Comunità di Sant'Egidio

 

- Rick Halperin, Bill Pelke, Dave Atwood. Tre famosi abolizionisti americani ed esperti di diritti umani rispondono alle domande della Comunità di Sant'Egidio, a 10 giorni dalla decisone della Corte Suprema di abolire la pena capitale per i minorenni.

 

- Rick Halperin, Bill Pelke, Dave Atwood. Three famous American abolitionists answer to the questions of the Community of Sant'Egidio, one week after the decision of the US Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for the juveniles.

---

 

 

We asked 3 most famous American abolitionists and experts of human rights to comment on the decision of the US Supreme Court to abolish the death penalty for the juveniles: Rick Halperin, Bill Pelke, Dave Atwood.

 

By Carlo Santoro, Community of Sant’Egidio

 

Q. From abroad we understand in these years many things changed, as to the death penalty. The decision of March 1st is another important step towards the total abolition. On the other hand our sensation is that the decision of the Sup. Court really reflects the change in the mentality of common people. Do you agree or do you think there is something more?

 

Halperin: “I think that clearly there is a different view about the death penalty today in the USA than there was 7 years ago...the juvenile decision clearly continues the trend of incremental abolition of the death penalty in the USA....no question about it!

 

Pelke: The decision of the US Supreme Court does reflect a change in the mentality of the death penalty issue in the US.  When Paula Cooper was sentenced to death in 1986 for a crime she committed at the age of 15 by the state of Indiana, most people applauded that decision.  At that time Indiana's law called for a 10-year-old to get the death penalty for that type of crime.  In the aftermath of the Cooper decision, Indiana raised its' age limit to 16 in the late 1980's.  Several years ago they raised the age limit in Indiana to 18.  Slowly but surely state have been proposing legislation turning away from sending juveniles to death row.  The US Supreme Court decision now makes it unconstitutional to excite anyone for a crime committed before the age of 18.  This is a huge step towards total abolition of the death penalty.

 

Atwood: The decision to exclude juvenile offenders from the death penalty in the United States is a wonderful step towards abolition of the death penalty in this country.  We hope that the issue of the severely mentally ill will be looked at by the U.S. Supreme Court in the future.

  

Q. Mentally retarded yesterday, juveniles today. Do you think the Sup. Court will help again in this direction? Which will be the next step, maybe the Sup. Court will say something about the National, the non-Americans, who are sentenced to death?

 

Halperin:  I think we are going to see a focus on both foreign nationals (this is not a large number overall), and perhaps a much more concentrated focus about killing the mentally ill...this would be a very large number, as it is believed that almost 1/4 to 1/3 of all US death row inmates are suffering from some form of mental illness.....

 

Pelke: I do not expect much help from the courts in the near future, except for the possibility of relief on the issue of the mentally ill.  The impetus is now on grass roots organizing work, educating the masses about the machinery of the death penalty and its ineffectiveness.  I believe the basis foundation that the death penalty is immoral needs to be laid and reinforced.

Many people in this country do not care what the international community thinks, and believes these issues belong to each state to decide.  Hopefully the courts might address the issue of those from other countries who were not granted their proper rights some relief.

 

Atwood: It appears that major changes in the death penalty in states like Texas will come from rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court.  While we encourage the legislators here in Texas to restrict and even abolish the death penalty, the legislators here appear to only want to make small improvements in the legal system rather than major changes that exclude people from execution.   So, we look forward to other rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court in the future.  Possibly the court might stop the execution of foreign nationals who were not advised by authorities of their right to contact their consulate when they were arrested (violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention)  If they had been advised of that right, they could very well have received a better legal defense during their trial.  There are also some other Texas cases in the U.S. Supreme Court that could impact the entire legal process, e.g. Thomas Miller-El where race is the selection of juries is an issue and Delma Banks where prosecutorial misconduct is an issue. 

As mentioned above, we also hope that the execution of the severely mentally ill will be prohibited by the U.S. Supreme Court, as such people are less culpable than someone who is not menatlly ill.  Recently we had a photo exhibit in Houston titled "Diary of an Execution" that highlighted the case of James Colburn, a severely mentally ill man who was executed in Texas in 2003.  We had this exhibit in the hopes of putting a spotlight on the fact that Texas has executed a number of people who were severely mentally ill, the most recent being Kelsey Patterson.   We hope the exhibit will travel to other cities in the U.S.

We believe that the U.S. Supreme Court, although quite conservative, is more progressive than the courts and legislators of the individual states, particularly the southern states.   The U.S. Supreme Court  will respond to what is called "evolving standards of decency" in the U.S., and also seems to be listening to international opinion.

Thus, for juvenile offenders, the Court looked at trends in the United States (many states had already excluded juvenile offenders from execution) and also international opinion on this issue.  

 

 

Q. Next month there will be another session of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneve. What would you propose there, as to the death penalty, but also more in general as to the issue of the human rights?

 

Halperin:  I recommend that the UN use the thematic rapporteur to welcome the abolition of the juvenile US death penalty, and then pass a resolution condemning the death penalty in the USA specifically...

 

Pelke: The death penalty continually needs to be presented as a human rights violation.   Pressure needs to be constantly aimed at countries that retain the death penalty and monies directed to help with this effort.  In this country there is a lack of funding in many organizations that hampers the work they could be doing.

 

Atwood: In the upcoming Human Rights Commission meeting in Geneva,  I would applaud the U.S. for taking a positive step forward and ask for further progress.   Foreign nationals should be excluded from execution, or at least receive new trials, when there have been violations of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention.  Severely mentally ill people should be excluded from execution as they are less culpable than someone who is not mentally ill (just as people with mental retardation and juvenile offenders are less culpable). People who did not receive a fair trial because they are poor or a racial minority should be excluded from execution, or at least get a new trial.  Of course, ultimately the death penalty itself should be declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court because it is "cruel and unusual punishment".  It will never be applied fairly to all people. It is unnecessary for societal protection, and is the most grave human right abuse because it takes away the right to life.