Imagine being only a few feet away from the shore in a body of water way over your head – and you’re drowning. Desperately you look to a crowd of people who have gathered to watch you go down and yet not a single person even attempts to throw you a rope. You struggle to tread water, but it’s a losing battle and slowly you begin to sink into the cold depths and still those gathered to watch, those who could so easily save your life, just stand there and let you go down. Your life means nothing to them – they don’t care.
As a death sentenced prisoner, that’s just as I feel. I’m drowning and my death means inevitable. And yet the lawyers the state pays to throw me the rope and save my life are just standing there, watching me go down. The rope is right there at their feet and all they have to do is just bend over, pick it up and throw it. But they won’t. My expectations are unrealistic as in truth they don’t work for me, they work for the state – the same state that wants me to die. Saving me from death is not in their interest as that would be biting the hand that feeds them.
I don’t understand it and yet I’ve seen it too many times. When it comes to the death penalty, who lives and who dies is not decided upon the nature of the crime allegedly committed, but upon the quality of legal representation the condemned is provided. However, the state doesn’t play fair – they deliberately stack the deck by creating obstructions to prevent appointed legal counsel from too “zealously” representing their clients – and the lawyers play along as they adopt the Marxist philosophy that the good of the many outweigh the good of any one man.
Even the innocent are expendable when it comes to the politics of death. I would challenge anyone who might question my innocence to check out www.southerninjustice.com and decode for yourself. But my innocence is irrelevant and the US Supreme Court has already proclaimed that the US Constitution does not prohibit the state from putting a person to death simply because they are innocent Herrera v. Collins (1993)
For the reason my only chance to avoid being executed in spite of my innocence is to present material “new evidence” that sufficiently “undermines confidence in the verdict”, thereby establishing the foundation upon which the courts can grant a new trial by throwing out the wrongful conviction.
But specifically in our politically corrupted courts this is a very difficult thing to do, especially when the evidence used to convict you was wholly circumstantial – meaning there never was any eyewitness, or physical or forensic evidence, or confessions. Although the US Supreme Court does recognize a “fundamental miscarriage of justice” exception to politically manufactured and statutorily created procedural bars that would allow the litigation of a successive post conviction appeal, this exception requires the condemned prisoner to first produce “reliable new evidence” such as scientific evidence (DNA evidence) or other physical evidence substantiating innocence. See House v. Bell, 547 US 518 (2006)
The problem is that if there never was an eyewitness, or physical, or forensic evidence to begin with the how could it even be possible to produce this type of evidence? The fact of the matter is that the less evidence there was to convince a jury to convict you, the easier it is to execute you. How does that even make any sense?
Anyone who might doubt that the innocent ARE being executed should consider the words of now retired former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerald Kogan, who had public ally stated that:
“ And there in no question in my mind, and I can tell you this having seen the dynamics of our criminal justice system over the many years….that convinces me that we certainly have, in the past, executed those people who never didn’t fit the criteria for execution in the State of Florida, or who – in fact – were not guilty of the crime for which they have been executed”
The irony of all this is that the vast majority of people out there believe that the courts thoroughly review every capital conviction specifically to ensure that the person actually is guilty of the crime before they are executed. That simply is not true. The courts actually are legally restricted to review only the specific claims raised on appeal as presented by appointed legal counsel. A free-standing claim of innocence cannot even be raised on appeal, as innocence in itself is simply irrelevant.
The entire appeal process is governed by a complete set of procedural rules that prohibit legal counsel from raising claims unless they deal with the alleged deprivation of a specific right that arguably deprived the “convicted killer” of a “fair trial” See, as the US Supreme Court explicitly states in Herrera v. Collins, 506 US 390 (1993) in America, you have the constitutional right to a “fair trial” but you do not have a constitutional right to be protected from execution simply because you are innocent
This is where the complexity - and the insanity – of the capital post conviction appeal process really takes its toll. Because of the politics of death, over the years pro-death penalty politicians and judges have created a complex maze of rules that govern death penalty appeals. By arguing the need “to expedite the finality” of capital convictions so that the sentences of death imposed upon the condemned can be carried out without “unnecessary delay” these pro-death penalty advocates have created procedural rules that because of their complexity the condemned prisoner cannot possibly attempt to pursue his own appeals and must depend upon legal counsel to do so.
But in numerous cases the US Supreme Court has declared that there is no right to legal counsel in capital (death-sentence) post conviction appeals. See, Murray v. Giarratano, 492 US 1, (1989), recently reaffirmed in Lawrence v. Florida, 549 US 327 (2007)
Here in Florida, this created a problem. After the death penalty was re-instated in Florida in 1974 and found to be “constitutional’ in Proffitt v. Florida, 428 US 242 (1976) Florida was once again cleared to crank up its killing machine and in 1979 Florida became the first state to put a person to death (John Spinkelink) against his will. In the years that followed, beginning with the execution of Robert Sullivan in the late 1983 Florida then took the lead in the number of executions it carried out – back then (1983-1986) not even Texas could keep up with Florida. But then Florida reached a bottleneck. During these dark days of cranking up “ole Sparky” a small group of volunteers (Susan Carey, Charlotte Holdman etc) worked diligently to recruit lawyers willing to represent the growing death row population. But as the number of death sentenced prisoners steadily increased, there simply were not enough lawyers willing to volunteer to represent them – and yet then Governor Robert Graham kept pushing for more executions.
Under the law that existed at the time; see Graham v. State, 372 so 2d 1365 (Fla. 1979),
although there was no constitutional right to appointment of post conviction counsel in capital cases, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that “due process” (a constitutional right governed by the concept of “fundamental fairness”) required the courts to appoint legal counsel “ when a prisoner filed a substantially meritorious post conviction motion and a hearing on the motion was potentially so complex that the assistance of council was needed”.
By 1984 the Florida Supreme Court was compelled to begin composing “stays of execution” to stop the execution of those who did not have legal counsel. Politically, this did not look good for governor Graham and then Florida Attorney General Jim Smith, so they got together to talk about what could be done to provide legal representation to the condemned so that they could continue carrying out more executions.
As this umbrella of politically influenced circumstances came together, both governor Graham and Attorney General Jim Smith proposed establishing a state-funded agency that would be responsible for doing nothing but representing the condemned, sort of like a ‘public defenders” office.
By mid 1985 this state-funded agency came to exist as “Capital Collateral Representatives”. A small group of dedicated lawyers (director Larry Spalding, along with a staff of thee lawyers) were hired to run it. At first, to avoid any appearance of politically motivated conflict, the state allowed this small staff of lawyers free reign to manage the office, but as these original “CCR” lawyers proved very effective at aggressively representing the condemned and executions in Florida came to a sudden stop, the very politicians that originally advocated for the creation of this state-funded agency believing that it would serve to expedite more executions now began seeing it as an obstruction.
In 1986 pro-death penalty Republican Robert Martinez became governor in Florida and quickly adopted an insidious plan to circumvent the effectiveness if this “CCR” office. His policy was to simply sign numerous “death warrants” so that the minimally funded and staffed “CCR” office would be overwhelmed and rendered ineffective. Once again the rate of executions in Florida picked up.
But the pro-death penalty politicians in Florida’s capitol were now at open war with the rag-tag band of “idealists” who fought to prevent any executions. A then relatively new Republican politician by the name of “Chain gang Charlie” Crist led the political fight against this state-created “CCR” agency. As the years passed “Chain gang Charlie” built his political career feeding off the blood-lust lynch mob frenzy of the pro-death penalty advocates and eventually rode that wave all the way up the political ladder to where he is now – Florida’s elected governor.
With mounting political pressure, the original “CCR” director Larry Spalding was metaphorically tarred and feathered, and run out of town. By law, the governor was responsible for appointing a new director but could not so obviously appoint anyone too pro-death penalty for fear that to do so would create a legal challenge due to conflict of interest.
As the years passed this “CCR” office continued to fight the fight, but increasingly it was losing a battle. The agency was completely dependent upon state-funding and the pro-death penalty politicians increasingly invented new ways to limit their allotted budget as a means of choking off the lawyers ability to adequately represent the condemned clients. See Spalding v. Duggar, 526 So 2d 71 (Fla, 1988); State ex rel Butterworth v. Kenny, 714 So 2d 404 (Fla 1998); Arabalaez v. Butterworth, 738 So 2d 326 (Fla. 1999), etc.
In 1992 the Florida Supreme Court joined the political battle to restrain the lawyers assigned to represent the condemned and created the “Supreme Court Committee on Post Conviction Relief in Capital Cases”. The specific purpose of this committee was to identify and eliminate the causes of delay in executing those condemned to death. Consistent with this politically motivated agenda, the Florida Supreme Court formally adopted new rules governing capital post conviction appeals, and imposed a strict time limit for filing these capital appeals – one year if the condemned prisoners post conviction was not filed within that one year after the conviction became “final”, then the entire post conviction appeal was automatically “procedurally barred” and lost forever.
Because of the political interference, increasingly the lawyers responsible for representing the condemned were performing inadequately. Largely in part because of inadequate funding the attorneys did not fully develop and present the post conviction claims that should have been raised. As a result numerous death sentenced prisoners began to argue that the constitutionally protected right to “meaningful” post conviction review was being circumvented by the “ineffectiveness” of appointed post conviction counsel.
The argument that a death sentenced prisoner might be entitled to pursue a whole new post conviction appeal if he could establish that the lawyer the state provided did not provide reasonably competent representation and failed to raise claims that should have been raised suddenly threatened to undermine the pro-death penalty political efforts to expedite executions. Suddenly the statutorily created “right” to post conviction counsel arguably opened the door to the state being responsible if that appointed counsel failed to provide adequate representation.
The Florida Supreme Court knew that to recognize this argument would open the door to a virtual flood of new post conviction appeals, which would undoubtedly agitate the powerful pro-death penalty politicians. That simply could not happen. In this author’s own case, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that claims that appointed post conviction counsel failed to provide ‘competent” representation were not cognizable
as there was no constitutional right to post conviction counsel in the first place, thus there could be no protected constitutional right to receive competent post conviction representation. Lambrix v. State 698 So2d 247 (Fla. 1996)
In plain English that means that the state of Florida only wanted to establish the pretense of post conviction representation – NOT the actual privilege of competent representation. In other words, the Florida Supreme Court decided that as long as they assign a lawyer to the case they have fulfilled any obligation – if by chance that lawyer proves to be completely incompetent, well – too bad.
Not surprisingly it didn’t take long after this absurd, politically motivated ruling for the pro-death penalty politicians and judges to invent yet another way to obstruct death-sentenced prisoners ability to pursue meaningful review of capital convictions. Once again under the fictions pretense of preserving the “fairness” of this corrupt process, and only after yet another politically motivated “commission” empaneled to find new ways to expedite executions “recommended” restructuring the state funded “CCR” office, the predominantly pro-death penalty Florida legislature rewrote Florida statistics, chapter 27 to “break up” the “CCR” office, and in its place create three separate “regional” offices.
These offices became known as “Capital Collateral Regional Counsel”. The North Florida office was known as “CCR-North”, the central Florida office as “CCR- Middle” and the southern Florida office was referred to as “CCR-South”. By law the Governor was responsible for appointing the director to each of these regional offices, and each director was obligated to answer to the newly created “Commission on Capital Cases” which is overseen by a board of directors comprised of – not surprisingly – pro-death penalty politicians. These changes brought with it a complete collapse of confidence in these state funded agency’s commitment to adequately and effectively provide post conviction representation. In all fairness, a number of lawyers previously employed by the original “CCR” office continued working in the regional offices and did all they could to provide adequate representation – but not without political consequences.
Systematically the “old school” lawyers who continued to aggressively represent Florida’s death sentenced prisoners were run out of the office, often deliberately replaced by former prosecutors and completely in-experienced lawyers. Increasingly the condemned prisoners sought to have these lawyers discharged due to incompetence, or even try to raise the necessary legal issues themselves (what is known as “pro se” filings)
But once again the arrogance of those so deliberately determined to corrupt the process in the interest of circumventing meaningful post conviction review rose to a whole new level when the pro-death penalty politicians became angry end even incensed when the CCRC-North office (under the direction of Michael Reiter) dared to successfully appeal numerous capital convictions, resulting in the Florida Supreme Court being compelled to throw out at least three condemned prisoners appeals (Barry Hoffman, Michael Mordenti and James Floyd) and two others were thrown out in the lower courts (Juan Melendez and Rudy Holton). All of these convictions were thrown out because of prosecutorial misconduct used to wrongfully convict them. Juan Melendez, Rudy Holton and Michael Mordenti were all set free, while both Barry Hoffman and James Floyd “pled out” to lesser sentences. All five could now not be executed. Suddenly these rabid pro-death penalty politicians controlling the state funded offices responsible for representing Florida’s condemned were (metaphorically) foaming at the mouth – how dare these lawyers actually win these appeals, setting these “convicted killers” free! (so what if they were innocent!) Within months these politicians came up with yet another way to keep these lawyers in check – in blatant, politically motivated retaliation, these politicians abruptly eliminated the state funding for the CCRC –North Office, and closed it down. (the office that had won these appeals)
The political message was loud and clear – the lawyers employed by the state to provide post conviction representation to Florida’s condemned prisoners were not hired to provide competent representation, but rather only the pretense of representation if any of these lawyers dared to too aggressively represent their condemned clients they would find themselves unemployed. It was as simple as that.
Among the condemned prisoners, the knowledge that these lawyers were providing nothing more than a pretense of representation became only too clear in a desperate attempt p protect their own interests, those death row inmates that could began to file “pro se” supplemental appeals, arguing in these hand written legal “briefs” that their appointed post conviction counsel was not providing adequate representation, and attempting to raise the arguments themselves.
But once again the Florida Supreme Court acted with deliberate indifference to protect the politically corrupted capital post conviction process. Confronted with these “pro se” actions. The Florida Supreme Court literally invented a judicially created rule that specifically prohibits any prisoner from filing a pro se action if they are represented by legal counsel. Logan v. State, 846 So2d 472 (Fla. 2003)
Although Logan v. State actually was not a capital case involving a death sentenced prisoner, immediately the Florida Supreme Court began to aggressively apply this “Logan” rule to any pro se action submitted to the courts by death sentenced prisoners. See, Lambrix v. State, 900 So2d 553 (Fla. 2005), Lambrix v.State So2d (Fla 2007) (Fla Sct Case *SC06-0038)
Numerous death-sentenced prisoners, including myself, then moved to have these “CCRC” lawyers removed so that the necessary supplemental actions could be filed – only to have the Florida Supreme Court then apply the rule to automatically dismiss and strike these motions to discharge counsel. Incredibly, the Florida Supreme Court has now adopted the policy and practice of refusing to allow Florida’s death sentenced prisoners to discharge these “CCRC” lawyers, leaving death sentenced prisoners in Florida with virtually no means of protecting against the incompetence of appointed counsel, thus accomplishing a complete pretense of representation.
To illustrate this complete deprivation of the most basic concept of fundamental fairness I would encourage you to read in its entirety the action entitles “Petition for Declaratory and/or exercise of All-Writs”, which can be easily reviewed at www.southerninjustice.com/collateral-actions/ In this comprehensive petition, I specifically attempted to argue that the Constitution’s “Due Process” clause that governs the concept of “fundamental fairness” requires judicial recognition of protection against incompetence by appointed post conviction counsel before the
Incompetence results in the irreparable deprivation of meaningful post conviction review. Quite simply put, that the basic concept of fairness requires that the courts provide some means in which to allow death-sentences prisoners to fully present their post conviction appellate “claims” if appointed counsel is not doing so.
But once again I underestimated the pervasive political corruption within the Florida Supreme Court, naively believing that I could appeal to their sense of moral conscience, and compel the court to do what was right.
On march 11, 2009 the Florida Supreme Court ordered that my pro se Petition for Declaratory Judgment was an unauthorized pleading under Logan v. State, and ordered that this petition be stricken from the record.
As if that was not enough, I have now been informed that if I do continue to file any further legal actions attempting to challenge the competency of the CCRC counsel the State has appointed to represent me, that under Florida law I can and will be subjected to “disciplinary actions at the hands of prison officials under the pretense that since any and all pro se actions are now prohibited under this draconian “Logan” rule, any further filings will be deemed “frivolous”
What this means is that the Florida Supreme Court has now decided that to shut me up they will instruct the prison officials to subject me to inter-departmental disciplinary actions, which will result in me being placed in “disciplinary confinement” with a complete loss of any privileges (TV, radio, visits, canteen, reading/writing material, etc) for a period of 30 days each time I attempt to file any further action. Additionally, since I would have to mail any such action to the court, I would also be disciplined for “improper use of the mail” and will be subjected to suspension of all “mail privileges” (and contact/communication with the outside world) for up to 6 months for each alleged infraction.
This brings us to the complete resurrection of the infamous “Star Chamber”! By this I do not mean the Hollywood movie starring Michael Douglas as a corrupt judge who moonlights as a vigilante, stalking and killing those who have escaped justice by some legal technicality. Rather, I am referring to the infamous quasi-judicial tribunal that existed in England in the 16th century. In Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821 - 23 (1975) a far more “liberal” US Supreme Court used the historical example of this draconian “Star Chamber” to conclude that a criminal’s right to address the court in person is fundamental, and cannot be denied. As the Supreme Court fully explained:
“ In the long history of the British jurisprudence there was only one tribunal that ever adopted a practice of forcing counsel upon an unwilling defendant in a criminal proceeding. The tribunal was the Star Chamber, that curious institution which flourished in the late 16th and 17th centuries, was of mixed executive and judicial character, and characteristically departed from common law traditions. For those reasons and because it specialized in trying “political” defenses, the Star Chamber has for centuries symbolized disregard for basic, individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required defendants to have counsel. The defendants answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed (See, J.Stephen, “A history of the criminal law in England”, 341-42 (1883) As Stephen commented on this procedure, “There is something especially repugnant to justice in using rules of practice in such a manner as to debar a prisoner from defending himself, especially when the object of the rules so used is to provide for his defense” (end quote)
Most people out there do not realize just how pathetically corrupt the death penalty process in America is. It’s no wonder that those most familiar with our judicial system such as former Florida Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerald Kogan publicly admit that Florida has, and will continue to, execute innocent men and women.
Florida has deliberately re-created this infamous “Star Chamber”. There is no criminal penalty more “political” than capital punishment. Just as in England’s “star chamber”, the state of Florida has established a system of legal representation that is virtually controlled by pro-death penalty politicians who openly and intentionally manipulate the lawyers employed to represent these sentenced to death, so that these lawyers provide nothing more than a pretense of representation.
As with the “star chamber”, these lawyers cannot be discharged no matter how incompetent they might be, and by law (Florida Statutes, Chpt 27) they are prohibited from pursuing or raising any defense not specifically authorized under these statutory provisions. Like the infamous “star chamber”, these lawyers can be subjected to severe consequences if they attempt to prevent an unauthorized appeal, including the suspension of their license to practice law, thus depriving them of their livelihood.
