Utah Killer Executed by Firing Squad

Making the rounds this morning is news that a Utah man was executed early this morning by a 5-person firing squad:

Convicted killer Ronnie Lee Gardner was executed early Friday by firing squad, the Utah Department of Corrections said.

Gardner, 49, is only the third person in 33 years to die by firing squad in the United States.

He was killed at 12:20 a.m. MST (2:20 a.m. ET), a Corrections Department spokesman said.

A hood was placed over Gardner's head and a paper target pinned to his chest. He was heavily restrained as a five-person firing squad took aim at the target and shot him, witnesses said...

Gardner, 49, was convicted for the shooting death of attorney Michael Burdell during a botched escape attempt from custody in 1985 at a Salt Lake City, Utah, courthouse.

There is some discussion about the extent to which Gardner moved after he was shot, indicating that his death may not have been immediate (and certainly not painless). There has also been debate about whether firing squads are preferable over other, more common forms of execution like lethal injection.

Happy stuff to be pondering on a sunny Friday morning, I know.

High Profile Execution

John Allen Muhammad -- the so-called "D.C. Sniper" -- was executed tonight by lethal injection after both the U.S. Supreme Court and Virginia governor Tim Kaine declined to intervene in the case.

This is certainly the highest profile execution in the U.S. in some time. Anybody have any thoughts or observations about this execution?

GBOC Lightning Round: Friday Morning Edition

Kick off your Friday morning with another GBOC lightning round. As always, please feel free to share your thoughts in the comments!

Item 1: "What is the Age of Responsibility?"
Wednesday's Talk of the Nation posed that very complex question to journalist Alan Greenblatt of Governing Magazine and Temple University professor Laurence Steinberg. The conversation came in response to Greenblatt's recent article describing the "mixed messages" young people receive from state and local laws that dictate different minimum ages for different behaviors (e.g., consenting to sex, drinking alcohol, voting, etc.). Of interest to criminologists, the experts discussed both the minimum legal drinking age and the processing of juvenile offenders as adults. In addition, Steinberg -- who appeared on NPR last year to criticize the adultification of youthful offenders -- explained how chronological age restrictions bear little correlation with developmental science regarding the maturation of adolescent brains; however, as meaningful tests for maturity are impossible to develop, chronological age is the only viable proxy for maturity we've got. Finally, the conversation touched on some of the issues we discussed here with respect to LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders. If you've got a few minutes, it's definitely worth a listen (or read).

Item 2: The High Cost of Capital Punishment
Speaking of LWOP sentences, last week the Death Penalty Information Center altered us to a recent NYT editorial encouraging states to abolish the death penalty based on economic considerations:

To the many excellent reasons to abolish the death penalty — it’s immoral, does not deter murder and affects minorities disproportionately — we can add one more. It’s an economic drain on governments with already badly depleted budgets...

According to the [DPIC], keeping inmates on death row in Florida costs taxpayers $51 million a year more than holding them for life without parole. North Carolina has put 43 people to death since 1976 at $2.16 million per execution. The eventual cost to taxpayers in Maryland for pursuing capital cases between 1978 and 1999 is estimated to be $186 million for five executions...

A Republican state senator in Kansas, Carolyn McGinn, pointed out that her state, which restored the death penalty in 1994, had not executed anybody in more than 40 years. In February, she introduced a bill to replace capital punishment with life without parole. The bill gained considerable attention but stalled. Similar arguments were made, unsuccessfully, in states such as New Hampshire and Maryland. Colorado considered a bill to end capital punishment and spend the money saved on solving cold cases. But this year, only New Mexico went all the way, abolishing executions in March.

I don't have much commentary about this, other than to add that financial considerations provide lawmakers who oppose capital punishment a more palatable platform for public opposition than, say, moral appeals. Thoughts from others?

Item 3: Say it Ain't So, Joe!
Bad news yesterday for Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (he of the pink clothing policies for DUI offenders and, more importantly, the bobblehead on Velma's desk):

Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Maricopa County, Arizona, sheriff's department have had an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security since 2007 that allows his department to enforce federal immigration laws. But Arpaio says the federal agency is moving to revise the agreement to limit that power to checking the immigration status of inmates already in his Phoenix jail...

