Mike Farrell, co-chair emeritus of Human Rights Watch in California, serves as president of Death Penalty Focus and as a member of the advisory board of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty. He is the national spokesperson for Concern America, an international refugee aid and development organization. At Truthdig he writes—California’s Proposition 62 Can End the Suffering Caused by—and the Expense of—the Death Penalty:
California’s death penalty system has failed. We know the death penalty is racist in application and is used primarily against the poor and the poorly defended. It entraps and kills the innocent along with the guilty and is hideously expensive. Any of these facts should be reason enough to do away with the death penalty, yet attempts to make it meet constitutional requirements have continued for nearly 40 years.
As Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer said last year, “Despite the … Court’s hope for fair administration of the death penalty, 40 years of further experience make it increasingly clear that the death penalty is imposed arbitrarily, i.e., without the ‘reasonable consistency’ legally necessary to reconcile its use with the Constitution’s commands.”
California’s 38-year attempt to make the death penalty constitutional has left us with more than 1,000 death verdicts and 13 executions—at a total cost of $5 billion. That breaks down to $384 million per execution. California now has the largest death-row population in the United States, with almost 750 men and women waiting an average of 25 to 30 years for the resolution of their constitutionally required appeals. As a result, approximately 10 times as many on our state’s death row have died of natural causes or suicide than have been executed.
A tragic result of this awful, grinding process is the long-term incarceration and death of innocents. Ralph Thomas, a homeless African-American man, and Dennis Lawley, a diagnosed schizophrenic, both died after years on death row before their claims of innocence were verified.
Proposition 62 will replace the death penalty with sentences of life without parole. It also will require inmates to work (which they cannot do on death row) and pay 60 percent of their earnings to a general victims’ restitution fund. The state’s Legislative Analyst’s Office says Proposition 62 will save Californians $150 million every year.
Currently, family members of victims have to relive the horror of a loved one’s murder through years of appellate hearings. If Proposition 62 is passed, guilty parties will be put behind bars until they die, providing finality and ending the torture endured by victims’ families. Eliminating the death penalty also gives convicts who aren’t guilty the chance to prove their innocence.
Proposition 66, on the other hand, is another in a series of lame attempts to fix an irreparable death-penalty system. The proposition imposes additional levels of appeal, which lengthen the process. It attempts to limit the California Supreme Court to five years to resolve appeals that now take an average of 12, but it contains no provision to enforce such a limit. As Proposition 66 authors should know, limiting the court’s deliberation time simply would mean making more mistakes and killing more innocent people.
Our state maintains a list of attorneys willing to accept appointment to handle appeals. Some are trained for and willing to accept capital—death penalty—appeals while others are not. Proposition 66 requires any of these attorneys, whether trained for capital defense or not, to accept death cases or be removed from the list. Forcing unwilling or untrained attorneys to handle the complex issues involved with capital defense guarantees costly, perhaps fatal, errors and ensures further appeals based on “ineffective assistance of counsel.” Proposition 66 also pretends to save the state money by moving some costs to the counties, an unfair burden counties can’t afford. Critically, Proposition 66 has no effect on the federal appellate courts, which already return 60 to 70 percent of all death verdicts to the state for resentencing, retrial or further consideration.
What a bad, horrible, awful, not-great week Scott Brown had. And who deserves it more? According to 67 percent of you, no one. You voted, so let's get to it.
He's been running an ad attacking Elizabeth Warren, saying that she fought asbestos victims in a major lawsuit and used the Boston Globeas his source. The problem? He lied in the ad about what the Globereported. His ad says Warren worked against the victims and for the company, but the victims' lawyers told the Globe they were on her side, and she worked with them. So the Globecalled him out for "misleadlingly" using their story.
But that was small potatoes compared to what he really stepped in on this asbestos case. He's so invested in the narrative that Warren worked against, instead of with, these victims that he accused the family of asbestos victims appearing in Warren ads about the case of being paid actors. Those family members did not take kindly to that accusation, and Brown was forced to apologize, but not without being a dick about it.
On today’s Kagro in the Morning show, it’s our final debate review of the 2016 election. Greg Dworkin has the data on who won the debate, including Kaine’s now-even-clearer win in the VP contest. Stormy Daniels enters the Trump mix! Test driving a Merrick Garland power play.
The Rape Crisis Center hotline, a D.C. resource that typically receives between 75 and 100 calls each week, saw a 20 percent increase after The Washington Post published a 2005 tape on Oct. 8 that showed Donald Trump bragging about grabbing women’s genitals without their permission.
