death penalty | Innocence Project of Florida

Posts Tagged ‘death penalty’

The Trouble with Texas

Jessica —

February 06, 2013 @ 12:30 PM —

Comments (0)

The State of Texas is laden with one of the largest controversies in our society, the death penalty. Bloomberg Businessweek reports,

“Texas is well known for its prodigious use of the death penalty: On Halloween [2012], it carried out its 250th execution under Republican Governor Rick Perry’s 12-year tenure. It’s also the most generous state in the nation when it comes to showing remorse for locking up the wrong man.”

There is currently a great deal of concern that Texas may have been prepared to execute an innocent man. Fortunately late in February, Larry Swearingen was granted a stay of execution, hopefully giving him the opportunity he needs to prove his innocence.

The Austin Chronicle delves further into the story of Larry Swearingen, the evidence presented against him in court, as well as the inconsistencies in the case that lead scientists and defense lawyers to continue the fight for his innocence. The Austin Chronicle writes:

”Swearingen maintains his innocence, but he was tried and convicted in the summer of 2000; after less than two hours of jury deliberation, he was sentenced to death. Since 2007, he’s been scheduled for execution three times but has avoided lethal injection thanks to court-imposed stays – including one late last month granted by the state’s highest criminal court, the Austin-based Court of Criminal Appeals, which sent the case back to district court for further review.”

The Houston Chronicle writes,

“Judge Kelly Case, however, did not rule on a defense motion requesting DNA testing on crime scene evidence. Instead, he ordered prosecutors to file a response to the motion in 60 days, so he can determine if DNA testing should be done.”

While the ruling does not grant the request for DNA testing, it is certainly a step in the right direction for Swearingen as he has maintained his innocence for 13 years. We certainly hope they do the right thing and grant DNA testing.

The second part of the Bloomberg statement – Texas is “also the most generous state in the nation when it comes to showing remorse for locking up the wrong man.” needs further discussion.

Texas is not only generous with those individuals who were wrongfully convicted and exonerated but also the simple procedures the exonerated must attend to for compensation. The state has written new laws in order to increase the compensation for those wrongfully convicted. The Bloomberg article continues,

“Twenty-seven states and Washington, D.C., provide some form of compensation to the wrongfully convicted. Vermont gives them a one-time payment of between $30,000 and $60,000 for each year they were locked up. Wisconsin pays $25,000 total, regardless of how long a person was incarcerated. So far Texas has paid 88 former prisoners, including two released from death row, a total of nearly $60 million, according to R.J. DeSilva, spokesman for the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. A dozen former inmates were added to the rolls in 2012.

“The [Texas] law provides exonerees with a lump sum based on how many years they spent behind bars, plus the $80,000 annuity. The state also agreed to pay for 120 hours of college credit and $10,000 for job training. Cory Session, who’s now policy director of the Innocence Project of Texas, which helps identify and free falsely convicted prisoners, says even the application process was made simple: Freed prisoners submit a few documents, and about six to eight weeks later the first check arrives. “In most states,” he says, “you need a lawyer.”

It is clear that nationwide exonerees are being compensated for their wrongful convictions in many different ways; however Texas is leading in the compensation as well as in the number of executions throughout the United States.

Why does the State of Texas make compensation for a wrongful conviction easier than obtaining post-conviction DNA testing?

justice,legislation,post-conviction, compensation, death penalty, Larry Swearingen, post-conviction DNA testing, Texas innocence, wrongful conviction

Solitary Confinement: Re-assessing, Re-evaluating, Re-thinking

Anne —

July 27, 2012 @ 4:27 PM —

Comments (1)

Note: This is the first of a three-part series on solitary confinement.

Dr. Craig Haney, the nation’s leading expert on inmate mental health, and a professor of psychology at the University of California at Santa Cruz, recently testified before a U. S. Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Human Rights on the effects of solitary confinement upon prisoners. Inmates in long-term confinement, according to Haney, suffer mental breakdowns from the lack of human contact that can lead to a multitude of mental, physical and emotional conditions, including psychosis, mutilations and suicide. Solitary confinement for most inmates, Haney testified, “precipitates a descent into madness” and can cause “profound, psychological damage.”

