CoNCLUSION - univ-lille.fr...111 penalty, as it has been said so many times, is fraught with racial as well as social discrimination. But again, the biggest of all errors is to impose

CoNCLUSION

CoNCLUSION

Capital punishment is a highly controversial and divisive issue, and trying to stay

neutral is not always easy and one wants to denounce capital punishment as having many

limits in its constitutionality. Though we analyzed many aspects of the death penalty, this

110

research is far from being exhaustive : the death penalty is indeed an issue too broad to

analyze all its aspects in precise details. And yet I tried to focus on the main aspects of capital

punishment, and above all on those which carry irregularities and which may induce that it

carries some unconstitutional points. We observed that the death penalty, because the United

States is a divided country, is not imposed nor carried out in the same manner in every state.

We have seen the different methods of execution and the crimes punishable by death which

permitted to better understand how capital punishment works. A clear view of the

Constitution is also necessary to know its functioning, that is why we also had first to analyze

amendments of the Constitution and dig deeper to understand its meaning.

I did not intend to minimize the gravity, awfulness and inhumanity of crimes and offenders.

These crimes are all blamable and ought to be punished. I did not intend neither to bring

arguments against the morality of the death penalty (though I am against it), because it is a

debate which is still hot issue nowadays. However, can we speak of capital punishment as a

deterrent ? We already saw that it has no deterrent effect at all. Can we say it makes the

homicide rate decrease ? Not really. So what purpose does capital punishment really serve ?

The very first goal of this research was to demonstrate that there are so many irregularities, so

many inequalities, so many errors, so many flaws today in the American justice system that it

is unconstitutionally imposed and carried out. Capital Punishment, as we have observed

through this study, is fraught with too much flaws : the flaws of discrimination, the flaws of

incompetency, the flaws of professional negligence, the flaws of corruption… Most American

citizens are strongly convinced that the American criminal justice system is infallible, that no

mistake is committed, and though, we observed that 94% of them were also convinced that

some innocents have been yet executed. Representatives of the power such as politicians

(President W. Bush, at the time he was Governor of Texas, is at the top of the list), judges or

prosecutors strongly support and promote the death penalty, and above all do not hesitate to

claim that there is not a single innocent who has ever been executed since 1977. But it is time

for them to stop believing in the perfection and infallibility of their so called “justice system.”

As long as they will believe as such, too many errors will still be committed, while there are

so few people, such as students, public defender services and pro-bono lawyers to repair the

damages and find out the truth. A tolerable “error rate” does not and must not exist, this is not

justice that to allow the incarceration or the death of an innocent.

Some prosecutors, as we observed, only consider the law as an obstacle that they bypass in

order to reach their goal : to obtain a conviction. But there are other elements which have a

rather important part in such cases : defendant’s race and socio-economic status. The death

111

penalty, as it has been said so many times, is fraught with racial as well as social

discrimination.

But again, the biggest of all errors is to impose the death penalty on an innocent person,

because it means that this person will die if the truth is not found out. Errors, misdemeanors,

negligence are the basis of wrongful convictions. These wrongful convictions are the proofs

that the death penalty is constitutionally limited. It has limits, which must not be overstepped.

And yet, some police officers, judges or prosecutors sometimes bypass the laws and go

beyond those limits, as the growing number of exonerated death row inmates indicates. Some

states have begun to learn lessons from their mistakes, others are anchored in their beliefs that

capital punishment is fair, treats defendants equally and does not kill innocent people. If the

United States wants to keep on using capital punishment in their justice system, they had

better to make sure that they do not convict and execute innocent defendants anymore.

Convicting an innocent to death is basically unconstitutional… What about executing an

innocent defendant ?

The risk of executing an innocent person is not only horrific, it is the ultimateindicator that America’s criminal justice system is broken.1

1 ACLU, The Anniversary of Furman v. Georgia, Three decades later (2003 – www.aclu.org/death penalty) 4

112

Appendices

113

114

115

116

117

Chronology of the Death Penalty

Eighteenth Century B.C. - first established death penalty laws.

Eleventh Century A.D. - William the Conqueror will not allow persons to be hanged except incases of murder.

1608 - Captain George Kendall becomes the first recorded execution in the new colonies.

