The Fourth World Congress Against the Death Penalty will be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in two weeks. Over 1000 people will attend as abolitionists from around the world meet to discuss our work, improve our strategies, learn from each other and plan for universal abolition. Our US participants will join activists from both abolitionist and retentionist nations in 10 round-table panel discussions, 10 workshops for enhancement and development of campaigning skills and two plenary sessions.

Round table sessions will include issues of real importance to the US movement, including racial bias, law enforcement, competent counsel, victims families and the mentally ill. Moderators and speakers in those panels include US experts. I will moderate the session on Law Enforcement Views, a subject very important as we move ahead with our outreach to the law enforcement community.

High ranking officials of Intergovernmental Organizations (IGOs), including the UN, the European Union and the Council of Europe will attend.  President Zapatero of Spain, currently the President of the EU, will open the Congress.  DPF honoree, Representative Gail Chasey, the author of the New Mexico abolition bill, will join a plenary session.

The entire Congress Program  is on the Congress website.  You can download the Press Pack too.  The history of the movement and the Congresses is all there.

The World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, where I represent DPF, is a partner with the primary Congress organizer, Ensemble Contre la Peine de Mort (ECPM), Together Against the Death Penalty, and we have been working for over a year on the Congress program.

The US abolition movement will be very well represented. I will be joined by many of our colleagues in the abolition movement, including DPF Board member Speedy Rice and DPF friends Professor Michael Radelet and Sister Helen Prejean, as well as Rep. Gail Chasey, Professor Sandra Babcock, Juan Matos de Juan of the Puerto Rico Bar Association, New Hampshire Representative Renny Cushing of MVFHR, and many others.

Elizabeth Zitrin is Coordinator of DPF's International Outreach and Communications Project.

My new post on Care2 about the death penalty has been getting a lot of comments.  One of the most common sentiments expressed in the comments is that we should try to make the death penalty process cheaper and faster.  In response to this, I posted a comment myself about why this is simply not possible.

Stefanie F. says
Feb 2, 2010 10:26 AM

California would save more than $125 million per year by replacing the death penalty with the punishment permanent imprisonment. This is a severe, swift and certain punishment.

Death penalty cases are more expensive for a variety of reasons, including: there are two trials instead of one (guilt phase and sentencing), there are more lawyers and experts on both sides, there are constitutionally mandated appeals to make sure we don't execute an innocent person, and the housing is more expensive because they have to be single-celled if they are on death row, unlike other prisoners who share cells. Death row prisoners are usually not allowed to work to offset their housing.

There is no way to make the death penalty cheaper without risking the execution of many innocent people. It has been tried for the last 30 plus years and it has failed. It cannot be done.

By sentencing prisoners to permanent imprisonment, we are taking them out of the media spotlight, reducing harm to the victims' families who don't have to be dragged through years of appeals, and guaranteeing that these individuals will be severely punished and never be released to harm another person, all at a lower cost to the state.

The cost of the death penalty is one issue that is extremely complex and there is often quite a bit of confusion about how and why the death penalty costs more than locking up prisoners for life.  

Hopefully my note above sheds some light on the issue, but also check out our resource page on COST for more in depth info. 

Still not a believer? Post your questions and comments here.

Support Death Penalty Focus and the Friends Committee on Legislation of California Education Fund on Friday, March 26th at the 3rd Capitol Awards Banquet. Please join Death Penalty Focus President Mike Farrell at this special event to honor three outstanding members of our community for their dedicated commitment to criminal justice reform and the abolition of the death penalty:

• Christine Thomas, Federal Defenders Office
• Sister Catherine Connell, Sisters of Social Service
• Pat Hardy, Alternatives to Violence Project - California

These three courageous women have been leaders in the fight to end the death penalty and make our prisons places for true rehabilitation.

Information about becoming a sponsor of this event or to purchase tickets can be found here.

Earlier this month, CCV proudly welcomed Aqeela Sherrills as the new Southern California Outreach Coordinator for California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. The following is his profile from Not in Our Name California: Murder Victims Families Speak Out Against the Death Penalty.

I grew up in Watts in South-Central Los Angeles, an epicenter of gang violence. Each of the 10,000 victims of gang violence in Los Angeles County over the past 20 years was somebody's daughter or son crying out for help.