Finally, just as with the Star Chamber, through he adoption of fundamentally unfair judicially created rules, the courts will only accept pleadings specifically filed by appointed counsel, and if such counsel screws up and fails to adequately present the appointed counsel, the condemned prisoner is prohibited from presenting the claims to the Florida courts himself, and ultimately will be put to death.
Bottom line – only the defense authorized by the State, and presented by the State controlled legal counsel are allowed. But this is not new – this has been going on for years, and yet not a single lawyer or organization has challenged this system.
You see, I don’t blame the pro-death penalty politicians and judges who openly use their political powers to manipulate and corrupt the process in their own agenda to expedite more executions even if it means putting innocent people to death. They are what they are, as that is their nature. They have no moral conscience. Rather, the ones truly responsible for the continued existence of such a blatantly corrupt system are the lawyers who represent the condemned prisoners. For the most part, they have sols out – they have become cowards, willing to stand by and watch their client drown yet
unwilling to simply pick up the rope and throw it in before their client goes under.
In have no doubt that the State paid and State controlled lawyers appointed to provide for my legal representation are fully aware that the manner in which my post conviction appeals have been, and continue to be, handled is ‘fundamentally unfair” and this corrupt process could be challenged in Federal Court – but these lawyers are not willing to pursue any action that might offend the political powers that control these state-funded offices, as they know that to do so will undoubtedly result in the office losing its funding. I suppose when it comes down to it, it is better to be paid to throw your client to the wolves than not be paid at all.
As I have previously quoted in other articles, as Abraham Lincoln so well said “Evil can only triumph when good men choose to do nothing”. I will continue to try to tread water as long as I can, but I know that ultimately it may very well be my fate to succumb into the dark, cold depths as those I must trust to save me stand idly by, watching as I sink deeper and deeper. If that is to be my inevitable fate, then I have but one final question to ask…to paraphrase the words that the father of democracy, the philosopher Socrates, once spoke to the corrupt tribunal that condemned him to die…..”to which of us go the worst fate – you or I?”
Mike Lambrix
Please check out my full case argueing my actual innocence, including all court records, trial transcripts, and appeal briefs at www.southerninjustice.net
More writings from Michael about life on death row
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Everybody’s Innocent
You know what my biggest problem is? It’s that everyone is innocent. There are no guilty men or women on death row. We are all innocent. So what if in most cases there was physical or forensic evidence, even eyewitnesses or a co-defendant who testified that they committed the crime together, and just as often the condemned man now claiming innocence actually confessed to the crime – we are all still innocent.
See, that’s just how most people see it – there are so many men and women on death rows across the county claiming that they are innocent that they dismiss all claims of innocence with a sarcastic “oh yeah – they are all innocent” Even the courts and media often respond to a claim of innocence with a yawn, followed by “here we go again”
The truth is that many who might claim innocence are not innocent. As case after case is picked apart and claims of innocence are discredited by the courted, the credibility of all claims of innocence is undermined. As we see case after case in which a condemned man or woman claims to be innocent in spite of overwhelming evidence the very concept of innocence itself is discredited and not surprisingly most of the public, the courts, and even the media become skeptical of all claims of innocence.
But I’m not throwing stones at those who claim innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence of their guilt. The fact is that in the 26 years that I have been on death row I have seen too many cases where men were convicted and condemned to death on what appeared to be solid evidence, only to later learn that the prosecutor deliberately fabricated evidence, of key witnesses had reason to lie, or alleged “confessions” wee not what they seemed to be.
In these many years I also have seen one thing above all else that convinces me that the state will knowingly and intentionally convict, condemn, and execute innocent people. That is that in almost 150 cases in which a condemned man or woman has been exonerated and released from death row, even when DNA evidence conclusively clears the wrongfully convicted of the crime, not even once has a state attorney admitted they made a mistake.
Maybe claims of innocence are being abused – but when our judicial system has such a well documented history of wrongfully convicting and condemning innocent people and those representing the state categorically refuse to acknowledge that they might have made a mistake, then how can any of us actually know with any measure of moral certainty who is innocent and who is not?
Many years ago a man named Frank Lee Smith came to Florida’s death row. He was convicted and condemned to death for the brutal rape and murder of an 8 year old girl in Broward County, Florida. The evidence seemed to be convincing despite the fact that Frank insisted he was innocent.
It didn’t help that Frank wasn’t exactly wrapped too tight to begin with, or that only a few weeks prior to this horrific crime he was released from prison. Those factors almost seemed to create a presumption of guilt. Since he was a bit nuts and an ex-con to boot, surely he had to be guilty? Besides, with his past criminal record who could believe his claim of innocence?
Frank spent about 16 years on Florida’s death row and that was not easy times as if being on death row itself wasn’t bad enough, Frank also caught pure hell from both other prisoners and guards because he was convicted of raping and killing a young child. In prison, baby killers are not very popular.
I am ashamed to admit that I was one of the many who deliberately shut Frank out. On death row most of the guys generally look out for each other. If you have coffee and your neighbor doesn’t, you give him a cup or two until he gets up on his own feet or if chow that night isn’t too good (and it never is!) maybe you split a pack of cookies with him
But Frank didn’t have much of nothing – and nobody wanted to look out for him. Like Dante’s “Inferno”, there are many levels of this hell we call “death row”. I was only one of too many who made Frank’s “hell” that much more unbearable by deliberately refusing to reach out to him as like so many others I judged him based upon what he was convicted of, and no matter how much frank protested his innocence, I completely dismissed it, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt – the same benefit of doubt that I ask others to give to me.
How could I have been so wrong? As the many years passed, I knew only too well just how completely corrupt our judicial process is. I knew without any doubt what so ever that it is all too common for innocent men and women to be wrongfully convicted and condemned to death and yet in my admittedly small mind I made the decision that he had to be guilty because he was convicted.
About ten years ago I was transferred from the regular Florida death row at Union Correctional Institution to the maximum-security “x-wing” at Florida State Prison, where “high risk” death row inmates were kept. On the bottom floor of the “x-wing” (now renamed “Q-wing”) was Florida’s electric chair (“Ole Sparky”) and the “death watch” cells. On the two floors above the death chamber were a total of 24 cells for maximum security confinement.
As coincidence would have it, Frank was in a cell two cells away from me. There’s not a lot to do when you’re “locked down” on X-wing as you’re not allowed to have any TV, radio, magazines, books, or anything. So breaking many years of silence, I started talking to Frank, or at least I did when he could stay in touch with reality long enough to carry on a conversation as through the years Frank had “bugged out” as we call it.
I’ve long had a reputation as a “jailhouse lawyer” and guys regularly ask me for my help on legal matters. Most of the time I do what I can to help, even if its really nothing more than build their faith up and keep the hope alive.
Frank told me how many years his lawyers have been trying to compel the court in Broward county to do DNA tests and how his lawyers found out that the prosecutor had arrested another man for similar type of sex crimes in the same area where he allegedly raped and killed that little girl, and people who knew that other man were saying that he committed the crime Frank was convicted of, so he needed that evidence to finally prove his innocence. But the problem was that both the Broward County State attorney (prosecutor) and the Florida Attorney General office were refusing to allow his lawyers to do DNA tests on that evidence. Even though they knew this other man may have committed the crime Frank was convicted of, and the DNA evidence could conclusively prove who actually committed that crime, the state refused to even allow the evidence to be tested, and they did all they could to prohibit Frank’s lawyers from being able to test that DNA evidence.
To further compound this injustice, Frank was dying of cancer. Although I couldn’t see him through the concrete wall that separated us, Frank was crying as he told me he just wanted to prove his innocence and let everyone know he was not a baby-killer before he died. For many hours after he told me that, I could still hear him crying late into the night. For the first time in the many years that I had known Frank, I really felt for him. That next morning I gave him my breakfast tray.
A few months later I was transferred back to the main death row at union Correctional institution and I never say Frank again. Not long after that I heard that he had died of cancer, just as so many others do here in “the row”
Less than a year later I received a letter from a friend. She sent me an article from the Ft Lauderdale “Sun Sentinel” newspaper that told how almost a year after Frank Lee Smith died of cancer the DNA evidence his lawyers had fought to have tested for almost a full decade was finally tested – and not only did the result conclusively slow
That Frank was innocent all along, but the evidence also showed that the other man who was already in custody for similar crimes in the area actually committed the rape and murder of that young girl they convicted and condemned Frank for.
Subsequently the POS program “Frontline” did a special about the Frank Lee Smith case, and the tragedy of him spending 16 year on Florida’s death row for a crime he did not commit – and how the state had deliberately obstructed his lawyers for almost a full decade, refusing to allow the DNA evidence that ultimately exonerated him to be tested.
You see, I do understand the skepticism that is all too common when we hear yet another death row prisoner protest his innocence. As a condemned prisoner protesting my own innocence even I fell into that trap of doubting Frank’s claims. But I was wrong. And I can’t help but wonder now if maybe I had given him the benefit of doubt, maybe – just maybe – it would have made a difference. I probably couldn’t have done much to help him in his legal fight and I couldn’t have cured his cancer. But I could have been a friend and by just doing that I could have made his days in this man-made hell just a little easier.
Looking back at how I treated Frank Lee Smith – how almost everyone on the row treated him – because I choose to dismiss his claims of innocence and did not give him the same benefit of doubt that I ask others to give me, I am ashamed. I could have been – and should have been – a better man than that as the truth is that I did not know whether he was innocent or not. Rather, I simply assumed that he had to be guilty. I was wrong.
To this day, now almost ten years later, this bothers me. But this experience also made me realize just how easy it is to become complacent, and even indifferent, to the claims of innocence we so often hear. Maybe everybody who claims to be innocent is not innocent - but how do we know who is and isn’t? What we do know without any doubt is that there are far too many men and women being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death - and we know that no matter how conclusive the evidence is that exonerates the wrongfully convicted, those working for the state will never admit they are wrong.
I ask that you check out a website featuring my case. Rather then ask you to believe me, I ask only that you examine the evidence for yourself and then decide. The entire trial transcripts and appeal briefs are all now posted on that website so you can fully review the entire case as if you are the jury. Then you decide - am I guilty or innocent? Please check it out at: www.southerninjustice.net
See, that’s just how most people see it – there are so many men and women on death rows across the county claiming that they are innocent that they dismiss all claims of innocence with a sarcastic “oh yeah – they are all innocent” Even the courts and media often respond to a claim of innocence with a yawn, followed by “here we go again”
The truth is that many who might claim innocence are not innocent. As case after case is picked apart and claims of innocence are discredited by the courted, the credibility of all claims of innocence is undermined. As we see case after case in which a condemned man or woman claims to be innocent in spite of overwhelming evidence the very concept of innocence itself is discredited and not surprisingly most of the public, the courts, and even the media become skeptical of all claims of innocence.
But I’m not throwing stones at those who claim innocence in spite of overwhelming evidence of their guilt. The fact is that in the 26 years that I have been on death row I have seen too many cases where men were convicted and condemned to death on what appeared to be solid evidence, only to later learn that the prosecutor deliberately fabricated evidence, of key witnesses had reason to lie, or alleged “confessions” wee not what they seemed to be.
In these many years I also have seen one thing above all else that convinces me that the state will knowingly and intentionally convict, condemn, and execute innocent people. That is that in almost 150 cases in which a condemned man or woman has been exonerated and released from death row, even when DNA evidence conclusively clears the wrongfully convicted of the crime, not even once has a state attorney admitted they made a mistake.
Maybe claims of innocence are being abused – but when our judicial system has such a well documented history of wrongfully convicting and condemning innocent people and those representing the state categorically refuse to acknowledge that they might have made a mistake, then how can any of us actually know with any measure of moral certainty who is innocent and who is not?
Many years ago a man named Frank Lee Smith came to Florida’s death row. He was convicted and condemned to death for the brutal rape and murder of an 8 year old girl in Broward County, Florida. The evidence seemed to be convincing despite the fact that Frank insisted he was innocent.
It didn’t help that Frank wasn’t exactly wrapped too tight to begin with, or that only a few weeks prior to this horrific crime he was released from prison. Those factors almost seemed to create a presumption of guilt. Since he was a bit nuts and an ex-con to boot, surely he had to be guilty? Besides, with his past criminal record who could believe his claim of innocence?
Frank spent about 16 years on Florida’s death row and that was not easy times as if being on death row itself wasn’t bad enough, Frank also caught pure hell from both other prisoners and guards because he was convicted of raping and killing a young child. In prison, baby killers are not very popular.
I am ashamed to admit that I was one of the many who deliberately shut Frank out. On death row most of the guys generally look out for each other. If you have coffee and your neighbor doesn’t, you give him a cup or two until he gets up on his own feet or if chow that night isn’t too good (and it never is!) maybe you split a pack of cookies with him
But Frank didn’t have much of nothing – and nobody wanted to look out for him. Like Dante’s “Inferno”, there are many levels of this hell we call “death row”. I was only one of too many who made Frank’s “hell” that much more unbearable by deliberately refusing to reach out to him as like so many others I judged him based upon what he was convicted of, and no matter how much frank protested his innocence, I completely dismissed it, refusing to give him the benefit of the doubt – the same benefit of doubt that I ask others to give to me.
How could I have been so wrong? As the many years passed, I knew only too well just how completely corrupt our judicial process is. I knew without any doubt what so ever that it is all too common for innocent men and women to be wrongfully convicted and condemned to death and yet in my admittedly small mind I made the decision that he had to be guilty because he was convicted.
About ten years ago I was transferred from the regular Florida death row at Union Correctional Institution to the maximum-security “x-wing” at Florida State Prison, where “high risk” death row inmates were kept. On the bottom floor of the “x-wing” (now renamed “Q-wing”) was Florida’s electric chair (“Ole Sparky”) and the “death watch” cells. On the two floors above the death chamber were a total of 24 cells for maximum security confinement.
As coincidence would have it, Frank was in a cell two cells away from me. There’s not a lot to do when you’re “locked down” on X-wing as you’re not allowed to have any TV, radio, magazines, books, or anything. So breaking many years of silence, I started talking to Frank, or at least I did when he could stay in touch with reality long enough to carry on a conversation as through the years Frank had “bugged out” as we call it.
I’ve long had a reputation as a “jailhouse lawyer” and guys regularly ask me for my help on legal matters. Most of the time I do what I can to help, even if its really nothing more than build their faith up and keep the hope alive.
Frank told me how many years his lawyers have been trying to compel the court in Broward county to do DNA tests and how his lawyers found out that the prosecutor had arrested another man for similar type of sex crimes in the same area where he allegedly raped and killed that little girl, and people who knew that other man were saying that he committed the crime Frank was convicted of, so he needed that evidence to finally prove his innocence. But the problem was that both the Broward County State attorney (prosecutor) and the Florida Attorney General office were refusing to allow his lawyers to do DNA tests on that evidence. Even though they knew this other man may have committed the crime Frank was convicted of, and the DNA evidence could conclusively prove who actually committed that crime, the state refused to even allow the evidence to be tested, and they did all they could to prohibit Frank’s lawyers from being able to test that DNA evidence.
To further compound this injustice, Frank was dying of cancer. Although I couldn’t see him through the concrete wall that separated us, Frank was crying as he told me he just wanted to prove his innocence and let everyone know he was not a baby-killer before he died. For many hours after he told me that, I could still hear him crying late into the night. For the first time in the many years that I had known Frank, I really felt for him. That next morning I gave him my breakfast tray.
A few months later I was transferred back to the main death row at union Correctional institution and I never say Frank again. Not long after that I heard that he had died of cancer, just as so many others do here in “the row”
Less than a year later I received a letter from a friend. She sent me an article from the Ft Lauderdale “Sun Sentinel” newspaper that told how almost a year after Frank Lee Smith died of cancer the DNA evidence his lawyers had fought to have tested for almost a full decade was finally tested – and not only did the result conclusively slow
That Frank was innocent all along, but the evidence also showed that the other man who was already in custody for similar crimes in the area actually committed the rape and murder of that young girl they convicted and condemned Frank for.
Subsequently the POS program “Frontline” did a special about the Frank Lee Smith case, and the tragedy of him spending 16 year on Florida’s death row for a crime he did not commit – and how the state had deliberately obstructed his lawyers for almost a full decade, refusing to allow the DNA evidence that ultimately exonerated him to be tested.
You see, I do understand the skepticism that is all too common when we hear yet another death row prisoner protest his innocence. As a condemned prisoner protesting my own innocence even I fell into that trap of doubting Frank’s claims. But I was wrong. And I can’t help but wonder now if maybe I had given him the benefit of doubt, maybe – just maybe – it would have made a difference. I probably couldn’t have done much to help him in his legal fight and I couldn’t have cured his cancer. But I could have been a friend and by just doing that I could have made his days in this man-made hell just a little easier.
Looking back at how I treated Frank Lee Smith – how almost everyone on the row treated him – because I choose to dismiss his claims of innocence and did not give him the same benefit of doubt that I ask others to give me, I am ashamed. I could have been – and should have been – a better man than that as the truth is that I did not know whether he was innocent or not. Rather, I simply assumed that he had to be guilty. I was wrong.
To this day, now almost ten years later, this bothers me. But this experience also made me realize just how easy it is to become complacent, and even indifferent, to the claims of innocence we so often hear. Maybe everybody who claims to be innocent is not innocent - but how do we know who is and isn’t? What we do know without any doubt is that there are far too many men and women being wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death - and we know that no matter how conclusive the evidence is that exonerates the wrongfully convicted, those working for the state will never admit they are wrong.
I ask that you check out a website featuring my case. Rather then ask you to believe me, I ask only that you examine the evidence for yourself and then decide. The entire trial transcripts and appeal briefs are all now posted on that website so you can fully review the entire case as if you are the jury. Then you decide - am I guilty or innocent? Please check it out at: www.southerninjustice.net
Thursday, March 12, 2009
When does Execution become Murder?
On February 11, 2009 the State of Florida put Wayne Tompkins to death by lethal injection at Florida State Prison. Tompkins had spent over 20 years on death row, of which at least the last six years were on “death watch” Through the years there have been many appeals, most of which focused on Tomkins’s consistently pled claim that he was not guilty of the alleged rape and murder of his then girlfriend’s 14 years old daughter.
The evidence against Tompkins was completely circumstantial. There were no witnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions to establish that Tompkins actually raped or killed the young woman. At trial the State convinced the jury of Tompkins’s guilt by calling upon another teenage girl who claimed that she had visited the house where Tompkins and the teen victim – her “best friend” – told her to “call the police” This witness then left, but did not call the police or contact anyone.
The body of the teen girl was later discovered concealed beneath the house where they had lived. But arguably because of decomposition no forensic evidence (DNA, hair etc) could be recovered.