1632 - Jane Champion becomes the first woman executed in the new colonies.

1767 - Cesare Beccaria's essay, On Crimes and Punishment, theorizes that there is nojustification for the state to take a life.

Late 1700s - United States abolitionist movement begins.

Early 1800s - Many states reduce their number of capital crimes and build state penitentiaries.

1823-1837 - Over 100 of the 222 crimes punishable by death in Britain are eliminated.

1834 - Pennsylvania becomes the first state to move executions into correctional facilities.

1838 - Discretionary death penalty statutes enacted in Tennessee.

1846 - Michigan becomes the first state to abolish the death penalty for all crimes excepttreason.

1890- William Kemmler becomes first person executed by electrocution.

Early 1900s - Beginning of the "Progressive Period" of reform in the United States.

1907-1917 - Nine states abolish the death penalty for all crimes or strictly limit it.

1920s - 1940s - American abolition movement loses support.

1924 - The use of cyanide gas introduced as an execution method

1930s - Executions reach the highest levels in American history - average 167 per year.

1948 - The United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of HumanRights proclaiming a "right to life."

1950-1980 - De facto abolition becomes the norm in western Europe.

1958 - Trop v. Dulles. Eighth Amendment's meaning contained an "evolving standard ofdecency that marked the progress of a maturing society."

118

1966 - Support of capital punishment reaches all-time low. A Gallup poll shows support ofthe death penalty at only 42%.

1968 -Witherspoon v. Illinois. Dismissing potential jurors solely because they expressopposition to the death penalty held unconstitutional.

1970 - Crampton v. Ohio and McGautha v. California. The Supreme Court approves ofunfettered jury discretion and non-bifurcated trials.

June 1972 - Furman v. Georgia. Supreme Court effectively voids 40 death penalty statutesand suspends the death penalty.

1976 - Gregg v. Georgia. Guided discretion statutes approved. Death penalty reinstated

January 17, 1977 - Ten-year moratorium on executions ends with the execution of GaryGilmore by firing squad in Utah.

1977 - Oklahoma becomes the first state to adopt lethal injection as a means of execution.

1977 - Coker v. Georgia. Held death penalty is an unconstitutional punishment for rape of anadult woman when the victim is not killed.

December 7, 1982 - Charles Brooks becomes the first person executed by lethal injection.

1984 - Velma Barfield becomes the first woman executed since reinstatement of the deathpenalty.

1986 - Ford v. Wainwright. Execution of insane persons banned.

1986 - Batson v. Kentucky. Prosecutor who strikes a disproportionate number of citizens ofthe same race in selecting a jury is required to rebut the inference of discrimination byshowing neutral reasons for his or her strikes.

1987 - McCleskey v. Kemp. Racial disparities not recognized as a constitutional violation of"equal protection of the law" unless intentional racial discrimination against the defendant canbe shown.

1988 - Thompson v. Oklahoma. Executions of offenders age fifteen and younger at the time oftheir crimes is unconstitutional.

1989 - Stanford v. Kentucky, and Wilkins v. Missouri. Eighth Amendment does not prohibitthe death penalty for crimes committed at age sixteen or seventeen.

1989 - Penry v. Lynaugh. Executing persons with mental retardation is not a violation of theEighth Amendment.

1993 - Herrera v. Collins. In the absence of other constitutional grounds, new evidence ofinnocence is no reason for federal court to order a new trial.

119

1994 - President Clinton signs the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Actexpanding the federal death penalty.

1996 - President Clinton signs the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act restrictingreview in federal courts.

1998 - Karla Faye Tucker and Judi Buenoano executed.

November, 1998 Northwestern University holds the first-ever National Conference onWrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty. The Conference brings together 30 inmates whowere freed from death row because of innocence.

January 1999 - Pope John Paul II visits St. Louis, Missouri, and calls for an end to the deathpenalty.

April 1999 - U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution Supporting Worldwide MoratoriumOn Executions.

June 1999 - Russian President, Boris Yeltsin, signs a decree commuting the death sentencesof all of the convicts on Russia's death row.

