While a moratorium on federal executions has symbolic value, we’ve seen the danger of half-measures that do not fully address the fundamental brokenness of our death penalty system. More is required.
A moratorium with no commutations or legislation during the Obama administration brought us 13 rapid-fire executions during the Trump administration. While we can be confident that President Biden will not execute anyone, that does not limit the actions of future presidents.
I continue to urge President Biden to follow through on his campaign promise and end the federal death penalty. Large steps can be taken through executive action — commutations, dismantling execution facilities, ordering prosecutors to stop seeking death sentences, and more.
.@SenatorDurbin, @RepPressley, and others have a death penalty abolition bill ready in Congress. The Biden administration and congressional leaders should make this a priority. The only sure way to prevent a future spree of federal executions is to abolish the death penalty.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Quin Jones should not have been executed. It was an unnecessary and unwanted execution, a failure of moral leadership. What’s even more disturbing is the fact that the execution took place without any independent media witnesses present due to an “error” by TDCJ.
Due to the lack of media witnesses, we have no idea what happened during the execution, no idea if anything went wrong, and no idea if protocols were followed.
If a mistake this basic can so easily occur, then what kinds of other serious mistakes are happening every time Texas chooses to kill a citizen? This is why we can never trust the government with the power to kill.
Two recent developments from TX in Clinton Young’s case: (1) The Midland County trial court is recommending that Clinton should have a new trial. (2) The former prosecutor who moonlighted as the judge’s clerk while also prosecuting Clinton’s case surrendered his law license.
In Clinton Young’s case, now-former attorney Ralph Petty was simultaneously working on sending Clinton to death row as a prosecutor and moonlighting as the trial judge’s paid clerk and advisor. This is a serious, completely inappropriate conflict of interest.
The Midland County trial court is now recommending that Clinton receive a new trial because the inappropriate prosecutor/clerk/advisor arrangement violated due process, presented a conflict of interest, and constituted “pervasive prosecutorial misconduct.”
Last week, the Fifth Circuit affirmed dismissal of Rodney Reed’s federal lawsuit demanding that Texas officials allow DNA testing of evidence that could prove his innocence. The decision shows how the legal system values rule-following over real justice.
Instead of ordering the DNA testing, the Fifth Circuit allowed the state officials to try out a new argument on appeal that hadn’t been raised in the initial hearing at the lower court.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that Rodney Reed’s lawsuit was brought too late because he only had two years from the time that he learned his rights were being violated to file suit.
An investigation by @guardian reveals that states have spent millions on illicit execution drugs, even requesting shipment in “unmarked boxes and jars.” theguardian.com/world/2021/apr…
Arizona purchased enough execution drugs to kill 200 people, at a cost of $1.5 million, and requested that the drugs be shipped from an undisclosed supplier in “unmarked boxes and jars.”
It is a felony under state and federal law to dispense execution drugs without a valid prescription. Medical practitioners are prohibited from prescribing drugs for use in executions. Arizona’s drug purchase was likely illegal.
Justice Breyer also penned a dissent in U.S. v. Dustin Higgs, continuing his long line of opinions calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider whether the death penalty is constitutional in the first place.
After describing several of the legal claims raised by federal death row prisoners, Breyer says, “None of these legal questions is frivolous.” He adds that the Supreme Court’s recent “hurry up, hurry up” process “is no solution.”
Justice Breyer: “How just is a legal system that would execute an individual without consideration of a novel or significant legal question that he has raised?”
Justice Sotomayor opens her dissent in U.S. v. Dustin Higgs by saying the names of every person executed by the federal government over the past year.
Sotomayor continues by providing historical context. The federal government has executed more people over the past six months than it had in the previous six decades.
Sotomayor details some of the legal disputes that have come up around this spree of federal executions. She goes on to say that, “against this backdrop of legal uncertainty, @TheJusticeDept did not tread carefully.”