The Science and Economics of Legal Murder

Poor Texas. Here in Texas we like to kill our convicts. We kill them with the greatest frequency of any other state in the Union. We kill some of them and then find out afterward that the evidence that convicted them was based on bad science or poor information.

Or lies.

Poor Texas. Texas is running out of options in what to include in its cocktail of chemicals to humanely waste our fellow man.

It says so right here in this article in the Austin American-Statesman:

“As Texas prison officials face the likelihood that one of the three drugs used in the nation's busiest execution chamber might no longer be available, they are facing another reality: The cost of executions is skyrocketing as well.”

“A year ago, it cost the Texas Department of Criminal Justice $83.35 to carry out an execution. But since the state was forced to switch from one powerful sedative to another, the cost is now $1,286.86.”

So you see, not only has the price of whacking a convict risen by 15,439% the product used in the whacking, pentobarbital, is most likely going to be taken off the availability list by its manufacturers if it is to be used in executions.

See, if we can’t get the death penalty overturned legally, there are other means including putting pressure on drug companies not to sell its powerful sedatives to corrective institutions.

So now it looks like the sedative of preference will come down to the drug of choice by the convicted former care giver to Michael Jackson. Propofol.

After all, if it can kill the spirit of the King of Pop, it should do just fine against Texas convicts – innocent or guilty.

Personally, I would much prefer it if executions were done in public squares, and the preferred method of execution was a combination of evisceration followed by beheading.

Legalized murder should be horrible in its enactment, and not softened by the humane use of expensive drugs. Because in the end, the result is the same.

Perry’s Going to Run and Leal Sealed the Deal

If anyone is still doubting that Rick Perry is going to sit the next Presidential election out, the death of Humberto Leal Garcia at the end of this past week, should lay all doubts to rest.

Leal is pretty much a poster child for all that Rick Perry stands for. First, Rick Perry hates illegal immigrants. Hates them. No, not because they are in his state, not because they vote (they don’t and there is no evidence that they do), and not because they take jobs away from citizens and  food from the mouths of decent white children. He hates them because he has to in order to remain in office. Perry’s base hates Mexicans so he must also.

Second, Perry hates the feds. Hates them. Not because they won’t give him any money. They have, hand over fist and Perry has accepted all of it except when it benefits people like the unemployed in his state.

(By the way, Perry hates the unemployed because it gives lie to his myth of “the Texas miracle”).

But now combining the two, illegal aliens and hatred of “federal overreach” we have the former living human being Humberto Leal Garcia.

Leal, a Mexican national, was tried and convicted of capital murder. Itself not very newsworthy except for the fact that as a signatory of the Vienna Convention guaranteeing that citizens arrested in foreign countries would have the benefit of a helping hand from consular officials from their home countries, the United States, and in this case, the state of Texas, was obligated to let the Mexican government come to Leal’s aid in his trial.

But Leal was never made aware of his rights, and the Mexican government was never notified that he was being tried for capital murder.

So Leal was tried, convicted, and on Friday, executed by lethal injection.

The Supreme Court refused to hear the case to stay the execution by 5 to 4. Rick Perry refused to grant a stay and even went to the extent of refusing to take the call of the Ambassador from Mexico.

Most people would be horrified at this. Americans, now, as it currently stands, are at risk of being similarly treated when the venture abroad.

Perry’s base is thrilled. Oh yeah man, you bet they are.

Bottling Up a Ghost

When the characters in the movie Ghostbusters captured an errant ghost they slid a little box under the ghost that had been immobilized by rays from their Proton Packs, stepped on a pedal and the ghost was seemingly sucked into the box and trapped inside.

It was later transferred to a “containment unit” back at their headquarters, never to see the light of day again.

Should Texas governor Rick Perry jump into the 2012 presidential race, he had better hope that he has a way to keep another ghost that haunts his past from seeing the light of day. It could be his undoing in a way that Willie Horton was the undoing of Michael Dukakis.

If it cannot be contained, the ghost of Cameron Todd Willingham will certainly emerge on the presidential campaign scene, a story that is very revealing of the character and temperament of a man who would be President of the United States.

In 1991, Cameron Todd Willingham was convicted of killing his three daughters by setting his house on fire, allowing them to burn to death trapped inside. At the time, Perry was the Texas Agriculture Commissioner – and a Democrat.