Source : Death Penalty Information Center.http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

120

Crimes Punishable by theDeath Penalty In the united

States

The Bureau of Justice Statistics, Capital Punishment 2001 , (December 2002, NCJ 190598)

lists the following as capital crimes, by state:

- Alabama. Intentional murder with 18 aggravating factors (13A-5-40(a)(1)-(18)).

- Arizona. First-degree murder accompanied by at least 1 of 10 aggravating factors (A.R.S 13-

703(F)).

- Arkansas. Capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. 5-10-101) with a finding of at least 1 of 10

aggravating circumstances; treason.

- California. First-degree murder with special circumstances; train wrecking; treason; perjury

causing execution.

- Colorado. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 15 aggravating factors; treason.

- Connecticut. Capital felony with 8 forms of aggravated homicide (C.G.S. 53a-54b).

- Delaware. First-degree murder with aggravating circumstances.

- Florida. First-degree murder; felony murder; capital drug trafficking; capital sexual battery.

- Georgia. Murder; kidnapping with bodily injury or ransom when the victim dies; aircraft

hijacking; treason.

- Idaho. First-degree murder with aggravating factors; aggravated kidnapping.

- Illinois. First-degree murder with 1 of 15 aggravating circumstances.

- Indiana. Murder with 16 aggravating circumstances (IC 35-50-2-9).

- Kansas. Capital murder with 7 aggravating circumstances (KSA 21-3439).

- Kentucky. Murder with aggravating factors; kidnapping with aggravating factors (KRS

532.025).

- Louisiana. First-degree murder; aggravated rape of victim under age 12; treason (La. R.S.

14:30, 14:42, and 14:113).

- Maryland. First-degree murder, either premeditated or during the commission of a felony,

provided that certain death eligibility requirements are satisfied.

- Mississippi. Capital murder (97-3-19(2) MCA); aircraft piracy (97-25-55(1) MCA).

- Missouri. First-degree murder (565.020 RSMO 1994).

121

- Montana. Capital murder with 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (46-18-303 MCA); capital

sexual assault (45-5-503 MCA).

- Nebraska. First-degree murder with a finding of at least 1 statutorily-defined aggravating

circumstance.

- Nevada. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 14 aggravating circumstances (NRS 200.030,

200.033, 200.035).

- New Hampshire. Six categories of capital murder (RSA 630:1, RSA 630:5).

- New Jersey. Knowing/purposeful murder by one's own conduct; contract murder;

solicitation by command or threat in furtherance of a narcotics conspiracy (NJSA 2C:11-3C).

- New Mexico. First-degree murder with at least 1 of 7 statutorily-defined aggravating

circumstances (Section 30-2-1 A, NMSA).

- New York. First-degree murder with 1 of 12 aggravating factors.

- North Carolina. First-degree murder (NCGS §14-17).

- Ohio. Aggravated murder with at least 1 of 9 aggravating circumstances (O.R.C. secs.

2903.01, 2929.02, and 2929.04).

- Oklahoma. First-degree murder in conjunction with a finding of at least 1 of 8 statutorily

defined aggravating circumstances.

- Oregon. Aggravated murder (ORS 163.095).

- Pennsylvania. First-degree murder with 18 aggravating circumstances.

- South Carolina. Murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances (§ 16-3-20(C)(a)).

- South Dakota. First-degree murder with 1 of 10 aggravating circumstances; aggravated

kidnapping.

- Tennessee. First-degree murder with 1 of 14 aggravating circumstances.

- Texas. Criminal homicide with 1 of 8 aggravating circumstances (TX Penal Code 19.03).

- Utah. Aggravated murder (76-5-202, Utah Code annotated).

- Virginia. First-degree murder with 1 of 12 aggravating circumstances (VA Code

§ 18.2-31).

- Washington. Aggravated first-degree murder.

- Wyoming. First-degree murder.

Source : Death Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

122

List of Juvenile Offenders Currently on Death Row, orExecuted, by State

Execution information inclusive from 1976 through April 1, 2004. Death Row populationfigures as of March 15, 2003.