After seeing 13 friends killed in gang wars, I was inspired to bring the warring factions, the Crips and Bloods, together and end the violence. We were able to create a peace treaty between the gangs in 1992, which has sustained for over ten years-not
without problems and challenges, however.  For the past 16 years I've continued working for peace. I believe that where the wounds are, the gift lies.

But in January 2004, this belief was seriously tested when my 18-year-old son, Terrell, was mur-dered. He was an unbelievable kid and after losing him, I thought, ―What is the gift in this?

The young man who killed my son wasn't caught, but we know who he is through the street network. I had the opportunity to retaliate, but I decided that revenge shouldn't be Terrell's legacy. Instead I spoke to the community about why revenge doesn't work. Terrell's killer is a victim too - a victim of a culture that lacks compassion.

You can only kill someone if you have a callous heart; I want to know why this young man had such a callous heart. It's not enough simply to catch him and throw him away or catch him and execute him.

We need to communicate with these individuals and touch their hearts, helping each one find their own humanity and see that violence is not the answer. It's about igniting a conversation about life-what makes people happy or sad; what they fear; what things they can change in the neighborhood. We must be motivated by love for the human being. It's about reverence for human life and spirit.

We have redefined what peace is and what it looks like in this community. Peace is not this utopian idea of dashing through a field of dandelions; it's hard work. The key is that individuals consistently come back to resolve their conflicts and take the next few steps towards peace.

My work is truly an extension of me. As I resolve the wounds in my own life, I'm able to see more of what I need to do in the community I live in and love.

To read more stories, visit www.californiacrimevictims.org.

On January 4th, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation released an amended version of their execution procedures for a 15 day public comment period.  Individuals from California and across the country submitted public comments criticizing the procedures. Read the ACLU of Northern California's press release. 

Check out Barry Scheck, co-director of the Innocence Project, discussing the death penalty on the Colbert Report:

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/260953/january-07-2010/fatal-subtraction---barry-scheck

Join Death Penalty Focus on Saturday, February 13, 2010 for a special concert by Steve Earle. Abolition of the death penalty is at the heart of Earle's activism, and he has been speaking and singing about it for years.

In conjunction with the annual Capital Case Defense Seminar (sponsored by the California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and the California Public Defenders Association), Death Penalty Focus is throwing a benefit bash with extraordinary music, wine and desserts. You don't have to be a conference participant to attend, so head to Monterey, California for the holiday weekend and help support Death Penalty Focus

More information and tickets can be purchased here.

On November 23, 2009 an Alameda County Jury returned a verdict of death for 35 year old Christopher Evans. In April of 2001 the 27 year old Evans murdered two people after being punched by a person associated with the two victims.  The aggravating and mitigating circumstance appeared to mirror the usual factors. Christopher Evans was a nice kid until he became a part of and desensitized to the horrific violence associated with being born and raised near 85th and International Blvd in Oakland. His anger went unchecked for so long that he probably couldn't even tell you why he hurt so much.

The victim's family and friends are left with the terrible image of their loved ones bleeding to death on the cold hard streets of East Oakland. The jurors, judge, DA and Defense Attorneys are no doubt trying to mentally and physically recover from yet another 8-9 months of 12 hour days and 20 hour weekends where they tried to do what they believed was best for our county and state.

In the end we are still left with the same question, "What did we accomplish by making Christopher Evans the 686th inmate on California's Death Row?" Have we deterred anyone from committing a murder? People who murder don't read newspaper articles about Death verdicts. Have we made our county safer? There have been at least a dozen murders since the verdict came down. Do we have some closure? The state of California has already expended about an additional $100,000 to put Christopher Evans on Death Row and will spend another $250,000 in appeals before a 60 year old Christopher Evans makes his walk to the Death chamber. All we really have is  more questions and less answers. 

In the mornings, before I leave the house to come and work at Death Penalty Focus, I listen to NPR. I was struck this morning, when I heard not zero, not one, but TWO pieces on the death penalty in the span of about 20 minutes. As someone who listens to NPR regularly and follows death penalty news, I am pleased to hear about it more frequently on the radio.

The first piece was about the proposed horrific legislation in Uganda that would punish homosexual activity with capital punishment. More information about about the proposed bill can be found on NPR.

The second piece, lengthy for morning news - 4 minutes, 32 seconds, to be exact - discusses the use of the death penalty by the federal Justice Department. Listen to this piece by Ari Shapiro here.

David C. Fathi, Director of the US Program

A guest blog by David C. Fathi - Director, US Program, Human Rights Watch.