Now he faces a Justice Department investigation into allegations of civil rights abuses, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona is suing the sheriff over immigration raids conducted by his department. The class-action lawsuit alleges that Arpaio has abused the power delegated to him under his agreement with Homeland Security, known as the 287(g) program.

Hmmm. Perhaps "America's Toughest Sheriff" is about to become a little less tough? Interesting to see how this develops.

Item 4: President Obama Wins the Nobel Peace Prize!
And he's only the third sitting president to do so.

(I'm sure Scooby, in particular, is thrilled.)

GBOC Lightning Round, Take Three

Over the last few weeks I've compiled a list of stories I've been meaning to share, but I haven't quite found the time to write about each one. So, rather than let these stories go unblogged (gasp!), let's commence another GBOC Lightning Round! (See previous rounds here and here.)

Item 1: Criminology, Genocide, & Darfur
The other day I received in the mail an advertisement for the forthcoming book Darfur and the Crime of Genocide by John Hagan and Wenona Rymond-Richmond. I am really looking forward to reading this book. Recently I have been part of an effort to boost the level of activism in one of the feminist organizations to which I belong, partly in response to the brutalization of women and children happening in Darfur and in the Congo. I share the sentiments of Robert Sampson, who wrote in his endorsement:

"Why has the field of criminology ignored genocide for so long? The answer to this question has important implications for theories of crime and international policy alike. The terrible tragedy in Darfur serves as the motivation for Hagan and Rymond-Richmond to trace the intellectual history of competing approaches to genocide, from the pioneering work of Sheldon Glueck on Nazi war crimes to controversies over official reaction to atrocities in the former Yugoslavia and now Africa. A call to action, Darfur and the Crime of Genocide is disturbing but necessary reading for all those concerned with international justice and a more general criminological conception of collective responses to crime around the world." --Robert J. Sampson, Harvard University, Henry Ford II Professor of Sociology

Item 2: "In the Basement of the Ivory Tower"
A colleague forwarded to me this Atlantic essay about the challenges of teaching students who by most estimations should not be in college. Writing anonymously, the author discusses the cultural shift in recent decades that has made college attendance compulsory for many students -- even those poorly suited to higher education -- and the ramifications of that shift for the faculty members who must evaluate the academic performance of these students. In particular, the author discusses the challenges of grading papers written by students with remedial writing skills. An excerpt:

America, ever-idealistic, seems wary of the vocational-education track. We are not comfortable limiting anyone’s options. Telling someone that college is not for him seems harsh and classist and British, as though we were sentencing him to a life in the coal mines. I sympathize with this stance; I subscribe to the American ideal. Unfortunately, it is with me and my red pen that that ideal crashes and burns.

Sending everyone under the sun to college is a noble initiative. Academia is all for it, naturally. Industry is all for it; some companies even help with tuition costs. Government is all for it; the truly needy have lots of opportunities for financial aid. The media applauds it—try to imagine someone speaking out against the idea. To oppose such a scheme of inclusion would be positively churlish. But one piece of the puzzle hasn’t been figured into the equation, to use the sort of phrase I encounter in the papers submitted by my English 101 students. The zeitgeist of academic possibility is a great inverted pyramid, and its rather sharp point is poking, uncomfortably, a spot just about midway between my shoulder blades.

For I, who teach these low-level, must-pass, no-multiple-choice-test classes, am the one who ultimately delivers the news to those unfit for college: that they lack the most-basic skills and have no sense of the volume of work required; that they are in some cases barely literate; that they are so bereft of schemata, so dispossessed of contexts in which to place newly acquired knowledge, that every bit of information simply raises more questions. They are not ready for high school, some of them, much less for college.

My guess is that most of us would recognize more than a few of our students in this essay...

Item 3: Kids Count Data & Juvenile Justice Reform
A few weeks ago the Annie E. Casey Foundation released its 2008 Kids Count report, an annual state-by-state survey that evaluates the well-being of children using a variety of indicators: employment, education, health, poverty, and so on. Criminologists may be particularly interested in the juvenile incarceration data. For example, according to a Detroit Free Press article:

Among the most alarming trends: Michigan continues to incarcerate kids at a much higher rate than the national average and often for nonviolent crimes.

