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
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

110
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 ultimate
indicator 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

111
Appendices

112
113
114
115
116
 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 in
cases 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 no
justification 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 except
treason.

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 Human
Rights 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 of

decency that marked the progress of a maturing society."

117
1966 - Support of capital punishment reaches all-time low. A Gallup poll shows support of
the death penalty at only 42%.

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

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

June 1972 - Furman v. Georgia. Supreme Court effectively voids 40 death penalty statutes
and 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 Gary
Gilmore 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 an
adult 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 death
penalty.

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

1986 - Batson v. Kentucky. Prosecutor who strikes a disproportionate number of citizens of

the same race in selecting a jury is required to rebut the inference of discrimination by
showing 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 can
be shown.

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

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

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

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

118
1994 - President Clinton signs the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
expanding the federal death penalty.

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

1998 - Karla Faye Tucker and Judi Buenoano executed.

November, 1998 Northwestern University holds the first-ever National Conference on

Wrongful Convictions and the Death Penalty. The Conference brings together 30 inmates who
were freed from death row because of innocence.

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

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

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

Source : Death Penalty Information Center.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

119
 Crimes Punishable by the
Death 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).

120
- 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

121
 List of Juvenile Offenders Currently on Death Row, or
Executed, by State

JUVENILE OFFENDERS CURRENTLY ON

DEATH 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

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

Source : Death Penalty Information Centre

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

122
 Race of Death Row Inmates Executed Since 1976
RACIAL STATISTICS OF EXECUTIONS and DEATH ROW IN THE UNITED STATES

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

Virginia

RACE OF BLACK
DEFENDANTS 311
34.0%
EXECUTED IN
THE U.S. HISPANIC
SINCE 1976 57
6.3%

WHITE
531
57.4%

OTHER
22
2.4%

NOTE: The federal government counts

some categories, such as Hispanics, as an
ethnic group rather than a race. DPIC
refers to all groups as races because the
sources for much of our information use
these categories.

RACE OF BLACK
VICTIMS* 188
13.8%
SINCE 1976
HISPANIC
54
4.0%

WHITE
1111
80.8%

OTHER
21
1.6%

*NOTE: Number of Victims refers to the

victims in the underlying murder in cases
where an execution has occurred since the
restoration of the death penalty in 1976.
There are more victims than executions
because some cases involve more than one
victim.
"In 82% of the studies [reviewed], race of the victim was found to influence the likelihood
of being charged with capital murder or receiving the death penalty, i.e., those who
murdered whites were found more likely to be sentenced to death than those who
murdered blacks."
- United States General Accounting Office, Death Penalty Sentencing, February 1990
PERSONS The cases represented in this White Defendant / Black Victim

123
EXECUTED graph are cases of one (12)
FOR defendant executed for the
murder of one or more victims
INTERRACIAL of one race. Cases involving Black Defendant / White Victim
MURDERS IN multiple victims of several (189)
THE U.S. different races are not included
SINCE 1976 here.
CURRENT U.S. BLACK
DEATH ROW 1,462
41.9%
POPULATION
BY RACE HISPANIC
354
10.2%

WHITE
1,591
45.6%

OTHER
80
2.3%

(Death Row Population Figures from

NAACP-LDF "Death Row USA (April 1, 2004)")

Source : Death Penalty Information Centre

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org

interview with Angela J. Davis - Law Professor

at 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 the
charging decision has been made, or even before formal charges are brought. Prosecutors are
not required to offer a plea bargain in every case. Like the charging decision, the prosecutor
decides whether to offer a plea bargain and what that offer should be. She does not have to
justify her decision to offer or decline a plea bargain to the judge, defense attorney or the
general public.
In most cases, prosecutors make the plea bargaining decision early in the process. After
the defendant is presented with a copy of the charges, the prosecutor will let the defendant
know whether there is a plea offer and whether the defendant must accept the offer by a
certain date. The prosecutor may make a plea offer in open court during a hearing or by
communicating the offer to the defense attorney outside of court. Typically, the judge will
schedule a status hearing at some point before the trial date, primarily for the purpose of
determining whether the defendant will plead guilty or exercise his right to a trial.