Source : Death Penalty Information Centrehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

JUVENILE OFFENDERS CURRENTLY ONDEATH ROW, OR EXECUTED, BY STATE

STATE ON DEATH ROW EXECUTED

Texas 28 13

Alabama 14 0

Arizona 5 0

Louisiana 5 1

Mississippi 5 0

North Carolina 5 0

Florida 3 0

South Carolina 3 1

Georgia 2 1

Pennsylvania 2 0

Virginia 1 3

Nevada 1 0

Oklahoma 0 2

Missouri 0 1

123

Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976RACIAL STATISTICS OF EXECUTIONS and DEATH ROW IN THE UNITED STATES

Execution Information Accurate as of July 22, 2004 Following an Execution inVirginia

RACE OFDEFENDANTSEXECUTED INTHE U.S.SINCE 1976

BLACK311

34.0%

HISPANIC57

6.3%

WHITE531

57.4%

OTHER22

2.4%

NOTE: The federal government countssome categories, such as Hispanics, as anethnic group rather than a race. DPICrefers to all groups as races because thesources for much of our information usethese categories.

RACE OFVICTIMS*SINCE 1976

BLACK188

13.8%

HISPANIC54

4.0%

WHITE1111

80.8%

OTHER21

1.6%

*NOTE: Number of Victims refers to thevictims in the underlying murder in caseswhere an execution has occurred since therestoration of the death penalty in 1976. There are more victims than executionsbecause some cases involve more than onevictim.

"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihoodof being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those whomurdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those whomurdered blacks." - United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990

PERSONS The cases represented in this White Defendant / Black Victim

124

EXECUTEDFORINTERRACIALMURDERS INTHE U.S.SINCE 1976

graph are cases of onedefendant executed for themurder of one or more victimsof one race. Cases involvingmultiple victims of severaldifferent races are not includedhere.

(12)

Black Defendant / White Victim(189)

CURRENT U.S.DEATH ROWPOPULATIONBY RACE

BLACK1,462

41.9%

HISPANIC354

10.2%

WHITE1,591

45.6%

OTHER80

2.3%

(Death Row Population Figures fromNAACP-LDF "Death Row USA (April 1, 2004)")

Source : Death Penalty Information Centrehttp://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

interview with Angela J. Davis - Law Professorat American university - WaShington College of

Law.(June 2004)

Q - Can you explain how does the plea bargain work ?A - Plea bargaining is usually a very informal process. It can occur at any point after thecharging decision has been made, or even before formal charges are brought. Prosecutors arenot required to offer a plea bargain in every case. Like the charging decision, the prosecutordecides whether to offer a plea bargain and what that offer should be. She does not have tojustify her decision to offer or decline a plea bargain to the judge, defense attorney or thegeneral public. In most cases, prosecutors make the plea bargaining decision early in the process. Afterthe defendant is presented with a copy of the charges, the prosecutor will let the defendantknow whether there is a plea offer and whether the defendant must accept the offer by acertain date. The prosecutor may make a plea offer in open court during a hearing or bycommunicating the offer to the defense attorney outside of court. Typically, the judge willschedule a status hearing at some point before the trial date, primarily for the purpose ofdetermining whether the defendant will plead guilty or exercise his right to a trial.

125

Frequently, the prosecutor will have communicated the plea offer to the defendant before thestatus hearing. If the defendant accepts the offer, usually he will plead guilty at the statushearing and the judge will either sentence him at that time, or in more serious cases, schedulea sentencing hearing at a later date. Sometimes plea bargaining involves back-and-forth negotiating between the prosecutorand the defense attorney, with offers, counter-offers, and discussion about the relativestrengths and weaknesses of the prosecutor’s case. This informal negotiation always occursout of court. The prosecutor will offer to dismiss one or more charges in exchange for thedefendant’s guilty plea to other charges. The defense attorney may make a counter offer thatwould produce a more favorable result for her client. The prosecutor may not accept thecounter-offer, but may respond with an offer that is more attractive to the defendant. If theparties reach an agreement, they inform the judge and the guilty plea is entered at the nextcourt hearing.

Q - Can we say that Plea bargain is a fair measure in the US justice system?A - It depends on the plea bargain. If the defendant is guilty of the offense, it may be a justresult for him/her and for the prosecution.

Q - Is plea bargain a good measure for those who are indigents, and who cannot afford agood defense ?A - The plea may not be a just result if the defendant does not have adequate counsel thatinvestigates the case adequately and negotiates a fair deal.

