Latest / Beyond The Horizon / Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty Due To International Law (8/22/26)

Transcript

Mega Edition: Bryan Kohberger's Motion To Strike The Death Penalty Due To International Law (8/22/26) · Beyond The Horizon

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the program. In
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: this episode, we're spinning back up to Moscow and we're
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: going to continue taking a look at the court documents
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: that have recently hit the docket, and this time we're
• 0:12
  Speaker 1: going to be taking a look at the motion to
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: strike State's notice of intent to seek death penalty on
• 0:17
  Speaker 1: grounds of contemporary standards of decency and memorandum in support
• 0:21
  Speaker 1: of motion, Case number c R twenty nine DASH twenty
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: two DASH twenty eight oh five, State of Idaho, Plaintiff
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: versus Brian C. Coburger. The defendant comes now Brian C.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: Coburger buy and, through his attorneys of record, hereby submits
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: the following motion to strike the State's notice of intent
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: to seek the death penalty on the grounds of contemporary
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: standards of decency. More Americans believe the death penalty is
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: applied unfairly than fairly, according to a Gallop pull in
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty three. The summary of the argument, Idaho's legislative
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: and judicial construction and application of capital punishment violates the
• 1:01
  Speaker 1: prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment contained within Article one,
• 1:06
  Speaker 1: Section six of the Idaho Constitution, and the eighth and
• 1:09
  Speaker 1: fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution. Punishment, which does
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: not comport with the evolving standards of a modern civilized society,
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: is cruel and unusual. In recent years, a national consensus
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: in opposition to the death penalty has begun to emerge.
• 1:26
  Speaker 1: The lack of an active death penalty in the majority
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: of states within the United States indicates that there has
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: been an ideological shift and that the punishment now violates
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: our contemporary standards of decency. The vast majority of modern
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: civilized society has already abolished capital punishment because the execution
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: of human beings by governments is recognized to be a
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: violation of the dignity and spirit of human beings. The
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: institutional killing of civilian prisoners affronts to a modern civilized world.
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: The United States has been routinely condemned by the international
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: community for continuing to execute its own people. The United
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: Nations Commissions on Human Rights, and most organized religions have
• 2:07
  Speaker 1: called for a moratorium on executions with a view to
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: completely abolishing the death penalty. Since Idaho continues to actively
• 2:15
  Speaker 1: pursue and impose death as a sentence for criminal law violations,
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: Idaho does not comport with the evolving standards of contemporary society.
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: By way of example, Idaho recently halted its first lethal
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: injection execution in twelve years when the corrections team was
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: unable to set an intravenous line on Thomas Creech. As
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: the evolving standards of modern society reflect abhorrence to capital punishment,
• 2:41
  Speaker 1: Idaho's continuing effort to execute its own citizens, including mister Colberger,
• 2:45
  Speaker 1: is not in comport with the evolving standards of a
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: civilized modern society. Rather, the state's efforts to have mister
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: Colberger executed violate his rights to be free from cruel
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: and unusual punishment, as the right is guaranteed by the
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: Eighth and fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: Article one, section six, and thirteen of the Idaho Constitution.
• 3:08
  Speaker 1: The argument Article one, section six of the Idaho Constitution
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: and the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibit
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment by the States.
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Punishment is cruel and unusual if it's inflicted in an
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: uncivilized and inhumane way. A claim that punishment is excessive
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: is judged not by the standards that prevailed in sixteen
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: eighty five when Lord Jeffries presided over the Bloody Assizes
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: or when the Bill of Rights was adopted, but rather
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: by those that currently prevail. The Supreme Court has established
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: a two step process to evaluate a claim that a
• 3:44
  Speaker 1: form of punishment violates contemporary standards of decency. The beginning
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: point is a review of objective indica of consensus, as expressed,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: in particular by the enactments of legislatures that have addressed
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: the question that give us essential instructions. We then must determine,
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: in the exercise of our own independent judgment, whether the
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: death penalty is disproportionate punishment. When one looks at recent
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: legislative enactments across the county, as well as states that
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: do not provide for the death penalty by statute and
• 4:17
  Speaker 1: those states that have not imposed the death penalty recently,
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: it's clear that a national consensus in opposition to the
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: death penalty has emerged. The lack of an active death
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: penalty in the majority of states indicates that there has
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: been an ideological shift in this country and that the
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: punishment violates our standards of decency. This standard is also
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: reflected in the evolving standards of civilized society in the
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: modern civilized world, unusual application in the vast majority of
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: the United States, a death penalty, sentence or executions or
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: rare events, and they are becoming increasingly rarer each year.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: In his dissecting opinion in Glossip versus Gross one thirty five,
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court twenty seven to twenty six, twenty seven to
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: fifty five one ninety two l dot Ed two D.