The increase in solitary confinement in the United States (since the late 1970s), according to statistics provided by Haney, is the result of the “confluence of three unfortunate trends”: mass imprisonment, the shift in responsibility for housing the mentally ill to the nation’s prison systems, and the abandonment of the notion of rehabilitation. Haney, who is also chair of UCSC’s Legal Studies program, estimated that 80,000 of the nation’s 2.3 million inmates in prisons and jails are in long-term solitary confinement. A great number of inmates have spent the majority of their prison sentences in solitary confinement, a legal and administrative practice that separates designated inmates from the prison’s general population.

Professor Haney was invited to testify by Subcommittee chairman Senator Richard “Dick” Durbin, D-Ill, at the first-ever hearing on the constitutional, fiscal, and public safety consequences of solitary confinement. Since 1971, Haney has conducted groundbreaking research into the effects of solitary confinement upon prisoners. His work has been cited in numerous scholarly journals and publications. Since 1971, he has been a leading proponent of mental health issues affecting prison inmates. As a graduate student, he was one of the principal investigators in an academic undertaking that became known as the “Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE).” He and fellow researchers placed a group of psychologically healthy college students in a prison-like environment, randomly assigning half to the position of prison guards; the other participants were designated as prisoners.

The researchers in the SPE carefully monitored participants’ behavior during the designated period, eventually ending the experiment, however, upon their observation that the otherwise “psychologically healthy volunteers in the simulated prison [setting] rapidly deteriorated into mistreatment and emotional breakdowns.” Thus began Haney’s prolific research into the effects of solitary confinement upon prisoners who have been incarcerated for extended periods of time. Since the SPE, Haney’s work has extended into the effects of capital punishment as well. In 2011, his research was cited numerous times in the majority opinion when the United States Supreme Court upheld a ruling ordering California to release 46,000 prisoners in an effort to relieve the state’s overcrowded prisons.

While a great portion of Haney’s testimony before the Subcommittee centered upon the effects of solitary confinement, he also addressed the state of prisons’ mental health workers, individuals who are assigned the task of treating inmates who have mental health issues. Oftentimes the workers are (themselves) stressed and too overburdened to render effective care with respect to noticeable improvements in inmates’ mental health issues. Such inadequate healthcare not only harms prisoners, Haney testified, it also “endangers the public once those prisoners are released” from prison. Without adequate mental healthcare as well as available, external counseling, prisoners, once released from the confines of a structured environment, are oftentimes present and “untreated” in the public domain.

Many times, according to statistics provided during the hearing, non-treated inmates (or inadequately treated inmates) commit crimes which cause their return to the familiar, institutional environment of incarceration. A vicious cycle of re-institutionalization becomes, in many cases, the norm. An overburdened healthcare system speaks not only to an inadequate system of governance–as it relates to prison reformation–it also articulates a much broader statement in terms of the responsibilities of government in being fiscally accountable to those who work in conditions as presented in California’s (and other states’) prison facilities.

Haney’s testimony before the Subcommittee concluded on multiple points of note. According to Haney, we put “far too many people in prison, we pay far too little attention to what happens to them while they’re there, we keep them there for far too long, then we disregard what happens to them when they try to make the difficult transition to come out into the free world.” In April 2012,the National Academy of Sciences appointed Haney to a panel to study the causes and consequences of high rates of incarceration in the United States.