At Tompkins’s trial nobody could say that they actually saw Tompkins kill the victim and nobody could say that she was the victim of a sexual assault. But as is only too common in questionably, wholly circumstantial cases, the State called upon a ‘jailhouse snitch” to testily that Tompkins confessed to him that he committed this crime. For those who are unfamiliar with what a “jailhouse snitch” is, it is another inmate who agrees to testify for the state to help convict someone in exchange for a reduced sentence in his (or her) crime.
The courts have consistently recognizes that the testimony of jailhouse snitches is highly unreliable. Basically you have a person in jail for committing a crime who knows that by ageing to testify that another prisoner “confessed” he will have his own sentence significantly reduced. Some courts have went as far as calling such testimony prosecutional prostitution, using these jailhouse snitches as whores paid to knowingly lie and send innocent men to their death just to help themselves.
In the Tampa Bay area where Tompkins was convicted and condemned to death, the local prosecutors had long relied upon “jailhouse snitches” to win convictions. As reflected in published cases a great number of these convictions were later overturned and in many cases it was later revealed that the “jailhouse snitch” deliberately fabricated the incriminating testimony, knowingly sending an innocent person to prison – and even to death row – just to win a reduced sentence on a crime they did commit.
Considering the well established unreliability of jailhouse snitch testimony, and the long history of unethical prosecutors using that they know is false testimony deliberately elicited by the lowest form of scum – those that would sell out their own mother just to avoid prison themselves – should we as moral society to be put to death upon the word of a jailhouse snitch?
I have been on death row myself now for almost 26 years. During that time I came to know Wayne Tompkins personally. As an American Native, he went by the name “Grey Cloud”. A few years back I introduced him to a female penpal who he later married. I think it’s fair to say that me and Grey Cloud were close, even perhaps “friends”. In all the time that I’ve known him he has always insisted that he did not kill that young woman.
Now does it make sense that only one prisoner out of thousands that Grey Cloud came to know through the years said he admitted his guilt? How is it that a man can be convicted and condemned to death on the word of this one inmate when many other prisoners would readily testify that Grey Cloud has always said that he was innocent?
Grey Cloud’s execution bothers me. Many of those that I’ve come to know through the quarter of a century here on Florida’s death row have been executed, or committed suicide, or died of natural causes and it’s never easy when someone you know passes on.
But what about when the state sanctioned execution becomes murder? The death penalty is a punishment imposed under law and exclusively dependent upon first finding that the person to be put to death actually did commit the crime of capital murder. Even then though, the death penalty can only be imposed if additional “ aggravating circumstances” are found and the jury hearing the evidence specifically recommends imposing the death penalty.
But nobody can deny that our judicial system is far less then perfect. In recent years at least 25 prisoners on Florida’s death row alone have been found to have been wrongfully convicted and then judicially exonerated and released from prison. Recently the ‘Innocence Project” has announced that just in the last decade they have proven the innocence of at least 200 men through DNA evidence. This undeniable virtual epidemic of injustice should compel any person of moral conscience to question the validity of any conviction based upon wholly circumstantial evidence. The fact is that as a civilized society we owe it to ourselves to insist that if we are going to put a person to death, there can not be any question of guilt. To allow any execution of a person whose guilt is not in question will inevidently result in the execution of an innocent person.
When capital punishment is carried out in the name of “We, the People” and never one innocent person is wrongfully executed, then we as a society are all guilty of cold-blooded murder. Maybe even in spite of my wrongful conviction I still remain naïve, but I like to believe - I got to believe – that we as a society are better than that.
That brings me to what also really bothered me about grey Cloud’s execution last week – his long pled claim of innocence wasn’t even an issue, not a single newspaper or television station even mentioned it although just a few months ago the Florida Supreme Court specifically addressed the claim of innocence in a published court opinion. Although obviously the court ruled against him on a legal technicality, the legitimate issue of innocence was not fully addressed and resolved.
What if Wayne Tompkins actually was innocent? What if yet again our judicial system made a mistake – only this time that mistake went uncorrected and we, as a society, just murdered an innocent man? Can even one person today step forward and declare under oath with absolute certainty based upon personal knowledge that Wayne Tompkins actually committed the murder that he has now been executed for?
Nobody can. Wayne Tompkins was not executed because the state proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, as is only too common, Wayne Tompkins was put to death because he couldn’t prove his innocence. Maybe Tompkins actually was guilty, but how do we know for sure? And if we don’t know for sure, then how do we know with moral certainty that we did not execute an innocent man?
No matter what side of the fence you stand on the issue of capital punishment, I know of no one who would argue that the execution of an innocent person is justified. But if we are not morally certain of the condemned man’s guilt, then how can we be certain that we didn’t just execute an innocent man?
I would ask you to check out my website www.southerninjustice.com and then ask yourself if we can really be sure that our courts are willing to protect against the execution of the innocent – or are our courts so politically corrupted that they will knowingly put innocent people to death?
Michael Lambrix
From The Official Blog of the Innocence Project of Florida, Inc.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
From a friend of Tompkins
Michael Lambrix has been on death row in Florida for 26 years. Today one of his journals is posted on the Death Row Journals blog here. He expresses sadness and disbelief over Wayne Tompkins' execution on February 11 of this year. Having known Tompkins personally, and referring to him by his Native American name "Grey Cloud," Lambrix explains that Tompkins' conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and he explains his more general misgivings over death sentences that are obtained all the time with such scant evidence. This was a particularly well-written section:
But nobody can deny that our judicial system is far less then perfect. In recent years at least 25 prisoners on Florida’s death row alone have been found to have been wrongfully convicted and then judicially exonerated and released from prison. Recently the ‘Innocence Project” has announced that just in the last decade they have proven the innocence of at least 200 men through DNA evidence. This undeniable virtual epidemic of injustice should compel any person of moral conscience to question the validity of any conviction based upon wholly circumstantial evidence. The fact is that as a civilized society we owe it to ourselves to insist that if we are going to put a person to death, there can not be any question of guilt. To allow any execution of a person whose guilt [is] in question will inevidently [sic] result in the execution of an innocent person.
The Maryland Senate took hesitant steps recently to assure that death sentences could only be handed down in cases where there was biological evidence, a taped confession, or a taped crime. That is a meaningful step, but it does not go far enough.
The evidence against Tompkins was completely circumstantial. There were no witnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, and no confessions to establish that Tompkins actually raped or killed the young woman. At trial the State convinced the jury of Tompkins’s guilt by calling upon another teenage girl who claimed that she had visited the house where Tompkins and the teen victim – her “best friend” – told her to “call the police” This witness then left, but did not call the police or contact anyone.
The body of the teen girl was later discovered concealed beneath the house where they had lived. But arguably because of decomposition no forensic evidence (DNA, hair etc) could be recovered.
At Tompkins’s trial nobody could say that they actually saw Tompkins kill the victim and nobody could say that she was the victim of a sexual assault. But as is only too common in questionably, wholly circumstantial cases, the State called upon a ‘jailhouse snitch” to testily that Tompkins confessed to him that he committed this crime. For those who are unfamiliar with what a “jailhouse snitch” is, it is another inmate who agrees to testify for the state to help convict someone in exchange for a reduced sentence in his (or her) crime.
The courts have consistently recognizes that the testimony of jailhouse snitches is highly unreliable. Basically you have a person in jail for committing a crime who knows that by ageing to testify that another prisoner “confessed” he will have his own sentence significantly reduced. Some courts have went as far as calling such testimony prosecutional prostitution, using these jailhouse snitches as whores paid to knowingly lie and send innocent men to their death just to help themselves.
In the Tampa Bay area where Tompkins was convicted and condemned to death, the local prosecutors had long relied upon “jailhouse snitches” to win convictions. As reflected in published cases a great number of these convictions were later overturned and in many cases it was later revealed that the “jailhouse snitch” deliberately fabricated the incriminating testimony, knowingly sending an innocent person to prison – and even to death row – just to win a reduced sentence on a crime they did commit.
Considering the well established unreliability of jailhouse snitch testimony, and the long history of unethical prosecutors using that they know is false testimony deliberately elicited by the lowest form of scum – those that would sell out their own mother just to avoid prison themselves – should we as moral society to be put to death upon the word of a jailhouse snitch?
I have been on death row myself now for almost 26 years. During that time I came to know Wayne Tompkins personally. As an American Native, he went by the name “Grey Cloud”. A few years back I introduced him to a female penpal who he later married. I think it’s fair to say that me and Grey Cloud were close, even perhaps “friends”. In all the time that I’ve known him he has always insisted that he did not kill that young woman.
Now does it make sense that only one prisoner out of thousands that Grey Cloud came to know through the years said he admitted his guilt? How is it that a man can be convicted and condemned to death on the word of this one inmate when many other prisoners would readily testify that Grey Cloud has always said that he was innocent?
Grey Cloud’s execution bothers me. Many of those that I’ve come to know through the quarter of a century here on Florida’s death row have been executed, or committed suicide, or died of natural causes and it’s never easy when someone you know passes on.
But what about when the state sanctioned execution becomes murder? The death penalty is a punishment imposed under law and exclusively dependent upon first finding that the person to be put to death actually did commit the crime of capital murder. Even then though, the death penalty can only be imposed if additional “ aggravating circumstances” are found and the jury hearing the evidence specifically recommends imposing the death penalty.
But nobody can deny that our judicial system is far less then perfect. In recent years at least 25 prisoners on Florida’s death row alone have been found to have been wrongfully convicted and then judicially exonerated and released from prison. Recently the ‘Innocence Project” has announced that just in the last decade they have proven the innocence of at least 200 men through DNA evidence. This undeniable virtual epidemic of injustice should compel any person of moral conscience to question the validity of any conviction based upon wholly circumstantial evidence. The fact is that as a civilized society we owe it to ourselves to insist that if we are going to put a person to death, there can not be any question of guilt. To allow any execution of a person whose guilt is not in question will inevidently result in the execution of an innocent person.
When capital punishment is carried out in the name of “We, the People” and never one innocent person is wrongfully executed, then we as a society are all guilty of cold-blooded murder. Maybe even in spite of my wrongful conviction I still remain naïve, but I like to believe - I got to believe – that we as a society are better than that.
That brings me to what also really bothered me about grey Cloud’s execution last week – his long pled claim of innocence wasn’t even an issue, not a single newspaper or television station even mentioned it although just a few months ago the Florida Supreme Court specifically addressed the claim of innocence in a published court opinion. Although obviously the court ruled against him on a legal technicality, the legitimate issue of innocence was not fully addressed and resolved.
What if Wayne Tompkins actually was innocent? What if yet again our judicial system made a mistake – only this time that mistake went uncorrected and we, as a society, just murdered an innocent man? Can even one person today step forward and declare under oath with absolute certainty based upon personal knowledge that Wayne Tompkins actually committed the murder that he has now been executed for?
Nobody can. Wayne Tompkins was not executed because the state proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Rather, as is only too common, Wayne Tompkins was put to death because he couldn’t prove his innocence. Maybe Tompkins actually was guilty, but how do we know for sure? And if we don’t know for sure, then how do we know with moral certainty that we did not execute an innocent man?
No matter what side of the fence you stand on the issue of capital punishment, I know of no one who would argue that the execution of an innocent person is justified. But if we are not morally certain of the condemned man’s guilt, then how can we be certain that we didn’t just execute an innocent man?
I would ask you to check out my website www.southerninjustice.com and then ask yourself if we can really be sure that our courts are willing to protect against the execution of the innocent – or are our courts so politically corrupted that they will knowingly put innocent people to death?
Michael Lambrix
From The Official Blog of the Innocence Project of Florida, Inc.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
From a friend of Tompkins
Michael Lambrix has been on death row in Florida for 26 years. Today one of his journals is posted on the Death Row Journals blog here. He expresses sadness and disbelief over Wayne Tompkins' execution on February 11 of this year. Having known Tompkins personally, and referring to him by his Native American name "Grey Cloud," Lambrix explains that Tompkins' conviction was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, and he explains his more general misgivings over death sentences that are obtained all the time with such scant evidence. This was a particularly well-written section:
But nobody can deny that our judicial system is far less then perfect. In recent years at least 25 prisoners on Florida’s death row alone have been found to have been wrongfully convicted and then judicially exonerated and released from prison. Recently the ‘Innocence Project” has announced that just in the last decade they have proven the innocence of at least 200 men through DNA evidence. This undeniable virtual epidemic of injustice should compel any person of moral conscience to question the validity of any conviction based upon wholly circumstantial evidence. The fact is that as a civilized society we owe it to ourselves to insist that if we are going to put a person to death, there can not be any question of guilt. To allow any execution of a person whose guilt [is] in question will inevidently [sic] result in the execution of an innocent person.
The Maryland Senate took hesitant steps recently to assure that death sentences could only be handed down in cases where there was biological evidence, a taped confession, or a taped crime. That is a meaningful step, but it does not go far enough.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Florida Convict Isn't Joking This Time
By Natalie O'Neill in Miami New Times
Wednesday, Mar. 4 2009 @ 8:55AM
When death row inmate Michael Lambrix applied to be a Florida Supreme Court Justice in January, the nominating committee had a good laugh. "It's tongue-in-cheek," said Chair Robert Hackleman - and it probably was. (Lambrix wrote: "My biggest qualification...is that I'm the only applicant that has been totally screwed by the justice system.")
But it seems the chuckles ensuing from lawyers and judges have now faded into an uncomfortable silence. This past February 9, the litigious convict scrawled a 26-page motion "to Disqualify the Entire Florida Supreme Court." He demanded it be filed appropriately and addressed in a timely manner. His claim: Chief Justice Peggy Quince helped prosecute his murder case in the 1980s. It has since come to light -- he says -- that the team of lawyers acted unethically. He writes: "Numerous documents [that show] the state knowingly withheld evidence"
Researcher Mike Hickey - who has followed the case out of sheer curiosity --is taking Lambrix seriously. "The fact that he has turned down offers for a reduced sentence twice shows he is serious about his innocence claims."
The clerk's office of the Supreme Court has since processed the inmate's complaint. Problem is, they're not quite sure what to call it. For now it's filed under "other."
Comments:
Torres says:
Read his website 'southerninjustice.net for his full case history and recent motions.
Apart from Peggy Quince, Lambrix also criticizes these people:
Miles Daniels investigator who had sex with state witness Smith during trial.
Randall McGruther- prosecutor who manufactured evidence against Lambrix.
Carol Dittmar Senior Assistant State Attorney who filed actions saturated with deliberate deceptions and factual misrepresentations intended to deceive the Supreme Court.
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 5 2009 @ 7:24PM Jan Arriens says:
Lambrix's stand needs to be taken very seriously indeed. I have been corresponding with him for 18 years and have met him three times. His story has never wavered. I know him as a man of exceptional courage, intelligence and, yes, integrity. His account of what happened makes a whole lot more sense than of the State. Killing two people without a gun - strangling and then striking a blow - is not easy. Does the second victim wait around calmly until it's their turn?
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 6 2009 @ 2:34PM
karen says:
This case has all the features of a classical wrongful conviction.
1. Ineffective trial counsel who had never represented a capital case before (Jacobs).
2 Hanging judge with bias against capital defendants. (Stanley)
3. Small town jury with links to victims and law enforcement officers.
4. Married investigator Daniels having sexual relationship with both state witness Smith and Co-investigator Mitar.
5. Manufactured evidence.
6. Lost fingernail clippings of victim which would provide DNA evidence.
7. State witness Smith illegally offered immunity for testimony.
8. State witness Hanzel coerced to testify- recanted in 1998.
9. Defendant Lambrix denied right to testify.
10. Judge refused to allow cross examination of chief state witness so as not to 'confuse' jury over her many fabrications.
11. Totally ineffective 'direct appeal' counsel which made it impossible for Lambrix to get relief in subsequent appeals.
The list goes on and can be read on southerninjustice.net which has full trial and appeal transcripts online.
Shame, Florida, shame.
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 7 2009 @ 4:20AM
Torres says:
Well may the chuckles of lawyers and judges be fading as Lambrix methodically exposes the malfeasance and misconduct of some of the highest legal professionals in Florida.
Be alert-
Randall McGruther Chief Assistant State Attorney- investigated for unethical misconduct and chief prosecutor of Lambrix.
http://www.southerninjustice.net/anatomy-of-a-corrupt-florida-prosecutor.html
Be alert
Carol Dittmar- Senior Assistant state Attorney whom Lambrix accuses of 3 incidents of unethical conduct. See http://www.southerninjustice.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bar.pdf for full complaint.
Be alert
Peggy Quince- Chief justice for unethical misconduct in his case.
This 'litigious convict' is only seeking justice after a 25 year miscarriage of justice which sent him to death row.
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 7 2009 @ 5:01AM
Wednesday, Mar. 4 2009 @ 8:55AM
When death row inmate Michael Lambrix applied to be a Florida Supreme Court Justice in January, the nominating committee had a good laugh. "It's tongue-in-cheek," said Chair Robert Hackleman - and it probably was. (Lambrix wrote: "My biggest qualification...is that I'm the only applicant that has been totally screwed by the justice system.")
But it seems the chuckles ensuing from lawyers and judges have now faded into an uncomfortable silence. This past February 9, the litigious convict scrawled a 26-page motion "to Disqualify the Entire Florida Supreme Court." He demanded it be filed appropriately and addressed in a timely manner. His claim: Chief Justice Peggy Quince helped prosecute his murder case in the 1980s. It has since come to light -- he says -- that the team of lawyers acted unethically. He writes: "Numerous documents [that show] the state knowingly withheld evidence"
Researcher Mike Hickey - who has followed the case out of sheer curiosity --is taking Lambrix seriously. "The fact that he has turned down offers for a reduced sentence twice shows he is serious about his innocence claims."
The clerk's office of the Supreme Court has since processed the inmate's complaint. Problem is, they're not quite sure what to call it. For now it's filed under "other."
Comments:
Torres says:
Read his website 'southerninjustice.net for his full case history and recent motions.
Apart from Peggy Quince, Lambrix also criticizes these people:
Miles Daniels investigator who had sex with state witness Smith during trial.
Randall McGruther- prosecutor who manufactured evidence against Lambrix.
Carol Dittmar Senior Assistant State Attorney who filed actions saturated with deliberate deceptions and factual misrepresentations intended to deceive the Supreme Court.
Posted On: Thursday, Mar. 5 2009 @ 7:24PM Jan Arriens says:
Lambrix's stand needs to be taken very seriously indeed. I have been corresponding with him for 18 years and have met him three times. His story has never wavered. I know him as a man of exceptional courage, intelligence and, yes, integrity. His account of what happened makes a whole lot more sense than of the State. Killing two people without a gun - strangling and then striking a blow - is not easy. Does the second victim wait around calmly until it's their turn?
Posted On: Friday, Mar. 6 2009 @ 2:34PM
karen says:
This case has all the features of a classical wrongful conviction.