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: Seven sixty one twenty fifteen, Justice Bryor noted that in
• 5:08
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen only seven states carried out in execution. He
• 5:12
  Speaker 1: also noted that in the last two decades, the imposition
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: and implementation of the death penalty have increasingly become unusual.
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Between nineteen eighty six and nineteen ninety nine, two hundred
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: and eighty six persons on average were sentenced to death
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: each year, but approximately fifteen years ago the numbers began
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: to decline, and they have declined rapidly ever since. In
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: nineteen ninety nine, two hundred and seventy nine persons were
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: sentenced to death. In twenty fourteen, just seventy three were
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: sentenced to death. Glossip one thirty five Supreme Court at
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: twenty seven seventy two. Last year, in twenty twenty three,
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: there were only twenty one new death sentences, a small
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: uptick from the twenty the previous year, which was among
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: the lowest number since the death penalty was reinstated in
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: nineteen seventy six. That tra and a significant decline in
• 6:01
  Speaker 1: the last fifteen years, holds true with respect to the
• 6:04
  Speaker 1: number of annual executions. In nineteen ninety nine, ninety eight
• 6:08
  Speaker 1: people were executed. In twenty fourteen, that number was only
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: thirty five. The number of active death penalty states has
• 6:15
  Speaker 1: fallen dramatically. Glossip won thirty five Supreme Court at twenty
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: seven seventy three in nineteen seventy two. When the Court
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: decided Furman, the death penalty was lawful in forty one states.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: Nine states had abolished it. As of today, twenty three
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: states have abolished the death penalty, along with the District
• 6:33
  Speaker 1: of Columbia, although some did so prospectively. Only in eleven
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: other states that maintain the death penalty on the books,
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: no execution has taken place for more than eight years.
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: Arkansas last execution two thousand and five, California two thousand
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: and six, Colorado two thousand excuse Me nineteen ninety seven, Kansas,
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: no execution since the death penalty was reinstated in nineteen
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: seventy six, Montana two thousand and six, Nevada, New Hampshire
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: no execution since the death penalty was reinstated in nineteen
• 7:05
  Speaker 1: seventy six, North Carolina two thousand and six, Oregon nineteen
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: ninety seven, Pennsylvania nineteen ninety nine, and Wyoming nineteen ninety two. Accordingly,
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: thirty states have either formally abolished the death penalty or
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: have not conducted an execution in more than eight years.