There are 137 children per 100,000 in some sort of state facility or detention in Michigan, compared with the national average of 125 per 100,000. That puts Michigan 33rd in that category.

This report might be a useful teaching tool, as the website allows users to generate profiles by state, so that you can see how children in your particular state (or, if you live in a large enough metro area, your city) are faring. Finally, accompanying the report is a thoughtful essay, "A Road Map for Juvenile Justice Reform", that also includes a state-by-state summary of child well-being indicators.

Item 4: Supreme Court Bombshells!
As Velma noted earlier today, this week the U.S. Supreme Court rendered two opinions particularly relevant for criminologists:

(1) In Kennedy v. Louisiana, the Court banned capital punishment for child rape, stating that such punishment is disproportionate to the crime and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the 8th amendment.

(2) In District of Columba v. Heller, the Court struck down Washington DC's ban on handgun ownership, ruling that the 2nd amendment right to bear arms extends to individuals.

I will leave the commentary about the Heller decision to the gun experts (and enthusiasts?) on the blog, and instead will share my thoughts about the Court's death penalty decision. Though I've disclosed my secret retributionist stance toward child rapists, I agree with the Court's decision. (I'm sure that Justice Kennedy and the four justices who joined him in the majority are relieved to know that I approve of their reasoning.) As several analysts have noted, because most child rapes are committed by someone the victim knows (often a relative or close family friend), asking a child to testify against the assailant with the knowledge that a conviction could lead to that person's execution understandably would cause undue emotional distress for the victim. Much as my maternal instincts might favor stringing these guys up on the courthouse lawn, the rational part of me knows that it would be utterly inhumane to put child sexual assault victims in a position where telling the truth could get their father, uncle, or other loved one killed, no matter how much we might think that person deserves it.

That's all for now. As always, I look forward to reader comments!

Big News from the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Rules That Individuals Have Gun Rights
The Supreme Court says Americans have a right to own guns for self-defense and hunting, the justices' first major pronouncement on gun rights in U.S. history. Read More.

This is really big. I will post more when I see the full opinion. As many of you know, they also ruled that expanding the death penalty to child rapists would constitute cruel and unusual punishment.

Just for the record - Obama does not support the death penalty decision (see here), nor does McCain (see here). The Obama link also has good video of Dukakis and his discussion of the death penalty. We all know how that turned out for him.

I really wish I was teaching right now, so I could present all these cool developments to my class.

Drug Cocktail Used for the Dealth Penalty Not Cruel and Unusual

I am sure that most of you saw the Supreme Court decision on the 3-drug cocktail used for lethal injection in Kentucky.

The case involved concerns in the effectiveness and pain involved in using a 3 drug cocktail. The case was not necessarily brought on to stop the death penalty, but to gain further insight into the relative 'pain-free' nature of the method of execution.

The prisoners had contended that the three-drug procedure used on death row — one drug each to sedate, paralyze and end life — was unconstitutional, and that in any event there were strong indications that Kentucky had bungled some executions, creating unnecessary pain for the condemned. Through their lawyers, they maintained that problems could be largely solved by administering a single overwhelming dose of a barbiturate, as opposed to the three-drug procedure.

The decision itself is very interesting. Here are some of my favorite
elements from the NYT article.

Perhaps most interestingly, Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in the judgment of the court, but by no means embracing capital punishment. Indeed, he asserted that recent decisions by state legislatures, Congress and the Supreme Court itself to preserve the death penalty “are the product of habit and inattention rather than an acceptable deliberative process that weighs the costs and risks” of the ultimate punishment.

This is such a poignant comment and is consistent with much of or criminal justice, institutional management. As suggested by Feeley and Simon, we have moved toward risk only models and 'waste management'. I am not arguing, per se, that the death penalty doesn't have a role in corrections. It is widely supported. At the same time, simply sweeping the death penalty and concerns over a humane treatment under the rug has large implications for how we treat inmates overall.

