Finally, a legal victory against the death penalty
Kansas District Court Judge Bill Klapper is no one's idea of a liberal anti-death penalty activist, having been originally appointed to fill a vacancy on the bench by Gov. Sam Brownback (R) in 2013.
But on April 17, Klapper handed down a stunning indictment of his state's death penalty that would make any abolitionist proud. It is as comprehensive a criticism as has ever handed down from the bench, and highlights a path forward for what I call 'death penalty swing states.'
Those states have the death penalty on the books but no longer execute anyone — and there are lots of them. Some are red states like Kansas and Ohio; some, like California, are deep blue. All of them are stuck in a kind of death penalty limbo.
In Kansas, as the Death Penalty Information center notes, the practice 'has been abolished and reinstated three times' since 1907. No execution has been carried out there since 1965, and no one has received a death sentence since 2016. Currently, there are nine people awaiting execution in the Jayhawk state.
In October 2024, two people, Antoine Fielder and Hugo Villanueva, brought forward a suit claiming that the Kansas death penalty 'constitutes a legally prohibited cruel and unusual punishment' and violates both the state and federal constitutions. They argued that it 'has outlived any conceivable use … [and] is imperfect in its application, haphazard in its result, and of negligible utility.'
At hearings convened by Klapper, American Civil Liberties Union lawyers representing Fielder and Villanueva presented testimony from a series of nationally known death penalty experts about racial and gender bias, problems in jury selection, the death penalty's economic costs, and whether it deters.
They also put forth a 'targeted challenge to a unique aspect of capital trials known as death qualification,' according to public radio — 'a rule requiring that anyone serving on a capital jury must believe state execution is a valid form of punishment.'
'Under death qualification,' the report states, 'a juror who says they oppose the death penalty on principle is automatically struck. Critics say the practice is discriminatory because some types of people are more likely to be excluded from juries than others.'
The ACLU contends that 'This practice disproportionately discriminates against Black people, women, and people of faith.'
The state cross-examined the expert witnesses but offered no experts of its own. And it argued there was 'no longer a case for the court to consider' since 'the death penalty cannot be a possible punishment' for either of the defendants, and 'the proper way to abolish the death penalty would be to urge legislators to change or repeal the law itself.'
Ultimately, Klapper was convinced that 'a defendant may not challenge the constitutionality of a statute … if it does not affect him but may conceivably be applied unconstitutionally in other circumstances.' But what looked like a defeat for Fielder and Villanueva was a total victory for death penalty abolitionists. The judge incorporated the expert testimony almost verbatim, calling it 'decidedly persuasive and well-reasoned.'
Klapper's opinion put aside the 'moral issues' surrounding the death penalty, focusing instead on the very issues the ACLU had highlighted.
Starting with capital punishment's financial costs, he found that, across the nation, capital cases cost on average '$700,000 more than non-capital cases.' In Kansas alone, 'More than $4 million has been spent with the results being no death penalty sentences and zero executions.'
Beyond their costliness, Klapper determined that 'The factors which distinguish death sentence cases from non-death sentence cases are the race and gender of the victim, and the race and gender of the defendant.' Murder cases involving white and female victims, the judge found, are much more likely to result in capital prosecutions.
And, if that were not enough, Klapper concluded that 'The scientific community has found no reliable evidence of the death penalty being a deterrent to homicides.'
Throughout, his opinion is pragmatic rather than ideological; it offers people in death penalty swing states a way forward by emphasizing the fairness of the death penalty process and its costs and benefits. As Klapper puts it, they should question the 'propriety' of keeping a death penalty as a possible punishment when the state will 'never impose it.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
First Amendment lawsuit claims R.I. school district blocked a critic from social media accounts
The lawsuit argues that this 'censorship' violates Mayer's First Amendment rights to speak, and to petition the government for redress of grievances. Advertisement 'Just as public officials may not preclude persons from participating in the public comment portion of a town hall meeting based on their viewpoints or arbitrarily deny members of the public access to the meeting, Superintendent Bartz cannot ban users from the @SmithfieldSuper X account page because she dislikes their opinions or require formal approval in order to allow them access,' the lawsuit states. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up Bartz issued a statement Monday, saying the school district was aware of the lawsuit but has not been served with the legal documents yet. 'We cannot comment on specifics of any pending litigation,' Bartz said. 'We take our responsibility to serve and communicate with our community seriously. Our district remains committed to maintaining open and respectful communication with all families and members of the Smithfield community.' Advertisement The lawsuit says that both X accounts are used to announce and describe school district policies and office operations, share content produced for the town's schools, and communicate with constituents. The lawsuit argues that access to such official accounts cannot be limited based on the identity or viewpoint of those seeking access. The suit asks the US District Court in Providence to declare the blocking of Mayer's access unconstitutional, and to issue an injunction prohibiting officials from banning anyone else 'on the basis of viewpoint.' 'I'm pursuing this case because I think it's the right thing to do,' Mayer said in a statement. 'The school district is doing the wrong thing by restricting access to their accounts. All of the public deserves access to their social media pages and the information they post.' David Cass, and ACLU cooperating attorney, said, 'Access to a city or town's social media accounts for information and comment is crucial for citizens to engage in discourse with their representatives. Improper restrictions of social media accounts by cities and towns hinder open discourse and access for meaningful participation with our government and diminishes our democracy.' Edward Fitzpatrick can be reached at
CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
State of Oklahoma plans to retry Richard Glossip but will not seek death penalty, top prosecutor says
Washington — Oklahoma's attorney general said Monday that the state plans to retry inmate Richard Glossip for the murder of his boss after the Supreme Court earlier this year granted him a new trial, but will not seek the death penalty against him. Gentner Drummond, the state's top prosecutor, said in a statement that his office does not intend to dismiss the existing first-degree murder charge brought against Glossip for the 1997 killing of Barry Van Treese, the owner of the Oklahoma City motel where Glossip worked. Instead, the attorney general said his office will seek a sentence of life in prison for Glossip because the man who confessed to bludgeoning Van Treese with a baseball bat, Justin Sneed, is serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Sneed, the key witness for the prosecution, claimed Glossip paid him $10,000 to kill Van Treese. Glossip was twice convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death. He has already served 27 years in prison and has long maintained his innocence. "While it was clear to me and to the U.S. Supreme Court that Mr. Glossip did not receive a fair trial, I have never proclaimed his innocence," Drummond, a Republican who is running for governor of Oklahoma, said in a statement. The attorney general said that after the Supreme Court sided with Glossip earlier this year, his office reviewed the merits of the case against him and decided there is sufficient evidence to secure another conviction. "The same United States Constitution that guarantees our rights also ensures the rights of the accused," the attorney general's statement continued. "Unlike past prosecutors who allowed a key witness to lie on the stand, my office will make sure Mr. Glossip receives a fair trial based on hard facts, solid evidence and truthful testimony." Feb. 19, 2021, photo provided by Oklahoma Department of Corrections shows Richard Glossip. Oklahoma Department of Corrections via AP) Glossip had been on death row for more than two decades when the Supreme Court in February ruled 5-3 that violations of his due process rights entitled him to a new trial. The high court reversed a decision from the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals that upheld Glossip's conviction and death sentence. Glossip had been before the Supreme Court once before, in 2015, when he unsuccessfully challenged Oklahoma's lethal injection protocol on Eighth Amendment grounds. Before the high court ruled in his favor this year, he had nine execution dates scheduled and had eaten his "last meal" three times. At the center of Glossip's Supreme Court case was the testimony of Sneed, who had told prosecutors during the trial that he had never seen a psychiatrist, but was given lithium after he was arrested. But in 2022, the state found prosecutors' handwritten notes in a banker's box, which Drummond said showed that Sneed told the state he was given lithium after seeing a jailhouse psychiatrist and was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. Neither Sneed's diagnosis nor his treatment by the psychiatrist were disclosed to Glossip's defense team, which Drummond said indicated prosecutors elicited false testimony on the matter. "Had the prosecution corrected Sneed on the stand, his credibility plainly would have suffered," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the Supreme Court's majority. "That correction would have revealed to the jury not just that Sneed was untrustworthy ... but also that Sneed was willing to lie to them under oath. Such a revelation would be significant in any case, and was especially so here where Sneed was already 'nobody's idea of a strong witness.'" Following the high court's decision, Drummond said that his office would decide the appropriate course of action. The attorney general said Monday said the "poor judgement and previous misconduct" of the prosecutors originally handling Glossip's case has compounded pain and frustration for Van Treese's family. "While I cannot go back 25 years and handle the case in the proper way that would have ensured true justice, I still have a duty to seek the justice that is available today," he said. Drummond told CBS News in April that he believes Glossip is guilty of at least accessory after the fact, but the question is whether he is guilty of murder. "I do not want to be culpable in executing somebody who is innocent, which is why I took great political risk to review Mr. Glossip and have sought a new trial," he said.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
LA Riots, Deportations, N-Word Karens and Other Distractions That Have Black Folks Sleepwalking