1. Ineffective trial counsel who had never represented a capital case before (Jacobs).
2 Hanging judge with bias against capital defendants. (Stanley)
3. Small town jury with links to victims and law enforcement officers.
4. Married investigator Daniels having sexual relationship with both state witness Smith and Co-investigator Mitar.
5. Manufactured evidence.
6. Lost fingernail clippings of victim which would provide DNA evidence.
7. State witness Smith illegally offered immunity for testimony.
8. State witness Hanzel coerced to testify- recanted in 1998.
9. Defendant Lambrix denied right to testify.
10. Judge refused to allow cross examination of chief state witness so as not to 'confuse' jury over her many fabrications.
11. Totally ineffective 'direct appeal' counsel which made it impossible for Lambrix to get relief in subsequent appeals.
The list goes on and can be read on southerninjustice.net which has full trial and appeal transcripts online.
Shame, Florida, shame.
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 7 2009 @ 4:20AM
Torres says:
Well may the chuckles of lawyers and judges be fading as Lambrix methodically exposes the malfeasance and misconduct of some of the highest legal professionals in Florida.
Be alert-
Randall McGruther Chief Assistant State Attorney- investigated for unethical misconduct and chief prosecutor of Lambrix.
http://www.southerninjustice.net/anatomy-of-a-corrupt-florida-prosecutor.html
Be alert
Carol Dittmar- Senior Assistant state Attorney whom Lambrix accuses of 3 incidents of unethical conduct. See http://www.southerninjustice.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/bar.pdf for full complaint.
Be alert
Peggy Quince- Chief justice for unethical misconduct in his case.
This 'litigious convict' is only seeking justice after a 25 year miscarriage of justice which sent him to death row.
Posted On: Saturday, Mar. 7 2009 @ 5:01AM
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Michael Lambrix Wants to Be the Next Supreme Court Justice
Dear faithful readers,
I have decided to ask that I be considered for the next appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. Below is a copy of the letter I have sent to attorney Robert Hackleman, the “JNC Chair” (Judicial Nominating Committee) responsible for processing applications of those who want to be appointed as a Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. I hope that my friends will support my campaign…personally, I think I’d make a great Supreme Court Justice. Have fun reading the following…
Robert S. Hackleman, JNC Chair
Gunstey,Youkley and Stewart,PA
450 East Los Olas Blvd (Ste # 1400)
Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Michael Lambrix 482053
Union Correctional Institution
7819 NW 228th street
Raiford, Florida 32026-4440
January 16, 2009
Dear Mr Hackleman,
In the January 15, 2009 “Florida Bar News” they included an announcement that applications for nominations to be appointed as a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court, to replace soon to retire Justice Wells, are now being accepted and that applicants should send such applications to your office for consideration.
In all fairness I would ask that you do not so quickly discount my own desire to be a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court. As a legal citizen and longtime (albeit not voluntary) resident of the State of Florida I believe I am legally entitled to due consideration, and even subsequent appointment to the Florida Supreme Court.
Of course, I do understand that since I am currently a death-sentenced prisoner (and have been on Florida’s “death row” now for 25 years – please see, http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com ) there will be a predictable measure of political and public opposition to my appointment to the Court, but then we all know that it is the Governor’s perogative to appoint anyone and if the narrow-minded public doesn’t like it, they can always vote me off the Court in 6 years when I come up for “retention vote”. And until that time, I would be in service of the Governor.
The truth is that I believe (and many others would agree!) that I am far more qualified than some of these brain-dead political puppets currently being appointed to the Courts. I mean, lets be honest – our contemporary judiciary is no longer about serving the oh-so-patheticaly-naïve public, or arguably “novel” concepts of truth and justice. Rather, these appointments are about perpetuating the corruption of politics and political activitiesin our judiciary as our elected leaders pick appointments based upon political ideology – and the amount of monetary contributions – then actual qualifications.
So, why not pick a convicted felon so that at least the public will know what they are getting rather than a wolf in sheep’s clothing? To the extent that my criminal convictions might be an inconvenience, I would note that I have had a petition for executive clemency based upon my actual innocence pending before the Governor (please see, www.southerninjustice.com ) since Gov. Lawton Chiles was in office in 1998 and so Gov. Crist can miraculously claim to have suddenly developed a “moral” concience and grant a pardon for my wrongful convictions, which would then make me immediately eligible.
I believe our judiciary needs fresh blood and a conflicting perspective and that my appointment would serve the interest of all Floridians. When it comes down to it, don’t you think our constitutional “democracy” should be reflective of all the citizens that it claims to serve? At present, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, with at least one out of every 100 citizens now imprisoned, and many millions more under some form of non-custodial governmental restraint such as probation or parole, and tens of millions more forever politically disenfranchised as “convicted felons” even though they have long ago paid their “debt’ to society.
Arguably, our judiciary could be served by incorporating a voice that can empathize with, and even “represent” this significant percentage of disenfranchised Americans. As for my qualifications, although I have only a 9th grade formal education, in addition to being honorably discharged from the army due to duty-related disability, I have proven self-initiative been earning a GED (high school equivalence degree) and a degree in Christian Theology since coming to prison. I have also extensively studied other subject matters that contribute to the person I am today.
More importantly, I have spent over 20 years as a practicing “jailhouse lawyer’ and arguably have significantly more actual courtroom experience than most of those who might otherwise seek appointment. I have personally litigated cases at virtually every level of both the State and Federal Court systems, including numerous criminal and civil actions argued before both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court.
But I believe that my most compelling qualification is that I am relatively certain that I am the only applicant that has been totally screwed by the so-called “justice” system. At present there has not been even one member of the judiciary that can relate to the incomprehensible trauma of being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, and even facing actual imminent execution for a crime they were innocent of. As the facts of my case reflects (please see, www.southerninjustice.com ) and a substantial wealth of “newly discovered” evidence substantiates, I was wrongfully convicted and condemned to death in a wholly circumstantial (no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, no confessions, etc ) case that was deliberately fabricated with the intent to wrongfully convict and condemn me.
Collectively, my unique experiences and qualifications would bring a much needed balance to the court and compel other members of the court to remember the inherent need of the fundamental fairness and service to truth and justice – not politics and ideological activism.
And ultimately, if I don’t “play ball” with the powers that be, then arguably Governor Crist could rescind my “pardon” and send me straight back to death row, where his political puppets that remain on the court can quickly rubber-stamp any further appeals “denied” and put me to death.
So, based upon the above I would respectfully ask that you give fair consideration to my application for nomination to be the next appointed Justice on the Florida Supreme Court, and submit my name to Governor Crist as a nominee for appointment
Thank you for your time.
Most sincerely,
C. Michael Lambrix
note: Mike's application to the FSC was noticed by several news sites:
Daily Business Review
Miami New Times
Above the Law
I have decided to ask that I be considered for the next appointment to the Florida Supreme Court. Below is a copy of the letter I have sent to attorney Robert Hackleman, the “JNC Chair” (Judicial Nominating Committee) responsible for processing applications of those who want to be appointed as a Justice of the Florida Supreme Court. I hope that my friends will support my campaign…personally, I think I’d make a great Supreme Court Justice. Have fun reading the following…
Robert S. Hackleman, JNC Chair
Gunstey,Youkley and Stewart,PA
450 East Los Olas Blvd (Ste # 1400)
Ft Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Michael Lambrix 482053
Union Correctional Institution
7819 NW 228th street
Raiford, Florida 32026-4440
January 16, 2009
Dear Mr Hackleman,
In the January 15, 2009 “Florida Bar News” they included an announcement that applications for nominations to be appointed as a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court, to replace soon to retire Justice Wells, are now being accepted and that applicants should send such applications to your office for consideration.
In all fairness I would ask that you do not so quickly discount my own desire to be a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court. As a legal citizen and longtime (albeit not voluntary) resident of the State of Florida I believe I am legally entitled to due consideration, and even subsequent appointment to the Florida Supreme Court.
Of course, I do understand that since I am currently a death-sentenced prisoner (and have been on Florida’s “death row” now for 25 years – please see, http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com ) there will be a predictable measure of political and public opposition to my appointment to the Court, but then we all know that it is the Governor’s perogative to appoint anyone and if the narrow-minded public doesn’t like it, they can always vote me off the Court in 6 years when I come up for “retention vote”. And until that time, I would be in service of the Governor.
The truth is that I believe (and many others would agree!) that I am far more qualified than some of these brain-dead political puppets currently being appointed to the Courts. I mean, lets be honest – our contemporary judiciary is no longer about serving the oh-so-patheticaly-naïve public, or arguably “novel” concepts of truth and justice. Rather, these appointments are about perpetuating the corruption of politics and political activitiesin our judiciary as our elected leaders pick appointments based upon political ideology – and the amount of monetary contributions – then actual qualifications.
So, why not pick a convicted felon so that at least the public will know what they are getting rather than a wolf in sheep’s clothing? To the extent that my criminal convictions might be an inconvenience, I would note that I have had a petition for executive clemency based upon my actual innocence pending before the Governor (please see, www.southerninjustice.com ) since Gov. Lawton Chiles was in office in 1998 and so Gov. Crist can miraculously claim to have suddenly developed a “moral” concience and grant a pardon for my wrongful convictions, which would then make me immediately eligible.
I believe our judiciary needs fresh blood and a conflicting perspective and that my appointment would serve the interest of all Floridians. When it comes down to it, don’t you think our constitutional “democracy” should be reflective of all the citizens that it claims to serve? At present, the United States has the highest incarceration rate in the entire world, with at least one out of every 100 citizens now imprisoned, and many millions more under some form of non-custodial governmental restraint such as probation or parole, and tens of millions more forever politically disenfranchised as “convicted felons” even though they have long ago paid their “debt’ to society.
Arguably, our judiciary could be served by incorporating a voice that can empathize with, and even “represent” this significant percentage of disenfranchised Americans. As for my qualifications, although I have only a 9th grade formal education, in addition to being honorably discharged from the army due to duty-related disability, I have proven self-initiative been earning a GED (high school equivalence degree) and a degree in Christian Theology since coming to prison. I have also extensively studied other subject matters that contribute to the person I am today.
More importantly, I have spent over 20 years as a practicing “jailhouse lawyer’ and arguably have significantly more actual courtroom experience than most of those who might otherwise seek appointment. I have personally litigated cases at virtually every level of both the State and Federal Court systems, including numerous criminal and civil actions argued before both the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court.
But I believe that my most compelling qualification is that I am relatively certain that I am the only applicant that has been totally screwed by the so-called “justice” system. At present there has not been even one member of the judiciary that can relate to the incomprehensible trauma of being wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, and even facing actual imminent execution for a crime they were innocent of. As the facts of my case reflects (please see, www.southerninjustice.com ) and a substantial wealth of “newly discovered” evidence substantiates, I was wrongfully convicted and condemned to death in a wholly circumstantial (no eyewitnesses, no physical or forensic evidence, no confessions, etc ) case that was deliberately fabricated with the intent to wrongfully convict and condemn me.
Collectively, my unique experiences and qualifications would bring a much needed balance to the court and compel other members of the court to remember the inherent need of the fundamental fairness and service to truth and justice – not politics and ideological activism.
And ultimately, if I don’t “play ball” with the powers that be, then arguably Governor Crist could rescind my “pardon” and send me straight back to death row, where his political puppets that remain on the court can quickly rubber-stamp any further appeals “denied” and put me to death.
So, based upon the above I would respectfully ask that you give fair consideration to my application for nomination to be the next appointed Justice on the Florida Supreme Court, and submit my name to Governor Crist as a nominee for appointment
Thank you for your time.
Most sincerely,
C. Michael Lambrix
note: Mike's application to the FSC was noticed by several news sites:
Daily Business Review
Miami New Times
Above the Law
Monday, February 2, 2009
Political Fight over Florida Supreme Court
Anyone who might still doubt that politics’ control the administration of justice can now bow their heads and accept the error of their ways. To be honest, the ignorance of the public often amazes me. It’s a lot like looking out upon a vast prairie of ostrich’s, each with their head deliberately impaled in the ground – they can’t see it because they don’t want to see it. Ignorance is bliss and they’d rather ignore the inconvenient truth that our American judicial system is completely corrupted by special interest politics than be compelled to accept a truth that would haunt their own social conscience.
At a national level there is simply no question that our elected President’s hand-pick judicial nominee’s for positions on the Federal courts, choosing only those who reflect their own ideology. Former (finally!!) President George W Bush took political corruption of the courts to a whole new level. First by stealing the presidency by having a controversial vote in Florida derided in his favor by a marginal majority of conservative justices on the US Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore, 120 Sict – (2000), and then, once politically elected by only 5 Justices to the office of President, (despite the fact that there is just no question that George W Bush lost the popular, “general” election) dear George then used his power to appoint even more ultra-conservative justices to the Court to secure a legacy of conservative ideology within the Federal Judiciary.
Now in the shadow of that circus another Bush-inspired judicial coup is unfolding in Florida and a political showdown may just follow. This story begins with the present Florida governor, “chain gang Charlie” Crist, winning election as Florida’s governor in November 2006. Governor Crist is a career ultra-conservative republican, proudly cut of the same cloth as George W Bush, who he campaigned for while at that time serving as Florida’s elected Attorney General while George W Bush ‘s younger brother Jeb Bush was governor of Florida.
Some argue that Governor Crist is nothing but a willing puppet of the mighty political cartel that empowers the Bush clan. Whether they are right or wrong, we will most likely never know. In all fairness to former Governor Bush, he has proven himself to be willing to confront conservative politicians and go “against the grain” to support wrongfully convicted men such as Alan Crotzer and William Dedge who were exonerated and released after DNA evidence established their innocence. Subsequently, Governor Crist fought conservative politicians to pass state laws providing monetary compensation to the wrongfully convicted. But although Governor Crist appears to stand his ground to “do the right thing”, at a more fundamental level there’s no question that he remains a tried and true red-blooded conservative subject to the strings that tie into the Bush cloth. Anyone who might doubt that need only look to the recent appointments Governor Crist has made to the Florida Supreme Court.
As a death-sentenced prisoner, the court’s willingness to fully and fairly hear appeals has a direct impact on my life - literally! Conservative justices such as those on the US Supreme Court (especially Justices Scalia and Thomas) will always rule in favor of the state or big corporation as the individual citizen means nothing. The greater goal of protecting the almighty “state” from the embarrassment of making a mistake, such as sending innocent people to death row, means that these conservative justices have consistently ruled that our constitution (the foundation of our protected rights) does not prohibit the state from executing the innocent Herrera v. Collins, (1993)
So the last thing I’d want to see is the Florida Supreme Court politically stacked with rabid, ultra conservative justices that have no respect for innocent lives, like those blood thirsty pro-death penalty ideological zealots who control the US Supreme Court. But that’s exactly what appears to be happening as Governor Crist is now systematically stacking the Florida Supreme Court with justices hand-picked from a list of die-hard Bush family insiders. Governor Crist has the opportunity to do what no other Governor has been able to do – in just the first two year of his first term as governor Crist is able to appoint 4 of the 7 justices on the Florida Supreme Court. This means that he will be able to pull a conservative political coup on the court, allowing that conservative ideology to control Florida law for many years yet to come.
In a previous blog article I wrote about the first Justice appointed to the court a few months ago. Charles Canady is now a Florida Supreme Court justice and there’s simply no question that the primary qualification for the appointment was that Charles Canady previously served as legal counsel to Governor Jeb Bush. Not long after that appointment Governor Crist was called upon to appoint another Justice for the Florida Supreme Court, and consistent with his conservative campaign he picked another Bush insider, Rickey Polston, to the court. As with now justice Canady, this soon-to-be Justice Polston worked in the Bush administration.
Suddenly influential politicians in Florida took notice and started speaking out against Governor Christ’s obvious campaign to stack the Florida Supreme Court with Bush administration conservative insiders. Former Florida Governor (and former US senator) Bob Graham joined forces with former American bar association president Talbot “Sandy” D’ Atemberte and others to scream “foul” in an editorial in the St Petersburg Times (“Take politics out of Florida’s Judiciary” Sunday December 28, 2008) Both Graham and D’Atemberte argued why Governor Crist should not politically corrupt the Florida Judiciary by hand-picking conservative Bush family insiders to control the court.
But just a few days later on January 2, 2009 Governor Crist responded by public ally announcing that his third appointment to the Florida Supreme Court is Jorge LaBarga, a Cuban-American from south-east (Palm Beach County) Florida. Not surprisingly Jorge LaBarga previously campaigned for Jeb Bush when he ran for governor in 1994 (see Florida Bar News, January 15, 2009 Crist names LaBarga to the Supreme Court)
But just who is Jorge LaBarga and can he fairly be labeled a “conservative”? As the article in the Florida Bar News reflects, Justice LaBarga fled his native Cuba as a child of only 11 years old. His family built a home in rural southeast Florida, where his father worked in the sugar cane fields. Justice LaBarga worked his way through the Florida State University to earn his law degree and coming out of college went to work as an asst public defender (criminal defense attorney) from 1979 to 1982.
For reasons not reported in 1982 he then jumped the fence and went from defending criminal defendants to prosecuting them. LaBarga spent 4 years as an Asst State Attorney in palm Beach County before quitting that job to go into private practice where he remained until then Democratic (not Republican) Governor Lawton Chites appointed him to the circuit (trial level) court in Palm Beach County. Justice LaBarga remained as a lower level circuit court judge for almost 12 years – until his recent appointment.
The question now is just who is Justice Jorge LaBarga? In a public statement announcing LaBarga’s appointment, Governor Crist stated that “Judge LaBarga brings to Florida’s highest court all the qualifications needed in a justice, including integrity fairness and compassion”
I suppose the truth will remain to be seen. There is no question that all 3 of the new justices appointed to the Florida Supreme Court have direct political ties to the Bush family political cartel. In the next two months Governor Crist will pick a fourth appointment to the Florida Supreme Court to replace soon to retire Justice Wells – and we can already assume that whoever Crist picks he (or she) too will have political connections to the Bush family. But perhaps Governor Crist will be wise to remember that he will have to run for re-election in 2010 if he plans to remain on as Florida’s elected governor. Does he really want to provoke a political fight that will cost him that election?
Written by Michael Lambrix.
Please check out also: http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com/
At a national level there is simply no question that our elected President’s hand-pick judicial nominee’s for positions on the Federal courts, choosing only those who reflect their own ideology. Former (finally!!) President George W Bush took political corruption of the courts to a whole new level. First by stealing the presidency by having a controversial vote in Florida derided in his favor by a marginal majority of conservative justices on the US Supreme Court (Bush v. Gore, 120 Sict – (2000), and then, once politically elected by only 5 Justices to the office of President, (despite the fact that there is just no question that George W Bush lost the popular, “general” election) dear George then used his power to appoint even more ultra-conservative justices to the Court to secure a legacy of conservative ideology within the Federal Judiciary.
Now in the shadow of that circus another Bush-inspired judicial coup is unfolding in Florida and a political showdown may just follow. This story begins with the present Florida governor, “chain gang Charlie” Crist, winning election as Florida’s governor in November 2006. Governor Crist is a career ultra-conservative republican, proudly cut of the same cloth as George W Bush, who he campaigned for while at that time serving as Florida’s elected Attorney General while George W Bush ‘s younger brother Jeb Bush was governor of Florida.