Contrary to the comment of the court that "Judged under that standard (the 8th Amendment), this is an easy case.” There are no easy cases in terms of the death penalty, and I truly believe that how we classify and speak of our most violent offenders has strong implications for lower-level criminals and the citizenry in general. Silly me - I had become optimistic after Roper v. Simmons.

Will the Death Penalty Be Put to Death?

Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether the method of execution used in most states -- a lethal combination of three drugs, administered in succession via IV -- violates the 8th amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically at issue is the execution protocol in Kentucky, which also is used in 35 of the other 36 states that have the death penalty.

The first drug, sodium thiopental, is used to render the condemned prisoner unconscious. The second drug, pancuronium bromide, is a paralytic designed to restrict involuntary muscle convulsions, thereby rendering the prisoner's death more "dignified". The third drug, potassium chloride, stops the prisoner's heart.

The argument against this 3-drug cocktail -- which, incidentally, was long ago abandoned by veterinarians for euthanizing pets in favor of a single-drug barbituate overdose -- is that the third drug causes excruciating pain in conscious individuals. If the first drug is unsuccessful at rendering the prisoner unconscious, the second drug would prevent the prisoner from expressing pain, leaving tremendous ambiguity about whether or not the lethal injection caused undue suffering to the prisoner:

If the first chemical works, there is no dispute that the process is quick and painless. If it does not, there is no dispute that the inmate will suffer intense and terrifying pain. But because the inmate is paralyzed, it may not be possible to tell whether the first drug worked.

What is more, in Kentucky the trained medical professionals responsible for administering the lethal injection exit the "death chamber" once the IV has been inserted, leaving only the warden and deputy warden present -- both of whom are wholly unqualified to determine whether the first drug worked.

As usual, NPR offered the most comprehensive and straightforward summary of the case before the Supreme Court. An abbreviated print article as well as the full audio report by legal correspondent Nina Totenberg can be found here.

Two other articles offer more critical analyses of the complicated American relationship with capital punishment. The first (the New York Times article linked above), describes how individual states are reluctant to lead the way of execution reform. It seems that nobody wants to "go first" in terms of altering the methods of lethal injection, for fear of the political fallout:

The answer, experts say, seems to be that no state wants to make the first move. Having proceeded in lock step to adopt the current method, which was chosen in part because it differed from the one used on animals and masked the involuntary movements associated with death, state governments would prefer that someone else, possibly the courts, change the formula first.

One final interesting point: Experts quoted in the article commented that adoption of the veterinary (single-drug) protocol for capital punishment may lead critics to argue that human beings are being treated like animals. However, opponents of the existing 3-drug method make the exact opposite argument: that condemned prisoners ought to be treated at least as humanely as our pets.

The second article from TIME magazine contextualizes the death penalty in the U.S., describing it as being "expressive of some of our society's deeply held values". This article provides a good analysis of the complicated moral and political relationship Americans have with the death penalty. Particularly instructive is the following passage:

Our death penalty's continued existence, countering the trend of the rest of the developed world, expresses our revulsion to violent crime and our belief in personal accountability. The endless and expensive appeals reflect our scrupulous belief in consistency and individual justice. This is also a nation of widely dispersed power--many states, cities and jurisdictions. Out of this diversity has emerged the staggering intricacy of death-penalty law, as thousands of judges and legislators from coast to coast struggle to breathe real-life meaning into such abstract issues as what constitutes effective counsel, what is the proper balance of authority between judge and jury, what makes a murder "especially heinous," what qualities and defects in a prisoner compel mercy, and so on.

Finally, while I do not necessarily oppose the death penalty on strictly moral grounds, there is no denying that the system as it currently exists in this country is hopelessly, inherently, and, in my view, irreparably broken. With any luck, the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to truly question whether capital punishment has a continued place in contemporary American society. The system is indeed "a wreck," and uncertainty about the constitutionality of lethal injections is only a small part of the problem.

According to NPR, a decision in this case is expected sometime this summer. It remains to be seen whether the Supreme Court will decide to sentence capital punishment -- at least via lethal injection -- to death. We can only hope.