Death Penalty Focus' Holiday Auction is open now through December 14th!

This holiday season, consider bidding on incredible celebrity items and experiences as gifts for your loved ones while helping to support the crucial work of Death Penalty Focus. Fabulous items available for bidding include...

• Meet Alec Baldwin on the set of 30 Rock in New York.
• Have lunch with Amy Brenneman and take a tour of the Private Practice set in Hollywood.
• Dine with Mike Farrell (DPF's President) and Shelley Fabares in Los Angeles.
• Own a Bonnie Raitt signed CD.
  

As Thanksgiving quickly approaches, my mind is filled with thoughts of dinner preparations and anticipated conversations. I have been the Outreach Coordinator for California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty for over two years. In that time, I have carved a clear identity with friends and family as someone who has an opinion about what we should do regarding the death penalty. I am the abolitionist at the table.

Even so, when faced with the prospect of conversations with friends and family who disagree with my position on the death penalty, I wrestle and turn in my seat trying to find a comfortable position to take at the dinner table. Finding the right words does not seem as important as finding peace within me to let this disagreement float between us. I have always expected to be changed by people I love and I expect to influence them as well. None of us should ever hope to come out of these real conversations the same…at least not if we are really listening and really alive.

So, it's important for me to leave room for others to express their feelings of revenge on the table of Thanksgiving dinner discussions. The need for revenge is real whether I feel it or not. How we continue to evolve with revenge is part of who we are as individuals and as a society. Revenge has existed in our cultures for thousands of years. Revenge is portrayed in art. It is written in literature. It is codified in religions. Susan Jacoby wrote an excellent history of revenge in Wild Justice, The Evolution of Revenge (1983). It is a good place to start when looking for common ground at holiday gatherings.

Over the past two years, I have met murder victim family members whose feelings of revenge have run the gamut from heartfelt abhorrence of revenge to an unremitting need for revenge. When we sit down at the dinner table with those we love and with whom we disagree, it is best to be sure that we know revenge is real and that we are all evolving together. Even though I do not have a desire for revenge, I cannot take away someone else's desire for revenge, nor do I want to take that feeling away from them. While I do understand that revenge is a real emotion, I do not believe it should be used as a basis of public policy. By replacing the death penalty with permanent imprisonment, we can abandon a failed system and save money, while still leaving recognizing a painful need for revenge.

This is definitely worth reading. It shows the terrible burden we place on ordinary citizens when we ask them to decide death. She mentions that even the victim's mother is not sure whether Christopher Evans should get the death penalty.

KALW News
Inside the Courts, Day1: Deciding Death
By Rina Palta on Monday, Nov 16, 7:38pm

I remember visiting a courthouse once on a school field trip and a judge telling us, after annoyedly referencing both Perry Mason and Judge Judy, that "the court is nothing like you see on tv." After day one in my two-week embed at Alameda County's Superior Court (part of a series on the courts funded through Spot.us) I have to say that's not entirely true.

Yes, most of the courthouse is surprisingly serene. The first floor is a little bustley with civilians milling about, waiting for their shot at jury duty. The rest of the building, including the court rooms, is pretty sparse. And at first glance, even the criminal jury trial rooms, like Department 8, Judge Vernon Nakahara's chambers, are quiet, smallish, and lightly populated. But as the day wore on over in the criminal trials division, rhetoric flared, demonstrations ensued, and the courtroom started to live up to its dramatic reputation.

More: http://kalwnews.org/blogs/rinapalta/inside-courts-day1-deciding-death

In 2005, the United States Supreme Court found in the case of Roper v. Simmons that it is unconstitutional to execute someone for a crime committed when he or she was under the age of 18.

Tragically, four countries are still executing juvenile offenders. This is the horrific human rights violation addressed by the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty for the 7^th World Day Against the Death Penalty marked on October 10, 2009. World Day was dedicated to Teaching Abolition, a resounding success with world-wide mobilization and media coverage in some 130 press outlets.

We will continue Teaching Abolition this year, next year, and as long as the death penalty exists anywhere. Please contact me at EZitrin@DeathPenalty.org or check out our materials if you'd like to teach abolition in a small or a big way.

In this year when we have focused on children and youth, we are also marking the 20^th Anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The object of the Convention is "to protect children from discrimination, neglect and abuse. It is the principal children's treaty, covering a full range of civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights …. The Convention is the first legally binding international treaty to give universally recognized norms and standards for the protection and promotion of children's rights in a single text.

