Texas: former high school honors student executed

HUNTSVILLE, Texas – A former high school honors student convicted of killing one of four people gunned down at an East Texas bar 13 years ago was executed late Tuesday night.
DaRoyce Mosley, 32, was the 22nd inmate executed in Texas this year.

Mr. Mosley didn't deny walking into the Kilgore bar intending to rob the place, but insisted his uncle who accompanied him was responsible for the slayings 13 years ago. The uncle, Ray Don Mosley, 44, took a plea bargain and is serving life in prison.

Mr. Mosley's execution was delayed for several hours while the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed his request for a stay. The court rejected the request about 10:30 p.m.

Source: The Associated Press

Executing this man is bloodlust, not justice

You might have missed the story. After all, the football season is starting, and we had all the excitement of a tax-free weekend.

But Texas is about to execute an innocent man, that is, a man who killed no one, who did not want to kill anyone, who did not help kill anyone.

On these points, there is unanimous agreement between all the parties involved. How could this happen in Texas?

Kenneth Foster is scheduled to be put to death by lethal injection Thursday for a murder committed by Mauriceo Brown, a friend of Foster who was executed for murder last year.

The incident in question is the murder of Michael LaHood. In an altercation, Brown pulled a gun and shot LaHood. Brown testified that LaHood had drawn a gun on him first. Whatever happened, it is undisputed that Foster sat in the car 80 feet away from the shooting. There is no evidence that Foster had felonious intent. When he heard the shot, he started to drive off before Brown got back in the car, a fact kept from the jury.

Part of what got Foster charged with capital murder is a legal concept known as "the law of parties." In Texas, a person is responsible for the criminal conduct of another if he intentionally assists the other in committing a crime. If a second crime is committed, and it can be anticipated, he can be held criminally responsible for that crime, as well.

Problematic law

Nearly thirty years ago, I was appointed to represent a capital murder defendant in Brazos County where the "law of parties" was involved. In that case, my client agreed with another person to do physical harm to the victim and the victim died as a result. Even though there was no direct evidence that my client intended the death of the victim, his conduct fit clearly within the "law of parties."

This is not the case with Kenneth Foster. Foster was merely present in the vicinity of the murder, not a participant in it in any way except that he was driving the car in which the killer, Brown, left the scene.

It should surprise no one who keeps up with such cases that Foster is a black man accused of killing a white man, a factor in many capital murder cases. Michael LaHood was the son of a well-known attorney in San Antonio. The LaHood family, through the media, made it known it wanted the guilty parties executed. The prosecuting attorney withheld evidence that would have supported Brown's testimony that LaHood was armed and that Brown shot him in self-defense. Foster was tried with Brown, a decision by the judge and prosecutor that prejudiced Foster's chance to receive a fair trial. Foster's court-appointed attorney made no inquiries into Foster's background. Had he done so, he would have found many factors that would have mitigated against sentencing him to death by lethal injection.

Proponents of capital punishment argue that we need this punishment for those who are the worst of the worse; for those who commit murder under the most cold and heinous circumstances; for the irretrievably lost among us. None of these conditions comes close to describing Kenneth Foster.

This case is not about revenge against Kenneth Foster because Foster didn't kill Michael LaHood, nor did he even want to kill him. It is about blood lust. Whether the proponents of capital punishment take refuge in Scripture or their general outrage at crime, their hands will be covered with the blood of Kenneth Foster if this travesty of justice is not stopped.

-- Lamar Hankins is a San Marcos attorney.

Suspend the United States' and Japan's Observers Status at the European Council

We, the undersigned, as citizens of the world opposed to the death penalty, demand that the United States and Japan be suspended as observers at the European Council.

On August 22, 2007, Texas carried out its 400th execution in 25 years and Japan carried out 3 executions on the same day. While the European Union has always voiced a strong opposition to capital punishment, it has, however, never moved beyond statements of intention.

This urgent situation calls for action as statements do not and will not change this dramatic state of affairs. In a recent statement, you declared: "Despite the potential unpopularity of the measure, capital punishment must be totally removed in all countries which strive to uphold democracy, the rule of law and human rights", and in 2001 during the first International Congress against the Death Penalty, which took place in Strasbourg, representatives of all European Union states signed a resolution calling for universal abolition. Since then we, as abolitionists, have been completely abandoned in the face of the terrible ongoing wave of US executions, especially in Texas.

The European Union continues to display verbal convictions that it is obviously unable or unwilling to support with committed actions in defense of its beliefs. We expect and demand action beyond mere words to help bring government-sanctioned killing to an immediate and unconditional end.

Click here to read more and sign the petition.