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: Of the twenty states that have conducted at least one
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: execution in the past eight years, nine have conducted fewer
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: than five in that time, making an execution in those
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: states a fairly rare event. Since Glossip, five additional states
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: have abolished the death penalty Delaware, Washington, New Hampshire, Colorado,
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: and Virginia. Six states have formally stopped executing inmates Oregon, California, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Tennessee,
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: and Ohio. Another eleven states have not executed anyone in
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: at least ten years. In twenty fourteen, three states, Texas, Missouri,
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: and Florida mounted for eighty percent of executions nationwide twenty
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: eight of the thirty five. If we look to populations,
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: about sixty six percent of the nation lives in a
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: state that is not carried out in execution. In the
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: last three years, it seems fair to say that it's
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: now unusual define capital punishment in the United States, at
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: least when we consider the nation as a whole, and
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: with each passing year it becomes more unusual state changes.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: In the past ten years, five state legislatures have abolished
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: the death penalty Virginia twenty twenty one, Colorado twenty twenty,
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: New Hampshire twenty nineteen, Maryland twenty thirteen, and Washington twenty
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: twenty three. In twenty sixteen, the Connecticut and Delaware Supreme
• 8:41
  Speaker 1: Courts held that the death penalty was unconstitutional dpic states
• 8:46
  Speaker 1: with and without the death penalty. In twenty twenty three,
• 8:49
  Speaker 1: the Washington Supreme Court did as well. Currently, ten states
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: have a pending legislation to abolish the death penalty, including Arizona, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Ora,
• 9:00
  Speaker 1: In Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. The
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: direction of change is clear. In the past two decades,
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: the only state without a death penalty that has passed
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: legislation to reinstate it is Nebraska. Dpic states with and
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: without the death penalty. When determining whether a punishment violates
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: the evolving standards of decency, the Supreme Court has said
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: that it is not so much the number of these
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: states that is significant, but the consistency of the direction
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: of the change. The United States is consistently moving in
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: the direction of abolition, demonstrating that the punishment violates our
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: evolving standards of decency. Public opinion. Public opinion in the
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: United States is also shifting towards abolition. Last year's November
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: Gallup poll shows that fifty three percent of the public
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: support the death penalty for murderers, while Rasmussen found that
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: less than half support the death penalty. This is the
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: lowest approval rating in history. In phone surveys conducted by
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: Pures Research Center between nineteen ninety six and twenty twenty,
• 10:03
  Speaker 1: the share of US adults who favored the death penalty
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: fell from seventy eight percent to fifty two percent, while
• 10:09
  Speaker 1: the share of Americans expressing an opposition rose from eighteen
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: percent to forty four percent. International community, the role of
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: the international law in the United States law. There is
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: a growing recognition that international human rights norms in general
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: and the ICCPR in particular, should be applied to the
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: United States. The United States Supreme Court relied on international
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: human rights laws in Laurence versus Texas to find that
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: a Texas statute making it a crime for two persons
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: of the same gender to engage in certain intimate sexual
• 10:43
  Speaker 1: conduct was unconstitutional. The Court analyzed the development of international
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: law and practice since the last time the Court addressed
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: the same question and Bowers versus Hardwick. The Court cited
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: three decisions of the European Court, noted that other nations
• 10:58
  Speaker 1: have taken action consistent with ans affirmation of the protected
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: right of homosexual adults to engage in intimate consensual conduct,
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: and concluded that the right the petitioners seek in this
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: case has been accepted as a part of human freedom
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: in many other countries. The decision of the European Court
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: were the only judicial precedents cited by the Court that
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: directly supported its holdings in lawrence. The Court went beyond
• 11:23
  Speaker 1: our national borders and looked to the law of other
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: countries in deciding issues of due process and basic fairness. Again,
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: in finding international consensus, the Court held that basic fundamental
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: due process rights can in part be defined by reference
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: the fundamental values evidenced not only by the policies extent
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: in the jurisdictions of the United States, but also by
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: the policies and practices in the world. To the extent,
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: Bowers relied on values we share with a wider civilization.
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: It should be noted that the reasoning and holding in
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: Bowers have been rejected elsewhere. The European Court of Human
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: Rights has not followed Boers. Other nations too have taken
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: action consistent with personal rights. The right petitioners seeking this
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: case has been accepted as a part of human freedom
• 12:12
  Speaker 1: in many other countries. There has been no showing that
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: in this country the governmental interest in circumscribing personal choice
• 12:19
  Speaker 1: is somehow more legitimate or urgent. All right, we're going
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: to wrap up right here, and in the next episode
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: we're going to pick up with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: be found in the description box. What's up, everyone, and
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. In this episode, we're picking
• 12:39
  Speaker 1: up where we left off with the Brian Kolberger motion
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: to strike States notice of intent to seek death penalty
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: on grounds of contemporary standards of decency and memorandum in
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: support of the motion, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and our
• 12:55
  Speaker 1: Real Marx at the Bellwood Lecture at the University of
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: Idaho College of Law expanded on the notion that the
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: United States should look beyond its own borders in resolving
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: issues of fundamental fairness and due process. The point is
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: that when this Court decides that basic fairness comprises due
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: process and the evolving standards of decency in Idaho, it
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: too can and should consider the process that is considered
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: due and the standards of civilized society, not only within
• 13:22
  Speaker 1: the Fifty States and the federal government, but also in
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: the modern civilized world. Similarly, in Roper versus Simmons, the
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: Court looked to international law when deciding it was impermissible
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: under the Eighth Amendment to execute juveniles. The Court surveyed
• 13:39
  Speaker 1: international law and practice and concluded that the views of
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: the world community provided confirmation that capital punishment is an
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: unjust penalty for juvenile offenders. The Court stated our determination
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: that the death penalty is disproportionate punishment for offenders under
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: eighteen finds confirmation in the stark reality that the United
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: States is the only country in the world world that
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: continues to give official sanction to the juvenile death penalty.