In an era marked by rising hate and division, the Black community faces a new kind of attack — and it isn't always glaringly obvious. As chaos unfolds on screens and in headlines, the real threats slip by unnoticed, quietly reshaping our future. This is the cautionary tale about how distraction has become a weapon, and why staying truly woke means seeing beyond the noise to protect what's ours. Now, we love the phrase 'Stay woke' — thanks, Donald Glover — but it feels like we're sleepwalking through some of the biggest moves against us without fully grasping the severity of the situation on our hands. Whether people are picking up the pieces to failed immigration policies — sparking protests like the ICE L.A. riots — or we're sucked into reality TV, we must face these issues head-on. Let's take a deep dive into some of the major players in this advanced game of distraction, and how the tactics are used against us. Shocking immigration riots took place on June 8 in Los Angeles, where thousands took to the streets after ICE launched sweeping raids. Protesters were outraged over mass detentions, family separations, and the sudden deployment of National Guard troops while facing troops, tear gas, rubber bullets, and site-wide curfews. While Black and immigrant communities fight for their voice and future, chaos is staged at the hand of the Trump administration — once again — to keep everyone on edge and off their game. Frankly, the visible and physical tactic of slapping down unity is a slap in the face…and protesters weren't afraid to turn up in the faces of the California National Guard. At least 56 were arrested over the weekend, per NBC News. Don't come for us when we say this, but entertainment is slowly but surely becoming a form of mind control. Every scandal, every rabbit hole, every bombshell media trial (we're looking at you, Diddy) — it's all keeping us locked in and tuned out. Using celebs to push agendas? We're over it. It's Rome all over again, a reminder of how entertainment was used as a tool to minimize the potential for civil unrest, while enhancing their popularity and image. Works every time — but we're on to it. Many Black folks feel some decisions made by the Trump administration are slowly chipping away at the potential for Black progress. Community programs that offer support to education and health are being cut and stripped of their funding, such as proposed cuts to Title I funding. By the time we look up, they're already out the back door with a program — such as Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion — that was set in place to encourage Black success. Needless to say, politics can be a masterclass in misdirection. During the era of our civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, activism was rooted in real sacrifice. Today, social justice is somewhat of a trendy accessory: changing your Facebook photo to stand with victims and adding the black square to your Instagram profile. During the Montgomery Bus Boycotts, people, young and elderly, opted out of the bus system due to harsh treatment for a staggering 381 days—from Dec. 5, 1955 to Dec. 20, 1956. Compare that to now, where many won't log off for three minutes — let alone stand ten toes down for over a year. We can easily call this digital programming. Every person's feed is created especially for them, fueling their triggers, addictions, and messiest obsessions for monetary gain. No matter the social app, the goal is to keep us doom-scrolling until we're late for work, short on sleep, or deep into a chaotic rabbit hole. All the trash gets pushed to the top while real-world updates are suppressed, rendering many uninformed. Election disputes causing voter suppression may not be the intention, but it can delay access or hinder full participation. Allegations of voter fraud, battles over ballot access and unexpected changes to voting rules disproportionately affect Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities. Claims of fraud become justifications for reduced early voting periods, restrictions on mail-in ballots, and stricter voter ID laws — all of which directly impact Black folks. It's bad enough some don't see the need to vote at all, and this surely doesn't help. At this point, just stop selling the microphones. Since the rise of YouTube podcasts, everybody's a scholar, everybody's got 'sources,' and everybody's reporting something — facts optional. It's a mess. And while the misinformation marathon continues, the truth doesn't even get a head start and opinions are seemingly as good as facts. Thanks to the late Kevin Samuels and many others, Black men and women turned what should be a wholesome discussion into a full-blown battlefield — and social media's eating it up. Known as 'Red Pill' content, some podcasts are built on dragging each other down, 'high value' nonsense and endless 'who brings what to the table' debates. Unifying the Black family has to be central to maintain success. While we're busy fighting each other, the real ops stay winning and we're watching it happen in 4K. They're not even hiding it anymore. Right under our noses, Black studies are being slashed from school curriculums, and key parts of our history are vanishing from textbooks. Since 2021, 44 schools have proposed bills in favor of restricting what's called critical race theory (CRT), per EdTrust. This prevents teachers from giving lessons on important topics, including systemic racism. From Florida to Texas, the erasure is real — and strategic. Whether it's 'talk proper' or 'dress like you want the job,' respectability politics whispers lies about what it takes to be accepted or protected here. We're taught to shrink, conform, and dilute our Blackness to make others comfortable — even though it hasn't stopped injustices. It's a distraction that places blame on individuals instead of the system designed to undermine, no matter how polished we appear. Covert anti-Blackness — whether it's subtle or in-your-face systemic discrimination — chips away at a system that talks big about freedom, equality, and representation. Under Trump, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the Navy to wipe the names of civil rights legends like Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg off naval ships. This kind of quiet erasure isn't loud, but it's no accident — it's polished and intentional. It seems Trump's administration has mastered the art of political theatre — one minute commuting the federal sentence of Chicago gang founder Larry Hoover, the next stripping the names of beloved civil rights leaders from U.S. Navy ships. While our attention was diverted to controversy, chaos, and entertainment, critical programs were defunded, protections dismantled, and inequalities deepened. This isn't just politics — it's a performance meant to mislead and confuse. With so many distractions in play before us, becoming more vigilant and spotting foul play is key. The time has come to cut the noise, and focus on moving forward together as a people in power.