Q - Does plea bargain favor the guilty people rather than the innocents ?A - Innocent people should never plead guilty. If a person is innocent, he/she should go totrial. Judges will not accept guilty pleas from individuals who say they are innocent of theoffense.

Q - Does it carry some dangers ? Is it necessary ?A - Every attorney should conduct an investigation of the case to discover whether there is aviable defense to the charge. If there is not a defense, a plea bargain may be a just result forthe defendant. No defendant should plead guilty before his case has been investigatedadequately. Many believe that plea bargaining is necessary because the criminal justicesystem could not function if every defendant demanded a jury trial. There are not enoughresources to handle that many trials. Pleas are quick and efficient so it is easy for judges tohandle many more pleas than trial.

Q – In your articles you wrote that 'though it may be abused, the discretionary power ofthe accusation is necessary'. In what way is it necessary ?A - Prosecutors should have the discretion to decide whether to charge a person or not. Notevery crime deserves prosecution. If prosecutors were required to bring charges in everycase, justice would not be done. Also, not every crime should be prosecuted in the same way.Discretion is required to make judgments about whether and how to prosecute certain cases.

126

Q - Can you give me one example of an abuse of the discretionary power ?A - Discretion is abuse when prosecutors decide to charge one person with a serious offensebut dismiss charges against another person who has committed the same offense and has thesame background. In other words -- dissimilar treatment of similarly-situated people is anabuse of discretionary power.

Q - Are there any abuse related to death penalty cases ?A - There are many. This question is too broad to answer in this e-mail. The McCleskey v.Kemp case provides a good example. You can find a discussion of this case in my Prosecutionand Race article.

About the right to have a lawyer :Q - Is it true that some offenders were convicted because of the incompetence of theirappointed lawyers ?A - Yes, definitely

Q - In a death penalty case, what is the experience and the competence which arerequired from a lawyer to defend such a case ?A - Every lawyer who tries a death penalty case should go through a thorough training on thelaws and procedures that apply in the particular state. Only very experienced trial lawyerswith excellent advocacy skills should try these cases. They should also learn how toinvestigate and present evidence in the penalty phase of the trial -- a very important andunique aspect of death penalty cases.

Q - Today in the US, can we say that there are inequalities in terms of "access tojustice?"A - Absolutely. There are tremendous inequalities in the level of representation and in howdefendants are treated by the prosecution. People of color and the poor are treated less fairly.

Q - What could be done to limit those inequalities ?A - More resources for public defenders and limits or controls on the power of prosecutorsand police.

Q - Does a sentence always suit the crime ?A - No.

Q - What is your point of view upon the death penalty in the United States, in the way itis imposed, of its place in the justice system ?

127

A - I am against the death penalty entirely. It is cruel and barbaric; it doesn't deter crime; andit is imposed in a discriminatory manner.

Q - Can an innocent be sentenced to death and executed in the United States nowadays ?A - There have been many cases of innocent people being sentenced to death row. Manyhave been exonerated thanks to DNA evidence, but these recent exonerations suggest thatthere have been innocent people executed in the past.

Q - Do you think the death penalty has some limits in its constitutionality ?A - The Supreme Court has held that the death penalty is constitutional but I disagree with theCourt's rationale. Recently, the Court held that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentallyretarded and this fall, the Court will reconsider the constitutionality of executing juveniles.

This interview was done by E-mail in June 2004.

128

SelectedBibliograp

hY

Primary Sources:

The Constitution :

Amendment V. Bill of Rights. Adopted in 1791. From the Declaration of Independence to

the Constitution. The Roots of American Constitutionalism. Friedrich, Carl J. and

McCloskey Robert G. Forum Books 1954.

