De Facto Moratorium Intact

Just one hour and fifteen minutes before Alabama inmate James Callahan was scheduled to be executed, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a stay:

Callahan's execution would have been the first in Alabama and just the second in the United States since the U.S. Supreme Court announced in September that it would hear a Kentucky case challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection...

Alabama had tried twice before to become the first state to resume executions, but both of those executions also were stopped by the courts.

This continues the de facto moratorium that the U.S. Supreme Court has set in place pending it's decision on Baze v. Rees (see earlier post on this topic).

The Basics of Baze

For those of you who don't read blogs about death penalty issues (aka regular people), you may have seen some stories about a Supreme Court case that is addressing the death penalty. This increased coverage of the death penalty has led to a bit of confusion about what exactly is being considered and what it could mean to those of us outside the courtroom. So consider this post an admittedly oversimplified rundown of what is going on.

The case being considered, Baze v. Rees, deals with Kentucky's lethal injection procedure. Essentially, the Supreme Court is deciding whether the three drug cocktail currently used to carry out executions risks a degree of pain that would violate the Eighth Amendment and whether, in light of other possible available methods of execution, this specific combination of drugs is acceptable. So, there are two questions: is this method acceptable on its own? AND does the Supreme Court have to mandate a 'less risky/less painful' method to adhere to the Constitution? (legal wonk note: while these two questions cover the concepts being addressed technically there are three legal questions still before the Supreme Court, Qs 1-3 on pgs. ii-iii of the original petition found here)

The oral arguments for the case have been presented and a decision is pending.

Since the case was accepted by the Supreme Court back on September 25, 2007 there has been a de facto moratorium in place. That is to say that the Supreme Court has not made any official statement that executions are on hold, but it has granted every single petition to stay an execution since it agreed to hear Baze. So, in this sense there is not a straightforward moratorium in the way that InCASE uses the term (a predetermined time period without executions during which issues are addressed), but the effect is the same.

So, what are the possible results? There are a plethora of possibilities but they fall into a few categories:

1. The Supreme Court decides that the current procedure and drug combination is perfectly within Constitutional parameters. Nothing changes and executions resume.
2. The Supreme Court decides that some change in procedure is necessary. As a result, individual states that are affected propose and pass revised, Constitutionally-acceptable, execution protocols.
3. The Supreme Court decides, totally out of left field, that they will use Baze to address larger death penalty issues dealing with the Eighth Amendment. Executions are halted. (ed note: this has no real chance of happening but it's listed for the sake of being thorough)
   

Hopefully this has cleared a few things up, while simultaneously demonstrating how complicated this issue is. For those who want a bit more in depth, check out the following links:

lethalinjection.org (maintained diligently by Berkeley Law School's Death Penalty Clinic)
SCOTUS Wiki: Baze v. Rees
Death Penalty Information Center - Lethal Injection

Exonerated Inmate Freed After 25 Years

David Scott was freed from an Indiana prison today after spending 25 years behind bars for a crime he did not commit. DNA evidence recently exonerated him from a 1984 Indiana murder and the same evidence pointed to Kevin Weeks in the crime, who is now in custody in Kentucky.

There are several aspects of this case that raise serious concerns about Indiana's system that sentences individuals to death:

• David Scott spent 25 years in prison before being cleared of his crime. The average time an inmate spends on Indiana's death row before being executed is about 10.5 years.
• DNA evidence allowed for Scott's exoneration and the incarceration of the actual murderer. However, the Innocence Project indicates that of the 126 death row exonerations nationally, DNA only played a role in 15 such cases. The point here is that not all that are falsely convicted have the benefit of DNA evidence being present at the crime scene to exonerate them.
• A large part of the case against Scott was his false confession to being part of the crime. While cases involving false confessions may seem rare and can be difficult to understand, false confessions have been present in over 25% of DNA exoneration cases.

This case is troubling enough on its own but also serves as a wake-up call to those who think that our system presently sufficiently protects innocents and can confidently carry out the irreversible punishment of death.

A Crash Course in Indiana's Death Penalty: Just the Facts

In the coming years, there will hopefully be a great deal of discussion about the death penalty and ideally this blog can serve as one of the forums for that discussion. However, for a discussion to be effective, it must be based on facts and not rely upon conventional wisdom, which can often be distorted or downright false. So, for the sake of forging a common starting point, the following are some of the basic facts about Indiana's death penalty (more in our website's Educate Yourself section):

• Indiana has executed 19 individuals since the 1977 reinstatement of Indiana's death penalty. This makes Indiana the 14th highest executing state in this time period.
• 2 individuals have been exonerated from Indiana's death row.
• 3 individuals have had their sentences commuted from a death sentence to life without parole.
• There are currently 12 defendants under a sentence of death in Indiana.
• It ultimately costs 34%-37% more to execute an individual than to imprison them for the entirety of their natural life.
• 94% of capital defendants could not afford their own attorney.

This sampling of facts, along with the others found on our site, should help individuals on all sides of this issue come to the table with a better understanding of what is at stake and what some of the issues are.

Welcome!

I'm glad that you've landed here at the Indiana Coalition Acting to Suspend Executions (InCASE) blog. I hope to make this blog a constant source of new information and commentary on Indiana's death penalty, InCASE's work towards a moratorium on executions, and other pieces of relevant news and analysis.

This blog and the InCASE website aim to give you the information and tools necessary to make informed decisions about Indiana's death penalty and, should you choose, voice your opinions to Indiana's decision makers. These resources exist to help you be better informed, so please don't ever hesitate to contact me with any questions, concerns, or ideas that you may have.

I look forward to the discussions that I hope InCASE prompts and working with you to solve the issues with Indiana's death penalty.

All the best,
Will McAuliffe
Executive Director, InCASE