the world on Tuesday night?

It was Governor Fallin’s insistent demand for speed in killing Clayton Lockett that forced the state to use an untested mixture of toxic chemicals in the execution, during which Mr. Lockett sat up, moaned and writhed in pain. (He eventually died of a heart attack.) The state Supreme Court tried to stop the procedure, a lower court judge said it was clearly unconstitutional and lawyers warned for months that the state didn’t know what it was doing. But she overruled the court and pushed ahead with the execution, eager to show that no liberal judges would stop her from dispensing her state’s brand of justice.

Any serious investigation of the fiasco would have to closely examine the governor’s conduct leading up to it.

"Why conservatives should oppose the death penalty," is by Radley Balko at the Washington Post's the Watch blog.

People who subscribe to different belief systems sometimes have irreconcilable views on public policy issues with a strong moral component. The death penalty is one of those issues. But conservatives are supposed to be skeptical of government. That is a fundamental part of their belief system. And, except perhaps war, there’s no issue for which the consequences of government error or abuse of power are more absolute, irreversible and profound. Even if they support the idea of capital punishment in principle, it ought to be one of the last issues for which conservatives would be willing to abandon that skepticism. Yet it seems to be one of the issues for which their skepticism is most negotiable.

Also at the Post,"What it was like watching the botched Oklahoma execution," by Mark Berman.

On Tuesday, once the witnesses were brought in and seated, they waited. ”You just sort of sit there, maybe talking very quietly to the person next to you, until the blinds rise,” Branstetter told The Post the day after the execution. Branstetter, the enterprise editor at the Tulsa World, spends part of her time reporting and part of her time managing a team. She has witnessed three executions in the past, most recently the January execution of Michael Wilson.

Her experience attending other executions is part of the reason she went to this one; Oklahoma was using a new lethal injection drug for the first time, and the secrecy surrounding the drugs had caused a protracted argument that extended to the state’s courts and lawmakers. Branstetter had been there in January when Michael Wilson was killed with a three-drug mix that had been obtained from a compounding pharmacy. Wilson’s final words, spoken after the injections: “I feel my whole body burning.” So she wanted to go to see what was different this time.

The Atlantic posts, "Bring the Guillotine Back to Death Row," by Conor Friedersdor.

This punishment isn't worth the costs it imposes on us.

So let's bring back the guillotine—and once it forces us to confront the barbarity of needlessly killing people who pose no threat to us, let's abolish the death penalty. Countries without the death penalty get along just fine, and I don't think Americans will be able to stomach it once they look it squarely in the face.

"Every US execution is just as shameful as Oklahoma's botched killing," is by Jesse Berney at the Guardian's Comment is free section.

The recently botched state-sanctioned deaths – at least six in the last four-and-a-half-years – are terrible. But they're also distraction from the truth that we refuse to confront as a nation: every execution is just as brutal, just as shameful, and just as much a blow to justice as what happened to that man on Tuesday night.

Also in the Guardian, "It's time for the US supreme court to declare a death penalty moratorium," by Randall T Coyne.

As the world is now well aware, my state's effort to execute two prisoners in the same day for the first time since 1937 turned into a horrible miscarriage. We should have seen it coming, of course, as the secrecy and the scarcity of the drug cocktail in the execution mixed with the bickering and the borderline constitutional crisis in the halls of Oklahoma government, where all hell was breaking loose. Until, that is, hell came to the death chamber.

"Justice system shouldn't leave blood on our hands," is by Arizona Republic editor Jennifer Dokes.

Should a system that is not fail-proof have a penalty as certain as death?

And now, as horrifically demonstrated this week in Oklahoma, we're not even certain how to kill people. The Innocence Project lists 18 people who were sentenced to die and later exonerated. We were going to kill them.

Today, we aren't even killing well. End the death penalty.

I'll be adding additional links, later.

Earlier coverage of Oklahoma's botched execution begins at the link.

Beaumont Enterprise Editorial on LI Drug Secrecy

Today's Beaumont Enterprise publishes the editorial, "Texas must reveal source of execution drugs."