Some argue that Governor Crist is nothing but a willing puppet of the mighty political cartel that empowers the Bush clan. Whether they are right or wrong, we will most likely never know. In all fairness to former Governor Bush, he has proven himself to be willing to confront conservative politicians and go “against the grain” to support wrongfully convicted men such as Alan Crotzer and William Dedge who were exonerated and released after DNA evidence established their innocence. Subsequently, Governor Crist fought conservative politicians to pass state laws providing monetary compensation to the wrongfully convicted. But although Governor Crist appears to stand his ground to “do the right thing”, at a more fundamental level there’s no question that he remains a tried and true red-blooded conservative subject to the strings that tie into the Bush cloth. Anyone who might doubt that need only look to the recent appointments Governor Crist has made to the Florida Supreme Court.
As a death-sentenced prisoner, the court’s willingness to fully and fairly hear appeals has a direct impact on my life - literally! Conservative justices such as those on the US Supreme Court (especially Justices Scalia and Thomas) will always rule in favor of the state or big corporation as the individual citizen means nothing. The greater goal of protecting the almighty “state” from the embarrassment of making a mistake, such as sending innocent people to death row, means that these conservative justices have consistently ruled that our constitution (the foundation of our protected rights) does not prohibit the state from executing the innocent Herrera v. Collins, (1993)
So the last thing I’d want to see is the Florida Supreme Court politically stacked with rabid, ultra conservative justices that have no respect for innocent lives, like those blood thirsty pro-death penalty ideological zealots who control the US Supreme Court. But that’s exactly what appears to be happening as Governor Crist is now systematically stacking the Florida Supreme Court with justices hand-picked from a list of die-hard Bush family insiders. Governor Crist has the opportunity to do what no other Governor has been able to do – in just the first two year of his first term as governor Crist is able to appoint 4 of the 7 justices on the Florida Supreme Court. This means that he will be able to pull a conservative political coup on the court, allowing that conservative ideology to control Florida law for many years yet to come.
In a previous blog article I wrote about the first Justice appointed to the court a few months ago. Charles Canady is now a Florida Supreme Court justice and there’s simply no question that the primary qualification for the appointment was that Charles Canady previously served as legal counsel to Governor Jeb Bush. Not long after that appointment Governor Crist was called upon to appoint another Justice for the Florida Supreme Court, and consistent with his conservative campaign he picked another Bush insider, Rickey Polston, to the court. As with now justice Canady, this soon-to-be Justice Polston worked in the Bush administration.
Suddenly influential politicians in Florida took notice and started speaking out against Governor Christ’s obvious campaign to stack the Florida Supreme Court with Bush administration conservative insiders. Former Florida Governor (and former US senator) Bob Graham joined forces with former American bar association president Talbot “Sandy” D’ Atemberte and others to scream “foul” in an editorial in the St Petersburg Times (“Take politics out of Florida’s Judiciary” Sunday December 28, 2008) Both Graham and D’Atemberte argued why Governor Crist should not politically corrupt the Florida Judiciary by hand-picking conservative Bush family insiders to control the court.
But just a few days later on January 2, 2009 Governor Crist responded by public ally announcing that his third appointment to the Florida Supreme Court is Jorge LaBarga, a Cuban-American from south-east (Palm Beach County) Florida. Not surprisingly Jorge LaBarga previously campaigned for Jeb Bush when he ran for governor in 1994 (see Florida Bar News, January 15, 2009 Crist names LaBarga to the Supreme Court)
But just who is Jorge LaBarga and can he fairly be labeled a “conservative”? As the article in the Florida Bar News reflects, Justice LaBarga fled his native Cuba as a child of only 11 years old. His family built a home in rural southeast Florida, where his father worked in the sugar cane fields. Justice LaBarga worked his way through the Florida State University to earn his law degree and coming out of college went to work as an asst public defender (criminal defense attorney) from 1979 to 1982.
For reasons not reported in 1982 he then jumped the fence and went from defending criminal defendants to prosecuting them. LaBarga spent 4 years as an Asst State Attorney in palm Beach County before quitting that job to go into private practice where he remained until then Democratic (not Republican) Governor Lawton Chites appointed him to the circuit (trial level) court in Palm Beach County. Justice LaBarga remained as a lower level circuit court judge for almost 12 years – until his recent appointment.
The question now is just who is Justice Jorge LaBarga? In a public statement announcing LaBarga’s appointment, Governor Crist stated that “Judge LaBarga brings to Florida’s highest court all the qualifications needed in a justice, including integrity fairness and compassion”
I suppose the truth will remain to be seen. There is no question that all 3 of the new justices appointed to the Florida Supreme Court have direct political ties to the Bush family political cartel. In the next two months Governor Crist will pick a fourth appointment to the Florida Supreme Court to replace soon to retire Justice Wells – and we can already assume that whoever Crist picks he (or she) too will have political connections to the Bush family. But perhaps Governor Crist will be wise to remember that he will have to run for re-election in 2010 if he plans to remain on as Florida’s elected governor. Does he really want to provoke a political fight that will cost him that election?
Written by Michael Lambrix.
Please check out also: http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Shoe-acid Thrower Takes Shot at Bush
It was the damnest thing that I ever did see. There I was, sitting on the edge of my bunk minding my own business, waiting for a football game to some on, when suddenly my TV flashed “Special Report” across the screen. That caught my attention as this had to be something big that they would dare interrupt a football game.
With increased curiosity I patiently waited. Then there it was – President Bush had apparently made a surprise visit to Iraq and after taking a stroll along the formation of American troops with Iraqi politicians at his side, soon to be dethroned GW Bush then retires to a small room to give a news conference. I’m sure that each member of the media allowed into that room was thoroughly searched for any form of weapons, not at all unlike what most go through at airports these days, thanks to the 9/11 terrorist attack and subsequent threats by shoe-bombers.
Realizing that I was in for yet another final gasp of President Bush’s grandstanding, I reached towards the TV to change the channel when suddenly a man’s figure leapt up right in front of the camera and to my (delighted!) surprise, he threw first one shoe and then another straight at the obviously surprised President Bush., who actually did a good job ducking each shoe as if this happened all the time and was just a part of the daily routine.
Now, I know that in the Arab cultures, throwing a shoe at someone is the ultimate symbol of disrespect. Already reports are coming in from around the Arab world calling for the Iraqi journalist to be called a “hero”. I’m sure that to many he already is - even if the guy is a lousy shot!
After I finally got through laughing about it as hard as I have in more years than I can remember, I got to thinking about what I had seen. The one thing that struck me first was just how well GW Bush ducked both shoes without even breaking a sweat – obviously the guy had a lot of experience ducking incoming shoes, which begs the question….just who is throwing shoes at GW that we don’t know about? Maybe Laura Bush??
If it is Laura Bush, then I wonder if she will accept requests?? Being that I’m on death row I’m only allowed to have one pair of shoes – and we are prohibited from having any type of hard shoes or boots that that might be used as a “weapon”. But I would be willing to mail my only pair of well-worn shoes to Laura Bush if she would agree to throw them at ole GW for me. I’ll even tell her to keep them if she promises to throw them at him repeatedly.
Then it wasn’t long before I got to talking to another guy here on my floor and we came up with a way to make a million dollars of this thing. See, I’m white and he is black. So I figure that we can get one of these “dunking tanks” that they have at county fairs all the time, where people pay money to throw a ball, trying to let a small target that triggers a release to dunk the clown into a water tank. But instead I figure I can get a GW Bush Halloween mask and we can take turns working the dunking tank – only instead of throwing balls we can charge extra so people can throw shoes. Why, I’ll bet people would line up around the block just for the chance to throw a shoe at GW Bush, or even Barack Obama for that matter. So we can make a million bucks and if these people are as bad at throwing shoes as that Iraqi journalist then there’s a real good chance we won’t even get wet!
Of course, since ole GW Bush will be looking for a new job next month, he may just steal my idea and do this himself. When it comes down to it, there’s not a lot of difference between a politician and a carnival sideshow and even someone as intellectually challenged as GW must realize that there is a lot of potential for some serious money by working a dunking tank at the local county fairs. Being that he’s the ex-president and all, I’m sure that there are plenty of people out there who would gladly pay a premium to throw a shoe or two to knock him into a tank of water. In fact, I’d gladly pay a few dollars more if instead of just water they fill the tank up with oil – and as he rises from being dunked into the tank of oil, for an extra dollar we can blow feathers on him!
You see, even after 25 years on death row, my imagination can reach beyond these walls that entomb me to inspire a nation into a new pastime…paying a few bucks to throw a shoe or two at a soon to be former president. So folks, just line on up and have your turn.
Please read my main website www.southerninjustice.com and my blog http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com/and if you would like to donate a pair of old shoes to the cause, please send to: Laura Bush, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
With increased curiosity I patiently waited. Then there it was – President Bush had apparently made a surprise visit to Iraq and after taking a stroll along the formation of American troops with Iraqi politicians at his side, soon to be dethroned GW Bush then retires to a small room to give a news conference. I’m sure that each member of the media allowed into that room was thoroughly searched for any form of weapons, not at all unlike what most go through at airports these days, thanks to the 9/11 terrorist attack and subsequent threats by shoe-bombers.
Realizing that I was in for yet another final gasp of President Bush’s grandstanding, I reached towards the TV to change the channel when suddenly a man’s figure leapt up right in front of the camera and to my (delighted!) surprise, he threw first one shoe and then another straight at the obviously surprised President Bush., who actually did a good job ducking each shoe as if this happened all the time and was just a part of the daily routine.
Now, I know that in the Arab cultures, throwing a shoe at someone is the ultimate symbol of disrespect. Already reports are coming in from around the Arab world calling for the Iraqi journalist to be called a “hero”. I’m sure that to many he already is - even if the guy is a lousy shot!
After I finally got through laughing about it as hard as I have in more years than I can remember, I got to thinking about what I had seen. The one thing that struck me first was just how well GW Bush ducked both shoes without even breaking a sweat – obviously the guy had a lot of experience ducking incoming shoes, which begs the question….just who is throwing shoes at GW that we don’t know about? Maybe Laura Bush??
If it is Laura Bush, then I wonder if she will accept requests?? Being that I’m on death row I’m only allowed to have one pair of shoes – and we are prohibited from having any type of hard shoes or boots that that might be used as a “weapon”. But I would be willing to mail my only pair of well-worn shoes to Laura Bush if she would agree to throw them at ole GW for me. I’ll even tell her to keep them if she promises to throw them at him repeatedly.
Then it wasn’t long before I got to talking to another guy here on my floor and we came up with a way to make a million dollars of this thing. See, I’m white and he is black. So I figure that we can get one of these “dunking tanks” that they have at county fairs all the time, where people pay money to throw a ball, trying to let a small target that triggers a release to dunk the clown into a water tank. But instead I figure I can get a GW Bush Halloween mask and we can take turns working the dunking tank – only instead of throwing balls we can charge extra so people can throw shoes. Why, I’ll bet people would line up around the block just for the chance to throw a shoe at GW Bush, or even Barack Obama for that matter. So we can make a million bucks and if these people are as bad at throwing shoes as that Iraqi journalist then there’s a real good chance we won’t even get wet!
Of course, since ole GW Bush will be looking for a new job next month, he may just steal my idea and do this himself. When it comes down to it, there’s not a lot of difference between a politician and a carnival sideshow and even someone as intellectually challenged as GW must realize that there is a lot of potential for some serious money by working a dunking tank at the local county fairs. Being that he’s the ex-president and all, I’m sure that there are plenty of people out there who would gladly pay a premium to throw a shoe or two to knock him into a tank of water. In fact, I’d gladly pay a few dollars more if instead of just water they fill the tank up with oil – and as he rises from being dunked into the tank of oil, for an extra dollar we can blow feathers on him!
You see, even after 25 years on death row, my imagination can reach beyond these walls that entomb me to inspire a nation into a new pastime…paying a few bucks to throw a shoe or two at a soon to be former president. So folks, just line on up and have your turn.
Please read my main website www.southerninjustice.com and my blog http://doinglifeondeathrow.blogspot.com/and if you would like to donate a pair of old shoes to the cause, please send to: Laura Bush, The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington DC.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Keeping the Hope Alive
Years ago I read a book by Victor Frankl called “Man’s search for meaning”. A friend had sent it to me and I remain grateful to this day as the book gave me a lot of insight to my own experience – as a man condemned to death. Frankl was himself uniquely qualified to provide his insight as he himself had spent years in a Nazi concentration camp at Auswitz and his insights were based upon his own observations and experiences.
The truth that I gained from reading that book so long ago is that surviving any adversity is all about maintaining the will to want to survive. It’s about keeping the hope alive and focusing more on the rainbow then you do the storm. In fact I have written about this in my website and in previous essays I have written about my experiences as a condemned man.
Through the many years that I have now been condemned to death I have personally witnessed too many around me simply give up and lose the will to want to live. I know only too well the transformation a man goes through, the way the “light” within his eyes slowly fades away until only a dark emptiness remains. Those of us who have seen this know that haunting look only too well and know the truth – that a man can die within by losing the hope and the will to live long before his body becomes “dead”.
I write of this now as recent events in my own life have brought me to that point where I felt that will to live erode and was so helpless to even stop that decent into that cold darkness of hopelessness. Although I was aware of this happening I was powerless to stop this very slow slip into that place where I have been before, but hoped that I would never be again.
Maybe I tend to think more about it then others do. I don’t really know. But at times I do wonder just what the point of the struggle to live really is. At times I even envy those I’ve known here who have put an end to their own nightmare in the most permanent of ways, such as my friend Bill Coday who recently committed suicide (see “Bill is dead” http://deathrowjournals.blogspot.com/2008/05/bill-is-dead.html ).
I am somewhat reluctant to admit my own weakness – that not only have I entertained (and even fantasized) thought about taking myself out but many, many moons ago I even tried, but failed. Does that make me weak when I admit such a thing? Maybe so. Or maybe not.
Most recently I went through an ordeal that is only all too common among those of us here. After being condemned to death, our only hope is depending upon the lawyer appointed to represent us and the quality of the appeals that they file. If, for any reason, they fail to properly present our appeal to the Courts then any hope of winning our freedom from this nightmare becomes non-existent. In the past I have had my critical appeals “procedurally barred” because of the incompetence of the lawyer the state had appointed to represent me.
What makes my own case unique is that I’m not just another condemned man trying to claim he is innocent – the evidence actually supports my long pled claim. In recent years an overwhelming wealth of evidence has been brought forth that substantiate my consistently pled claims that the entire, wholly circumstantial case upon which I have been wrongfully convicted, was deliberately fabricated. (Please see “http://www.southerninjustice.com/ ). But all the evidence substantiating my claim of innocence amounts to nothing if my lawyers do not adequately and “effectively” present it to the Courts. Recently the Court gave us until October 27, 2008 to do that. Actually the lawyer had almost a full year to prepare the appeal, but it had to be filed no later than that date.
As that court ordered deadline approached, I felt the lawyers were deliberately jerking me around. No matter how much I pushed for a working draft of what they intended to file, they simply would not give me one. It was as if I was their enemy and they would not divulge their “secret” of what they actually intended to file.
As the deadline approached, my own anxiety and stress built. In fact, I think it is fair to say that my anxiety was not at all unlike that I felt when I was facing imminent execution in 1988. When it comes down to it, I knew only too well that if the lawyers did not file an adequate appeal by that date, then I would be dead. It really was very much like again being on “death watch” and yet as that clock ticket closer and closer to that court deadline, my anxiety and stress only built.
With a week left to go, my confidence in my lawyer’s willingness to get this appeal filed reached a new low when I was finally provided with what they called a draft, but was actually garbage. When I read it, I already knew that if they filed an appeal that even resembled that garbage, I was dead.
I began to confront my own mortality – to accept my own death as a possible means of circumventing the fate that seemed only too imminent. If they filed this garbage they were showing me, then any appellate review would amount to nothing more than a pretense. I knew that if that was the case, my further hope I so desperately tried to cling on to would be lost.
As I struggled through these dark days, I shared my growing feeling of desperation with a few friends. For the most part, they were generously supportive and quickly rallied in their own campaign to compel my lawyers to do the best job possible on the appeal. And I know I am truly blessed with genuine friends, who in my own time of weakness and despair, they so generously give of their own selves to give me strength. I cannot even begin to thank them.
In the end, the appeal was filed at the last possible minute of the court deadline. Although it was not perfect, it was and is surprisingly good. What was filed actually did not even resemble the “draft” I was provided with previously. And now my hope has been renewed.
But a few friends actually were critical of the way I expressed my then overwhelming sense of anxiety and even hopelessness. It was even suggested that I was simply engaging in an “emotional powerplay”, perhaps to manipulate my lawyers. These are genuine friends who I know truly do care about me. But that got me wondering if maybe I was wrong to so openly and honestly share what I felt with my friends.
I do know that nothing I can ever say will ever allow those who do their best to stand by me to actually “feel” what I feel. So I certainly do not hold it against anyone when they just cannot appreciate the depth of my anxiety and that overwhelming sense of hopelessness that had compelled me to accept that even my own death would be a preferable course of action than endure what would become years of pursuing an appeal that I knew was already lost.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I do owe it to my true friends to simply keep how I feel to myself. A big part of being condemned to death is the never-ending rollercoaster ride through the extreme ends of my emotions. But no matter how much they might care, they cannot understand what I feel. Nor do they understand that there will be times that I need my friends the most.
My experience is not unique to me, but common to all of us who are condemned. So whether I was right or wrong, I thank my true friends for carrying me through that darkness when my own strength failed me. It is through my friends that my own hope remained alive. Now the journey will continue.
The truth that I gained from reading that book so long ago is that surviving any adversity is all about maintaining the will to want to survive. It’s about keeping the hope alive and focusing more on the rainbow then you do the storm. In fact I have written about this in my website and in previous essays I have written about my experiences as a condemned man.
Through the many years that I have now been condemned to death I have personally witnessed too many around me simply give up and lose the will to want to live. I know only too well the transformation a man goes through, the way the “light” within his eyes slowly fades away until only a dark emptiness remains. Those of us who have seen this know that haunting look only too well and know the truth – that a man can die within by losing the hope and the will to live long before his body becomes “dead”.
I write of this now as recent events in my own life have brought me to that point where I felt that will to live erode and was so helpless to even stop that decent into that cold darkness of hopelessness. Although I was aware of this happening I was powerless to stop this very slow slip into that place where I have been before, but hoped that I would never be again.
Maybe I tend to think more about it then others do. I don’t really know. But at times I do wonder just what the point of the struggle to live really is. At times I even envy those I’ve known here who have put an end to their own nightmare in the most permanent of ways, such as my friend Bill Coday who recently committed suicide (see “Bill is dead” http://deathrowjournals.blogspot.com/2008/05/bill-is-dead.html ).