Others testifying on issues related to solitary confinement included the Honorable Charles Samuels, Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; Christopher Epps, Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections; and former inmate Anthony Graves, who was released from Texas death row in 2010, after spending 18 years in prison for a crime he did not commit. Ten of the 18 years Graves spent on death row were in solitary confinement. He is the founder of “Anthony Believes,” an organization dedicated to the health and well-being of individuals consigned to death row and solitary confinement. His front-line advocacy has garnered national attention on issues related to solitary confinement and prison reformation.

exoneration,justice,legislation,prison,Science, death penalty, Dr. Craig Haney, exoneration, National Academy of Sciences, solitary confinement and mental health effects, Stanford Prison Experiment, Texas, wrongful incarceration

Weekly Update: Exonerees Speak Up for Justice and the Northeast Steps Forward with Reforms

Chelsea —

April 13, 2012 @ 11:13 AM —

Comments (0)

Exoneree Juan Rivera Steps Out to Speak Against Wrongful Convictions

Juan Rivera has remained fairly quiet since he was exonerated earlier this year in a 1992 Illinois murder, but now he will be speaking at an upcoming panel discussion on wrongful convictions. Rivera will appear at Northern Illinois University’s College of Law in DeKalb Tuesday on a so-called Innocence Panel that also includes Justice Susan Hutchinson of the Illinois Appellate Court’s 2nd District, which authored the ruling that led to Rivera’s release, according to the Lake Forest TribLocal.

The panel is scheduled with the intent of bringing awareness to the critical importance of justice reform in preventing wrongful convictions, especially considering an upcoming general election when Lake County will be electing a new state’s attorney.

Read more about Rivera’s case and the upcoming NIU Innocence Panel here.

Connecticut Senate Moves to Repeal Death Penalty

Last Thursday the Connecticut Senate debated for hours before deciding in a 20-16 vote to repeal their death penalty law. Connecticut’s largely left-wing House of Representatives is expected to return a vote in favor of repealing the law within the next several weeks, according to the Associated Press. Further, “Gov. Dannel P. Malloy, the first Democratic governor elected in two decades, has vowed to sign the same bill vetoed by his Republican predecessor.”

Connecticut is one of five states to have done away with the death penalty recently, including New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, and Illinois. However, those states are ones that have hardly used the death penalty within the past fifty years.

Several other states, such as Kentucky and California, have proposals to repeal capitol punishment pending. Increased awareness of how often our system gets it wrong is a big part of why these precautions and considerations are being made.

Mike Farrell: Human Rights Activist

Anne —

February 03, 2012 @ 10:29 AM —

Comments (2)

NOTE: This is the second (and final) installment of an interview with Mike Farrell, a life-long opponent of the death penalty. Part I appeared on February 1, 2012.

Anne: How has your public work affected your view of the criminal justice system in the United States in terms of death penalty cases involving questionable sentencing?

Mike Farrell: It has taught me that the criminal justice system in general is not just. It is anti-human, degrading and shows no interest in helping those who get caught up in it learn how to comport themselves appropriately and become productive citizens. It is, in my view, a destructive system that makes huge profits for some people and companies at great costs, not only to those who are incarcerated, but to our entire society.

Anne: The execution of Donald Beardslee (California, 2005) attracted a number of anti-death penalty advocates. Can you speak of a specific capital punishment case in which you were involved that addresses state-sanctioned killings involving persons with limited capacity to understand their actions and/or subsequent fates?

MF: There are too many: Robert Alton Harris in California, Johny Paul Penry in Texas (has not yet been executed, but they keep trying), Ricky Ray Rector in Arkansas, Barry Fairchild in Arkansas, Wanda Jean Allen in Oklahoma. The Supreme Court’s 2002 decision regarding Daryl Atkins, in Virginia, stopped the execution of mentally challenged individuals, though they left the determination of who was or was not mentally challenged up to the states. Human Rights Watch released a study (around 2005) stating that we have more than 250,000 demonstrably mentally ill people in our prison system, more than in our mental institutions.

Anne: Do you believe that it is an individual state’s right to impose a moratorium on capital punishment, or do you feel that the issue should be addressed in a broader forum (by higher court’s outside one’s state)?

MF: I think, especially given the current makeup of the United States Supreme Court, it will be a state-by-state process that will create (as did the Simmons Case about the death penalty for juveniles) a clear sense that the people of the United States recognize that there is no longer any value to maintaining the death system.