Petition from Sherrie Stone: Help save her father's life!

I have a father on death row in Alabama. Most of you never knew this about me. He has been there for 25 years for a crime he did not commit. He is scheduled to be executed next month 09-27-2007. His web site is Thomas Arthur Fight For Life.

There is history about his case there and links to legal documents. What I am asking of you is to sign the petition that is on the web site. I am asking the Governor of Alabama to stay the execution until we can have the crime scene evidence DNA tested. There is actual crime scene evidence that was collected and still exists that the State of Alabama refuses to DNA test. If you look at the site and do not want to sign the petition, I will truly understand. If you do sign and want to e-mail the Governor, I will appreciate it with all my heart. I will be on some national news show in the coming weeks in an effort to change some laws in Alabama, and to plead with Governor Riley in Alabama to stay the execution until we can DNA test the crime scene evidence at our own expense. If you look at the site and decide to sign the petition and know anyone you can pass this information to, I would appreciate it with all my heart.

Sincerely,

Sherrie Stone

Shujaa Graham speaking on behalf of TX Death Row Inmate Kenneth Foster

Shujaa Graham, here speaking on behalf of TX Death Row Inmate Kenneth Foster, July 2007, spent three years on California’s death row for a crime he did not commit. Shujaa was framed for the murder of a prison guard because he was active in fighting for prisoners' rights. It took four trials and the work of dedicated high school students until Shujaa was found not guilty.

Source : National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

A Cruel and Unusual Excuse: Texas Evades EU Call to Conscience

In order to stop the killing at Texas death row, the European Union on Tuesday, through the office of its Presidency, asked the Governor of Texas to declare a death-penalty moratorium. But the Governor's reply was quick and flippant. He did nothing to stop the 400th killing Wednesday evening, and it is becoming horribly apparent that he will do nothing to intervene in the 3 executions scheduled for next week -- not even for Kenneth Foster who never killed anyone.

"We believe that elimination of the death penalty is fundamental to the protection of human dignity, and to the progressive development of human rights," argued the EU. "We further consider this punishment to be cruel and inhumane. There is no evidence to suggest that the use of the death penalty serves as a deterrent against violent crime and the irreversibility of the punishment means that miscarriages of justice - which are inevitable in all legal systems - cannot be redressed. Consequently, the death penalty has been abolished throughout the European Union."

In reply to the EU's four carefully worded reasons, the Texas Governor answered that "Texans are doing just fine governing Texas."

"Texans long ago decided that the death penalty is a just and appropriate punishment for the most horrible crimes committed against our citizens," said the Governor in an oddly titled "Statement by Robert Black." Does the Governor have in mind some joking reference to the film, "Meet Joe Black"? Speaking for the Governor, Mr. Black reminded the EU that the USA was born out of a revolution "to throw off the yoke of a European monarch."

The reply by the Texas Governor is a logical embarrassment, because it waves around an issue not disputed by the EU while failing to provide any reason beyond state's rights for why the long-ago decision by Texans should be considered reasonable.

When the Governor calls the death penalty "just and appropriate" we first wonder if he means to suggest that anything whatsoever can be just and in-appropriate. The construction of the Governor's conjunction signifies a careless haste in thinking precisely in a moment when careful considerations are most called for - that is, on the eve of the state's 400th execution.

If Texas has good reasons for deciding that the death penalty is a just basis for killing 400 people, and if the killing is to continue with an even broader scope to include people who drive cars for killers, then a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind" would compel the Governor to treat the matter with the logical seriousness that it deserves. Instead we get an anti-littering slogan on retreads: "Don't Mess with Texas."

Perhaps the Governor means for his readers across the Atlantic to infer that where a "most horrible crime" has been committed, a most terrible punishment is not to be considered cruel or unusual. An eye for an eye, a life for a life. If this is the Governor's intent, we would prefer that he state his reasons more clearly so that the discourse may continue on open ground.

In matters of judgment and punishment we may allow the Governor a point, despite the atrocious rhetoric that he uses to put it across. The law does seem to demand a certain reciprocal retribution for wrongdoing. But in all other cases, the lawful currency of punishment is put in terms of cash damages or some manner of restricted freedom, up to and including life in prison. If we don't literally take an eye for an eye, on what basis do we decide to take a life for a life? Texas has enough prisons to hold 400 killers for life.

The Governor's failure to state the case more clearly not only deflects dialogue on the second point raised by the EU; it also serves to fog the fact that the Governor completely evades the other three issues raised. If Texas takes the position that death for death is just, based on the horribleness of the crime, where does Texas stand on the other 3 issues raised by the EU?