Amendment VI. Bill of Rights. Adopted in 1791. From the Declaration of Independence to



Amendment VIII. Bill of Rights. Adopted in 1791. From the Declaration of Independence to



129

Amendment XIV. Bill of Rights. Adopted in 1868. From the Declaration of Independence to



Supreme Court Decisions :

Trop v. Dulles, 356 u.s. 86 (1958) [On Line]. Available from Internet:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=356&page=86

Furman v. Georgia, 408 u.s. 238 (1972) [On Line]. Available from Internet:


Gregg v. Georgia, 428 u.s. 153 (1976) [On Line]. Available from Internet:


Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 u.s. 815 (1988) [On Line]. Available from Internet:


Stantford v. Kentucky, 492 u.s. 361 (1989) [On Line]. Available from Internet:


Statistics and Opinion Polls :

The Harris Poll #41, August 2, 2000. Support for the Death Penalty Down Sharply Since Last

Year, But Still 64% to 25% in Favor. [On Line]. Available from Internet :

http://wwwharrisinteractive .com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=101

Polling Report, 2003. Crime. [On Line]. Available from Internet : http://www.polling

report.com/crime.htm

Death Penalty Information Center. Facts About the Death Penalty. 2003. [On Line].

Available from Internet : http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Comments from Death Row :

Abu Jamal, Mumia. En direct du couloir de la mort. La Découverte, 1996, 1999.

____. Death Blossoms. The Plough Publishing House of the Bruderhof

Foundation, 1997.

130

Dicks, Shirley. Death Row, Interviews with Inmates, Their Families and Opponents of

Capital Punishment. iUniverse.com, Inc., 2000.

Abu Jamal, Mumia. All Things Censored. Seven Stories, New York, 2001.

Carter, Dean Philip. Dead Man Talking [On Line]. Available from Internet:

http://www. deadmantalking.com

Reports :

Jarlegan, Jacques. La peine de mort aux Etats Unis. 2000.

Texas Defender Service. A State of Denial: Texas Justice and the Death Penalty. 2000. [On

Line]. Available from Internet: www.texasdefender.org/publications.htm

____. Lethal Indifference, The fatal combination of incompetent attorneys and

unaccountable courts in Texas death penalty appeals. 2001. [On Line]. Available

from Internet: www.texasdefender.org/publications.htm

ACLU. The Anniversary of Furman v. Georgia, Three Decades Later: Why We Need a

Temporary Halt on Executions. Published June 2003. [On Line]. Available from

Internet: www.aclu.org/deathpenalty

NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. Death Row U.S.A. Summer 2003. [On

Line]. Available from Internet : www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Death Penalty Information Centre. The Death Penalty In 2003 : Year end Report. December

2003. [On Line]. Available from Internet : www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Political Speeches :

Pataki, George E. Death Penalty is a deterrent. USA Today, March 1997. [On Line].

Available from Internet : http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Articles/Pataki.htm

Bush, Jeb. Justice is Working in Florida. [On Line]. Available from Internet :

http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/FloridaBush.htm

Interviews :

A Prosecutor Speaks. Question and answer session with a Texas prosecutor. 2003. [On Line].

Available from Internet : http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/prosecutor.htm

Questions on The Death Penalty and Plea Bargain. Question and answer session with Law

Professor Angela J. Davis. (June 2004)

131

Questions to a Death Row Inmate. Question and answer session with San Quentin death row

inmate Dean Carter.

Secondary Sources:

ACAT. Des Chrétiens et la peine de mort. Document ACAT n°44 – 1997.

Amnesty International. A Time for Action. Protecting the consular rights of foreign nationals

facing the death penalty. AI Index : AMR 51/106/2001. Public document, August

2001.

____. Dead Wrong – The case of Nanon Williams, child offender facing execution on flawed

evidence. AI Index : AMR 51/002/2004, January 2004.

____. Death by Discrimination – the continuing role of race in capital cases. AI Index :

AMR 51/046/2003. Public document, April 2003.

____. Etats Unis d’Amérique – La peine de mort en 1996. Index AI : AMR 51/01/97.

Document public, Londres, mars 1997.

____. Etats Unis d’Amérique – Des éxécutions à la chaîne. Index AI : AMR 51/20/98.

Document public, Londres, avril 1998.

____. Etats Unis d’Amérique – La peine capitale au Texas : un appareil

judiciaire transformé en machine à tuer. Index AI : AMR 51/10/98. Document

externe, Londres, mars 1998.

____. La peine de mort aux Etats Unis – Evolution de la situation en 1991. Document

externe, Londres, février 1992.

____. La peine de mort dans le monde. Quand l’Etat assassine. Les éditions d’Amnesty

International, 1989.