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: The Court referenced Article thirty seven of the United Nations
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: Convention on the Rights of the Child and noted that
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: it contains an express prohibition on capital punishment for crimes
• 14:14
  Speaker 1: committed by juveniles Under eighteen. Lawrence and Roper make clear
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: that the United States Supreme Court does look to international law,
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: and other courts in the United States should look to
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: international law when determining rather a state statute is unconstitutional.
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: The vast majority of modern civilized society has already abolished
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: capital punishment. The United States has been routinely condemned by
• 14:37
  Speaker 1: the international community for continuing to execute its own people.
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: The United Nations Commission on Human Rights has called for
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: a moratorium on executions with a view to completely abolishing
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: the death penalty. On December tenth, nineteen forty eight, the
• 14:53
  Speaker 1: United Nations General Assembly adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: of Human Rights Nations General Assembly Resolution to seventeen a three.
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: On December tenth of nineteen forty eight, United States was
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: among the forty eight states that voted for the adoption
• 15:10
  Speaker 1: of the Declaration. The Declarations the first in a series
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: of instruments prepared by the United Nations Commissions for Human
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: Rights under the encompassing title of the International Bill of
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: Human Rights. In addition to the Declaration, the Bill consists
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: of the International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and
• 15:33
  Speaker 1: its two optional Protocols. This Court is requested, pursuant Toreer
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: dot two one, to take judicial notice of each instrument
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: within the International Bill of Human Rights, including the first
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: and second Optional Protocols to the International Covenant on Civil
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: and Political Rights. A true and correct copy of each
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: of these instruments is attached here too, and incorporated herein
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: by reference. The United Nations Commission on US Human Rights
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: has repeatedly resolved to abolish the death penalty as a
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: violation of human rights. The majority of the fifty three
• 16:07
  Speaker 1: member states have voted to call upon the United States
• 16:10
  Speaker 1: that retain the death penalty to suspend executions with a
• 16:14
  Speaker 1: view to completely abolishing the death penalty. Moreover, the second
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: optional Protocol specifically aims at abolishing the death penalty, declaring
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: that abolishing the death penalty contributes to enhancement of human
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: dignity and progressive development of human rights. The protocol specifically
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: provides that no one within the jurisdiction of a state
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: party to the present Protocol shall be executed. The International
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: Covenant on Civil and Political Rights prohibits cruel in human
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: or degrading treatment or punishment. Article seven, Section one of
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: the ICCPR prohibits the arbitrary deprivation of life, providing that
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: every human being has the inherent right to life. This
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: right shall be protected by law. No one shall be
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: arbitrarily deprived of life. The ia ICCPR was ratified by
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: the United States in nineteen ninety two. Under Article six
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: of the United States Constitution, all treaties made or which
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: shall be made under the authority of the United States
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: shall be the supreme law of the Land, and the
• 17:14
  Speaker 1: judges in every state shall be bound thereby anything in
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: the constitution or laws of any state to the country. Notwithstanding.
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: Thus the ICCPR is the law of the land. Consequently,
• 17:26
  Speaker 1: this Court is bound by the ICCPR. The United States
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has held that
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: when the United States Senate ratified the ic CPR. The
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: treaty became coexistent with the United States Constitution and federal
• 17:42
  Speaker 1: statutes the supreme law of the land and must be
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: applied as written. United States versus Dwarte Asero two eight
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: ft three d. Twelve eighty two, twelve eighty four eleven Circuit.