Attorney General Greg Abbott was right the first time: The state of Texas must reveal the source of the execution drugs it uses - just as it must identify virtually every company or individual it does business with. That's how open government works. You don't carve out exceptions, because if you do, pretty soon you don't have the transparency that taxpayers deserve when their tax dollars are involved.

Yet Abbott is wavering now because he's running for governor, and his legal opinion could slow or stop the politically popular death penalty - even though Abbott supports it, and that could cost him some votes.

The argument that manufacturers of lethal drugs could be subject to harassment or threats if their identity were revealed doesn't hold up. There's no indication that would happen.

Earlier coverage of Texas lethal injection issues begins at the link.

Politics and Lethal Injection Secrecy

"Abbott faces thorny choice," is the Associated Press report, via the Longview News-Journal.

The death penalty is like gun rights in Texas politics: Candidates don’t dare get in the way of either. But Republican Greg Abbott, the favorite to succeed Gov. Rick Perry, must soon make a decision as attorney general that could disrupt the nation’s busiest death chamber.

It’s an election-year dilemma for Abbott. But in Texas, it’s one that Democratic rival Wendy Davis can’t easily exploit, illustrating how little room there is to maneuver on this issue.

Abbott must soon decide whether to stick with his earlier opinions that Texas must disclose the source of the execution drugs it uses. That revelation that could prompt attention-shy suppliers to halt their drug deliveries and stop Texas’ executions.

If Abbott holds firm, he’ll please death penalty opponents who prison officials say want to target the companies with protests and threats. Reversing course would go against his vows for transparency in government.

“There’s no political upside. It puts him in a little bit of a tough position,” said Republican consultant Matt Mackowiak said.

Earlier coverage of Texas lethal injection issues, at the links.

The Moratoria in Arkansas & North Carolina

Arkansas Business posts, "Death Penalty Still Supported in Arkansas," by Mark Friedman.

Later this year New Hampshire is expected to become the seventh state in seven years to abolish capital punishment.

But there’s no reason to think Arkansas could join the 19 states that have no death penalty.

"Scorecard tackles the death penalty," is from North Carolina's Winston-Salem Journal.

This week, Scorecard looks at one event: North Carolina hasn’t had an execution since 2006, and a state Court of Appeals ruling rendered Tuesday raises new questions about the administration of the death penalty in North Carolina.

Both states have a de facto moratorium on executions due to lethal injection issues.

Earlier coverage from Arkansas and North Carolina, at the links.  Related posts are in the moratorium category index.

Senate Blocks Debo Adegbile Nomination to Head Civil Rights Division

That's the title of National Law Journal coverage of the U.S. Senate floor action, which begins extensive coverage and commentary.  It's be Todd Ruger.

The Senate today blocked Debo Adegbile's bid to lead the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice amid questions about how he would work with the major law enforcement groups that vigorously opposed his nomination.

Seven Democrats joined Republicans to vote against Adegbile based on the work he and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund did on behalf of Mumia Abu-Jamal, convicted in the murder of a Philadelphia police officer more than 30 years ago.

The vote 47-52 vote included a 'no' vote from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), a procedural trick that allows him to bring Adegbile's nomination up for another vote in the future. The other Democrats who voted against Adegbile were sens. Robert Casey (D-Pa.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Mark Pryor (D-Ark.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and John Walsh (D-Mont.).

AP coverage is, "Senate blocks Obama's pick for civil rights post," by David Espo.  It's via the San Francisco Chronicle.

President Barack Obama's choice to lead the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division was blocked by bipartisan Senate opposition Wednesday in an emotional postscript to the long-ago murder of a Philadelphia policeman and the legal help his killer received.

The vote against advancing Debo Adegbile toward confirmation was 47-52, shy of the majority needed under new procedures Democrats put in place late last year to overcome Republican stalling tactics.

In this case, though, to the dismay of civil rights organizations and the White House, Democratic desertions played a decisive role in the outcome. Eight members of Obama's party joined all 44 Republicans in preventing a final vote.

Obama swiftly condemned the action. In a statement, he called it a "travesty based on wildly unfair character attacks against a good and qualified public servant."

"Democrats in Senate Reject Pick by Obama," is by Jonathan Weisman and Michael D. Shear.