I am somewhat reluctant to admit my own weakness – that not only have I entertained (and even fantasized) thought about taking myself out but many, many moons ago I even tried, but failed. Does that make me weak when I admit such a thing? Maybe so. Or maybe not.
Most recently I went through an ordeal that is only all too common among those of us here. After being condemned to death, our only hope is depending upon the lawyer appointed to represent us and the quality of the appeals that they file. If, for any reason, they fail to properly present our appeal to the Courts then any hope of winning our freedom from this nightmare becomes non-existent. In the past I have had my critical appeals “procedurally barred” because of the incompetence of the lawyer the state had appointed to represent me.
What makes my own case unique is that I’m not just another condemned man trying to claim he is innocent – the evidence actually supports my long pled claim. In recent years an overwhelming wealth of evidence has been brought forth that substantiate my consistently pled claims that the entire, wholly circumstantial case upon which I have been wrongfully convicted, was deliberately fabricated. (Please see “http://www.southerninjustice.com/ ). But all the evidence substantiating my claim of innocence amounts to nothing if my lawyers do not adequately and “effectively” present it to the Courts. Recently the Court gave us until October 27, 2008 to do that. Actually the lawyer had almost a full year to prepare the appeal, but it had to be filed no later than that date.
As that court ordered deadline approached, I felt the lawyers were deliberately jerking me around. No matter how much I pushed for a working draft of what they intended to file, they simply would not give me one. It was as if I was their enemy and they would not divulge their “secret” of what they actually intended to file.
As the deadline approached, my own anxiety and stress built. In fact, I think it is fair to say that my anxiety was not at all unlike that I felt when I was facing imminent execution in 1988. When it comes down to it, I knew only too well that if the lawyers did not file an adequate appeal by that date, then I would be dead. It really was very much like again being on “death watch” and yet as that clock ticket closer and closer to that court deadline, my anxiety and stress only built.
With a week left to go, my confidence in my lawyer’s willingness to get this appeal filed reached a new low when I was finally provided with what they called a draft, but was actually garbage. When I read it, I already knew that if they filed an appeal that even resembled that garbage, I was dead.
I began to confront my own mortality – to accept my own death as a possible means of circumventing the fate that seemed only too imminent. If they filed this garbage they were showing me, then any appellate review would amount to nothing more than a pretense. I knew that if that was the case, my further hope I so desperately tried to cling on to would be lost.
As I struggled through these dark days, I shared my growing feeling of desperation with a few friends. For the most part, they were generously supportive and quickly rallied in their own campaign to compel my lawyers to do the best job possible on the appeal. And I know I am truly blessed with genuine friends, who in my own time of weakness and despair, they so generously give of their own selves to give me strength. I cannot even begin to thank them.
In the end, the appeal was filed at the last possible minute of the court deadline. Although it was not perfect, it was and is surprisingly good. What was filed actually did not even resemble the “draft” I was provided with previously. And now my hope has been renewed.
But a few friends actually were critical of the way I expressed my then overwhelming sense of anxiety and even hopelessness. It was even suggested that I was simply engaging in an “emotional powerplay”, perhaps to manipulate my lawyers. These are genuine friends who I know truly do care about me. But that got me wondering if maybe I was wrong to so openly and honestly share what I felt with my friends.
I do know that nothing I can ever say will ever allow those who do their best to stand by me to actually “feel” what I feel. So I certainly do not hold it against anyone when they just cannot appreciate the depth of my anxiety and that overwhelming sense of hopelessness that had compelled me to accept that even my own death would be a preferable course of action than endure what would become years of pursuing an appeal that I knew was already lost.
Maybe I was wrong. Maybe I do owe it to my true friends to simply keep how I feel to myself. A big part of being condemned to death is the never-ending rollercoaster ride through the extreme ends of my emotions. But no matter how much they might care, they cannot understand what I feel. Nor do they understand that there will be times that I need my friends the most.
My experience is not unique to me, but common to all of us who are condemned. So whether I was right or wrong, I thank my true friends for carrying me through that darkness when my own strength failed me. It is through my friends that my own hope remained alive. Now the journey will continue.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
President Obama's election and what it means to death row
Well the election is over and Barack Obama has won by a large margin. Equally important, the Democratic Party has gained control of Congress despite the conservative Republican Party attempting to label Obama and the democrats as “liberals” and “socialists”, like that’s a bad thing..
The question now is what will this mean to those of us on death row? Maybe it won’t mean anything as when it comes down to it the death penalty is about politics and especially in the southern states, where the death penalty is particularly popular, even those in the Democratic Party fanatically support capital punishment.
When asked about the death penalty months ago President Obama made it clear that he does support the death penalty, although he qualified that response with his belief that it should be ‘fairly” administered. As a state senator from Illinois, President Obama is familiar with the circumstances that compelled then Governor Ryan of Illinois to grant pardons and order the release of 5 condemned men he believed were innocent, while commuting the death sentences of all other prisoners then on death row in Illinois. So it stands to reason that Obama is personally familiar with how fundamentally flawed the death penalty is.
But what can he really do about it? Not even the president of the United States has the power to order the States to abolish the death penalty. President Obama cannot even compel the States to be “fair” in the administration of the death penalty as our Constitution gives the States the power to make their own laws.
However, if so inclined President Obama can directly make a significant difference. To start with, now that he will have a majority support of the United States Senate, he can (and presumably will) begin nominating judges to the Federal Courts that do not come in with their own pro-death conservative agenda.
President Obama is perhaps the most qualified president during our lifetime when it comes to picking qualified judicial candidates as Obama has himself been a Professor of Constitutional Law prior to running for political office. It can be safely assumed that Obama will choose judicial candidates who have similar experience in constitutional law.
Most importantly of course will be the probability that at least a few of the present US Supreme Court Justices will be replaced within the next four years. We can say what we want about President Bush, but he wasn’t stupid. The ultra conservative Justices he put on the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) will be around for a long time to come. With equally conservative, pro death penalty Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, we know that at least 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would see hell freeze over before they even considered voting to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. But even with these 4 votes, they do not have a majority. This is why the election of President Obama is so important. In coming years he will put his own pick on the Supreme Court, giving us hope that maybe, just maybe, the future Court will be more receptive to abolishing the death penalty all together.
But what I would like to think is possible now is something no one else has mentioned …having the Democratic controlled Congress repeal the 1996 “Anti Terrorist and Effective Death penalty Act”. As those of us familiar with the death penalty know only too well, this “AEDPA” has brought about more executions than any other act of legislation.
This law was rushed through Congress shortly after the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing that killed over 300 men, women and children. The alleged mastermind was quickly labeled a “terrorist”, years before the infamous 9/11, was brought to trial and convicted, then executed under the Federal death penalty, largely thanks to the expedited review process brought about and made possible by the 1996 AEDRA law.
The problem is that this Timothy McVeigh inspired restriction on Federal “habeas” review has significantly limited review of those capital convictions and death sentences imposed in state courts, making it all but virtually impossible to pursue meaningful appellate review in the Federal courts.
It has become increasingly common for state prisoners to find that they will have virtually no Federal review of their convictions and death sentences because their state appointed lawyers failed to file the Federal appeal on time. Inevidently this use of politically inspired procedural bars will result in the execution of innocent people.
The AEDRA is for all practical purposes a restriction of the “inalienable” right to pursue habeas review a death by default law.
Thus this is my biggest hope, that as a former Professor of Constitutional Law and a man of moral conscience, newly elected President Obama will now take a personal interest in compelling the now Democratically controlled Congress to repeal the 1996 AEDPA and restore some semblance of fundamental fairness back into the Federal Courts, and equally restore a basic safeguard against executing the innocent.
The question now is what will this mean to those of us on death row? Maybe it won’t mean anything as when it comes down to it the death penalty is about politics and especially in the southern states, where the death penalty is particularly popular, even those in the Democratic Party fanatically support capital punishment.
When asked about the death penalty months ago President Obama made it clear that he does support the death penalty, although he qualified that response with his belief that it should be ‘fairly” administered. As a state senator from Illinois, President Obama is familiar with the circumstances that compelled then Governor Ryan of Illinois to grant pardons and order the release of 5 condemned men he believed were innocent, while commuting the death sentences of all other prisoners then on death row in Illinois. So it stands to reason that Obama is personally familiar with how fundamentally flawed the death penalty is.
But what can he really do about it? Not even the president of the United States has the power to order the States to abolish the death penalty. President Obama cannot even compel the States to be “fair” in the administration of the death penalty as our Constitution gives the States the power to make their own laws.
However, if so inclined President Obama can directly make a significant difference. To start with, now that he will have a majority support of the United States Senate, he can (and presumably will) begin nominating judges to the Federal Courts that do not come in with their own pro-death conservative agenda.
President Obama is perhaps the most qualified president during our lifetime when it comes to picking qualified judicial candidates as Obama has himself been a Professor of Constitutional Law prior to running for political office. It can be safely assumed that Obama will choose judicial candidates who have similar experience in constitutional law.
Most importantly of course will be the probability that at least a few of the present US Supreme Court Justices will be replaced within the next four years. We can say what we want about President Bush, but he wasn’t stupid. The ultra conservative Justices he put on the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito) will be around for a long time to come. With equally conservative, pro death penalty Justice Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas, we know that at least 4 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices would see hell freeze over before they even considered voting to declare the death penalty unconstitutional. But even with these 4 votes, they do not have a majority. This is why the election of President Obama is so important. In coming years he will put his own pick on the Supreme Court, giving us hope that maybe, just maybe, the future Court will be more receptive to abolishing the death penalty all together.
But what I would like to think is possible now is something no one else has mentioned …having the Democratic controlled Congress repeal the 1996 “Anti Terrorist and Effective Death penalty Act”. As those of us familiar with the death penalty know only too well, this “AEDPA” has brought about more executions than any other act of legislation.
This law was rushed through Congress shortly after the 1996 Oklahoma City bombing that killed over 300 men, women and children. The alleged mastermind was quickly labeled a “terrorist”, years before the infamous 9/11, was brought to trial and convicted, then executed under the Federal death penalty, largely thanks to the expedited review process brought about and made possible by the 1996 AEDRA law.
The problem is that this Timothy McVeigh inspired restriction on Federal “habeas” review has significantly limited review of those capital convictions and death sentences imposed in state courts, making it all but virtually impossible to pursue meaningful appellate review in the Federal courts.
It has become increasingly common for state prisoners to find that they will have virtually no Federal review of their convictions and death sentences because their state appointed lawyers failed to file the Federal appeal on time. Inevidently this use of politically inspired procedural bars will result in the execution of innocent people.
The AEDRA is for all practical purposes a restriction of the “inalienable” right to pursue habeas review a death by default law.
Thus this is my biggest hope, that as a former Professor of Constitutional Law and a man of moral conscience, newly elected President Obama will now take a personal interest in compelling the now Democratically controlled Congress to repeal the 1996 AEDPA and restore some semblance of fundamental fairness back into the Federal Courts, and equally restore a basic safeguard against executing the innocent.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Political Transformation of the Florida Supreme Court.
In coming months the Florida Supreme Court will be transformed by the appointment of four (of the seven) new Justices, giving Governor Charlie Crist an unprecedented opportunity to reform the Court in his own conservative ideological image. Governor Crist is a career politician who has spent many years earning the name “chain gang Charlie” as both the state representative, then a state senator before being elected as Florida’s Attorney General prior to then becoming Florida’s elected Governor.
Throughout Governor Crist’s long political career, he has aggressively supported the death penalty and has used his political influence to push for expanding the use of the death penalty as well as expressing his favor for limiting appellate review in capital cases. As the Attorney general, Governor Crist served on the Florida Cabinet for 8 years, not even once voting to grant clemency in a capital case.
With the unique opportunity to now hand-pick fellow pro-death conservatives to the Florida Supreme Court the manner in which capital cases are reviewed and decided could significantly change.
Under Florida’s constitution all capital cases in which the defendant is sentenced to death must be directly reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. Additionally, although state post conviction appeals are typically filed in the lower state circuit courts where the original trial was held, any decision rendered by these lower courts are then appealable by the Florida Supreme Court.
Under these constitutionally established rules, to be granted relief before the Florida Supreme Court, at least four of the seven justices must agree. For this reason Governor Crist’s appointment of four of the seven Justices could prove to completely preclude any possibility of being granted relief before the state courts.
As an indication of Governor Crist’s intent to stack the Florida Supreme Court with pro death penalty conservatives, much like President George Bush has done with the US Supreme Court, following the recent resignation of Justice Raoul Cantero, Governor Crist announced that his first appointment to the Court would be none other then Charles T Canady.
According to the Florida Bar News (September 15, 2008) in 1979 Charles Canady graduated from Yale University Law School (as did President George W Bush) then went into private practice at several law firms in Florida before being elected to the Florida house of Representatives in 1984 and serving in that position until 1990.
A longtime personal friend and conservative Republican colleague of Governor Crist, Charles Canady the was elected to the US Congress, serving as the elected Representative for the district encompassing Lakeland and other area’s of central Florida from 1992 to 2000.
After proving his conservative political ideology in Congress, former Republican Governor Jed Bush appointed Charles Canaby as his “general counsel” during his first year as Florida’s Governor. While serving in this position Canady was instrumental in pushing through the “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000”, which was passed by the state legislature, then signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush.
However, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently declared this “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000” to be unconstitutional by concluding that the Florida legislative cannot promulgate rules governing court procedure.
Had the Canady-created “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000” gone into effect, Florida would have adopted the general procedures used in the State of Texas to severely limit death row appeals, including prohibiting appeals based upon alleged new evidence, even if that evidence might conclusively prove the condemned man’s innocence.
With Charles Canady now appointed as a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court we can expect Canady to aggressively push for judicial adoption of rules that will severely limit death row appeals. Within the next six months Governor Crist will appoint three more new justices to the Court, ultimately reforming the Florida Supreme Court in his own ideological image.
Within the next few weeks, it is anticipated that Governor Crist will announce his appointment to replace retiring Justice Bell. Then in January, 2009 Justice Anstead will be forced into retirement under Florida’s law requiring retirement at age 70. Last, in March, 2009 Justice Wells will also be forced into retirement when he too turns 70. So within the next 6 months Governor Crist will have appointed the majority of the Justices that will sit on the Florida Supreme Court for many years to come. If the next three appointments reflect the conservative pro-death penalty agenda long embraced by Justice Canady, then within the foreseeable future Florida can become a mirror-image of Texas..
Throughout Governor Crist’s long political career, he has aggressively supported the death penalty and has used his political influence to push for expanding the use of the death penalty as well as expressing his favor for limiting appellate review in capital cases. As the Attorney general, Governor Crist served on the Florida Cabinet for 8 years, not even once voting to grant clemency in a capital case.
With the unique opportunity to now hand-pick fellow pro-death conservatives to the Florida Supreme Court the manner in which capital cases are reviewed and decided could significantly change.
Under Florida’s constitution all capital cases in which the defendant is sentenced to death must be directly reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court. Additionally, although state post conviction appeals are typically filed in the lower state circuit courts where the original trial was held, any decision rendered by these lower courts are then appealable by the Florida Supreme Court.
Under these constitutionally established rules, to be granted relief before the Florida Supreme Court, at least four of the seven justices must agree. For this reason Governor Crist’s appointment of four of the seven Justices could prove to completely preclude any possibility of being granted relief before the state courts.
As an indication of Governor Crist’s intent to stack the Florida Supreme Court with pro death penalty conservatives, much like President George Bush has done with the US Supreme Court, following the recent resignation of Justice Raoul Cantero, Governor Crist announced that his first appointment to the Court would be none other then Charles T Canady.
According to the Florida Bar News (September 15, 2008) in 1979 Charles Canady graduated from Yale University Law School (as did President George W Bush) then went into private practice at several law firms in Florida before being elected to the Florida house of Representatives in 1984 and serving in that position until 1990.
A longtime personal friend and conservative Republican colleague of Governor Crist, Charles Canady the was elected to the US Congress, serving as the elected Representative for the district encompassing Lakeland and other area’s of central Florida from 1992 to 2000.
After proving his conservative political ideology in Congress, former Republican Governor Jed Bush appointed Charles Canaby as his “general counsel” during his first year as Florida’s Governor. While serving in this position Canady was instrumental in pushing through the “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000”, which was passed by the state legislature, then signed into law by Governor Jeb Bush.
However, the Florida Supreme Court subsequently declared this “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000” to be unconstitutional by concluding that the Florida legislative cannot promulgate rules governing court procedure.
Had the Canady-created “Death Penalty Reform Act of 2000” gone into effect, Florida would have adopted the general procedures used in the State of Texas to severely limit death row appeals, including prohibiting appeals based upon alleged new evidence, even if that evidence might conclusively prove the condemned man’s innocence.
With Charles Canady now appointed as a Justice on the Florida Supreme Court we can expect Canady to aggressively push for judicial adoption of rules that will severely limit death row appeals. Within the next six months Governor Crist will appoint three more new justices to the Court, ultimately reforming the Florida Supreme Court in his own ideological image.
Within the next few weeks, it is anticipated that Governor Crist will announce his appointment to replace retiring Justice Bell. Then in January, 2009 Justice Anstead will be forced into retirement under Florida’s law requiring retirement at age 70. Last, in March, 2009 Justice Wells will also be forced into retirement when he too turns 70. So within the next 6 months Governor Crist will have appointed the majority of the Justices that will sit on the Florida Supreme Court for many years to come. If the next three appointments reflect the conservative pro-death penalty agenda long embraced by Justice Canady, then within the foreseeable future Florida can become a mirror-image of Texas..
Monday, November 10, 2008
Death Row Conditions Challenged
According to an article published recently in the USA Today the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) has filed a civil lawsuit against the Federal Bureau of Prisons, claiming that the confinement on the Federal death row in Terra Haute, Indiana are “cruel and unusual”
In the lawsuit, the lawyers working for the ACLU argue that individually and collectively the deplorable conditions on death row inflict punishment upon those condemned to death by the Federal Government in excess of what is constitutionally allowed.
To understand the nature of this argument one must first understand the concept of the United States constitutional prohibition against the infliction of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Although simply being incarnated in itself is arguably a severe punishment, the concept of “cruel and unusual” is subjective in nature and basically is defined by what the Court believe reflect societies contemporary values as to how prisoners are treated and the conditions they must live under.
Basic conditions of confinement have long been recognized under this doctrine. When the individual state or the Federal Government imprisons a person after being convicted of a crime, they take on the responsibility to provide for the prisoner’s basic needs, such as food clothing and shelter. The courts have also established that prison officials must provide adequate medical care, including dental and mental care and that prisoners cannot be confined to cells that are unnecessarily unsanitary and might subject the prisoner to the risk of health problems.