Trump’s remarks and the accusations have done two things. One, they provide women with language to name their experience, experts say, and two, the public discussion of sexual assault has reminded them of what many went through years ago and buried.
Women who called the rape crisis hotlineto talk about unwanted touches — and the pain they inflicted — largely drove the call spike, (Indira) Henard said, (the center’s executive director). The remarks from Trump's accusers had dredged up memories that Americans only recently started to develop a vocabulary to describe, she noted.
Well, thanks to Trump, women’s vocabularies are expanding hand over fist and will no doubt soon include words like “sue” and “settlement.”
Reactions to Monday’s apology from the International Association of Chiefs of Police regarding the profession’s treatment of people of color are still coming in. Terrence M. Cunningham, president of the group and the current chief of the Wellesley, Massachusetts police department, told attendees at the organization’s San Diego convention that it was his hope that law enforcement and communities of color could break the “historic cycle of mistrust and build a better and safer future for us all.”
Events over the past several years,” Cunningham said, “have caused many to question the actions of our officers and has tragically undermined the trust that the public must and should have in their police departments. …The history of the law enforcement profession is replete with examples of bravery, self-sacrifice, and service to the community. At its core, policing is a noble profession.”
But Cunningham added, “At the same time, it is also clear that the history of policing has also had darker periods.” He cited laws enacted by state and federal governments which “have required police officers to perform many unpalatable tasks. … While this is no longer the case, this dark side of our shared history has created a multigenerational — almost inherited — mistrust between many communities of color and their law enforcement agencies.”
Cunningham continued, “While we obviously cannot change the past, it is clear that we must change the future…For our part, the first step is for law enforcement and the IACP to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of the past and the role that our profession has played in society’s historical mistreatment of communities of color.”
Several veteran organizers spoke around the issue of police terrorism and Cunningham’s words. Their responses were short, unsweetened, and to the point.
ISIS-controlled territory shown in gray over the last two years. Mosul is the black dot in the top center.
ISIS-controlled territory shown in gray over the last two years. Mosul is the black dot in the top center.
Donald Trump spent much of Wednesday night’s debate in a pique of incoherent criticism over America’s response to ISIS and the rest of the Middle East mess left behind by a previous administration. Half a world away, men and women are risking their lives and limbs trying to straighten out and clean up some of the worst parts of that mess, with thousands more innocent lives hanging in the balance.
Iraqi and coalition troops pushed through communities on the outskirts of Mosul this week, threading their way carefully past IEDs, suicide bombers, and snipers, in another day of heavy fighting against the Islamic State. There are reports that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadiis in the beleaguered city. If so, he is in real trouble as Mosul is now surrounded in a tightening noose, and there are unconfirmed claims that some of his own forces may be turning against him:
The Iraqi news outlet stated that the Commander of ISIS Islamic Police, Abu Othman, staged a coup attempt and attacked four headquarters of ISIS in Mosul. In response, ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi summoned the so-called al-Assra army to suppress the coup and kill seven leaders of ISIS Islamic Police who were allegedly involved.
Mosul was taken by ISIS in 2014, and the Caliphate was announced from the city’s historic Grand Mosque shortly after it fell into militant hands. Iraqi forces backed up with allied air power and special forces have been systematically retaking ISIS-controlled territory in northern and western Iraq ever since. Mosul is by far the largest city held by ISIS and its recapture is seen by many analysts as a death blow against the group’s violent ambitions.
Reports are that al-Baghdadi and other high ranking members are trapped inside and urging a fight to the death:
The terror cult's founder is believed to be holed up with ISIS bomb maker Fawzi Ali Nouimeh – leading the fears the twisted jihadis are prepared to fight to the bitter death to impress their self-proclaimed caliph. Initial reports suggest the death cult has dug a series of complex tunnels and laid out booby traps to ensure maximum casualties when Iraqi and Peshmerga forces attempt to reclaim the city.
Former Paradise Police Officer Patrick Feaster was convicted of involuntary manslaughter on Oct. 18. A jury in Butte County—in northern California, about two and a half hours from Reno, Nevada—deliberated for one full day before finding Feaster guilty in the death of 26-year-old Andrew Thomas on Thanksgiving evening in 2015. Thomas died from his wound—he was shot in the neck—on Dec. 19. The seven men and five women relied heavily on footage from Feaster’s dash cam. The footage, available below the fold, is graphic. As noted at the time:
”Feaster, who had been sitting in his patrol car, suddenly takes off on a call. A car has left the Canteena Bar and is speeding down the highway. Feaster turns onto a street where the brake lights of the car can be seen off in the distance. As Feaster speeds along, the car ahead of him suddenly runs into the median and flips over. Now turned onto its driver’s side, the car comes to a stop and Darien Ehorn, who had been a passenger, is lying in front of the vehicle.”