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: Idaho's death penalty scheme violates the ICCPR because of the
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: improprieties of the capital sentencing process, the conditions under which
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: the condemned are incarcerated, and the excessive delays between sentencing
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: and execution. Under the Idaho death penalty system, the implementation
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: of the death penalty in Idaho constitutes cruel, inhuman, or
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: degrading treatment or punishment, in violation of Article seven of
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: the ICCPR. These instruments evidence the evolving standards of civilized society.
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: That is, the international community is specifically addressing and drafting
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: documents directly related to the death penalty and individual dignity
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: and respect for it by individual governments has expressed the
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: moors and standards expected of modern evolving society. On December eighteenth,
• 18:45
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly to
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: adopt the resolution urging a global moratorium on the death penalty,
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: with an eye towards abolition. A record high one hundred
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: and seventeen countries voted in favor of their resid while
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: the United States was one of just thirty eight nations
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: that opposed it and thirty four nations abstained. When the
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: UN was founded in nineteen forty five, only eight of
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: the fifty one member nations had abolished the death penalty. Today,
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: ninety five of the one hundred and ninety three member
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: nations have officially abolished the death penalty, and an additional
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: forty two have abolished it. In practice. The death penalty
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: is steadily receding towards the dustbin of history worldwide, with
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: fewer than two dozen countries relying on it as an
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: all forum of punishment. A total of one hundred and
• 19:36
  Speaker 1: five countries have abolished the death penalty, with Surinam and
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: Mongolia the latest to do so. According to the United Nations,
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: sixty other countries allow for the death penalty but have
• 19:46
  Speaker 1: not carried it out in a decade, effectively meaning that
• 19:50
  Speaker 1: these countries have abolished it. In twenty thirteen, only twenty
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: two countries in the world carried out in execution. No
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: executions carried out in Europe or Central Asia, and the
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: United States was the only country in the Americas to
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: execute an inmate. In twenty thirteen, only eight countries executed
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: more than ten individuals the United States, China, Iran Iraq,
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, and almost eighty percent
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: of all known executions took place in three countries, Iran,
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: Iraq and Saudi Arabia. In May of twenty fifteen, the
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: United Nations Human Rights Council issued a report urging the
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: United States to end capital punishment. The report, produced as
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: part of the United Nations periodic review of the human
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: rights record of each of its member nations, identified capital
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: punishment in the United States as a major human rights concern.
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: Countries called for the United States to either abolish capital
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: punishment or impose a moratorium on executions with a view
• 20:49
  Speaker 1: towards abolishing it. This was more than double the number
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: who did so during the first UN review of US
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: human rights practices in twenty ten. The vast majority of
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: countries do not execute their citizens. The fact that more
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: and more countries continue to call on the United States
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: to abandon this practice demonstrates that society does not believe
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: that capital punishment is acceptable under our contemporary standards of decency.
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: Religious organizations the organized religions of modern society have also
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: taken a stand against the death penalty. The following religious
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: community organizations specifically opposed the death penalty as a mattern
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: of modern societal mores. American Baptist Churches in the USA,
• 21:34
  Speaker 1: American Ethical Union, American Friends Service Committee, the American Jewish Committee,
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: Amnesty International, the Bruderhoff Communities, Christian Church, Disciples of Church,
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: Church of the Brethren, Church Women United, the Episcopal Church,
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: Evangelical Lutheran Church of America, Fellowship of Reconciliation, Friends Committee
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: on National Legislation, Friends United Meeting, the General Association of
• 22:00
  Speaker 1: General Baptists, General Conference of Mennonite Church, Mennonite Central Committee,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: the Mennonite Church, the Moravian Church in America National Board,
• 22:10
  Speaker 1: YWCA of the USA, National Council of Churches of Christ,
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: Orthodox Church in America, Presbyterian Church USA, Reformed Church in America,
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, Unitarian
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: Universalist Association, United Church of Christ, the United Methodist Church,
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: US Catholic Conference, National Council on Islamic Affairs, Southern Christian
• 22:35
  Speaker 1: Leadership Conference, and the National Inter Religious Task Force. On
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: April first, twenty fifteen, over four hundred church leaders from
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: many different Christian denominations, including Catholics and Evangelicals, released a
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: statement calling for an end to the death penalty. The
• 22:52
  Speaker 1: letter urged governors, judges, and prosecutors to end the death
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: penalty and called it a practice that diminishes our humanity
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: and contributes to a culture of violence and retribution without restoration.