And yes, of course, each state has the right to declare a moratorium on state killings. It happened here in California six years ago, though it was imposed by a judge. We’re still waiting for the final determination. In Illinois, then-governor Ryan declared a moratorium and ordered a study of the death penalty. That eventually led to his clearing the state’s Death Row by commuting almost all death row inmates to life without parole. He pardoned some outright.

New Jersey did such a study and decided to end the death penalty. Pennsylvania has just ordered a study and I hope it has the same result.

Anne: A number of individuals who have been sentenced to Death Row in specific cases across the United States have also been exonerated due to DNA evidence. How does such testing (and its results) help bolster your argument that the courts oftentimes “get it wrong” in terms of sentencing a person to death for crimes for which they have been found guilty?

MF: I think the exoneration of 139 people (so far in the modern era) from our death rows, after being charged, tried by a “jury of their peers” and sentenced to death, proves the fallibility of the system and demonstrates the wrong-headedness of giving the state the right to take a life.

I would quickly add, though, that most of those exonerated have not been freed because of DNA [evidence], but because of the dogged pursuit of justice by caring lawyers, relatives, students and people of faith. DNA evidence, while it can be an enormously powerful tool, is not available in most murder cases.

Anne: If you witnessed (or read reports of) the Republican presidential debate in September 2011, where Texas governor Rick Perry was cheered regarding his stance on capital punishment (which he supports as a “state’s right” issue), what message do you believe the audience’s rancorous behavior sent in terms of the national reception to (and acceptance of) capital punishment?

MF: I don’t think the frightening (and, to me, disgusting) behavior of the audience at that debate is representative of the vast majority of the poeple in this country. While some polls show a majority of Americans still support capital punishment, those numbers are falling, and, in fact, when people are offered the option of life without parole (LWOP), more indicate support for LWOP.

Anne: Your anti-capital punishment advocacy through the year has led you to write, speak and organize nationally and internationally on various aspects relating to death penalty and human right issues. Can you discuss some of your current projects and how they might serve to initiate a broader political discourse in the area of anti-death penalty matters?

MF: I chair Death Penalty Focus, an ablition organization based in San Francisco, California. We have been working to help people better understand the truth about the death system and how it is failing us–in fact harming us–as a society. With the rise in public awareness of the failings inherent in capital punishment, we are now at a point where a coalition has been put together to put the question of replacing the death penalty with life without parole here in our state. It will save the state millions of dollars, provide more funding for police to solve the huge number of unsolved rapes and murders, and ensure that we no longer run the risk of killing an innocent person.

A case with which I’ve been involved for many years is that of Joe Giarrantano, in Virginia. Joe was sentenced to death in 1979, and was spared at the last minute from execution in 1991 by then-governor Douglas Wilder. We made a strong showing that Giarrantano deserved a new trial, but, again, Governor Wilder went halfway. He spared Joe’s life but tuned the question of a new trial over to the state’s Attorney General, who was not inclined to take the risk of Joe’s being found innocent (which I believe him to be). For that reason, Joe remains in prison to this day, a fact that sickens me.

Anne: You have been the recipient of numerous awards and accolades for your decades-long efforts in raising awarness of various human rights issues. Undoubtedly your work has resonated with various “anti-groups” across the globe. Is there an exclusive award or accolade that has specific affection for you becuase you can clearly see the evidence and impact of your work?

MF: One doesn’t do this work to win awards. The progress that the abolition movement is making inspires me. The fact that New York, New Jersey, New Mexico, and Illinois have chosen to end the use of state killings makes me know we will prevail. But perhaps the “award” that means the most to me is that, despite the fact that he remains behind bars, Joe Giarrantano is alive and able to do good work helping fellow inmates in Virginia.

Anne: I believe that advocacy of a cause begins as a grassroots effort with a capacity to grow into a much larger movement. What can the average citizen do to involve him/herself in issues related to capital punishment and other human rights issues?