____. The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal. A Life in Balance. Seven Stories Press, 2000.

Banner, Stuart. The Death Penalty, an American History. Harvard University Press, 2002.

Bauer, Alain and Perez Emile. L’Amérique, la Violence, le Crime. Les Réalités et les

Mythes. Presses Universitaires de France, 2000.

Beccaria, Cesar. Of Crimes and Punishments. Marsilio Publishers, 1764.

Berry-Dee, Christopher and Brown, Tony. Monsters of Death Row. Virgin Books, 2003.

Berns, Walter. For Capital Punishment, Crime and the Morality of the Death Penalty. New

York: Basic Books, Inc., Publishers, 1979.

Berthès, Colette. La machine à tuer. Les Arènes, 2000.

132

Bigel, Alan I. Justices William J. Brennan, Jr. and Thurgood Marshall on Capital

Punishment; Its Constitutionality, Morality, Deterrent Effect, and Interpretation by

the Court. University Press of America, 1997.

Cabasse, Jean-Marie. La peine de mort. Presses Universitaires de France, 2002.

Cario, Robert. La peine de mort au seuil du troisième millénaire. Editions Erès, 1993.

Cesari, Isabelle. Les mineurs délinquants et la peine de mort aux Etats Unis. Nicolas

Philippe, 1998.

Davis, Angela J. Prosecution and Race : The Power and Privilege of Discretion. Excerpt

from the Fordham Law Review, Vol. 67, 1998.

____. The American Prosecutor : Independence, Power, and the threat of Tyranny. Excerpt

from the Iowa Law Review, 2001.

Dieter, Richard C. Innocence and the Death Penalty: The Increasing Danger of Executing

the Innocent. July 1997. [On Line]. Available from Internet :

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Grivet, Simon. Histoire de la peine de mort aux Etats Unis. Bilan et perspectives de

recherche. (Mémoire de DEA, sous la direction de M. François Weil). Juin 2002.

CENA-EHESS.

Jackson, Jesse L. Jackson Jesse L, Jr. and Shapiro, Bruce. Legal Lynching. The Death

Penalty and America’s future. Anchor Books, 2001.

Kent, Deborah. Thurgood Marshall and the Supreme Court. Grolier Publishing, 1997.

Megivern, James J. The Death Penalty, an Historical and Theological Survey. Paulist Press,

1997.

Miller, Kent S. and Miller, Betty Davis. To Kill and Be Killed. Hope Publishing House,

1989.

Monestier, Martin. Peines de mort. Histoires et techniques des exécutions capitales des

origines à nos jours. Le cherche midi éditeurs, 1994.

Moore, Michael. Stupid White Men. Penguin Books, 2002.

Redekop, Vernon W. A Life for a Life. Herald Press, 1990.

Sarat, Austin. When the State Kills : Capital Punishment and the American Conditions.

Princeton 2001.

Secretan, Jacques. Condamné à mort au Texas, témoignages du couloir de la mort.

L’Harmattan, 2000.

Taube, Michel. L’Amérique qui tue. Michel Lafont, 2001.

Trocelier, Christine-Paule. Système judiciaire et procédure pénale aux Etats Unis.

133

Document ACAT. Octobre 2002.

Truslow Adams, James. Dictionary of American History. Vol.1; 2nd ed. New York :

Charles Scribner’s sons, 1946.

Zimring, Franklin E and Hawkins Gordon. Capital Punishment : The American Agenda.

- Films

L’Etat Meurtrier (Stephen Trombley, Arte Magazine n°12, mars 1996)

Dead Man Walking (Tim Robbins, 1997)

Un Coupable Idéal (Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, Mai 2002)

- Articles

‘‘A Rendez Vous with a Killer’’. Newsweek, October 17, 1983, 33-35.

‘‘Day of Reckoning’’. Time, June 16, 1997, 20-23.

‘‘Death, Be Not Proud’’. Time, February 21, 2000, 30.

‘‘Death in Texas’’. Newsweek, October 17, 1983, 36-38.

‘‘DNA Testing Gets An Unexpected O.K.’’. Time, April 27, 1992, 16.

‘‘Half Hour to Midnight’’. Newsweek, October 17, 1983, 44-49.