He was executed in 2004. Rick Perry, who was governor by then – and a Republican – refused to grant a stay of execution citing the facts of the case and discounting a forensic expert’s report as “a waste of taxpayer dollars.” The report revealed that the forensic evidence used to convict Willingham was flawed and based on “folklore and myths.”

A jailhouse confession, also used to convict Willingham, has since been discounted and the man Willingham allegedly confessed to has since been diagnosed as bi-polar.

But the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham did not end the controversy. In 2009 a re-examination of the case was ordered, and the Texas Forensic Science Commission was all set to re-examine updated forensic evidence. Two days before the commission was to meet, Governor Rick Perry replaced the commission chair and two members. The new chair cancelled the meeting.

It was obvious to all that in doing this Perry was obstructing the re-examination, the findings of which could serve to his detriment in an upcoming Republican Primary where he was being challenged by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. The meeting did not occur until April 2010, a month after the primary election was held, and Governor Perry was the Republican Party’s nominee again.

On July 23, 2010 the Texas Forensic Commission issued its report that the original evidence used not only to convict and execute Cameron Todd Willingham, but used by Governor Perry as reason not to stay his execution, used “flawed science” in its determination that arson was the cause of the fire.

Rick Perry has blood on his hands and he knows it. And more to the point, he was caught in daylight and out in the open trying to suppress the commission’s report.

George W. Bush became famous, infamous even, for these kinds of things, something that Americans found out about after the fact.

Not so with Rick Perry. Evidence of his self-serving obstructionist nature is there for all to see. With the ghost of Cameron Todd Willingham hovering over him, and not a Ghostbuster in sight, I think Rick Perry will have a problem here.

Oh Hell, They Seated the Jury (Yes!)

I think I mentioned awhile back that I was called to Jury Duty recently in Fort Bend County. Well now today I saw in the news that the jury for the trial that I and 300 of my fellow citizens were called up for has been seated.

So I guess I can talk about the trial now.

And read the newspapers about it.

The trial that I was called up for was the case of Albert James Turner who is charged with a double murder. You can read about the particulars of the case at FortBendNow. I honestly don’t remember reading about this and I read the news every day. Murders and stuff like that don’t get above my radar I guess.

This was the chance of a lifetime to sit on a jury in a major case. And because it was going to take place in June if I was going to be seated as a juror (I had a June 9^th interview appointment) timing would be practically perfect for me. A great experience and a great way to spend summer vacation not watching the grass grow.

I did have some misgivings, though. As a progressive liberal I oppose the death penalty in all of its forms, especially here in Texas where innocents have been put to death. Where they try and kill the mentally retarded. Where they do kill men with evidence based on bad science. This guy, Turner, allegedly stabbed two women and then allegedly ran off and hid. If he gets a guilty verdict, chances are they will elect to send a chemical cocktail into his artery.

I was not sure I wanted to be a part of that. I would have preferred to see him spend the next 40 or so years in a 4 X 8 cell with a roomate named Tyrone who has tastes and temptations that run on the wild side.

So I had an interesting mixed reaction to hearing the news that I wouldn’t be a juror in that case.

Ever been sadly elated?

What If They Gave an Execution . . .

...and nobody brought the implements of human destruction?

Seems like an odd idea, but this extension of the often-repeated quote from the ‘60s, “What if they gave a war and nobody came?” is particularly appropriate these days.

You see, it seems that the pharmaceutical company, Hospira, Inc., the only US manufacturer of the drug sodium thiopental, has decided to stop producing the drug. It didn’t meet the main elements of their business plan, it seems.

Sodium thiopental is one of the drugs used in the cocktail that is delivered into the veins of convicts who have been handed a death penalty sentence in 34 states. It induces unconsciousness very rapidly. An unconsciousness that allows the human body to accept deadly doses of pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride without outward or otherwise visible signs of struggle.

It makes “cruel and unusual” both humane and typical.

And now, because Hospira has relocated (some would say, outsourced) its North Carolina operations to Liscate, Italy, it has dropped sodium thiopental from its line of products because the Italian government asked them to guarantee that this drug will not be used in state-sponsored executions.

They couldn’t guarantee that, even though someone in their mail room might be able to figure that out when sending this med to an address that includes the words “Department of Corrections.”

They could lie, after all and say that they are actually a department responsible for correcting overbites.