MF: If they care, people can read a bit, study it [human rights issues and death penalty cases] if they choose, and learn the facts about how the system is doing harm to all of us. When we spend more money on prisons than on colleges, there is something terribly wrong with our society. People need to be less quick to judge “wrong-doers” and more willing to look at the circumstances of the lives of too many people in our society who have been left behind and deemed invisible. If kids grow up thinking they have no value, they think no one else has any value either. If kids grow up surrounded by violence, how do we expect hem to undersand that violence is wrong?

We have work to do to make this society live up to its promise–for everyone.

exoneration,judicial,justice,legislation,litigation,policy,prison, death penalty, DNA testing, innocent, justice, Supreme Court of the United States, wrongful incarceration

January 2012 Video Update

Chelsea —

January 11, 2012 @ 5:35 PM —

Comments (0)

In this video update, Executive Director Seth Miller provides a summary of several bills that will be addressed during the 2012 Florida legislative session. Seth also gives information about two upcoming Innocence Project of Florida events.

Four bills, all dealing with the death penalty, will be looked at during this legislative session. Three bills deal with the way the juries decide on giving the death penalty. Senate Bill 772, sponsored by Senator Thad Altman, Senate Bill 352, sponsored by Senator Oscar Braynon, and House Bill 29, sponsored by Representative John Patrick Julien all seek to require a unanimous decision by the jury to send someone to death row. Currently, Florida is the only state in the nation that allows people to be sent to death row with a simple majority vote. Someone convicted of a capitol offense can be executed with a vote of 7 to 5. The three above bills would change that and bring us in line with other states and make the justice system more fair.

The fourth bill is House Bill 4051 and is sponsored by Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda. The bill seeks to abolish the death penalty in Florida.

While the Innocence Project of Florida does not take an official stance on the death penalty, we hope that you will call your senators and representatives and encourage them to support these bills. In a system that so often gets it wrong giving the death penalty by simple majority is risky.

The Innocence Project of Florida also has some exciting events coming up in the next several months. On January 19 from 2-4 p.m. Seth and one of our exonorees, Alan Crotzer, will be at the Selby Library in Sarasota, FL, speaking about the Innocence Project of Florida and Alan’s experiences. On April 26 the Innocence Project will hold Steppin’ Out with the Innocence Project of Florida, its first annual gala. The gala will be held at the Four Seasons Hotel in Miami, and will honor IPF’s exonorees and several other special guests. More information is here.

Innocence Project of Florida,legislation,Uncategorized, Alan Crotzer, death penalty, exoneree, Innocence Project of Florida, legislation, wrongful conviction

It’s Time for a Moratorium

Anne —

January 11, 2012 @ 1:35 PM —

Comments (0)

Four months ago, State Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda appealed to Governor Rick Scott not to sign any death warrants awaiting his signature. As public servants, she maintained, they are “not in the business of dispensing vengeance” but are, instead, charged with keeping Floridians “safe from crime while spending the public’s tax dollars prudently.” Rep. Vasilinda’s sponsorship of House Bill 4051 (HB 4051) would repeal the death penalty in Florida. Life without parole, she argues in her letter, can serve as an alternative to capital punishment and is the “better path” in terms of the costly nature of executions carried out in Florida.

In her letter, Rep. Vasilinda cites a 2000 Palm Beach Post(PBP) report, “The High Price of Killing Killers,” which includes astronomical figures related to state-sanctioned executions. According to the report, Florida spent “approximately $51 million each year to enforce the death penalty.” While more than a decade has passed since the publication of the PBP report, the figures are certainly still relevant. While the cost of living in Florida has risen substantially since the publication of the article, it stands to reason that costs associated with state-approved executions have also risen dramatically.

With the $51 million spent on executions, the State of Florida could, maintains Rep. Vasilinda, “put 850 law enforcement officers on Florida’s streets, as well as add more Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) investigators and equipment to our arsenal against crime.” A sentence of life in prison without parole allows, she argues, “mistakes” to be corrected or new evidence to “come to light, serving to increase faith and fairness in our justice system.” Some “mistakes,” despite a myriad of “safeguards” are, of course, irreversible. This factor alone makes a moratorium on executions worthy of consideration.

