8.6: Death Row Populations and Executions

Death Penalty Constitutionality

The decisive case of Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S.238, 92 S.Ct.2726 (1972), the court was asked to decide the constitutionality of the Georgia Death Penalty Statute. In this statute, not unlike many other states during the same period, left the unfettered discretion to impose the death sentence to either a judge or jury was a violation of the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment (Branham & Hamden, 2009). As provided by Branham & Hamden (2009) “These statues had resulted in such arbitrary and haphazard imposition of the death penalty that, in the words of Justice White, there was [no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it is imposed from the many cases in which it is not]” (p. 279). The court was again confronted with the constitutionality of the Death Penalty within four years of the Furman decision in Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153, 96 S. Ct. 2909, 49 L. Ed. 2nd 859 (1976) the court was deciding whether the new capital punishment legislation met Constitutional muster. In Gregg the issue of whether the legislation violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments was before the court. Unlike the concerns of arbitrary or capricious meting out of the death sentence in Furman, the courts found in Gregg that carefully drafted statutes that ensure the sentencing authority is provided adequate information and guidance does not violate the Constitution (Branham & Hamden, 2009).

In a related case defining sentencing structures relative to the death penalty within states, Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U.S. 280, 96 S. Ct., 2978, 49 Led. 2nd 944 (1976), examined the mandatory death sentence imposed on a broad spectrum of murder cases (Branham & Hamden, 2009). The court decided the Woodson case upon reviewing three aspects of the North Carolina statute: (1) Was it within the limits of civilized standards; (2) Is the statute in conformance with Furman’s rejection of unbridled discretion of a jury in meting out the death sentence; and (3) Does the statute consider the individual or merely consider the convicted as a person guilty of a designated offense. In all three questions the court cited the North Carolina Statute deficient and unconstitutional. Interesting enough the United States began attempting to remediate the mandatory sentencing of the death penalty in most cases as early as 1794 by Pennsylvania in that the death penalty was restricted to ‘murder in the first degree’. Primarily Pennsylvania and subsequent states did so based on societal demands and reluctance to find persons guilty of offenses with mandatory death as the outcome (Branham & Hamden, 2009).

Pennsylvania Death Penalty

Pennsylvania State Court ruled in Commonwealth v. Bradley that the death penalty sentencing procedures were unconstitutional based on the precedence established in Furman v. Georgia, 1972. At that point, there were some two dozen death cases in the state prison system. All were sentenced to life (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). In 1974, the legislature resurrected the law with amendments. At the same juncture thirteen execution cases were received by the Pennsylvania correctional system before the state's high court again declared the law unconstitutional in a December 1977 decision in the case of Theodore Moody (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). The State Supreme Court, relying on Gregg v. Georgia (1976), declared the 1974 version of the death penalty too narrowly limited the circumstances which the jury may consider mitigating when making its decision on capital punishment. The state legislature quickly drafted a new version. It was enacted in September 1978 and this law, which remains in effect today, has been upheld in several recent appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011). The constitutional version is as follows:

• The death penalty may only be applied in cases where a defendant is found guilty of first degree murder. A separate hearing is held for the consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances. If at least one of the ten aggravating circumstances listed in the law and none of the eight mitigating factors are found to be present, the verdict must be death.
• The next step is formal sentencing by the judge. Frequently, there is a delay between the sentence verdict and formal sentencing as post-trial motions are heard and considered. An automatic review of the case by the state Supreme Court follows sentencing. The court can either uphold the sentence or vacate for imposition of a life sentence.
• If the Supreme Court affirms the sentence, the case goes to the Governor's Office where it is reviewed by appropriate legal counsel and, ultimately, by the Governor himself. Only the Governor may set the execution date, which is done through the signing of a document known as the Governor's Warrant. By law, all executions are carried out at the State Correctional Institution at Rockview.

Pennsylvania Execution Methodology

In 1913 the Pennsylvania Legislature enacted electrocution as the method of execution and prior to this legislation the method was hanging. Pennsylvania was the first state to move away from public hangings in 1834 of which the method was conducted in both state facilities and county prisons. The last execution by electrocution was in 1962 of Elmo Smith for the rape and slaying of a women and this case was also one that a change of venue was granted for trial. During the period of 1915 and 1962 a total of 350 persons were executed in Pennsylvania by use of the electric chair at SCI Rockview to include two women.

Pennsylvania Death Row Statistics

As previously provided by the PA DOCS 2010 annual report of inmate profile and the U.S. Census Bureau the prison inmates represented are 62% of male prisoners were minority (50% Blacks; 11% Hispanic; and 1 % other) in comparison to 38% of White male inmates. As observed from the census information previously provided the black population in Pennsylvania equates to 10.8 % of the total population while accounting for 50% of the male inmate population. Further total minority populations in the state are approximately 20% but represent 62% of the inmate population among males.