The nominee, Debo P. Adegbile, was litigation director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund when it represented Mumia Abu-Jamal on an appeal of his death sentence for killing a Philadelphia police officer decades ago. He could not overcome a campaign by Republicans, conservative activists and law enforcement organizations still infuriated by the murder of the officer, Daniel Faulkner.

But it was the votes of seven Democratic senators to reject Mr. Adegbile that doomed the nomination despite what White House officials described as a sustained closed-door effort by Mr. Obama and his top aides to save it. The president personally appealed to Senate Democrats at a recent caucus meeting and made several calls to Democratic senators in the last week, officials said. Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Denis R. McDonough, the White House chief of staff, continued making calls Tuesday night and Wednesday morning.

The Washington Post reports, "Senate rejects Obama appointment of Debo Adegbile to top civil rights post," by Wesley Lowery and Ed O'Keefe.

The vote was expected to be close -- with Vice President Biden on hand to potentially cast a tie-breaking vote -- but the final tally was 47-52 in opposition to the appointment.

In total, eight Democrats voted against confirmation in the final tally. Initially, seven Democrats voted against confirmation and Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) -- who initially voted in favor of confirmation -- later switched his vote to no, giving him the right as Senate leader to bring up the nomination again at a later date.

Adegbile becomes the first Obama nominee rejected under the new Senate procedures approved in November that require just a majority of senators present to agree to proceed to a vote on most presidential nominees.

"Guilt by Association," is by Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.

Adegbile’s cardinal sin? He worked on a Legal Defense Fund appeal (that the NAACP had already been involved in before he took the position) contending that there was racial discrimination in Abu-Jamal’s trial and then, later, on a brief arguing that the jury instructions in Abu-Jamal’s trial were constitutionally improper. This was a contention that prevailed in a federal appeals court. Later the LDF represented Abu-Jamal in a Supreme Court case when prosecutors sought to reinstate his death sentence.

To be clear, then: Adegbile was not himself a cop-killer. He didn’t help a cop-killer get off and roam free with false claims of innocence. What he did do—which fits pretty readily within the historic mandate of the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund—was to help ensure that the American criminal justice system, and especially the death penalty, is administered fairly and constitutionally. As a representative of an organization that is institutionally dedicated to ensuring that justice is administered fairly, he fought for fairness and (totally unfair!) judges agreed that unfairness occurred.

Once upon a time in America this was called advocating for justice. But in today’s America, it’s deemed a miscarriage of justice. And so the fact that Adegbile has long been one of the most skilled and principled civil rights attorneys in the country is cast by Senate Republicans as a kind of catastrophic public scam. (Disclosure: I have met Adegbile several times and have sat on several panels with him.) The right-wing smear squad raced to label Adegbile a "cop-killer’s coddler," or a “pro-criminal cop-killer.” Not unrelatedly, his other sin? Adegbile argued the Voting Rights cases at the Supreme Court, the ones making the radical argument that racial bias still exists in some voting schemes. I guess legal advocacy is just always wrong if it’s done by the NAACP.

The Atlantic posts, "2014: Senate Race Baiting Sinks a Nomination for Civil-Rights Chief," by Andrew Cohen.

Anyone you represent can and will be used against you: The Adegbile vote also reveals that it is now acceptable in politics to blame a lawyer for the clients he represented in the past—not just the clients he represented personally, but also those that his organization had long represented before the lawyer joined up. And not just in a hopeless case in which frivolous claims are made, but in a close case in which a conservative federal appeals court ultimately endorses the lawyer's views. 

The most significant opposition to Adegbile's nomination came in response to his participation in the NAACP Legal Defense Fund's representation of Mumia Abu-Jamal, the man convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981. Adegbile did not represent the defendant at trial. He did not declare his client to be innocent. Instead, he worked on a series of briefs supporting an appeal that made a legitimate legal argument. He did, in other words, precisely what he was expected to do on behalf of an organization dedicated to civil rights. For this he was deemed unfit to run the Civil Rights Division.

Cohen also posts, "What John Roberts Can Say About the Rule of Law and Debo Adegbile."

