[.ca] The Death Penalty: An American History (ISBN 0674010833)

From Amazon.com:
Stuart Banner's The Death Penalty is a richly detailed overview of American attitudes toward and implementation of capital punishment throughout its past. Banner decries what he sees as today's prevailing "smug condescension" to history, and states that executing a fellow human in the 17th and 18th centuries, though exponentially more common than today, was "just as momentous" an act. He traces changing technology and venues as well as the relatively constant arguments--legal, philosophical, and religious--of proponents and opponents. The book is rich with fascinating sidelights, among them the chilling practice of "symbolic" executions, the idea that dissections, viewed as a sort of punishment beyond death, were thought to act as deterrents to capital crime, and how the rise of newspapers as a mass medium hastened, in part, the demise of public hangings. The Death Penaltyis free of polemic and cant, admirably disinterested, and at once rigorous yet thoroughly accessible. --H. O'Billovich

RE: Florida cases: Roy Swafford and Peter Ventura::
For those interested in reading the four to three vote Florida Supreme Court opinions regarding two more death sentenced persons whose innocence is an authentic issue, please go to www.flcourts.org, then go to "Opinions and Rules", then chose the correct year and scroll down to the following two cases: Roy Swafford: April 18, 2002 Case No. 92.173 Peter Ventura: May 24, 2001 Case No. 93.839 These two cases are findable under "Court Orders: Case Disposition Orders" and "Briefs in Other Cases" sections of the "Press Page": Roy Swafford: March 26, 2004 Case Nos. 03.931 and 03.1153

More Florida Death Penalty Litigation History::
After Mark Olive voluntarily resigned from CCR about March 1988, Billy H. Nolas became the next Chief Litigator. It is extremely odd that Michael Mello (author of "Dead Wrong" and "Death Work") doesn't mention his name nor Martin "Marty" McClain's names in the book. For a vast variety of reasons he should have. One can only interpret Mello's non-inclusion of their names and histories because Mello is a Holdman cheerleader. Nolas was and is an excellent litigator like Olive was and is. Nolas was the Chief Litigator for about the last two years of Gov. Martinez "regime", which was the most difficult time in CCR history (during my employment there) with Martinez signing death warrants as if he was at a Republican Party event signing autographs. Nolas sadly resigned at the end of 1990, when Martinez had been defeated by former U.S. Senator Lawton Chiles and former U.S. House of Representatives member Buddy MacKay. Nolas was completely drained from the years he endured and litigated while at CCR, both due to the hugh case load and due to the internecine warfare within the agency. McClain and his faction within CCR basically did their best to cause Nolas to leave -- eventually they were successful -- and THAT is when clients's cases began to suffer. McClain can be an excellent litigator, however his strategic decisions in various cases is a different matter. When Mello writes on page 245 of the hardcover version regarding CCR, "Look beneath the surface of CCR's 'success rates', however, and you'll find an artifice typical of hack public defender officers. CCR has in the past farmed out the hardest cases to outside lawyers (by finding that it has a 'conflict of interest')" As the penultimate example of McClain alleging a "conflict of interest" \oand I can only assume with the director of CCR at the time, Michael Minerva, consent\c is the client Jerry Layne Rogers, Sr. -- a clearly wrongfully convicted innocent man -- in Mr. Rogers's case there were 80 boxes of documents, from court files, prosecutor and law enforcement files, trial and evidentiary hearing transcripts, etc. Mr. Rogers's case was the largest and most complicated that CCR has ever represented. The second largest and most complicated was that of Mr. Gerald Stano, whose lead attorney during most of the development of his case was Olive. McClain simply didn't want to have such a complicated case as a CCR case, so McClain, in my considered insider opinion as Mr. Roger's only investigator from 1989 until my involuntary departure in 1992, alleged in a misrepresentation to the Florida Supreme Court (FSC) that he had a "conflict of interest" with Mr. Rogers -- while Mr. Rogers's case was pending at the FSC. As a result, Mr. Rogers had no counsel for an extended period of time until the Washington, D.C. law firm Covington and Burling became his pro bono counsel in 1995. The result was an unanimous FSC 26 page opinion ordering a new trial in Mr. Rogers's case due primarily to prosecutorial misconduct, in particular Brady v. Maryland violations. To read the opinion, go to www.flcourts.org, then to Opinions, then to the year 2001, then toward the bottom on February 15, 2001, one will find the FSC opinion. Two other cases in particular McClain's strategic decisions may very well cost the clients their lives: Peter Ventura and Roy Swafford. More on these two cases another time, except to note that in both cases the FSC decided 4 - 3 against Mr. Ventura and Mr. Swafford in their most recent FSC cases.