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: The letter also stated that it's shameful that the United
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: States is one of the few developed nations that continues
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: to execute its citizens. On July seventh, twenty twenty, on
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: the eve of federal government's return to killing prisoners, one
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: thousand religious leaders issued a statement asking it not to
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: do so. The statement was short, but to the point.
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: As faith leaders from a diverse range of traditions, we
• 23:28
  Speaker 1: call on President Trump Attorney General Barr to stop the
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: schedule of federal executions. As our country grapples with the
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: COVID nineteen pandemic, an economic crisis, and systemic racism in
• 23:40
  Speaker 1: the criminal legal system, we should be focused on protecting
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: and preserving life, not carrying out executions. On March twentieth,
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, Pope Francis made a statement against the death penalty,
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: in which he declared that capital punishment is the opposite
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: of divine mercy, which should be the model for our
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: man made legal system. Death sentences, he insists, imply cruel
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: and degrading treatment, as well as the tortuous anguish of
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: a lengthy waiting period before the execution, which often leads
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: to sickness or insanity. All right, we're going to wrap
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: up right here, and in the next episode we're going
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: to pick up with Leo E. Strine. All of the
• 24:18
  Speaker 1: information that goes with this episode can be found in
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: the description box. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: the program. In this episode, we're picking up or we
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: left off, with a motion to strike state's notice of
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: intent to seek death penalty on grounds of contemporary standards
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: of decency and memorandum in support of motion. Leo E. Strine, Junior,
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court and a
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: practicing Catholic, expresses his views on the relationship between Christianity
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: and capital punishment in a law review article. For my
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: own part, Christ's teachings are difficult to reconcile with support
• 24:54
  Speaker 1: for capital punishment, except in circumstances where that can genuinely
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: be seen as self defaer for the community. The reasons
• 25:02
  Speaker 1: I conclude this have already been highlighted. Christ counsels us
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: against human error and judgment, asking us to leave that
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: to God when we can, and to avoid striking back.
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: For me, at least, that means that so long as
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: the dangerous offender is given a sentence that respects the
• 25:19
  Speaker 1: victim and society's expectation that a serious crime will be
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: accompanied by a serious consequence, and society can be rendered
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: safe from further predation. The justification for killing the offender
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: is hard to identify, especially because it deprives the offender
• 25:35
  Speaker 1: a full chance to redeem himself in God's eyes. This
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: is the case for me even when I think that
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: there is no doubt the offender has, without any mitigating circumstance,
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: committed a heinous offense. Even more so is it the
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: case when there is the possibility that the wrong man
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: has been convicted, or that the defendants own human circumstances
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: such as serious mental illness or having been regularly abused
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: by and taught by sociopathic parents who were role models
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: for sickness, seemed to mitigate towards mercy, at least in
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: the sense of stopping short of killing the offender. On
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: October eleventh, twenty seventeen, Pope Francis declared that the death
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: penalty is contrary to the Gospel. The Pope said, However,
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: the grave the crime that may be committed, the death
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: penalty is inadmissible because it attacks the involibility and dignity
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: of the person. The Pope went on, one has to
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: strongly affirm that condemnation to the death penalty is an
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: inhuman measure that humiliates personal dignity in whatever form it's
• 26:35
  Speaker 1: carried out, and is of itself contrary to the Gospel
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: because it freely decided to suppress the human life that
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator, end
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: of which, in the final analysis, God alone is the
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: true judge and guaranteur. On August two, twenty eighteen, the
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: Catholic Church amended the Catechism of the Church, a codified
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: doctrine which sums up teachings, to say that the death
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: penalty is inadmissible because it's an attack on the inviolability
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: and dignity of the person. Catholics are not the only
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: Christians who have addressed the morality of the death penalty recently.
