AG Troy King Responds to ABA

Attorney General Troy King responded in an Op-Ed piece in the Tuscaloosa News to the American Bar Association’s report that said, “Alabama should put a moratorium on the death penalty because the state’s system is riddled with problems.”

The ABA has established 79 standards by which a state’s system can be evaluated, and Alabama passed four of them. King had previously said that “the ABA is a liberal, activist organization with an agenda they constantly push.” I wrote here that I wished he would respond more appropriately with particular objections, and I was glad to see that he did.

Or I should say I was pleased by the effort and disappointed in the result. Let’s jump in and I’ll show you why.

King wrote:

The ABA team produced some conclusions and made some statements that are simply wrong. For example, the ABA claims that some Alabama death row inmates, following their convictions, are not represented in post-conviction proceedings.

Well, he’s the Attorney General, I guess he would know. Except on the very same day, Wheeler wrote at Alablawg (his “Commentary on Alabama Law and Society”) about his client “convicted of two counts of capital murder” (emphasis added):

[I will have light blogging] Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday because I have a habeas petition to finish.

Not a good one, either. Because Alabama does not appoint counsel for post conviction proceedings, the client filed it on his own. That means he omitted several important claims, thereby preventing the federal habeas court from considering them.

So on the same day that our Attorney General says the ABA falsely claimed that some Alabama death row inmates are not represented in post-conviction proceedings, Wheeler tells us he has a client who is not represented in post-conviction proceedings. Can hardly be more clear than that. Something’s broken there.

Troy King:

The ABA complains that there is no state law against executing the mentally retarded, implying that Alabama may indeed be executing the mentally retarded. Alabama is not executing the mentally retarded.

There are a couple of things wrong here. First, the ABA did not say that “Alabama may indeed by executing the mentally retarded.” The ABA said there is no state law against it. King cannot argue there is a state law. Instead, he is arguing against something they did not say.

Second, there are definitely claims that Alabama has executed mentally retarded persons. For example, the Birmingham Post-Herald in 2001 reported claims (scroll down to “Fourth of five parts”) that four mentally retarded Alabamians have been executed by the state. In addition, Glenn Holladay (IQ of 69) was granted a stay of execution in May 2003 by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Troy King (with my emphasis added):

The ABA study implies that Alabama may be executing people who are deprived of DNA testing that, if available, would prove their innocence. As a matter of policy, my office never opposes a post conviction request for DNA testing if it was not available at the time of the trial, and if the request is supported by a reasonable assumption that the test would prove conclusively that the defendant is factually innocent.

Does that sound objective to you? If I am on Death Row, I have to get the AG’s office, not exactly my advocate, to reasonably assume the test will prove me innocent before they give me the test? Can they point to anyone that has met these criteria?

And why not, as a matter of policy, honor post conviction requests for DNA testing if it was not available at the time of the trial? Period. Is the expense, delay, or inconvenience more important than the matter of life and death?

I simply wonder what it would take for someone on Death Row to meet that bar, to provide for someone like Troy King evidence that a DNA test would prove conclusively that the defendant is factually innocent.

But he saves the oddest bit for last (my emphasis added):

Studies such as the one produced by the ABA reinforce my deep concern with liberal agendas that refuse to focus on anything other than the rights of criminals. All the studies and social programs known to man will not stop a killer from killing. When a killer chooses to kill – even knowing that he will pay with his life – it is proof positive that the liberal prevention program approach will not work.

Two really noteworthy things here.

1. “All the studies and social programs known to man will not stop a killer from killing?” Where does that come from? Who’s saying it will? “It is proof positive that the liberal prevention program approach will not work?” Huh? Is the idea that if he says “liberal” enough times and fast enough, then that will be sufficient to wrap up his piece for his core supporters? The ABA is not talking about a “prevention program approach” that will “stop a killer from killing.” What is he talking about? Seriously. Somebody help me. Again, he is arguing against something they did not say.

2. That sentence is key though for another reason.
   

   When a killer chooses to kill – even knowing that he will pay with his life – it is proof positive that the liberal prevention program approach will not work.

   Well, actually, when a killer chooses to kill even knowing that he will pay with his life, it’s proof positive that capital punishment is no deterrent for him. He repudiates one of the strongest arguments for the death penalty when he says that a killer chooses to kill even knowing that he will pay with his life.

A disappointing response.