‘‘Hard Knocks’’. Time, September 5, 1994, 44.

‘‘In Fits and Starts’’. Time, January 19, 1998, 38-41.

‘‘La mort de Timothy McVeigh n’a pas apporté aux victimes la sérénité espérée’’. Le Monde,

June 30th 2001. Available from: La peine de mort. Librio, 2002, 101-103.

‘‘L’arrêt de la Cour suprême des Etats-Unis et la décision des jurés de Troyes relancent la

controverse sur la peine de mort’’. Le Monde, July 1, 1972. Available from: La peine

de mort. Librio, 2002, 36-37.

‘‘Mumia’s appeal’’. The Nation, December 16, 2002, 24.

“ Pourquoi le Texas est-il numéro 1 ?’’. Courrier de l’ACAT, n°247, Juillet – Août 2004, 14.

‘‘Rethinking the Death Penalty’’. The Nation, July 22/29 2002, 14-18.

‘‘Should John Penry Die?’’. Time, November 27, 2000, 75.

‘‘Ten Anti-Death Penalty Fallacies’’. The New American, June 3, 2002. [On Line].

Available from Internet : http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/2002/06-03-

2002/vo18no11_fallacies.htm

134

‘‘The Boys in the Trailer’’. Newsweek, October 17, 1983, 41-43.

‘‘To Die or Not to Die’’. Newsweek, October 17, 1983, 33-35.

‘‘To Murder Victims’ Families, Executing Killers is Justice’’. SunSpot.net, February 5, 2003.

[On Line]. Available from Internet : http://www.sunspot.net/news/local/bal-

md.kane05feb05,0,6385621.column

‘‘We’re Not Executing the Innocent’’. The Wall Street Journal, June 16, 2000. [On Line].

Available from Internet : http://www.prodeathpenalty.com/Liebman/Cassel_Innocents.htm

- Websites

ACAT (Action des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture)

http://acatparis5.free.fr

Amnesty International (USA)

www.aiusa.org

American Civil Liberties Union

www.aclu.org/deathpenalty

Centre on Wrongful Convictions

www.centeronwrongfulconvictions.org

Deadman Talking (Dean Carter)

www.deadmantalking.com

Death Penalty Information Centre

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

Harris Interactive – Harris Poll

www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index-asp?PID=101

History of the death penalty

http://teacher.deathpenaltyinfo.msu.edu/c/about/history/contents.htm

John Paul Penry

www.geocities.com/savepenry/johnny.html

www.adelante/penry/case.html

Justice Denied

www.justicedenied.org

Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation

135

www.mvfr.org

NAACP

www.naacp.org

Polling report

www.pollingreport.com

Pro Death Penalty

www.prodeathpenalty.com

Texas Defender Service

www.texasdefender.org

The Injustice Line

www.Injusticeline.com

Acknowledgements

This mémoire would not look like to what it is now without the precious

help, advice and documents many people provided me. I am first and foremost

very grateful to my professors, Mme Pouzoulet and Mlle Lecomte for the time

they spent answering my questions, as well as their precious help and good

advice. Through this research, I met many different people who helped me and

thus deserve to have their names on this page. I would like to thank M. Jacques

Jarlegan at Amnesty International (France) for the precious documents he sent

136

me, M. Jean-Marc Peyron who also sent me documents for my research, and the

ACAT (Association des Chrétiens pour l’Abolition de la Torture) which is very

active on fighting against the death penalty all around the world, as well as

people at the CUADP (Citizens United for Alternatives to the Death Penalty)

who sent me papers. I am also very grateful to Angela J. Davis, Law Professor at

American University, Washington College of Law; who nicely agreed to answer

many of my questions and who also sent me precious documents about the

American judicial system. I would also like to thank my friends whose support

was more than welcome . . .

Finally, I would like to dedicate this research to Dean Carter, a death row

inmate in San Quentin, California, with whom I entered into contact, and who

immediately agreed to answer my questions. This relationship has evolved into

friendship, and I owe very much to him too. I send you my best thoughts . . .

Thank yoU for the SUPPort !

Documents

CoNCLUSION - univ-lille.fr...111 penalty, as it has been said so many times, is fraught with racial as well as social discrimination. But again, the biggest of all errors is to impose