A moratorium on capital punishment in Florida is long past due and sorely needed. Let us hope that Rep. Vasilinda’s bill to repeal the death penalty in Florida will reach the hearts, souls, and sensibilities of elected officials who, during this legislative session, are in positions to make a change in the way the State of Florida conducts business.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida,justice,legislation,policy,prison, death penalty, exoneration, incarceration

A Capitol Talk with State Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda

Anne —

January 06, 2012 @ 5:49 PM —

Comments (2)

If you aren’t careful, you’ll soon start to wonder who’s working harder for the money in your wallet: you or some phantom guardian hell-bent on being your best spendthrift buddy during these economically exigent times. Pretty soon, though, you start to realize that Florida has an elected official working front and center for the taxpayers of the sunshine state. Efficient in fulfilling her political obligations and engaging the process in every legal aspect as required and necessary, it is no wonder that State Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda’s sponsorship of House Bill 4051 (HB 4051), the Death Penalty Repeal Bill, has garnered the kind of statewide attention that makes the discourse regarding capital punishment a much more invigorating topic of discussion. In a recent interview in the 10th floor capitol office of this advocate of “the people’s money,” Representative Vasilinda was passionate regarding how Florida taxpayers’ hard-earned money is being spent.

While not advocating a particular ideology on the issue of capital punishment, Representative Vasilinda’s principal objective is to be fiscally responsible with “the people’s money,” as she so often references taxpayers’ money. It costs more, she argues, to execute a person in Florida than it does for that person to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. And, she maintains, if it is her job to be the custodian of taxpayers’ dollars, then it is necessary that she be thoroughly engaged in every aspect of her duties to the citizens of Florida in an effort to ensure that every penny is well spent.

In her advocacy of incarceration over execution (for convicted criminals who have been given a date with death), it is clearly a most fiscally sound action that serves, she asserts, as an alternative to the costly execution of persons convicted of crimes in Florida. Thus the sponsorship of HB 4051 is of utmost significance to this elected official. Simply put, it costs the taxpayers of Florida less, in Vasilinda’s perspective, to house a convicted person for life than it does to carry out an execution.

According to a Florida Dept. of Corrections (FDOC) website, the costs associated with incarceration versus capital punishment, it costs, in fiscal year 2009-2010, $19,469 a year to feed, clothe, house, educate and provide medical services for an inmate at any state facility, and $15, 498, to do so at a prison for adult males (who constitute the majority of individuals incarcerated in the Florida state prison system). The average number of years an offender serves behind bars is 20.5 years, according to figures from FY 2003-2004. In terms of “life,” as a sentence prescribed, persons receiving a “life sentence” for crimes committed on or after October 1, 1995, will indeed serve a life sentence, according to documentation from FDOC.

The average length of stay on Death Row prior to execution, as documented by FDOC, is 12.91 years. The cost of life imprisonment (according to the $15,498 figure x the 20.5 years) is $317,709. The death penalty process (before execution), according to FDOC, is 12.68 years. Other statistics include a number of other “averages”: 14.12 years between offense and execution; 44.40 years as the average age at the time of execution; 30.28 years as the average age of offense for executed inmates.

A few highlights of HB 4051:

It is a “repeal bill” that deletes provisions providing for the death penalty for capital punishment.
The bill repeals statues relating to commencement of capital post-conviction actions for which the sentence of death is imposed.
The bill deletes privisions relating to preservation of DNA evidence in death penalty cases.
It deletes provisions relating to the effect of a declaration by a court of last resort that the death penalty in a capital felony is unconstititinal.

While there might be some who will argue that HB 4051 is, for various and sundry reasons, an “unnecessary” bill, one that does not represent the preferences, views and opinions of a majority of Florida’s taxpaying citizens, Representative Vasilinda argues that the legislation is needed on so many levels:

Executions are carried out at a staggering cost to taxpayers.
Statistics show that capital punishment does not deter crime.
States face myriad challenges in preventing accidental executions of innocent people.
Racial politics oftentimes determines who lives and who dies.
Millions of dollars could be diverted to helping the families of murder victims.
Inept legal representation is a persistent legal concern.