More Death Penalty

The American Bar association has published a very interesting report on the Death Penalty. Check it out - it is a great resource for class. I have to talk about the death penalty in my corrections class, but I keep it to the end of the semester. It is difficult for me to talk about the death penalty and not mention the word 'kill'. I just don't trust the government enough to make life and death (and often moral) decisions as to the seriousness of the crime. Not with what we know about disparities in case processing.

Confessions of a Closeted Retributionist

It is no surprise to those who know me that I'm a leftist (a.k.a. liberal, progressive, or "loony leftie"), particularly when it comes to criminal justice policy. I'm not in favor of trying juveniles as adults. I oppose mandatory minimums, mandatory arrest/prosecution, and other policies that rob police officers and judges of their discretionary powers. But, I also harbor a deep, dark secret that I am revealing for the first time here: I'm a closeted retributionist.

For example, I do not oppose capital punishment in principle. I do, however, oppose the death penalty in its current incarnation in this country because the system is so hopelessly flawed, what with the disproportionate number of poor, minority, and mentally impaired people we execute and the ever-growing number of DNA exonerations. But, if we could somehow magically ensure that the death penalty would be applied fairly and never in error, I'd be all for it...especially for people like this guy.

Haven't you heard? Federal Prosecutor John David R. Atchison, assistant U.S. attorney for the northern district of Florida, recently flew to Detroit armed with a Dora doll, hoop earrings, and Vaseline in preparation for a sexual encounter with a (fictional, thank God) 5-year old girl. Atchison had been corresponding with a Macomb County detective whom he believed was a mother wishing to make her young children available for sex. A nauseating excerpt from his correspondence with police:

The undercover detective expressed concern about physical injury to the 5-year-old girl as a result of the sexual activity. Detectives said Atchison responded, " I am always gentle and loving; not to worry, no damage ever, no rough stuff ever. I only like it soft and nice." The undercover detective asked how Atchison can be certain of no injury. He responded, "Just gotta go slow and very easy. I've done it plenty," according to detectives.

So this guy? Can have his brains fried by Old Sparky for all I care. (After he is tried fairly and convicted by a jury of his peers, of course.) As far as I'm concerned, once you rape a child you simply forfeit your right to walk the earth. Thanks for playing; better luck next time! Part of that sentiment comes from the parent in me -- just the idea of my children being molested literally sickens me. But, part of it also comes from what we know about pedophiles: they do not view their behavior as harmful in any way, and often view theirs as a legitimate sexual orientation. For example, pedophiles often invoke the language of civil rights to justify their actions, by noting that up until quite recently homosexuality was classified in the DSM as a paraphilia, too. So, the argument goes, it is just a matter of time until society stops defining sexual attraction to children as a deviant sexual orientation, just as we have (presumably) ceased to consider homosexuality deviant. Another technique pedophiles commonly use is to suggest that their targets sexually tease or provoke them into action, such as when a young girl turns cartwheels in a skirt, thereby exposing her underwear and "inviting" sexual advances. And, those of us who spent an entire summer reading the pre-sentence investigation reports of convicted sex offenders can attest that there is no end to the creativity and imagination pedophiles use in justifying, defending, and legitimizing their sexual predation of children.

The question, of course, is whether pedophiles can help themselves, or whether they are too sick for punishment. Ironically, I generally am opposed to criminalizing illness, like with drug and alcohol addiction. It's no secret that our prisons are teeming with addicts who would be better served by substance abuse treatment than lockup. But, when it comes to sexually molesting kids, all bets are off in my book. We should treat pedophiles for their illness you say? Well then, may I recommend a double dose of potassium chloride?

Update: Ugh. Turns out he had a MySpace profile in which he proclaimed how much he "love[s] younger girls"...and that he's into "ab/dl" (that's "adult babies/diaper lovers" -- thank you UrbanDictionary.com!) This article has a link to his MySpace page for those so inclined to view it. (Warning: MySpace page is semi-NSFW).

Death Penalty

This is an interesting story in TN where the convicted man chose to die with the electric chair. There has been a lot of concerns with electricution - particularly with "old sparky" in Florida. Most have deemed this method of execution as cruel and unusual. Should a person have the right to choose his/her method of death? What implications does this have for the 8th Amendment?
http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709100391

This individual has been part of the MSNBC series Lockdown.