To celebrate the 20^th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the World Coalition issued a call for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Yemen, to stop executions of juvenile offenders. Our petition to End Juvenile Executions gathered 90,000 signatures all over the world.

On November 20th, a delegation from the World Coalition will go to the embassies of the four countries, in Paris, to present the petitions.

It's never too late to sign! Add your voice! Juvenile executions must end.

Elizabeth Zitrin is International Outreach and Communications Project Coordinator for Death Penalty Focus

From NCADP: 

No acceptable model for death penalty statute, says major law group

The Council of the American Law Institute (ALI) recently voted to withdraw a section of its Model Penal Code concerned with capital punishment because of the "current intractable institutional and structural obstacles to ensuring a minimally adequate system for administering capital punishment."

The Institute based its decision on a study it commissioned to look into the practice of the death penalty since the recommendations were made in the Model Penal Code. The recommendations for how to make the death penalty less arbitrary had been adopted in 1962 and were cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1976 opinion allowing a reformed death penalty to be reinstated. Section §210.6 of the Code had defined cases appropriate for capital punishment, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and special sentencing procedures, and was intended to meet significant concerns regarding the practice.

This move essentially withdraws ALI from any attempt to fashion an acceptable death penalty because the system has proven to be unworkable. See ALI's statement here: http://www.ali.org/_news/10232009.htm

As the newest member of the Death Penalty Focus team, I am constantly discovering new reasons why I oppose the death penalty. I have always been morally opposed to capital punishment, but day in and day out, I read appalling statistics and hear incredible stories that have allowed me to develop my position by embracing a wide variety of compelling reasons why the death penalty must be replaced with permanent imprisonment in California and throughout the United States.

This weekend, my position developed even further. At a Death Penalty Focus fundraiser (if you couldn't attend, you can still donate at www.deathpenalty.org/donate), Aaron Owens, a resident of Alameda County, spoke to a room packed with 75 people.

Below is a bit about Aaron:

Convicted of: 1st Degree Murder (2 counts)
Year of Conviction: 1973
Sentence: Life (if he were convicted a few years earlier, or a few years later, it would have undoubtedly been a death sentence)
Year Released: 1982
Years Served: Almost 10 years
Wrongful Conviction Factors: Mistaken eyewitness identification

One of Aaron Owens' best friends is John Taylor, the man who sent him to prison for two life sentences for a double murder he did not commit.

"Twelve people thought that I was the man who committed the crime and they were wrong." Owens said. John Taylor was the prosecutor who convinced the jury that Owens was guilty. And Taylor is also the man who is responsible for Aaron now being free. "If John were not the kind of man he is, I never would have gotten out of prison. Nobody was going to listen to me. Nobody did. It took a man with a conscience like John to do what he did: see a mistake and rectify it."

Though Aaron's conviction was for a capital offense, it came at a time when California had a moratorium on the death penalty as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Furman v. Georgia. That stroke of luck meant he was sentenced to life instead. "If not for the moratorium, I would have been dead in '76 because that's when they affirmed my conviction," Owens said.

Aaron's conviction was simply a case of mistaken eyewitness identification. Owens said that the pivotal testimony came from a victim who survived and testified "I would never forget the eyes of the man who threatened to kill my little boy." The jury asked to hear that testimony again, and convicted Owens a short time later. But the witness simply made a mistake. Indeed, when Aaron later saw a picture of the true killer, he said "I thought it was a picture of me."

Thanks to John Taylor, Aaron received a full pardon and was released in 1982 after 10 years in prison. But that's all he got. He never received any compensation at all. The conviction still appears on his record, which has made life after prison even more difficult.

Aaron now works for John, doing investigation and legal work. Both fan's of the Oakland A's, you will often find them sitting at the ballpark together, friends with a unique bond.

I was so moved hearing Aaron speak. I am equally inspired and energized by the realization that if we can spread his story, and the many other stories like his, there is no way we can not win this fight.

Someone recently shared with this me, so I thought I'd pass it along.

The United States and the European Union have concluded two treaties they began negotiating in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US. These two treaties concern Mutual Legal Assistance and Extradition.

The EU and the US formally exchanged the treaty instruments in Washington, DC, on October 28. The US delegation was headed by Attorney General Eric Holder (photo), and the EU delegation was headed by Swedish Justice Minister Beatrice Ask. Sweden holds the Presidency of the EU until the end of this year.