And alarmingly, this is having an impact on the number of individuals that these 34 states are slated to kill in the next few months.

From The Chron:

“In Texas, the nation's busiest death penalty state, the Department of Criminal Justice said Friday it is exploring the use of another anesthetic. The state has four executions scheduled between now and July but has enough sodium thiopental to carry out only two February executions, spokesman Jason Clark said.”

Man, talk about crimping Texas’ style. What will Texas do if it can’t maintain its leadership position in this singular self-defining issue? It’s akin to cutting off Texas’ access to barbecue sauce. To nine millimeter ammo.

Interestingly enough, Hospira continues to produce those two other drugs, pancuronium bromide and potassium chloride, one of which causes paralysis, and the other stops your heart from beating. These are the main ingredients in any given state-sponsored execution. It seems that the Italian government doesn’t have an issue with these drugs, just the drug that makes state-sponsored murder…well…more friendly.

Because again, it isn’t about the taking of human life, it’s about taking it with style.

Will the Forensic Science Commission Ever Rule on the Todd Willingham Case?

It looks like the Texas Forensic Science Commission, the body that oversees the use of forensic science in the state’s criminal justice system, has gotten the ground put under its feet again. This piece at the Austin American-Statesman announced that a 3-member subcommittee will finally hear testimony tomorrow from fire scientist Dr. Craig Beyler.

Beyler, as it turns out, filed a report last year that seriously questioned the forensic evidence used to convict and execute former living human being Todd Willingham, who was accused of burning his own family to death by setting his house afire.

But just two days before he could present his report to the Commission, it was gutted by Rick Perry, who replaced the chairman and two commissioners. The chair immediately postponed their October meeting. Beyler’s testimony was not placed on their January meeting agenda either.

At issue in the Republican primary last March was the Kay Bailey Hutchison allegation that Rick Perry beheaded the Texas Forensic Commission last year so that it could not rule on the Todd Willingham case until after the primary.

Not that Hutchison was a bleeding heart in this. As correctly pointed out in the American-Statesman piece, “the Willingham matter didn't register with Republican primary voters anyway.” Meaning, of course, that Republican primary voters are all about the death penalty and the generous application of it.

As mentioned in a piece I wrote on this some time ago, the issue Hutchison raised at the time was that Perry was being reckless in this move, because it gave something for Democrats to beat over his head with in the fall, should he win the primary.


Hutchison and I rarely agree on anything, but she hit the nail on the head with that one.

So this is something to watch tomorrow. Will the sub-committee actually meet? Will they take Beyler’s testimony? Or is this a drama in a many-act play that will come and go all year?

Because all of these objections to the forensic evidence that convicted him were raised before Todd Willingham was executed in 2004: an execution that Perry could have stayed or even commuted.

Note now, that this isn’t going to be the meaty issue that it could be in the fall, as Bill White is in favor of the death penalty, and opposes having a moratorium on executions, preferring to settle these matters on a case-by-case basis.

White is a canny politician who probably realizes that you can’t run for governor in Texas - and win - without stating a willingness to execute some of its citizens from time to time.

But it does leave open the notion that Perry opted not to decide on this case despite the testimony of expert scientists. He literally ignored them.

But my money is on Perry in this one. A 3-man subcommittee can’t rule on anything. It takes the chairman to put the matter on the agenda, and the TFSC just changed their rules last January. Now it appears that the chairman has the sole authority to set the agenda.

Chairman John Bradley is Perry’s man. My guess is that if he wants to stay in the chair, and if he wants to continue to do the biddings of his patron, Rick Perry, Bradley will continue to stonewall this thing well into next year.

Mark White on State-Sanctioned Killing

Former Governor Mark White has now weighed in on the use of the death penalty as an ultimate form of punishment of criminals in Texas. Coming on the heels of the little blow up between Kay Bailey Hutchison and Rick Perry, this looks like a smackdown from the former Democratic governor.

Something that White denies.

Something I can’t really fathom.

Because as an issue, this divides us like no other issue except maybe abortion. True, there are lots of Texas Democrats who favor the death penalty but I believe that tide is starting to turn. And I believe that evidence of this is right there in Mark White’s pronouncement as quoted in this AP article.

Progressive Democrats in Texas are for the most part opposed to the death penalty, but for reasons that range far and wide all the way from “it’s immoral” to “a preponderance of minorities are put to death” to “innocent people have been executed.”