One of the worst parts of this story is how easily it will transcend this vote and this candidate. When the Senate starts judging nominees based on their past representation of certain clients, when attorneys who want to become public servants are held responsible for the conduct of those clients, and when guilt by association is raised to the level of public policy, it will have a chilling effect on the legal profession. Fearful of being "Debo-ized," lawyers will balk when asked to take on particularly unpopular cases.

Late Wednesday, Senator Tom Harkin, an Iowa Democrat, took to the floor of the chamber to make this very point—and to do so in a way that I think is historic. Every lawyer, law student, law professor, and everyone who cares about the rule of law and the right to counsel, ought to watch this video:

John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, deserves praise for his long-ago representation of serial killer John Ferguson. It is what lawyers do. Obviously, it's not the chief justice's fault that he was not questioned at length about it during either of his confirmation hearings. Such questioning, as Harkin said, would have been as inappropriate as it was in Adegbile's case. But it will be the chief justice's fault if he remains silent now that the Adegbile vote has been taken and the extent of the problem has been made clear.

"Conservatives Score a Big Win in their Long War Against the Civil Rights Division," by Sam Kleiner at New Republic.

After the Boston Massacre in 1770, attorney John Adams decided to defend the soldiers who had slaughtered his fellow Bostonians. His decision to defend the soldiers was unpopular, and he lost over half of his clients. Reflecting on his career after he had gone on to serve as President, he called his defense of the soldiers “one of the most gallant, generous, manly and disinterested actions of my whole life, and one of the best pieces of service I ever rendered my country.”

The Senate’s rejection yesterday of President Obama’s nominee for the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, Debo Adegbile, would have Adams turning over in his grave. Adegbile was subject to spurious Republican attacks because he had served as Legal Counsel to the NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund and participated in the defense of Mumia Abu-Jamal, who had been convicted of killing a Philadelphia police officer in 1981. Adegbile’s only participation in the case had been to file a 2009 motion claiming that Jamal had faced a discriminatory jury. For Republicans, with the assistance of a slew of swing-state Democrats, that was enough to reject his nomination. Adegbile’s stellar legal career, which included two appearances before the Supreme Court defending the Voting Rights Act, were swept aside. In right-wing media he became a “cop-killer advocate.”

Earlier coverage of Debo Adegbile's nomination begins at the link.

Kentucky OpEd

"A case for repealing the death penalty," is the OpEd by David Floyd, a member of the Kentucky General Assembly, published in the Louisville Courier-Journal.

On Feb. 12, I held a press conference in the Kentucky Capitol to introduce House Bill 330, my bill to repeal the death penalty. Truthfully, I don’t believe that many people have thought deeply about capital punishment, and, I admit, I had insufficiently pondered it as well.

My initial opposition formed through a spiritual lens, so in 2007 I joined others in cosponsoring legislation to repeal the death penalty. But I was the only conservative legislator in a group of liberals.

And:

Conservatives want a government that will balance budgets, cut waste and eliminate programs that do not make fiscal sense.

Kentucky’s death penalty is a program that costs a lot while accomplishing little. We’ve spent well more than $100 million on the death penalty since 1976 — and executed three people. Having a death penalty is clearly wasting taxpayer dollars, while a penalty of life without the possibility of parole makes much better economic sense.

Earlier coverage from Kentucky begins at the link; also available, more from conservative opponents of the death penalty.

Missouri, the New Ground Zero

"'Ground zero' for the death penalty," is by Tal Kopan for Politico.  Here's the beginning:

Missouri executed its fourth inmate in as many months early Wednesday, even as the issue of capital punishment has sparked a new and reshaped political debate in the state and across the country.

The Midwestern state has become a key battleground: As lethal-injection drug supplies have been disrupted, states have been scrambling to adapt, and Missouri lawmakers from both sides of the aisle aren’t happy with what they say is excessive secrecy about the process and questions about whether the sentences are being competently carried out.

The issue crosses party lines. Missouri’s Democratic governor and attorney general are both pro-death penalty, while some bills recently filed to challenge the executive’s approach to executions are sponsored by Republicans who also back capital punishment.

Earlier coverage from Missouri begins with the preceding post.