Confinement on any death row in America is unlike any other form of imprisonment as only those condemned to death are automatically placed and kept in long term “solitary confinement” for non-punitive reasons. The courts have recognized that temporary conditions of confinement that may be substandard generally are not constitutionally intolerable even if objectively deplorable – but the longer the durations of these deplorable conditions, the greater the impact is on the prisoner. So the fact that death row prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for many years, even decades, makes deplorable conditions constitutionally intolerable.
But the bigger problem is that very few courts are willing to even entertain any legal claim that death row conditions are “cruel and unusual” punishment. I have been on Florida’s death row now for about 25 years so I have long term personal knowledge and experience (please see www.doinglifeondeathrow.com ) In my personal experience I can tell you that the conditions we must “live” under far exceed any objective definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Although the prison is legally required to provide for our basic needs, they only do so at the absolute minimum and what is provided simply does not account to basic needs.
Here in Florida the state prison system has contracted a private company to provide our meals. These companies must compete with each other and whoever can feed us for the least amount of money wins the contract. As a result, the quality of food provided is at best barely edible – at worst, lethal. It had become common for death row inmates to develop food poisoning after eating spoiled food. Most of what is served is of such poor quality that very few can actually survive off the food we are provided. Most of us actually live by purchasing food from the prison “canteen”.
Of course this exposes the true motivation for the Florida prisons system to provide meals that are inedible. By law they must provide 3 meals a day, although the law also says these meals must be edible, whether they are or not is up to the court to determine, and the court in Florida simply will not even consider the issue. So the prison knows they can get away with feeding us anything they want – and by doing that they know we must buy food off the canteen.
Last year alone the Florida prison system sold prisoners over 100 million dollars worth of food and they made a substantial profit. If they are forced to feed us meals that are actually edible, then it will reduce the substantial profits being made. But what about those who cannot afford to buy food from the canteen? They simply must go without or ask food from other prisoners.
It’s the same story on all the ‘basic needs” the prison is legally required to provide. To meet their obligation to provide clothing we are each provided one pair of bright orange pants/shirts and a jacket. If we want to have a decent sweater, thermal clothes, pajamas and even extra socks, t-shirts, and a decent pair of shoes we must buy it from the prison canteen. Even here in Florida the winters get very cold (below freezing) so without the ability to purchase these “extra” clothes the best we can do is stay under a coarse wool blanket all winter and that’s assuming you can even get a blanket.
I can only hope that the lawsuit brought against the Federal prison will be successful and through its litigation maybe, just maybe, establish some judicially recognized minimal standards that that can subsequently be used to improve living conditions here on Florida’s death row. I realize that many out there advocate deplorable conditions as a means of maliciously making the condemned suffer. But the inhumanity we allow to be inflicted on even the lowest of the law is an inhumanity inflicted upon all of us.
In the lawsuit, the lawyers working for the ACLU argue that individually and collectively the deplorable conditions on death row inflict punishment upon those condemned to death by the Federal Government in excess of what is constitutionally allowed.
To understand the nature of this argument one must first understand the concept of the United States constitutional prohibition against the infliction of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Although simply being incarnated in itself is arguably a severe punishment, the concept of “cruel and unusual” is subjective in nature and basically is defined by what the Court believe reflect societies contemporary values as to how prisoners are treated and the conditions they must live under.
Basic conditions of confinement have long been recognized under this doctrine. When the individual state or the Federal Government imprisons a person after being convicted of a crime, they take on the responsibility to provide for the prisoner’s basic needs, such as food clothing and shelter. The courts have also established that prison officials must provide adequate medical care, including dental and mental care and that prisoners cannot be confined to cells that are unnecessarily unsanitary and might subject the prisoner to the risk of health problems.
Confinement on any death row in America is unlike any other form of imprisonment as only those condemned to death are automatically placed and kept in long term “solitary confinement” for non-punitive reasons. The courts have recognized that temporary conditions of confinement that may be substandard generally are not constitutionally intolerable even if objectively deplorable – but the longer the durations of these deplorable conditions, the greater the impact is on the prisoner. So the fact that death row prisoners are kept in solitary confinement for many years, even decades, makes deplorable conditions constitutionally intolerable.
But the bigger problem is that very few courts are willing to even entertain any legal claim that death row conditions are “cruel and unusual” punishment. I have been on Florida’s death row now for about 25 years so I have long term personal knowledge and experience (please see www.doinglifeondeathrow.com ) In my personal experience I can tell you that the conditions we must “live” under far exceed any objective definition of “cruel and unusual” punishment. Although the prison is legally required to provide for our basic needs, they only do so at the absolute minimum and what is provided simply does not account to basic needs.
Here in Florida the state prison system has contracted a private company to provide our meals. These companies must compete with each other and whoever can feed us for the least amount of money wins the contract. As a result, the quality of food provided is at best barely edible – at worst, lethal. It had become common for death row inmates to develop food poisoning after eating spoiled food. Most of what is served is of such poor quality that very few can actually survive off the food we are provided. Most of us actually live by purchasing food from the prison “canteen”.
Of course this exposes the true motivation for the Florida prisons system to provide meals that are inedible. By law they must provide 3 meals a day, although the law also says these meals must be edible, whether they are or not is up to the court to determine, and the court in Florida simply will not even consider the issue. So the prison knows they can get away with feeding us anything they want – and by doing that they know we must buy food off the canteen.
Last year alone the Florida prison system sold prisoners over 100 million dollars worth of food and they made a substantial profit. If they are forced to feed us meals that are actually edible, then it will reduce the substantial profits being made. But what about those who cannot afford to buy food from the canteen? They simply must go without or ask food from other prisoners.
It’s the same story on all the ‘basic needs” the prison is legally required to provide. To meet their obligation to provide clothing we are each provided one pair of bright orange pants/shirts and a jacket. If we want to have a decent sweater, thermal clothes, pajamas and even extra socks, t-shirts, and a decent pair of shoes we must buy it from the prison canteen. Even here in Florida the winters get very cold (below freezing) so without the ability to purchase these “extra” clothes the best we can do is stay under a coarse wool blanket all winter and that’s assuming you can even get a blanket.
I can only hope that the lawsuit brought against the Federal prison will be successful and through its litigation maybe, just maybe, establish some judicially recognized minimal standards that that can subsequently be used to improve living conditions here on Florida’s death row. I realize that many out there advocate deplorable conditions as a means of maliciously making the condemned suffer. But the inhumanity we allow to be inflicted on even the lowest of the law is an inhumanity inflicted upon all of us.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Death Penalty opponents declared Terrorists
With the majority of American’s supporting capital punishment and the politically motivated “war on terror” making it only too easy to label anyone who engages in any form of anti-American activity as un-American, it was really just a matter of time before some of these conservative boneheads running government started to label anyone who didn’t agree with their pro-police state mentality a “terrorist”
This week the USA Today released a story about how the Maryland State police had spent 14 months in 2005 and 2006 illegally conducting secret investigations against anti-death penalty groups and had labeled 53 people involved in anti-death penalty and anti-war protests as “terrorists”
These investigations were conducted under the direction of then Maryland state police superintendent Tim Hutchins, and only came to light because the former Maryland Attorney General found that the state police had violated federal regulations and “illegally intruded upon law-abiding residents” rights to express themselves. Now Hutchins says they “made a mistake” and apologized, and that they would attempt to contact these individuals improperly labeled as” terrorists” and expunge their records. (See Washington Post October 8, 2008)
This didn’t happen in China or Russia – this happened in America. Incredibly, very few even comprehend the significance of this police state mentality. As a constitutional democracy founded upon the doctrine of “free speech” it boggles the mind to even imagine any police agency conducting secret investigations against law-abiding citizen then declaring these individuals as “terrorists” for no other reason but that they expressed an opposition to the death penalty.
Is this what America has become? We are only now beginning to understand just how destructive a generation of “conservative” right-wing politics has been. Under their “God and Country” mantra, these elitists such as the Bush dynasty have sold America out, and transferred what was once the model of human rights into what it is today.
As the rich got richer, the middle class became increasingly burdened with both private and public debts. When Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981 the total debt our Federal government owed was about 500 Billion dollars – now only a generation later the entire economic system is on the verge of total collapse and America now owes more than 10 Trillion dollars, with almost 6 Trillion dollars attributed to just the present Bush administration. And before he is run out of office it will undoubtedly go even higher.
And what do we have to show for all that debt? Our public schools and transportation infrastructure is in a shambles. Many states now spend just as much, if not more, money on maintaining the ever-growing prison systems as they do education. In recent years states such as California, Texas and Florida have actually cut funding for public education to pay for expanding their prison systems.
Even with everything that America stands for - the very foundation of our fundamental belief in a constitutional democracy built upon the beliefs that “we, the people” control government – now falling down around us like a house of cards, too many Americans still refuse to see it.
Our sons and our brothers are now fighting a war that we cannot win, giving their lives in vain because the arrogance of an elected President deliberately lied to the American people and invaded Iraq on the pretence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists. Now we know this was not true, but there is no easy way out.
Under the Bush administration we have used our military to invade two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) with the specific intent to overthrow their governments and install a government we wanted in place – yet nobody seems to be bothered by the significance of that action. But when Russia sent its troops into neighboring Georgia, after being deliberately provoked, the Bush administration labeled Russia an evil empire and threatened to resurrect the “cold war”
Under the Imperial Dynasty of the Bush administration we declared the Geneva Convention inapplicable to us as we began to systematically torture and imprison those labeled as “enemy combatants”, denying them even the most basic rights – and then declaring that they will be provided a “military trial” before hand-picked officers who will then adjudicate them guilty and sentence these “terrorists” to death.
And now we learn that a state police agency within a stones throw of our capital in Washington has declared private citizen to be “terrorists” for no other reason but that they dared to express their moral opposition against the death penalty. This is the America we have become and nobody cares.
This week the USA Today released a story about how the Maryland State police had spent 14 months in 2005 and 2006 illegally conducting secret investigations against anti-death penalty groups and had labeled 53 people involved in anti-death penalty and anti-war protests as “terrorists”
These investigations were conducted under the direction of then Maryland state police superintendent Tim Hutchins, and only came to light because the former Maryland Attorney General found that the state police had violated federal regulations and “illegally intruded upon law-abiding residents” rights to express themselves. Now Hutchins says they “made a mistake” and apologized, and that they would attempt to contact these individuals improperly labeled as” terrorists” and expunge their records. (See Washington Post October 8, 2008)
This didn’t happen in China or Russia – this happened in America. Incredibly, very few even comprehend the significance of this police state mentality. As a constitutional democracy founded upon the doctrine of “free speech” it boggles the mind to even imagine any police agency conducting secret investigations against law-abiding citizen then declaring these individuals as “terrorists” for no other reason but that they expressed an opposition to the death penalty.
Is this what America has become? We are only now beginning to understand just how destructive a generation of “conservative” right-wing politics has been. Under their “God and Country” mantra, these elitists such as the Bush dynasty have sold America out, and transferred what was once the model of human rights into what it is today.
As the rich got richer, the middle class became increasingly burdened with both private and public debts. When Ronald Reagan took office in January 1981 the total debt our Federal government owed was about 500 Billion dollars – now only a generation later the entire economic system is on the verge of total collapse and America now owes more than 10 Trillion dollars, with almost 6 Trillion dollars attributed to just the present Bush administration. And before he is run out of office it will undoubtedly go even higher.
And what do we have to show for all that debt? Our public schools and transportation infrastructure is in a shambles. Many states now spend just as much, if not more, money on maintaining the ever-growing prison systems as they do education. In recent years states such as California, Texas and Florida have actually cut funding for public education to pay for expanding their prison systems.
Even with everything that America stands for - the very foundation of our fundamental belief in a constitutional democracy built upon the beliefs that “we, the people” control government – now falling down around us like a house of cards, too many Americans still refuse to see it.
Our sons and our brothers are now fighting a war that we cannot win, giving their lives in vain because the arrogance of an elected President deliberately lied to the American people and invaded Iraq on the pretence that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and harboring terrorists. Now we know this was not true, but there is no easy way out.
Under the Bush administration we have used our military to invade two sovereign countries (Iraq and Afghanistan) with the specific intent to overthrow their governments and install a government we wanted in place – yet nobody seems to be bothered by the significance of that action. But when Russia sent its troops into neighboring Georgia, after being deliberately provoked, the Bush administration labeled Russia an evil empire and threatened to resurrect the “cold war”
Under the Imperial Dynasty of the Bush administration we declared the Geneva Convention inapplicable to us as we began to systematically torture and imprison those labeled as “enemy combatants”, denying them even the most basic rights – and then declaring that they will be provided a “military trial” before hand-picked officers who will then adjudicate them guilty and sentence these “terrorists” to death.
And now we learn that a state police agency within a stones throw of our capital in Washington has declared private citizen to be “terrorists” for no other reason but that they dared to express their moral opposition against the death penalty. This is the America we have become and nobody cares.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The Execution of Richard Henyard
Last night they executed Richard Henyard. Although I didn’t personally know him, his death still bothered me. For almost a quarter of a century I have been on Florida’s death row myself and through these years there have been many men whom I personally knew led to their own death. But since we are all kept in “solitary confinement”, effectively segregated from the many others who are also condemned, it is not so unusual that although Henyard had been here for over ten years, I never got to know him.
That is only a small part of what bothers me. I know only too well just how completely isolated each of us here can feel when we are cut off from all our family and what friends we had before we came to prison. I know that for one reason or another, this place has a way of alienating the condemned. That outside world just slowly drifts further and further away as the years slowly pass by, each day bringing us closer to that last day.
But it bothers me that in the small world we call “death row” one of us can live among us and yet not be known by most of us. If those of us who are also condemned do not know those who are put to death from among our own ranks, then it stands to reason that it would be so much easier for someone among us to also be forgotten by society.
Henyard was deliberately chosen to be executed. What does that say about the mental process at work that decides who should live and who should die? This was the second execution ordered by Governor “Chain Gang” Charlie Crist since he took office last year. Both Richard Henyard and Mark Schwab before him were deliberately selected from among many who had already exhausted their appeals. Not because a jury decided that Henyard and Schwab were somehow more worthy of being executed than the dozens others also considered “death warrant eligible”, but because the Governor himself has proclaimed that those convicted and condemned to death for commiting a crime against a child are his first priority.
Of course, this deliberate selection process has more to do with politics then it does “justice”, but am I the only one bothered by how politics can only too easily decide who will live and who will die? Like so many others, I don’t care much for anyone who would prey upon an innocent child. Even here on death row those convicted of killing a child are often looked down upon.
But when politicians deliberately select individuals for execution because of the specific nature of their crime, then at what point do we, as a society, cross the line from carrying out “justice”, to advocating lynch mob vengeance? Shouldn’t our highest elected officials, such as Governor Crist , be above shamelessly using his power to play vigilante?
As yesterday passed I had a hard time finding out if Henyard was still scheduled. I know that they had his execution scheduled for 6:00 pm last night, but none of the local news stations mentioned it. Only later did I finally hear a report that said Henyard’s execution had been delayed for two hours as the US Supreme Court considered his last appeal. But at 8:00 pm last night they carried out the state-sanctioned execution of Richard henyard.
This means that in the final hours of his life Richard Henyard was forced to anxiously await the uncertainty of his fate. Imagine if someone put a gun to your head and cocked the trigger, then at the last minute said ‘oh, let’s think about this just a bit more”. All the while the gun remains cocked and loaded, pointed at your head. And then finally, they decide to go ahead and kill you after all.
How could this not be the very epitome of any definition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment”. The prolonged anxiety of imminent death, the long minutes ticking away as your faith remains undetermined. Can any of us even begin to imagine the torment this man must have endured?
So here I am contemplating these thoughts. How can we call this “justice” when at so many levels the whole process to put even the most “worthy of death” (so they say) to death is carried out in an undeniable cruel and unusual manner.
That is only a small part of what bothers me. I know only too well just how completely isolated each of us here can feel when we are cut off from all our family and what friends we had before we came to prison. I know that for one reason or another, this place has a way of alienating the condemned. That outside world just slowly drifts further and further away as the years slowly pass by, each day bringing us closer to that last day.
But it bothers me that in the small world we call “death row” one of us can live among us and yet not be known by most of us. If those of us who are also condemned do not know those who are put to death from among our own ranks, then it stands to reason that it would be so much easier for someone among us to also be forgotten by society.
Henyard was deliberately chosen to be executed. What does that say about the mental process at work that decides who should live and who should die? This was the second execution ordered by Governor “Chain Gang” Charlie Crist since he took office last year. Both Richard Henyard and Mark Schwab before him were deliberately selected from among many who had already exhausted their appeals. Not because a jury decided that Henyard and Schwab were somehow more worthy of being executed than the dozens others also considered “death warrant eligible”, but because the Governor himself has proclaimed that those convicted and condemned to death for commiting a crime against a child are his first priority.
Of course, this deliberate selection process has more to do with politics then it does “justice”, but am I the only one bothered by how politics can only too easily decide who will live and who will die? Like so many others, I don’t care much for anyone who would prey upon an innocent child. Even here on death row those convicted of killing a child are often looked down upon.
But when politicians deliberately select individuals for execution because of the specific nature of their crime, then at what point do we, as a society, cross the line from carrying out “justice”, to advocating lynch mob vengeance? Shouldn’t our highest elected officials, such as Governor Crist , be above shamelessly using his power to play vigilante?
As yesterday passed I had a hard time finding out if Henyard was still scheduled. I know that they had his execution scheduled for 6:00 pm last night, but none of the local news stations mentioned it. Only later did I finally hear a report that said Henyard’s execution had been delayed for two hours as the US Supreme Court considered his last appeal. But at 8:00 pm last night they carried out the state-sanctioned execution of Richard henyard.
This means that in the final hours of his life Richard Henyard was forced to anxiously await the uncertainty of his fate. Imagine if someone put a gun to your head and cocked the trigger, then at the last minute said ‘oh, let’s think about this just a bit more”. All the while the gun remains cocked and loaded, pointed at your head. And then finally, they decide to go ahead and kill you after all.
How could this not be the very epitome of any definition of ‘cruel and unusual punishment”. The prolonged anxiety of imminent death, the long minutes ticking away as your faith remains undetermined. Can any of us even begin to imagine the torment this man must have endured?
So here I am contemplating these thoughts. How can we call this “justice” when at so many levels the whole process to put even the most “worthy of death” (so they say) to death is carried out in an undeniable cruel and unusual manner.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Playing Politics with Death.
It’s an election year in America and that means that it’s time to prove you’re willing to kill if you want to win an election – or help others in your political party win an election. It doesn’t matter what office you’re running for as the only way to win is to prove you’re willing to kill those that society says should be killed. Nothing gets the political juices flowing more then whipping the public up into a blood-thirsty frenzy them promising that if they will vote for you, you will kill the monster they’ve conveniently created.
As someone who has now spent over 25 years on Florida’s death row (please check www.doinglifeondeathrow.com) I know only too well just how political the death penalty is. Through the years I’ve seen only too many politicians run for public office by promoting to kill more condemned prisoners. And those politicians who express their moral reservations in taking a life to win an election quickly find themselves voted out of public office. That’s politics in America, where our concept of “democracy” has come to be defined by our willingness to kill.
