August 1, 2008
Arkansas Parole Board
Two Union National Plaza Bldg.
105 W. Capitol Avenue, Suite 500
Little Rock, AR 72201
Governor Mike Beebe
State Capitol Room 250
Little Rock, AR 72201
Re: Appeal for Clemency for Frank Williams, Jr.
Dear Parole Board Members and Governor Beebe:
Human Rights Watch urges you to grant clemency to Frank Williams, Jr. – a mentally retarded man whose execution is scheduled for September 9, 2008.
Human Rights Watch is the largest international human rights organization based in the United States. We oppose capital punishment because of its inherent cruelty and finality. The death penalty is inevitably carried out in an arbitrary manner, inflicted primarily on the most vulnerable – the poor, the mentally ill, and persons of color.
In Mr. Williams’ case, the death penalty is particularly inappropriate because of the clear evidence that Mr. Williams is mentally retarded and received ineffective assistance of counsel at his trial and in post-conviction proceedings.
The inherent fallibility of all criminal justice systems assures that even when full due process of law is respected, innocent persons are sometimes executed. Advances in DNA evidence have yielded significant increases in exonerations from death row. Indeed, since 1973, 129 people in 26 states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. Because any miscarriage or failure of justice in the death penalty’s implementation is irreversible, this evidence of fallibility in the system is particularly troubling.
The United States’ employment of the death penalty is also incompatible with international trends. The United States’ retention of the death penalty, despite the global trend toward abolition, alienates us from our peer nations, all of whom are abolitionist. The European Union (EU) campaigns for the universal abolition of the death penalty and requires abolition as a condition of EU membership. The EU roots its stance on capital punishment in the belief in the inherent dignity of all human beings and the inviolability of the human person, regardless of the crime committed.
Human Rights Watch is also deeply concerned that racial discrimination enters into the determination of who is executed and who is allowed to live. According to the Death Penalty Information Center, in 96 percent of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty, there was a pattern indicating either race-of-victim or race-of-defendant discrimination, or both.
This discriminatory application of the death penalty is inconsistent with the United States’ obligation to comply with both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which the United States became a party in 1992, and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (“ICERD”), a treaty ratified by the United States in 1994.
On March 7, 2008, the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination completed a review of US compliance with ICERD and issued its Concluding Observations. The Committee again about racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty in the United States:
The Committee remains concerned about the persistent and significant racial disparities with regard to the imposition of the death penalty, particularly those associated with the race of the victim, as evidenced by a number of studies, including a recent study released in October 2007 by the American Bar Association (ABA). (Article 5 (a))
Based on this concern, the Committee reiterated its recommendation that the United States impose a moratorium on executions:
Taking into account its general recommendations No. 31 (2005) on the prevention of racial discrimination in the administration and functioning of the criminal justice system, the Committee recommends that the State party undertake further studies to identify the underlying factors of the substantial racial disparities in the imposition of the death penalty, with a view to elaborating effective strategies aimed at rooting out discriminatory practices. The Committee wishes to reiterate its previous recommendation – contained in paragraph 396 of its previous concluding observations of 2001 – that the State party adopt all necessary measures, including a moratorium, to ensure that death penalty is not imposed as a result of racial bias on the part of prosecutors, judges, juries and lawyers.
Mr. Williams’ case falls into the category that prompted this recommendation from the ICERD Committee. Mr. Williams is African-American; the victim in his case was white.
Similar concerns over racial disparity had also previously been expressed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its most recent review (2006) of US compliance with the ICCPR. Referring to Articles 6 and 14 (the right to life and equality before the law), the Committee reiterated to the government its concerns that the death penalty may be imposed disproportionately on ethnic minorities as well as on low-income groups, and that the government had seemingly failed to fully acknowledge this problem. It called on the United States to:
… assess the extent to which death penalty is disproportionately imposed on ethnic minorities and on low-income population groups, as well as the reasons for this, and adopt all appropriate measures to address the problem. In the meantime, the State party should place a moratorium on capital sentences, bearing in mind the desirability of abolishing death penalty.
In addition to the aforementioned concerns, executing Mr. Williams would undermine justice and erode public confidence in the fundamental fairness of the criminal justice system in Arkansas because an abundance of evidence suggests that Mr. Williams is mentally retarded. Indeed, two highly qualified psychologists have made that determination, he scored in the mentally retarded range on three IQ tests, and both of his parents and two of his three siblings all exhibit signs of mental retardation. In Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court held that the execution of the mentally retarded violates the 8th Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment in all circumstances.
The quality of legal representation is a significant factor in determining who is sentenced to death. Most defendants in capital cases are poor and unable to afford their own attorneys. In all too many cases, the attorneys appointed to represent them are overworked, inexperienced, or unwilling or unable to mount a vigorous defense of their clients. In Mr. Williams’ case, his trial lawyers failed to present evidence of his retardation to the jury. Even after the Supreme Court ruled that the execution of the mentally retarded is unconstitutional, Mr. Williams’ post-conviction lawyer failed to make mention of his mental retardation. When it finally came to light at the end of the appeals process after new counsel became involved, the court held that it was too late to consider the evidence of his mental retardation.
For all of these reasons, Human Rights Watch believes that the execution of Frank Williams, Jr. would constitute a miscarriage of justice. We respectfully urge you to grant clemency to Mr. Williams.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Carol Chodroff
Advocacy Director, US Program