The 2009 and 2010 inmate death row profile respectfully is as follows: White-71(32.3%) and 69 (31.4%); Black-129 (58.6%) and 127 (57.7%); Hispanic-18 (8.2%) and 18 (8.2%); and other- 2 (0.9%) and 2 (0.9%) and the greatest concentration of inmates are in the 30-54 year age range (Table 3 PA DOCS, 2011). Albeit the statistics are disproportionate, ironically the last three executions in the Commonwealth were carried out against all white male inmates in 1986, 1995, and 1999 are the following:

SCI. NAME/INMATE. NUMBER. RACE. DOB. COUNTY. JUDGE. SENTENCED. EXECUTED.

PIT ZETTLEMOYER, Keith (AK-5854); W; 06/04/1955; Dauphin; Dowling; 04/24/1981; 05/02/1995

Was convicted in Dauphin County for the 1980 murder of a friend, Charles DeVetsco, who was scheduled to testify against him in a robbery trial.

Final Meal: 2 cheeseburgers, French fries, chocolate milk, chocolate pudding.

GRA MOSER, Leon Jerome (AY-6346); W; 09/15/1942; Montgomery; Tressler; 01/24/1986; 08/16/1995

Was convicted in Montgomery County for the 1985 murders of his ex-wife, Linda, and their two daughters following Palm Sunday services at their church.

Final Meal: 2 slices of pizza, cold cuts, pasta salad, frosted cup cake, Coca-Cola.

PIT HEIDNIK, Gary M. (AS-1398); W; 11/22/1943; Philadelphia; Abraham; 03/02/1989; 07/06/1999

Was sentenced to two death sentences in July 1988 for murdering two women he had imprisoned in his home. At his conviction, Heidnik also was convicted of six counts of kidnapping, five counts of rape, four counts of aggravated assault and two counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse. In addition to the death sentences, he also received a cumulative prison term of 150 to 300 years.

Final Meal: 2 cups of black coffee, 4 pieces of pizza.

(07/26/1999 Press Office www.cor.state.pa.us/)

Pennsylvania Execution Complex

The execution complex is located at the SCI Rockview and in 1997 the complex was moved outside of the facility’s perimeter to a former field hospital, located on prison grounds. The facility was renovated into a maximum-security building which will house capital cases for a short period of time just prior to execution. The relocation will allow officials to prepare for and carry out executions without disrupting the day-to-day operation of SCI Rockview. The relocation also enhances the safety and security of witnesses because it doesn’t require them to enter the facility to view an execution (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Mandated by law, individuals whose execution warrants have been signed by the governor are housed in solitary confinement apart from all other inmates. They are under constant direct supervision by corrections officers and their visits are restricted by law to immediate family, legal counsel and clergy, if they so choose. All male capital cases are housed at maximum-security facilities: SCIs Graterford and Greene. Females are housed at SCI Muncy and at a time designated by PA DOCS the inmate is transported to SCI Rockview and placed in the execution complex to await the sentence being carried out (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

The inmates are located in cells in the execution complex (often referred to as death row) generally the inmate is held in this setting only between their arrival and their execution. Inmates are permitted to have in their single person holding cell bedding -- a mattress, pillow, blanket and sheets; a towel and a bar of soap; institutional clothing; legal papers; limited religious materials; some personal photos; and certain consumable items -- such as cigarettes, toothbrush and toothpaste, writing implements -- which are provided as needed and returned to the officer if not consumed. Reading material is also provided as requested, one item at a time. A TV or radio may be located on a stand outside the cell, if requested (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

To ensure accurate identity of the inmate they are fingerprinted upon arrival at the facility and the prints are compared to on file fingerprints and photograph. The condemned inmate will eat while at SCI Rockview will be the same as eaten by the rest of the inmate population, except the individual will be permitted to request one special meal from a menu of available items. More importantly in order to receive a stay of execution or other legal halting directive, an open phone line is maintained between SCI Rockview and the Governor's Office to receive word of any last minute reprieves. That information would then be immediately given to SCI Rockview's deputy superintendent for facility management who is on an open phone line in the injection room throughout the procedure (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2011).

Execution of Juveniles and Mentally Retarded

The U.S. Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juvenile offenders, citing the practice as offensive and counter to the "evolving standards of decency" that must guide interpretation of the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishments in their decision Roper v. Simmons, 2005. The decision set aside the death sentence of Christopher Simmons, a Missouri man who was a 17-year-old high school junior when he hog-tied a woman and threw her into a river to drown after telling two friends that they could "get away with it" because they were minors. But the ruling also spares the lives of 72 death-row inmates in 19 states -- including two in Pennsylvania -- where until yesterday it was legal to execute offenders who were 16 or 17 at the time of their crimes (McGough, 2005).

The death penalty had been previously altered in 2002 when the Supreme Court reversed itself and ruled 6-3 that executing mentally retarded people was cruel and unusual punishment. The majority then cited a national consensus reflected in the fact that 16 states that had permitted the execution of retarded people in 1989 had changed their minds and outlawed the practice (McGough, 2005).

At the time of the ruling in Roper v. Simmons Pennsylvania was one of nineteen states that permitted the execution of juveniles. The court ruled that the age of permissible execution at the time of commission of the crime is 18. The sentences of juveniles on death row had since been commuted to Life without Parole and are the stance of Pennsylvania at this time.