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: Even religious institutions that were previously staunched supporters of the
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: death penalty have changed their positions. In October of twenty fifteen,
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: the National Association of that Evangelicals, an umbrella group for
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: congregations representing millions of Evangelical Christians in the United States,
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: announced a new resolution that changes its nineteen seventy three
• 27:33
  Speaker 1: resolution that favored the death penalty, recognizing that a growing
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: number of Evangelicals now call for a shift away from
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: the death penalty. This was a change from its prior
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: position that favored the death penalty. On October twentieth, twenty
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: twenty two, the leader of the Orthodox Church stated in
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: an interview, the attitude of a society toward the death
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: penalty is an indicator of its cultural orientation and consideration
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: of human dignity. The system of European constitutional culture, of
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: which one of the fundamental pillars is the idea of love,
• 28:06
  Speaker 1: as an expression of its Christian beliefs, requires us to
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: consider that every man must be given the possibility of
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: repentance and improvement, even if he has been condemned for
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: the worst crime. It's therefore a logical and moral consequence
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: that one who condemns war also should reject the death penalty.
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: On August tenth, twenty seventeen, over one hundred rabbis from
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: multiple Jewish denominations issued a statement expressing opposition to the
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: death penalty. As Jews and citizens, we believe that governments
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: must protect the dignity and rights of every human being
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: by using the death penalty. Our country fails to live
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: up to this basic requirement. Too often, the wrong person
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: is convicted for crimes they did not commit due to
• 28:50
  Speaker 1: their socioeconomic situation or lack of access to legal resources.
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: Wrongly convicted people often have no real opportunity to respond
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: to an overwhelmingly legal cists that after an initial conviction,
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: makes the proof of innocence very difficult. The consequences of
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: this system are not only fundamentally unjust, but also produce
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: racially disparate outcomes. Additionally, taxpayers are acquired to pay exorbitant
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: amounts to maintain death row. The rabbis taught that the
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: court that often puts others to death is deeply problematic.
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: How often Rabbi Eliezer ben Azayra says every seventy years.
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: Rabbi Tarfin and Rabbi Akiva say, if we were in
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: a court, no person would ever be executed. While not
• 29:36
  Speaker 1: categorically opposed to capital punishment, the rabbis saw the death
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: penalty as so extreme a measure that they all but
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: removed it from their system of justice. Regarding capital punishment,
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: the stages had a very high bar for reliable evidence,
• 29:51
  Speaker 1: were eager to find ways to acquit, and were deeply
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: concerned about the dignity of those that were indeed condemned.
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: In contrast, or a American system today lacks the highest
• 30:01
  Speaker 1: safeguards to protect the lives of the innocent and uses
• 30:05
  Speaker 1: capital punishment all too readily. We do not naively believe
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: that everyone on death row is completely innocent of any crime.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Yet it's time to see the death penalty for what
• 30:15
  Speaker 1: it is, not as justice gone awry, but as a
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: symptom of injustice. As status quo. You must rescue those
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: taken off of death. As Jewish community leaders, we're calling
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: for an end to the cruel practice, but also for
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: the beginning of a new paradigm of fair, equitable, restorative justice.
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: In recent years, much of the spiritual community has joined
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: with the secular community in declaring that the death penalty
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: violates the evolving standards of contemporary society. Medical professionals and
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: pharmaceutical companies. In two thousand and six, both the American
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: Medical Association and the National Association of Emergency Medical Technicians
• 30:54
  Speaker 1: issued public statements reiterating that assisting in executions violated the
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: ethical obligates of its members. In the twenty tens, multiple
• 31:04
  Speaker 1: medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies began to denounce the death penalty,
• 31:09
  Speaker 1: and pharmacists and registered nurses have refused to participate in executions.