Attorney General Holder emphasized the importance of the treaties in EU / US cooperation in fighting transnational crime and terrorism, and mentioned the modernization of our existing extradition treaties, which are with individual members of the EU, not with the EU as a whole.

But this is an important international step toward making extradition to the US in a death penalty case much less likely.

The Council of the European Union made this statement:

"The agreement on extradition … clarifies, among other things, the kind of offences that are extraditable, the exchange of information and transmission of documents as well as transit rules. It also significantly improves the protection against the death penalty. Extradition to the US will henceforth only be possible under the condition that the death penalty will not be imposed or, if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with, that the death penalty will not be carried out. Unlike what is currently the prevailing practice, the non-execution of the death penalty will no longer depend on case-by-case guarantees from the US." (Emphsis added)

The Capital Punishment section of the text of the Agreement on extradition between the European Union and the United States of America reads as follows:

"Where the offence for which extradition is sought is punishable by death under the laws in the requesting State and not punishable by death under the laws in the requested State, the requested State may grant extradition on the condition that the death penalty shall not be imposed on the person sought, or if for procedural reasons such condition cannot be complied with by the requesting State, on condition that the death penalty if imposed shall not be carried out. If the requesting State accepts extradition subject to conditions pursuant to this Article, it shall comply with the conditions. If the requesting State does not accept the conditions, the request for extradition may be denied."

Elizabeth Zitrin is Coordinator of DPF's International Outreach and Communications Project

Susan Swope, Denise Taylor, and Judy Kerr at the Centerforce Summit

Earlier this week, California Crime Victims for Alternatives to the Death Penalty participated in two great events!

On Monday, October 26, 2009, CCV, the Boalt National Lawyers Guild, and the Berkeley ACLU cosponsored a panel discussion at Berkeley Law School. Students gathered for "The Role of Victims in the Criminal Justice System: Death Penalty and Domestic Violence Cases" to see clips from the film "Love Lived on Death Row," a documentary about the four Syriani children whose father was sentenced to death and executed for the murder of their mother.

Following the film clips, Professor Nancy Lemon, professor of Domestic Violence Law at Berkeley Law School, and Judy Kerr, murder victim family member and Spokesperson for CCV, discussed the issues of domestic violence, the death penalty, and what a victim's role should be in the criminal justice system.

On Tuesday, October 27, 2009, CCV held a panel discussion at this year's Centerforce Summit on restorative justice and the death penalty. Panelists included Susan Swope, co-chair of the Restorative Justice Committee at the Society of St. Vincent de Paul of San Mateo County, Denise Taylor, murder victim family member who has reconciled with her brother's killer, and Judy Kerr, murder victim family member whose brother's murder remains unsolved.

The panelists discussed what restorative justice is, its benefits to victims, offenders, and society, how the death penalty takes away the opportunity for restorative justice, and how restorative justice is not an option in the 25,000 unsolved murders that exist in California today.

The hot topic in the Oakland Courthouse over the past ten months has been, can BART Officer John Meshserle receive a fair trial in Alameda County?  I believe Judge Jacobsen has properly ruled that given the attention and outrage by a number people from the community, he can not. As Judge Jacobsen prepares to rule on where the trial will be sent we are faced with an interesting query, "What does it mean to be fair?"

Most people believe they can be fair. Most people believe that they are not judgmental. However, when presented with a couple of hypotheticals, most people will admit that they might not be so fair. I've tried just about every type of case imaginable and in every jury pool I have found someone who could be fair in just about any other type of case than the one they have been called to serve on. In no particular order, the following is a list of cases that many people think they could not judge fairly: death penalty cases, murder, rape, robbery, child molestation, DUI, marijuana use, and cases involving the credibility of a police officer.

There's normally a group that will swear by the testimony of an officer and a group that would not trust the testimony of an Officer as far as they could throw them. How and where would you find a group of twelve people who could really be fair? If you were hoping I had the answer then you will be disappointed to know that I don't.

What I do have is an idealistic belief that if the advocates on both side presented the evidence to the jury in its purest form, the jury may have an opportunity to reach a fair and just verdict. I don't know what the verdict will be in the Meshserle case because I haven't heard all the facts yet, but that is exactly my point. Could you be fair before and after hearing the facts?  Can anyone? 

And when you put life and death on the line, the task only gets more difficult.