Does Texas not believe that an eventual end to the death penalty is demanded by "the protection of human dignity, and to the progressive development of human rights"? The Governor's reply to the EU waves the bloody shirt of a 230-year-old war, but what about the progressive evolution of law in the USA since that time? Didn't Texas and USA follow several European examples in the abolition of slavery for example? Is the Governor suggesting that such monumental achievements of legal progress in Texas will require the world to apply the same methods that put an end to slavery? As for the third point raised by the EU, where does Texas stand on the question of deterrent effect? Does the Governor ease his own conscience by thinking about deterrence or not?

And what about the grave problem of irreversibility?

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed in 2004 for starting a fire that killed a person. But the Texas Governor refused to consider expert reviews declaring that the fire could not have been arson in the 2st place (Mills and Possley, Chicago Tribune, Dec. 9, 2004).

Ruben Cantu went to his execution in 1993 claiming that he had been framed. A dozen years later, both his accomplice and a witness now say Cantu spoke the truth (Olsen, Houston Chronicle, July 24, 2006).

Carlos De Luna was killed by the State of Texas in 1990, but there is good reason to believe that another man was the more likely killer (Possley andMills, Chicago Tribune, June 25, 2006).

"I'm an innocent black man that is being murdered," said Shaka Sankofa(Gary Graham) before his execution in June of 2000 (Wikipedia).

In the case of Kenneth Foster -- who is today on a hunger strike in protest of his scheduled execution next Thursday - the State of Texas does not even claim to be executing a killer. Foster drove the car that a killer rode in. The killing was impromptu and took place about 80 feet from the car. Foster was not part of any conspiracy to murder (Editorial, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Aug. 19, 2007).

As the EU says, mistakes in human judgment are inevitable. Does the Governor believe that Texas is infallible? A decent respect for world opinion requires the Governor to answer the question as if the moral life of his state depended upon it.

By what principles in the 21st Century does the Governor carry his conscience when he acts as if carefully planned killings are necessary to his lawful rule? His reply to the EU, that he executes people because the people of Texas long ago made up their minds to let him, displays a cruel and unusual disrespect toward the ongoing discourse that conscionable governance requires.

Texas Civil Rights Review - August, 24 2007

Source : National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty

Rough justice: 80 lashes for 'immoral' Iranian who abused alcohol and had sex

His face covered by a balaclava, an official brandishing a cane repeatedly lashes the back of a man found guilty of breaking Iran's morality laws.

Two police officers hold the legs of 25-year-old Saeed Ghanbari and another his arms to ensure there is no escape from the punishment of 80 lashes handed down by a religious court.

Traffic was brought to a halt in Qazvin, 90 miles west of the capital Tehran, as more than 1,000 men gathered behind barricades to watch the public flogging.

Some took pictures on mobile telephones, others climbed traffic lights for a better vantage point as Ghanbari was marched to the centre of the square under the watch of blue-uniformed guards carrying machine guns.

A four foot long metal bench was taken from a police van and the convicted man was made to lie on it on his stomach, his fawn checked shirt pulled-up to his shoulders to expose his back and waist.

One police officer held his hands together beneath the bench, two others gripped his legs to ensure there was little movement.

Two police officers stood-by, their faces covered with balaclavas - each to administer 40 lashes.
Both men then lashed Ghanbari, taking the cane back behind their heads to guarantee maximum impact, each stroke leaving a distinctive red mark and bruising on his back.

Several wounds began to bleed.

It was unclear exactly what his offence had been as the country's strict morality laws cover many areas, but it was reported he had been convicted of abusing alcohol and having sex outside of marriage.

The public lashings have been endorsed by the judiciary as a way of deterring alcohol abuse at a time when it is on the increase among young men but some religious leaders are said to be questioning their validity, fearing they have an adverse impact on the country's image abroad.

Although men and women convicted of flouting public morals are routinely flogged in detention centres, public floggings are considered rare.

Human Rights groups say there have been a marked rise in recent months in the number of people sentenced to executions and floggings in Iran.

Amnesty International, which said it is "greatly concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Iran", has highlighted figures revealing 117 people were executed in 2006 with thousands facing floggings.

They included a woman, who had been forced into prostitution as an eight-year-old, receiving 99 lashes because of "acts contrary to chastity."

Earlier this year, a man was flogged after a copy of the Bible was found in his car.

At least 120 executions have been recorded so far this year, according to Amnesty, with two youths under the age of 18 when they committed their crimes among those killed.

The latest gruesome pictures have emerged three weeks after there was an outcry over a video of a flogging in a Malaysian jail was posted on the Internet.

The sickening images showed a man being lashed repeatedly on the buttocks until he bled from several wounds.

Source : Daily Mail