Introduction to the Florida history and more Florida history:
First an introduction: From 1986 - 1992 I was employed as an investigator at the Office of Capital Collateral Representative (CCR) in Tallahassee, Florida, where Scharlette Holdman worked as the supervisor of the investigators from October 1985 - March 1988. I have known Scharlette since the mid-1970s death penalty debates at Florida State University, including the debate between Professor Richard L. Rubenstein (author of "After Auschwitz", "My Brother Paul", "The Cunning of History: Mass Death and the American Future", "The Age of Triage", "Religion and Eros", and other books) vs. Baptist Minister and Philosopher Will Campbell (the debate was circa 1977). Her office, the Clearinghouse on Criminal Justice, was in the same wing of the Petroleum Building as my office at Common Cause in Florida (where I was a full-time volunteer during the day and worked at the Brown Derby Restaurant at night from 1981 - 1986). The Petroluem Building was next to the State Capital, the Florida Supreme Court and the State Archives and Library. When it was torn down, the space and the space for the first CCR office became the Mary Brogan Art and Science Museum and a storm water retaining pond. The Petroleum Building was called by those of us who worked or volunteered there the "Forces of Good" (FOG) Building -- as opposed to FOE -- Forces of Evil, such as Associated Industries, the Chamber and other big business interests in Florida. The FOG building also included (not an exhaustive list) the Clean Water Action Project, the ACLU, NOW, Florida Legal Services, Migrant Farmworker's Organization (directed by Cliff Thaell, who has more recently been a Leon County Commissioner for about ten years or more), Mike Vasilinda's television news service. About every two years at CCR there was a Marxist-Leninist-Stalinist-Maoist purge due to the pressures and dysfunctions of the work and the people. I survived two such purges. With the third, I was the first to go in the spring and summer of 1992. When Scharlette had essentially declared war upon CCR in 1987 and thereafter, some of us decided to investigate her background given some things that we had heard. Low and behold, Scharlette's claim of a PhD in anthropology from the University of Hawaii and a Master's Degree from (if my memory serves me correctly) the University of Birmingham don't exist. We used Scharlette's Social Security number, her maiden name and her married name -- with all this information, both universities had no record of Scharlette having received any degrees from these institutions. As I understand Scharlette, she needed the "degrees" to confer upon her "credentials" that she really never needed as she is indeed then and now a national expert on capital mitigation, litigation, etc. However Scharlette can be deceptive, as her lack of a PhD and Masters so demonstrates. Even today she claims to have the degrees as when she gives presentations regarding capital cases, she is identified as "Dr." A key word search of her name will bring up some of the presentations that she has made in the past several years with the title "Dr." preceding her name. If she has received any honorary or other degrees since 1990, that would be new information for me. If anyone can assist in this matter, please contact me at phar208452@aol.com or my mailing address: P.O. Box 38458, Tallahassee, FL 32315-8458. Thank you.

As Objective as possible:
The recent actions by former Illinois Governor Ryan have raised many questions about capital punishment in the United States. I have read or heard several commentaries that have suggested the new focus on the death penalty may lead to its abolition. As an opponent of capital punishment, I hope this is true. But I doubt it. A reader of Stuart Banner's "The Death Penalty: An American History" will realize very little new can be added to the debate. Banner provides an extensively detailed account of all aspects of the death penalty throughout the past 350 years. From colonial times through the execution of Timothy McVeigh, this book looks at the logistics, politics, and theology of capital punishment. The author comes as close to complete objectivity in presenting the history as possible. Banner is fair in showing the strengths and weaknesses in arguments for and against capital punishment. And he provides fascinating information concerning the debates that surrounded periodic changes in how the death penalty was administered. Throughout history there have been many debates: the merits of hanging versus electrocution; the arguments for and against public execution; the role of penitence (thus the name penitentiary) in punishment. I found that this history of one issue was very much a microcosm of the broader history of the United States. For instance, I was not familiar with the legal term petit treason. This describes the concept of treason-an offense against someone to whom absolute loyalty is owed-in private life. Those convicted of petit treason were subject the "more severe" punishment of death by burning. In 17th and 18th century America two classes were capable of being convicted of petit treason. The classes were slaves "convicted of murdering their owners or of plotting a revolt" and women "convicted of killing their husbands." (p. 71) Class played a pivotal role in the move from public hangings to jail yard executions. Banner describes how elites in the 19th century became appalled at public hangings because the large crowds were rowdy and displayed lower class sensibilities. Simply put, those in power were not opposed to hanging-they were opposed to being in the presence of the working class when the restraints of the workplace were removed. Class, race, and gender divisions are evident in almost every area of this controversial issue. And no great American controversy would be complete with religious implications. In fact, no less a public preacher than Cotton Mather worried in the 17th century that he could rise to the occasion of giving the sermon to the crowd of thousands that attended executions. As the author notes about public hangings: "An execution could be a splendid occasion for reinforcing religious authority." To this day, capital punishment attracts those in authority to make religious arguments both in opposition and support of the death penalty. As stated earlier, this book is not a polemic. It is an accurate history of one of our most contentious issues. As is the case with history, I am sure both those if favor of capital punishments and abolitionists can find many facts to support their beliefs. It is also true that a better understanding of history must allow all involved to reconsider some beliefs. "The Death Penalty: An American History" should be read by every legislator who will vote on state-sanctioned killing.

A Superb, Even-handed History of Capital Punishment:
It's a testament to the balance found in Stuart Banner's history of the death penalty in the U.S. that I'm still unsure where he stands on the controversial issue. If I had to take a position, I would say that he's probably against it, but even after reading his three-hundred page book I can't be sure. That's a remarkable feat for a subject matter that immediately unbalances many people. But "The Death Penalty: An American History" has other virtues. The book is scholarly, yet still an easy read for any interested layman; it is comprehensive, but doesn't get bogged down in details. Banner begins with capital punishment as practiced in colonial America and ends with public attitudes and constitutional issues in the late twentieth century. While the book basically follows a straightforward chronology, its chapters are arranged thematically. Some of the most interesting parts of the book are in the beginning. How Banner describes public opinion toward the death penalty in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the way executioners then -- who often were killing a man for the first and only time in their lives -- handled their duties, and the relationship between the public who viewed the execution and the condemned man, were all very fascinating to me. But no part of this history is boring. Banner does a remarkable job of sustaining interest even when the book turns to modern times, where the history of the death penalty focuses more on legal and abstruse matters. Banner always clarifies the issues at hand, explaining clearly and objectively the importance of what he is writing about. I cannot recommend this book too highly. If you have any interest in the death penalty, read it.