“As Feaster approaches the vehicle a man, presumably the driver, comes up through the passenger side window and attempts to get out of the car. That’s when Officer Feaster draws his weapon, aims, and shoots Andrew Thomas in the neck. As Thomas falls back down into the vehicle, Feaster returns his weapon to his holster and moves to the car to confront Thomas—who he has just shot, by the way.”
“On an audio recording, Feaster says the man in the car “refuses to get out.” He does not physically check on Ehorn, Thomas’s wife, lying on the ground just inches from him. The officer neglects to tell first responders that he shot the guy they were trying to extract from the car until about 10 minutes later, and he didn’t tell his commanding officer that tidbit of into until later, either.”
At the time, Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey elected not to file charges against Feaster, saying the shooting was accidental. Ramsey reversed himself in April of this year, charging Feaster with involuntary manslaughter. Feaster was thus ordered to stand trial. The trial began about two weeks ago and the jury began its deliberations on Oct. 17.
Donald Trump might be sending out 3 AM tweets claiming debate victory and citing bogus internet polls, but let’s take a moment to look back at the Republican nominee’s own body language in the immediate moments after the debate. While Hillary Clinton warmly greeted people in the audience, flashing a wide smile and confidently moving around the crowd in her stunning suffragette-white pantsuit, Donald Trump was sulking on the stage, appearing to have completely run out of stamina.
His own body language is a dead giveaway that he knows he lost—and lost bigly.
Watch below as a stone-faced Trump greets his family on stage with an awkward no-kiss to Melania, and barely acknowledges the others:
Welcome back to your evening roundup of the day's Donald J. Trump campaign news. There's now less than three weeks to go, which is good. But the candidate we're tasked with keeping tabs on has gone entirely off the deep end, which continues to make our job more difficult.
The morning headlines today were unanimous; a major presidential nominee coyly refusing to affirm he'd respect the results of our American democracy if that democracy did not install him as its glorious leader did not go over well.
Fox News host Sean Hannity is all out auditioning to be chief correspondent of the loons once the new Trump-bart debuts. And first on the chopping block after Trump is roundly defeated by overwhelming majorities at the polls: Paul Ryan, whom Hannity called a "saboteur" of Trump's campaign. Allegra Kirkland writes:
Speaking to the Washington Post in the spin room after the final presidential debate, the devoted Donald Trump ally hinted that the intra-party war between far-right conservatives and their more moderate counterparts would continue regardless of who wins the presidential race on November 8.
Hannity told the Post that Ryan, who has offered only tepid support for the Republican nominee during the 2016 race, “needed to be called out and replaced.”
Nice! Ryan, who hasn't even had the guts to disavow Trump, is now responsible for the miserable failure of a campaign Trump has run. Sorry, Paul.
Hannity also had a lot of good ideas about members of the House Crazy Caucus who could unite the party (ahem) upon Ryan’s ouster: Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan (chair of the Crazy Caucus), North Carolina Rep. Mark Meadows (who devised the wildly popular 2013 government shutdown), and Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert! LOL. Gohmert! The wackiest of the wack jobs, who has called Hillary Clinton "mentally impaired." Speaker Gohmert! ROFLOL.
About 2,000 educators across the Seattle area wore T-shirts to school on Oct. 19 proclaiming that “Black Lives Matter.” The action, which occurred throughout Seattle’s school districts, were in conjunction with rallies that were held before school began. Seattle’s KING5 news station covered the event:
The purpose of the day was to affirm that “black lives matter in the public schools,” according to organizers, who are members of Social Equality Educators, a group of educators within the Seattle teachers union. Teachers also wanted to show their support for John Muir Elementary, which had its “Black Men Uniting to Change the Narrative” event canceled last month after receiving a threat over teachers’ plans to wear Black Lives Matter shirts.
[ … ]
Teacher Diana Romero said she decided to wear a shirt “to support our black brothers and sisters in support for justice.” As a Latina, she said she has seen firsthand the unfair treatment of people of color by police officers.
“Black Lives Matter At School” wasn’t sponsored by the school district, but it coincides with Seattle Public Schools’ “day of unity,” aimed at bringing more attention to racial equity in education. The district said in a statement that it has asked students, family, staff and community members to “engage and join the conversation in our united efforts to eliminate opportunity gaps.” As a public institution, the district doesn’t take official positions on social or political movements, district spokesman Luke Duecy said in a statement earlier this week.