Among the myriad obligations and responsibilities as District 9′s representative, you can rest assured that Representative Vasilinda has her eyes on two distinct bills during this upcoming legislative session:

The people’s dollar bill and
House Bill 4051

Her advocacy of the wise spending of “the people’s money” shows her to be unwavering in her efforts to be Florida taxpayers’ spendthrift buddy. It is a moniker that the state’s citizens might welcome in these financially challenging times.

legislation,policy,prison, death penalty, HB 4051, Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda

McReele: A Play That Explores “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”

Jackie —

November 07, 2011 @ 2:31 PM —

Comments (0)

The Tampa Bay Players opened the play McReele this past Friday and are donating a portion of the proceeds to the Innocence Project of Florida. I was honored to be a part of opening night. I watched as a very talented group of actors tell an amazing story.

The Story: When Delaware journalist Rick Dayne meets death row inmate Darius McReele, the articles Rick writes lead to Darius’ exoneration from a sixteen-year murder conviction. Darius’ sympathetic past and magnetic personality make him a darling of the lecture circuit, leading to national attention and political viability. With his past and future in the balance, Darius walks the line, as Rick seeks to determine which way he’ll ultimately fall.

I have seen many plays performed live, but none have resonated with me on so many levels. The play explores the duplicity, misconceptions and flaws not just of the criminal justice system in the U.S., but also our political system. The characters and their relationships are complex, well developed and thought provoking.

If you have opportunity, go. The play will run at least one more week at 8313 W. Hillsborough Ave. #250, Tampa, FL.

Many thanks to The Tampa Bay Players, especially Jeph, Larry, Fred, Fenix, Nicole, Jannette and all of the Performer’s Studio Workshop family, for bringing this enlightening play to Tampa.

exoneration,Innocence Project of Florida, death penalty, exoneration, McReele, Performer's Studio Workshop, Stephen Belber, Tampa Bay Players

Exoneration Is Not the End of the Story

Susan —

November 03, 2011 @ 9:36 AM —

Comments (2)

It’s happened 13 times in Florida alone. After years behind bars for a crime he didn’t commit, the exonerated man walks out into the light of day as a free man – off into the sunset to a beautiful life. Wait. Not so fast.

Take the case of Joe Jones, the first man in Kansas to be exonerated through DNA testing. Jones served seven years for a 1985 rape committed by someone else. Jones was convicted in 1986 due mainly to false eyewitness testimony, but was released in 1992 after testing excluded him as the perpetrator. Thus began Jones’ “other battles”.

Since state payments to exonerees were unknown at the time, Jones lobbied the Kansas legislature for compensation and received $350,000 in 1993. Suffering from the after effects of prison life (which he still doesn’t talk about), he turned to cocaine to the tune of a $500 a day habit. His money quickly ran out leading him to commit nonviolent property crimes and drug offenses.

Most recently paroled in March, Jones says he has been clean for over two years. The rape victim still insists Jones is guilty; the perpetrator has yet to be identified. Jones is trying to get his life going in the right direction and attending regular counseling sessions. “Anything to make me feel like this didn’t happen.” Read more about it at LJWORLD.com.

The Daily Cougar.Com explains the “Witness to Innocence” program formed by freed death row inmates that seeks to educate audiences about the death penalty by facing those who have been sentenced and released. Some of their funds go to struggling exonerees.

Program Director Ron Keine notes, “This is the problem with a lot of people who are out on exoneration — there’s nothing for them there. If you went to prison for a crime that you did, you get out on parole. You have a parole officer to make sure you can get a job, housing, a way to feed yourself — we don’t have that. I couldn’t even get a job at McDonald’s.”

Then there’s the case of Eric Caine who falsely confessed to murdering an elderly Chicago couple after being tortured by Chicago police in 1986 when another suspect who was also tortured misidentified him. The police actions were later substantiated and led to Illinois Governor George Ryan first placing a moratorium, and then commuting death sentences in the state. Caine’s co-defendant (who received the death penalty) walked out. Caine (who did not) stayed in prison for eight more years even though the same evidence was used to prosecute and convict both men. He served a total of 25 years.