124
Frequently, the prosecutor will have communicated the plea offer to the defendant before the
status hearing. If the defendant accepts the offer, usually he will plead guilty at the status
hearing and the judge will either sentence him at that time, or in more serious cases, schedule
a sentencing hearing at a later date.
Sometimes plea bargaining involves back-and-forth negotiating between the prosecutor
and the defense attorney, with offers, counter-offers, and discussion about the relative
strengths and weaknesses of the prosecutor’s case. This informal negotiation always occurs
out of court. The prosecutor will offer to dismiss one or more charges in exchange for the
defendant’s guilty plea to other charges. The defense attorney may make a counter offer that
would produce a more favorable result for her client. The prosecutor may not accept the
counter-offer, but may respond with an offer that is more attractive to the defendant. If the
parties reach an agreement, they inform the judge and the guilty plea is entered at the next
court 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 just
result for him/her and for the prosecution.

Q - Is plea bargain a good measure for those who are indigents, and who cannot afford a
good defense ?
A - The plea may not be a just result if the defendant does not have adequate counsel that
investigates 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 to
trial. Judges will not accept guilty pleas from individuals who say they are innocent of the
offense.

Q - Does it carry some dangers ? Is it necessary ?

A - Every attorney should conduct an investigation of the case to discover whether there is a
viable defense to the charge. If there is not a defense, a plea bargain may be a just result for
the defendant. No defendant should plead guilty before his case has been investigated
adequately. Many believe that plea bargaining is necessary because the criminal justice
system could not function if every defendant demanded a jury trial. There are not enough
resources to handle that many trials. Pleas are quick and efficient so it is easy for judges to
handle many more pleas than trial.

Q – In your articles you wrote that 'though it may be abused, the discretionary power of
the accusation is necessary'. In what way is it necessary ?
A - Prosecutors should have the discretion to decide whether to charge a person or not. Not
every crime deserves prosecution. If prosecutors were required to bring charges in every
case, 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.

125
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 offense
but dismiss charges against another person who has committed the same offense and has the
same background. In other words -- dissimilar treatment of similarly-situated people is an
abuse 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 Prosecution
and Race article.

About the right to have a lawyer :

Q - Is it true that some offenders were convicted because of the incompetence of their
appointed lawyers ?
A - Yes, definitely

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

Q - Today in the US, can we say that there are inequalities in terms of "access to
justice?"
A - Absolutely. There are tremendous inequalities in the level of representation and in how
defendants 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 prosecutors
and 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 it
is imposed, of its place in the justice system ?

126
A - I am against the death penalty entirely. It is cruel and barbaric; it doesn't deter crime; and
it 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. Many
have been exonerated thanks to DNA evidence, but these recent exonerations suggest that
there 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 the
Court's rationale. Recently, the Court held that it is unconstitutional to execute the mentally
retarded and this fall, the Court will reconsider the constitutionality of executing juveniles.

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

127
 Selected
Bibliograp
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
the Constitution. The Roots of American Constitutionalism. Friedrich, Carl J. and
McCloskey Robert G. Forum Books 1954.
Amendment VIII. 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.

128
Amendment XIV. Bill of Rights. Adopted in 1868. From the Declaration of Independence to
the Constitution. The Roots of American Constitutionalism. Friedrich, Carl J. and
McCloskey Robert G. Forum Books 1954.

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:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=408&page=238
Gregg v. Georgia, 428 u.s. 153 (1976) [On Line]. Available from Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=428&page=153
Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 u.s. 815 (1988) [On Line]. Available from Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=487&page=815
Stantford v. Kentucky, 492 u.s. 361 (1989) [On Line]. Available from Internet:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=492&page=361

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.

129
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)

130
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.

131
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.

132
 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

133
‘‘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

134
 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

135
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 !

136