The action was endorsed by the Seattle Education Association, the Seattle council PTSA board, the Social Equality Educators, and the Seattle NAACP. Support from outside of the Washington area was also received, with more than 200 scholars and numerous racial/social justice activists who expressed their unity as well.
On behalf of House Majority PAC, the Democratic group Clarity Campaign Labs is out with a poll of California’s 10th Congressional District giving Democrat Michael Eggman a 46-45 lead over Republican Rep. Jeff Denham.
The sample gives Hillary Clinton a similar 41-40 edge in this Modesto seat. Obama won here 51-47 and the district is home to a large Latino population, so it’s a bit surprising the poll has Clinton underperforming. However, the district has a much smaller proportion of college-educated residents than the nation as a whole, so Donald Trump may actually have room to improve on Romney’s performance.
Until recently, there was little outside spending here, and Denham looked likely to win a fourth term. But a few weeks ago, House Majority PAC’s allies at the DCCC launched a $791,000 ad campaign for Eggman. The conservative Congressional Leadership Fund quickly committed a hefty $2 million to this seat as well. Denham pulled off a 53-47 win in 2012 against a highly-touted Democratic foe even while Obama was carrying his seat, so he still won’t be easy to beat. But with both sides spending here and this poll showing a tight contest, an upset isn’t so hard to envision.
A federal judge in Texas declined to limit his earlier ruling placing a nationwide injunction on the Obama administration's mandate that public schools allow transgender students to use bathrooms and locker rooms consistent with their gender identity. Josh Gerstein writes:
In an order issued late Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Reed O'Connor made some changes to the ruling he issued in August at the request of 13 states opposed to the policy, but he left the Education Department unable to bring new cases enforcing transgender students' access to access to what he termed "intimate facilities" across the nation.
Justice Department lawyers had asked O'Connor to limit the injunction's effect to the 13 states who brought the suit, filed in federal court in Wichita Falls, Texas, about 140 miles northwest of Dallas. However, the judge maintained he had the legal authority to halt the policy nationwide.
One thing O'Connor did do was limit the application of his ruling to "intimate facilities," leaving open the possibility of enforcing prohibitions on other forms of discrimination against transgender students.
The Justice Department will likely appeal the ruling to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Casino mogul and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson
Casino mogul and Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson
A recent Washington Postreport finds that a mere 10 mega-donor individuals or couples are responsible for a staggering 20 percent of the $1.1 billion that super PACs had raised in the 2016 election cycle by the end of August. Following the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, these groups have been able to raise unlimited sums from individuals and corporations, but this fundraising total far exceeds the $853 million that Super PACs raised for all of 2012—and it doesn’t yet include the last two months of this year’s campaign.
While most mega-donors lean heavily Republican, these top 10 had a mix of people giving to both parties. Chief among them for Democrats was environmentalist hedge-fund founder and Citizens United critic Tom Steyer. His net worth is approximately $1.6 billion, and he had given $38 million by the end of August. Las Vegas casino mogul Sheldon Adelson and his wife, Miriam, topped the list for Republicans, having given a combined $21.5 million. Sheldon Adelson is reportedly the world’s 22nd richest person, with a net worth of $32 billion dollars, roughly 20 times Steyer’s wealth.
Independent Michael Bloomberg, the world’s eighth-richest person with an estimated net worth of $40 billion, has divided his $20.2 million between the two parties and various ballot measures. Conspicuously absent are Charles and David Koch, the two fossil fuel robber barons and frequent progressive boogeymen. However, the two brothers, who are tied for world’s ninth richest at nearly $40 billion each, have built up a massive fundraising network capable of spending hundreds of millions, rather than relying just on their own personal fortune.
Many of the other top-10 mega-donors writing eight-figure checks unsurprisingly come from the world of finance and energy extraction, and it’s pretty clear what they’re getting for their money: a Republican Party completely beholden to their interests on deregulation. And even the Democratic Party often finds it needs these sorts of donors unless it wants to face a massive spending disparity.
Citizens Unitedisn’t responsible for everything wrong with our politics, but letting the ultra-rich dominate the conversation has done a lot of damage when their policy views are far out of sync with the general public’s. If every citizen’s voice should matter equally in a democracy, that simply cannot happen when one donor can write a check for tens of millions while most voters don’t—and many can’t—donate at all. Fortunately, if Democrats win the presidency and Senate in 2016, they are poised to install a new Supreme Court majority that could overturn Citizens United and allow us to start passing some meaningful new campaign finance restrictions.