He was released this year and is not looking back – he has an apartment, a driver’s license, volunteers for the Chicago Innocence Project that helped gain his release, works part-time, and awaits compensation from the state. Oops. Hold on.

It seems Judge Michael McHale denied Caine’s request for a Certificate of Innocence that would allow him to collect compensation. However, the Huff Post Chicago article notes that Caine may likely prevail, as his legal team will soon file a multimillion-dollar lawsuit against the City and the police officers involved. What’s more, newly elected Mayor Rahm Emanuel has made it known he wants quick resolution to these matters.

Says Caine, “It’s not the first time I’ve been denied. I’ll have to keep going through the fight. But I’m ready for the next round.”

exoneration,judicial,justice,prison, Chicago Innocence Project, death penalty, Eric Caine, exoneration, exoneree, Joe Jones, Witness to Innocence, wrongful incarceration

A New Beginning for Gaile

Anne —

October 12, 2011 @ 9:45 AM —

Comments (0)

A celebration went on in Nashville, Tennessee last Friday. And while it may not have been a celebration with bells, whistles, and dancing in the streets, I’m willing to bet that a festive mood of subtle proportions was the order of the day. The subdued merriment belonged to a 58-year-old woman (and her supporters) who owned the moment. While the cause of the celebration was not, in its origin, a celebratory occasion, the moment of celebration certainly was.

Gaile Owens, who gained notoriety for being, at the time of her sentencing in 1986, the first woman in Tennessee to be sentenced to death in nearly 200 years, walked out of the Nashville Prison for Women on October 7, 2011, a free woman. The crime for which she was sentenced–and one which she does not dispute–was the hiring of a man, Sidney Porterfield, to kill her husband, Ron Owens, whom she claimed was physically, sexually, and emotionally abusive.

The facts of the case are clear and defined: A tire iron was used by Porterfield to club Owens’ husband to death on February 17, 1985, in the home that she and her husband shared with their two young sons. Witnesses testified for the prosecution acknowledging that Owens solicited a number of men to carry out the slaying before Porterfield agreed to do it. A plea deal Owens had accepted, which would have given her life in prison, was withdrawn when Porterfield refused to accept the deal. Owens and Porterfield were subsequently sentenced to death. Porterfield remains on death row.

During the summer of 2010, then-Governor Phil Bresdesen commuted her sentence to life with the possibility of parole, and Owens became eligible for parole from the Tennessee prison system this fall. According to John Seigenthaler, former Tennessean publisher and editor, “other women who kill their husbands received far more lenient punishments [than Owens].” Seen for the past two years as a cause celebre, Owens’ case garnered national interest (and she became a symbol for battered women unfairly punished) primarily because of the solicitation of Porterfield.

Although she is now a free woman after a 26-year imprisonment, she will still, most likely, bear the stigma of having ordered her husband’s killing. Few people, I imagine, will be willing to put aside their own prejudices regarding her case, opting instead to see her as a person who took another person’s life. Her story certainly raises issues about equal justice, gender biases, inconsistent sentencing standards, and a judicial system (occupied primarily by men) that often takes an antiquated view of spousal abuse. Through encouragement and continued support from family and friends, my hope is that her story will remain in the forefront of a national discourse on capital punishment, violence against women, and the social dynamics that foster such conditions.

Gaile Owens’ first order of business upon her release from prison, according to supporters who greeted her, was to hug her son, Stephen, and tell him that she loved him. While such an act may seem small and insignificant to others, it was, I believe, the beginning of a chapter in her life only she can author.

NOTE: Brantley Hargrove chronicles Gaile Owens’ life in “No angel, No Devil” in the 4/22/10, online publication Nashville Scene (www.nashvillescene.com).

judicial,justice,prison, death penalty, Gaile Owens, Sidney Porterfield