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: Pharmaceutical companies have expressed opposition to the use of their
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: products to put people to death. The refusal of pharmaceutical
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: companies to allow their products to be used in executions
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: has made it increasingly difficult for states to procure the
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: drugs necessary to carry out executions, leading to clandestine meetings
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: between law enforcement and questionable sources for killing drugs. In
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, the American Pharmacist Association adopted a policy discouraging
• 31:41
  Speaker 1: pharmacists participation in executions on the basis that such activities
• 31:46
  Speaker 1: are fundamentally contrary to the role of pharmacists as providers
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: of healthcare. In twenty sixteen, the American Nurses Association issued
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: a revised statement that not only indicated that registered nurses
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: should have nothing to do do with executions, but that
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: their association was against the death penalty. For their part,
• 32:05
  Speaker 1: the pharmaceutical companies have by and large released not only
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: statements against the death penalty, but refused to stell their
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: drugs to prisons. On March fourth, twenty fifteen, Acorn Pharmaceuticals,
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: a manufacturer of two drugs, midazolam and pentra barbital that
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: have been used in executions, released a statement announcing measures
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: to block the sales of its products to prisons. With
• 32:31
  Speaker 1: this action, Acorn joined at least two other US based
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: drug companies in several European companies in expressing opposition to
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: the use of their products in lethal injections. Also in
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: twenty fifteen, Roche Pharmaceuticals, the manufacture of midazolam, released a
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: statement stating Roche is aware of the use of benzodiazepine
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: midazolam as part of a drug combination for executions under
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: the death penalty. In the US, Roche did not supply
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: mitazolam for death penalty use and would not knowingly provide
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: any of our medicines for this purpose. Just interject real quick.
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: Rochet is the same company that created roofees. We support
• 33:13
  Speaker 1: a worldwide ban on the death penalty. Lun Beck Incorporated,
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: the manufacturer of petro barbital, one of the most common
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: drugs used in recent executions, has significantly restricted its distribution
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: system to prevent the drugs use in lethal injections in
• 33:28
  Speaker 1: the United States. The company announced in a statement that
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: it adamantly opposes the distressing misuse of our product in
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: capital punishment. As pharmaceutical companies have begun refusing to sell
• 33:40
  Speaker 1: their products to states for use in executions, states have
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: turned compounding pharmacies to make the drugs. In response, the
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists passed a measure discouraging its
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: members from participating in the preparation, dispensing, or distribution of
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: compounded medications for use in legally authorized execute Inability to
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: obtain drugs has delayed and halted executions in some states.
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: For example, In twenty eighteen, investigative reporter Chris McDaniel discovered
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: that Texas secretly obtained execution drugs from the Green Park
• 34:15
  Speaker 1: Compounding Pharmacy, a pharmacy that the Texas State Board of
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: Pharmacy has cited for forty eight violations in the past
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: eight years, including keeping out of day drugs in stock,
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: using improper procedures to prepare IV solutions, and an inadequate
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: cleaning of hands and gloves. Green Park's license was put
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: on probation in November of twenty sixteen after it botched
• 34:37
  Speaker 1: a prescription for three children, sending one of them to
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: the hospital for emergency care. The recent widespread opposition from
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies that have forced some states to
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: stop executions and led to many botch executions, demonstrates a
• 34:52
  Speaker 1: belief that the death penalty violates society's standards of decency. Conclusion,
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: Idaho's capital sentencing scheme is not comport with contemporary standards
• 35:02
  Speaker 1: of decency and therefore constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Because
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: Idaho's capital sentencing scheme does not comport with the evolving
• 35:11
  Speaker 1: standards of a modern civilized society and Idaho is endeavoring
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: to have mister Kolberger sentenced to death. Idaho's capital sentencing
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: scheme violates the eighth and fourteenth Amendments to the United
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: States Constitution and Article I, Section six, and thirteen of
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: the Idaho Constitution. Based upon the foregoing argument to be
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: presented at the hearings here on, this Court is respectfully
• 35:35
  Speaker 1: requested to grant this motion that a the State's notice
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: of intent to seek death penalty to be struck. B
• 35:41
  Speaker 1: the court seated jury which is not death qualified, c
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: the Court preclude the admission of any evidence of aggravating
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: circumstances during the trial of this case, and D the
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: Court not instruct the jury on any aggravated punishment. This
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: was dated on September fourth of twenty twenty four and
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: it was signed by Jay Logsden. All Right, that's gonna
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: do it for this one. All of the information that
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: goes with this episode can be found in the description box.