That last one being my point of view and rationale for opposing the death penalty.

And apparently this point of view is shared by Mark White, citing the case of Todd Willingham – the one that got Kay Bailey and Rick Perry in an argument – but also the case of Michael Blair, whose innocence was proved with DNA forensic evidence – after he was executed:

“That's two examples of why I think the system is so unreliable. It creates an unnecessary possibility that an innocent person would be executed in Texas. And I don't think anybody in Texas wants that to happen.”

Well and good. But the issue is still hotly debated even within the Democratic Party. An issue we need to settle so it can be used as an issue to oust Republicans from statewide offices.

Because Republicans are very single-mindedly in favor of having the death penalty, and having it often.

Mark White, who has, in one capacity or another, overseen the executions of 20 individuals has come far in making this case – a progressive case. But we need to work on this some more to get the center left and independents on board with opposition to the death penalty.

And I can’t think of a better way to do that then point out this very important fact about the death penalty. A fact that will appeal to the sensibilities of economic conservatives in the center.

The death penalty costs more.

From FNSA.org:

“The death penalty is much more expensive than its closest alternative -- life imprisonment with no parole. Capital trials are longer and more expensive at every step than other murder trials. Pre-trial motions, expert witness investigations, jury selection, and the necessity for two trials -- one on guilt and one on sentencing -- make capital cases extremely costly, even before the appeals process begins. Guilty pleas are almost unheard of when the punishment is death. In addition, many of these trials result in a life sentence rather than the death penalty, so the state pays the cost of life imprisonment on top of the expensive trial.”

That is, if you can’t appeal to a person’s sense of morality, or their sense of fairness, or their sense of outrage, you can always appeal to their sense of thrift.

Hutchison Remains Adamant: She’s Running Against Perry

Today Kay Bailey Hutchison took a cue from Perry spokesman Mark Miner, quoted here yesterday, that she most assuredly was going to run against Governor Rick Perry and try to replace him on the November ballot.

“I have said pretty clearly that that’s what I’m going to do. I think I can help Texas now and take our state into the real areas that need to have leadership.”

OK,OK, I say. But actions speak louder than words and this continued thrust and parry in the press is done on the cheap. I want something concrete, like a senate resignation.

But I have to admit, Hutchison’s latest attack, actually a continuation of her attack on Perry for knowingly letting a convicted murderer be executed when forensic evidence was being openly disputed, does come of as unexpectedly shrill, and fodder for any Democrat who would run against Perry in November.

In her latest attack she lets both barrels loose on his recent replacement of members of the Texas Forensic Science Commission, which was investigating the disputed forensic evidence, the thing that the commission is supposed to do, and was expected to release a report next year.

A report that they say would have been damaging to Perry.

As it stands now, issuing the report won’t happen before the primary.

Hutchison is canny in her attack, because she can’t be looking like a bleeding heart for the guy who just may have been executed by mistake. As a matter of fact she offers no opinion on Todd Willingham’s guilt or innocence. In Houston today, she said this to an AP reporter:

“I'm not taking up for Mr. Willingham because I have no idea. I'm taking up for the process, for the criminal justice system in our state.”

See, it’s a hot button issue among Republicans. They like the death penalty. So Republicans who hope for a victory in Texas can’t get one by speaking up for a guy who mistakenly got waxed by the state. That would be unseemly.

No, Hutchison attacks it this way:

“I think the majority of Texans believe the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for the crimes that are the state law for the death penalty. I think every one of the people who believe in the death penalty would want to know we are using DNA evidence and the best technology in all the fields to determine if a person is rightfully convicted," Hutchison said.”

“Hutchison's campaign issued a statement saying Perry's handling of the commission has given liberals ammunition to discredit the death penalty.”

Get it? Hutchison isn’t attacking Perry because he just may have allowed an innocent man to be wasted in a government-sanctioned slaying, she is attacking him because he has given the liberals a valid issue.

How clever is that? Not only is she absolutely correct, but she can now look more conservative than Perry to boot.

Yes, we liberals oppose the death penalty. I am rather pragmatic about it though and don’t spout morality issues like others of my ilk. I simply think that the system is flawed and allows the taking of innocent life. You can’t have a do-over once the hypodermic’s plunger is pushed.

And this case is just grist for our mill.