*Please note that this is a plain text version for the Internet, the original was on Amnesty International letterhead and signed. Ref.: TG AMR 51/2001.59 Members of the Texas Board
25 July 2001 Dear Members, I am writing on behalf of more than one million Amnesty International members and subscribers in over 140 countries and territories to urge you to recommend that Governor Perry grant clemency for Napoleon Beazley, scheduled for execution on 15 August 2001. Firstly, however, I would like to offer our utmost sympathy to the family of John Luttig. As an organization working on a daily basis with and on behalf of the victims of human violence, we are well aware of the depth of suffering that such violence causes. This suffering deserves compassion and justice, and demands that the state pursue constructive measures aimed at preventing future violence and future suffering. Napoleon Beazley was 17 when John Luttig was shot. As such, his execution is prohibited under international law, which bans the use of the death penalty against those who were under 18 at the time of the crime. It is a matter of deep concern that Texas is a world leader in carrying out such killings, accounting for almost a third of the known worldwide total in the past decade. Outside of the USA, only the Islamic Republic of Iran comes close to Texas' total in this period. For this is a practice which has virtually been eradicated from the world. With this in mind, we ask you to consider the international reputation of Texas when making your decision on Napoleon Beazley's clemency petition. As was suggested by nine senior former US diplomats in a recent brief filed with the US Supreme Court, there is little doubt that executions which flout international standards cause immense damage to your country's image abroad and undermine US foreign policy interests. We were hopeful that the recent bill which passed the Texas House of Representatives proposing to raise to 18 the minimum age for death penalty eligibility in Texas heralded a change for the better in your state. It is to be deeply regretted that this legislative effort failed. Nevertheless, as you examine Napoleon Beazley's petition, we urge you to consider the progress that was made towards changing Texas law in line with international standards of justice and decency, and also to reflect upon opinion polls which indicate only minority support in Texas for the use of the death penalty against juveniles. While a vote for clemency would be cheered worldwide, you might wish to note that such a decision would apparently reflect majority opinion in Texas also. As you are no doubt aware, there is growing concern in the United States about the fairness and reliability of the capital justice system. US Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor added her voice to this chorus, when she said on 2 July: "After 20 years on the high court, I have to acknowledge that serious questions are being raised about whether the death penalty is being applied fairly in this country". Concern is not limited to the matter of innocent people being sentenced to death, although that is undoubtedly causing serious disquiet. Of equal concern is the issue of consistency in sentencing, and the question of whether the death penalty is, as its proponents claim, being reserved for the "worst of the worst". We ask you to pause to consider this question as you deliberate over this case. At Napoleon Beazley's trial, a stream of defence witnesses described a helpful, respectful, unaggressive teenager, whose involvement in the crime against John Luttig and his family appeared to be aberrational behaviour. While such character evidence does not minimize the gravity of the crime or the suffering it caused, it is a matter that is directly relevant to the question of the punishment of a teenage offender. At the heart of the international ban on the use of the death penalty against under 18-year-olds is a recognition that their immaturity, impulsivness, vulnerability to peer pressure, and capacity for rehabilitation means that their lives must never be written off. For their part, the prosecutors relied almost entirely upon Napoleon Beazley's co-defendants to describe a remorseless and dangerous individual. Yet those same co-defendants now say that they painted a falsely negative picture of Napoleon Beazley as part of a deal by which they themselves avoided the possibility of execution. In fact, they say, Napoleon Beazley was deeply remorseful for the crime to the point of suicide. Can we be sure that the jury would have voted for death had they heard this? Would the state's experts who predicted Napoleon Beazley's future dangerousness have done so had they not relied upon the Coleman brothers' version of events? Napoleon Beazley's disciplinary record in prison certainly gives the lie to their prediction that he would commit acts of violence in incarceration. Some proponents of the death penalty advocate executions with the claim that they can provide "closure" to the victims of the original crime. There is no such guarantee that an execution can provide any such relief, and many victims' relatives actively campaign against the death penalty as a fatally flawed policy. What is more, even if it were true, it would mean that "closure" is being denied to the vast majority of victims' relatives in the USA whose loved ones' murder does not result in a retributive execution. But what is frequently ignored is the suffering of the family members of the condemned prisoner. How can the state's creation of further grieving relatives - including Rena and Ireland Beazley, Napoleon's parents - help either to assuage that of the murder victim's family, or offer any constructive insight into the causes of violence, in this case juvenile violence? Of course, it can do neither. The fate of Napoleon Beazley is in your hands. We urge you to do the right thing in the name of humanity, decency, and international law, and to recommend that the Governor commute Napoleon Beazley's death sentence. Yours sincerely Susan Lee
|