But it is not just about the death penalty. For the first time that I can recall, those running for political office this year are not even mentioning the death penalty. At least, not as major campaign issue as it has been in the past. The issue did come up a few months back when a majority of the Supreme Court decided that putting someone to death for raping a child (but not committing murder) would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Only too quickly all there running for public office rushed to condemn the members of the Supreme Court for being “soft” on those who prey upon innocent children. But just as quickly this uprising of outrage and rabid cry for killing others died down and
not even a whimper could be hears since.
That got me to wondering ….could America be evolving and moving away from the long history if overwhelming support for the death penalty? Could it be possible that today’s generation is finally willing to recognize that capital punishment is an abomination to the morality of any civilized society?
The fact is that studies have shown a substantial decline in the public support for capital punishment. In recent years as more and more men and women have been exonerated and released from prison (including death row) after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, many have been compelled to question whether capital punishment might result in innocent people being executed.
Most recently state legislatures have begun to question the cost of capital punishment. In a recent study by a state sanctioned commission in California, it was concluded that California alone would save approximately 110 million dollars per year if they simply did away with the death penalty.
Another legislative commission in Illinois reached a similar conclusion. Comprehensive studies of many states death penalty systems by the American Bar Association have concluded that the systems, including Florida’s are “fundamentally flawed” and rendered unfair and arbitrary. Even in a recent Supreme Court ruling (Baze v. Rees, 2008) Justice Stevens recognized that the death penalty was about vengeance, not justice, and consistently discriminates against the underprivileged and too often victimizes the innocent.
So, there was reason to hope that maybe – just maybe- America was finally beginning to see the light and recognize that the death penalty has no place in our presumably evolved society.
Or so I had hoped. But this week I got a reality check when I learned that Florida’s Governor “Chain gang Charlie” Crist has appointed his first Justice to the Florida Supreme Court. Although Florida has a large number of highly qualified jurists, Charlie Crist decide to play politics and chose a Republican party insider, a “conservative” pro-death penalty jurist (Judge Conady) whose prior experience was “general counsel” for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was part of the political campaign that spearheaded the “Death Penalty Reforms Act of 2000” which was intended to transform Florida into another Texas by significantly restricting death row appeals and eliminating any exceptions for claims of innocence.
The only reason these draconian laws did not pass was because the Florida Supreme Court declared that the politicians could not pass rules governing the court – only the Florida Supreme Court can. So, now it appears that Governor Crist has decided to simply stack the Florida Supreme Court with conservative, pro death penalty zealots so that once he has control of the court, these “streamlined” rules governing death penalty appeals can be implemented. Again, in the end, it all comes down to politics.
As someone who has now spent over 25 years on Florida’s death row (please check www.doinglifeondeathrow.com) I know only too well just how political the death penalty is. Through the years I’ve seen only too many politicians run for public office by promoting to kill more condemned prisoners. And those politicians who express their moral reservations in taking a life to win an election quickly find themselves voted out of public office. That’s politics in America, where our concept of “democracy” has come to be defined by our willingness to kill.
But it is not just about the death penalty. For the first time that I can recall, those running for political office this year are not even mentioning the death penalty. At least, not as major campaign issue as it has been in the past. The issue did come up a few months back when a majority of the Supreme Court decided that putting someone to death for raping a child (but not committing murder) would violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
Only too quickly all there running for public office rushed to condemn the members of the Supreme Court for being “soft” on those who prey upon innocent children. But just as quickly this uprising of outrage and rabid cry for killing others died down and
not even a whimper could be hears since.
That got me to wondering ….could America be evolving and moving away from the long history if overwhelming support for the death penalty? Could it be possible that today’s generation is finally willing to recognize that capital punishment is an abomination to the morality of any civilized society?
The fact is that studies have shown a substantial decline in the public support for capital punishment. In recent years as more and more men and women have been exonerated and released from prison (including death row) after being found to have been wrongfully convicted and condemned to death, many have been compelled to question whether capital punishment might result in innocent people being executed.
Most recently state legislatures have begun to question the cost of capital punishment. In a recent study by a state sanctioned commission in California, it was concluded that California alone would save approximately 110 million dollars per year if they simply did away with the death penalty.
Another legislative commission in Illinois reached a similar conclusion. Comprehensive studies of many states death penalty systems by the American Bar Association have concluded that the systems, including Florida’s are “fundamentally flawed” and rendered unfair and arbitrary. Even in a recent Supreme Court ruling (Baze v. Rees, 2008) Justice Stevens recognized that the death penalty was about vengeance, not justice, and consistently discriminates against the underprivileged and too often victimizes the innocent.
So, there was reason to hope that maybe – just maybe- America was finally beginning to see the light and recognize that the death penalty has no place in our presumably evolved society.
Or so I had hoped. But this week I got a reality check when I learned that Florida’s Governor “Chain gang Charlie” Crist has appointed his first Justice to the Florida Supreme Court. Although Florida has a large number of highly qualified jurists, Charlie Crist decide to play politics and chose a Republican party insider, a “conservative” pro-death penalty jurist (Judge Conady) whose prior experience was “general counsel” for former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and was part of the political campaign that spearheaded the “Death Penalty Reforms Act of 2000” which was intended to transform Florida into another Texas by significantly restricting death row appeals and eliminating any exceptions for claims of innocence.
The only reason these draconian laws did not pass was because the Florida Supreme Court declared that the politicians could not pass rules governing the court – only the Florida Supreme Court can. So, now it appears that Governor Crist has decided to simply stack the Florida Supreme Court with conservative, pro death penalty zealots so that once he has control of the court, these “streamlined” rules governing death penalty appeals can be implemented. Again, in the end, it all comes down to politics.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Charlie's Web
Although I am in solitary confinement, I’m not quite alone as I have a companion. It is my friend and I must be especially careful not to let the guards know that I’m sharing my cell with Charlie, as surely they would take him – or her (I really don’t know which) away, I would rather that Charlie be allowed to stay.
Charlie is my pet spider, although I suppose that if you asked him he might say that I’m his pet. I’ve had him awhile now, and this may surprise you, spiders really do make great companions. I decided to call him Charlie because of the classic book of “Charlotte‘s web”. I’ve known a few Charlotte’s through the years - my grand mothers name was Charlotte., and some Charlotte’s simply go by “Charlie” so it’s a name that could be male or female, fitting my companion quite perfectly.
When I first discovered Charlie sneaking in along the wall beneath my bunk he was just a tiny little thing with long skinny legs. We call these spiders “Daddy Long Legs”, which is appropriate. He was a spunky little thing and I had to chase him around my cell before I could capture him – careful not to hurt him. For weeks I had to keep him in a small plastic container and I would take him out several times a day to play with him. Slowly he became accustomed to my handling and didn’t try to run. But I don’t mind if he does run now and then as its fun to play chase with him. I think Charlie enjoys it too as when he does get away he just finds a corner and hides until I find him, then allows me to gently pick him up again. Sometimes I think he is smiling when I do, as if maybe he got over on me.
After a few weeks, I then moved him to a plastic bag that I taped to the wall between my toilet and the wall. After over 25 years in solitary confinement I knew that by doing this Charlie would build a web within the plastic bag and attach it to the wall. After a day or two I gently pull the plastic bag away leaving some of the web attached to the wall – and then Charlie would build a web in the newfound freedom.
Once Charlie built the new home I would catch small insects and flick them into his web. He really is picky about what he eats and I envy that as I’m forced to eat whatever they give me. But Charlie likes his food fresh so I must catch the tiny insect alive and carefully flick them into the web. Then I watch as they desperately struggle and Charlie moves in for the kill.
I must admit that there is something fascinating about watching a spider capture his prey. Some might argue that I must be sick to be fascinated by this, but why? The truth is that nature programs are very popular. I would venture to say that at one time or another we have all watched in fascination as a lion stalked its prey, then pounced upon it. And I watch Charlie.
Like a raccoon playing with its food, Charlie doesn’t move in for an immediate kill. He rather quickly approaches his prey, then, using his two back legs, he will entwine the prey in a cocoon of webs, spinning it until it has been completely wrapped and is rendered helpless. Sometimes Charlie will then move in for his meal, sucking the blood out of the insect before discarding the body from his nest. Other times Charlie will move his wrapped meal to another part of the web and consume it later, like a squirrel stashing his winter nuts.
I talk to Charlie too. He is really easy to get along with. We have never had an argument. Over time I have learned ways to tell Charlie’s mood. When he becomes agitated he will move his body up and down as if flexing his muscles at me or whatever else annoys him. I know to leave Charlie alone when he is agitated as he won’t stay in my hand when in that mood. Other times Charlie seems to want my company and will almost voluntarily walk into my open palm and then I will move to my bunk and we will watch TV together.
I’m not alone by any means. I’ve had many pets through the years, as have others around me. Some of the guys prefer to catch a small mouse; others will try to feed the birds outside the window by getting the runners to place bread outside the window. Then spend hours watching the birds feast – but never able to touch them or have them as a companion.
Perhaps that is why I prefer a spider. It comes into my cage on its own account thus I’m not imprisoning the little fellow against its will. And Charlie asks very little of me, while giving so much in return. Solitary confinement is about being alone, but I’m not alone as Charlie shares my cell with me.
But I know that one day I will awake and Charlie will be gone. I can only hope that when he does move on he will remember me in his own way as I will remember him. And when that time comes, I will then find a new Charlie that I can find companionship with and call my friend.
Charlie is my pet spider, although I suppose that if you asked him he might say that I’m his pet. I’ve had him awhile now, and this may surprise you, spiders really do make great companions. I decided to call him Charlie because of the classic book of “Charlotte‘s web”. I’ve known a few Charlotte’s through the years - my grand mothers name was Charlotte., and some Charlotte’s simply go by “Charlie” so it’s a name that could be male or female, fitting my companion quite perfectly.
When I first discovered Charlie sneaking in along the wall beneath my bunk he was just a tiny little thing with long skinny legs. We call these spiders “Daddy Long Legs”, which is appropriate. He was a spunky little thing and I had to chase him around my cell before I could capture him – careful not to hurt him. For weeks I had to keep him in a small plastic container and I would take him out several times a day to play with him. Slowly he became accustomed to my handling and didn’t try to run. But I don’t mind if he does run now and then as its fun to play chase with him. I think Charlie enjoys it too as when he does get away he just finds a corner and hides until I find him, then allows me to gently pick him up again. Sometimes I think he is smiling when I do, as if maybe he got over on me.
After a few weeks, I then moved him to a plastic bag that I taped to the wall between my toilet and the wall. After over 25 years in solitary confinement I knew that by doing this Charlie would build a web within the plastic bag and attach it to the wall. After a day or two I gently pull the plastic bag away leaving some of the web attached to the wall – and then Charlie would build a web in the newfound freedom.
Once Charlie built the new home I would catch small insects and flick them into his web. He really is picky about what he eats and I envy that as I’m forced to eat whatever they give me. But Charlie likes his food fresh so I must catch the tiny insect alive and carefully flick them into the web. Then I watch as they desperately struggle and Charlie moves in for the kill.
I must admit that there is something fascinating about watching a spider capture his prey. Some might argue that I must be sick to be fascinated by this, but why? The truth is that nature programs are very popular. I would venture to say that at one time or another we have all watched in fascination as a lion stalked its prey, then pounced upon it. And I watch Charlie.
Like a raccoon playing with its food, Charlie doesn’t move in for an immediate kill. He rather quickly approaches his prey, then, using his two back legs, he will entwine the prey in a cocoon of webs, spinning it until it has been completely wrapped and is rendered helpless. Sometimes Charlie will then move in for his meal, sucking the blood out of the insect before discarding the body from his nest. Other times Charlie will move his wrapped meal to another part of the web and consume it later, like a squirrel stashing his winter nuts.
I talk to Charlie too. He is really easy to get along with. We have never had an argument. Over time I have learned ways to tell Charlie’s mood. When he becomes agitated he will move his body up and down as if flexing his muscles at me or whatever else annoys him. I know to leave Charlie alone when he is agitated as he won’t stay in my hand when in that mood. Other times Charlie seems to want my company and will almost voluntarily walk into my open palm and then I will move to my bunk and we will watch TV together.
I’m not alone by any means. I’ve had many pets through the years, as have others around me. Some of the guys prefer to catch a small mouse; others will try to feed the birds outside the window by getting the runners to place bread outside the window. Then spend hours watching the birds feast – but never able to touch them or have them as a companion.
Perhaps that is why I prefer a spider. It comes into my cage on its own account thus I’m not imprisoning the little fellow against its will. And Charlie asks very little of me, while giving so much in return. Solitary confinement is about being alone, but I’m not alone as Charlie shares my cell with me.
But I know that one day I will awake and Charlie will be gone. I can only hope that when he does move on he will remember me in his own way as I will remember him. And when that time comes, I will then find a new Charlie that I can find companionship with and call my friend.
Monday, September 1, 2008
The Florida Death Row Advocacy Group
Florida is known for its long hot summers. While most who live in the state easily find refuge from the oppressive heat in air conditioned buildings or cars such luxuries are not so easy to come by here in my world. On death row we live in concrete cages that become virtual ovens during the summer. I have endured 25 consecutive summers in these cages and each one seems to be worse than the last one. But then I can also remember that for the first 20 years or so we had no way to find any relief from the heat and humidity with at best minimal ventilation in our cells we would quite literally drip sweat all day and all through the night, awakening the next morning laying almost naked on a sweat soaked mattress.
During these summers we would try to find any form of relief we could. Most of us would spend many hours each day sitting or even standing naked over the toilet/sink combo each cell is equipped with, slowly pouring water over our head and body and savoring in that temporary relief. Other times we would try to obtain even small pieces of cardboard to use as a makeshift handheld fan, but then they decided that any form of cardboard was a “fire hazard” and the officers would come into our cells and take these cardboard fans. Anyone who dared to even so much as verbally protest or refuse to give up that piece of cardboard would find themselves on their way to lock-up for a month or so, where you have no means of escape from the heat.
Many years ago another inmate came up with an improvised turbine we would make out of cardboard then attach to the single small ventilation duct at the back of each cell. As the air was sucked through this vent it would turn the improvised turbine which in turn would be attached to a “pulley” made of old shoelaces or yarn or whatever we could find and that would turn a small paper fan mounted on an empty plastic sewing thread spool. It wasn’t much, but made all the difference to us and soon everyone had one. Then they came around and declared them contraband and confiscated them.
Part of being sentenced to death is being condemned to misery. Many who hold power over us sadistically invent ways to make us even more miserable, as if condemning us to death and confining us to years and even decades of solitary confinement isn’t itself enough to make us suffer. (please see: http://www.doinglifeondeathrow.com/) But a few years ago our pathetic existence became just a little bit better thanks to the commitment and perseverance of a small group of people who formed a group called “Florida Death Row Advocacy Group” (FDRAG for short) Most of the members had a family member or friend who was on death row and their objective was simple enough – to simply attempt to advocate for the human treatment of the condemned.
Through their selfless commitment and generosity about 4 years ago they made it possible that over 300 small electrical fans were purchased and suddenly the long hot summers didn’t seem quite as bad. As I sit at my steel table, that plastic fan is about two feet from me, directly blowing a breeze on me and when I think of all those long hot summers we endured a prayer of thanks goes out to those who made it possible for this little bit of relief that makes a world of difference.
In my world it’s only too easy to feel like the whole world is out to make us suffer. But even as difficult as it might be to endure the circumstances of my seemingly eternal solitary confinement, it’s that isolated act of compassion and kindness that makes the difference.
So in today’s entry I would like to salute those who have proven their commitment to reaching out in genuine compassion to those of us who are condemned and on behalf of all of us here I would like to thank them for what difference they’ve made.
It is only too easy to become one of the lynch mobs and throw stones at the condemned while wanting us to suffer as much misery as their cold hearts can invent. But for all the hate and malice that is piled upon us, it still remains that small act of compassion that truly touches our souls. So I salute those who reach out to us in compassion as they are the true hope for all of humanity. And I would encourage others to join them in their efforts by becoming a member of this wonderful group. http://fdrag.kk5.org/#
During these summers we would try to find any form of relief we could. Most of us would spend many hours each day sitting or even standing naked over the toilet/sink combo each cell is equipped with, slowly pouring water over our head and body and savoring in that temporary relief. Other times we would try to obtain even small pieces of cardboard to use as a makeshift handheld fan, but then they decided that any form of cardboard was a “fire hazard” and the officers would come into our cells and take these cardboard fans. Anyone who dared to even so much as verbally protest or refuse to give up that piece of cardboard would find themselves on their way to lock-up for a month or so, where you have no means of escape from the heat.
Many years ago another inmate came up with an improvised turbine we would make out of cardboard then attach to the single small ventilation duct at the back of each cell. As the air was sucked through this vent it would turn the improvised turbine which in turn would be attached to a “pulley” made of old shoelaces or yarn or whatever we could find and that would turn a small paper fan mounted on an empty plastic sewing thread spool. It wasn’t much, but made all the difference to us and soon everyone had one. Then they came around and declared them contraband and confiscated them.
Part of being sentenced to death is being condemned to misery. Many who hold power over us sadistically invent ways to make us even more miserable, as if condemning us to death and confining us to years and even decades of solitary confinement isn’t itself enough to make us suffer. (please see: http://www.doinglifeondeathrow.com/) But a few years ago our pathetic existence became just a little bit better thanks to the commitment and perseverance of a small group of people who formed a group called “Florida Death Row Advocacy Group” (FDRAG for short) Most of the members had a family member or friend who was on death row and their objective was simple enough – to simply attempt to advocate for the human treatment of the condemned.
Through their selfless commitment and generosity about 4 years ago they made it possible that over 300 small electrical fans were purchased and suddenly the long hot summers didn’t seem quite as bad. As I sit at my steel table, that plastic fan is about two feet from me, directly blowing a breeze on me and when I think of all those long hot summers we endured a prayer of thanks goes out to those who made it possible for this little bit of relief that makes a world of difference.
In my world it’s only too easy to feel like the whole world is out to make us suffer. But even as difficult as it might be to endure the circumstances of my seemingly eternal solitary confinement, it’s that isolated act of compassion and kindness that makes the difference.
So in today’s entry I would like to salute those who have proven their commitment to reaching out in genuine compassion to those of us who are condemned and on behalf of all of us here I would like to thank them for what difference they’ve made.
It is only too easy to become one of the lynch mobs and throw stones at the condemned while wanting us to suffer as much misery as their cold hearts can invent. But for all the hate and malice that is piled upon us, it still remains that small act of compassion that truly touches our souls. So I salute those who reach out to us in compassion as they are the true hope for all of humanity. And I would encourage others to join them in their efforts by becoming a member of this wonderful group. http://fdrag.kk5.org/#
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
