Death Penalty

A Texas court has issued a stay of execution for Robert Roberson, a man whose 2003 murder conviction has raised serious questions about the validity of “shaken baby syndrome” as a medical diagnosis.

Thursday’s decision arrived with only a week remaining until Roberson’s scheduled execution date on October 16.

Roberson, a 58-year-old autistic man, was accused of having killed his two-year-old daughter Nikki Michelle Curtis in January 2002, after he brought her to a hospital emergency room unconscious.

He has maintained that Nikki had been sick and fell from her bed overnight. But prosecutors argued that her head trauma must have been caused by “shaken baby syndrome”, a diagnosis popularised in the late 1990s as evidence of physical abuse in infants and toddlers.

But that diagnosis has been increasingly rejected, as doctors and medical researchers point out that the symptoms of “shaken baby syndrome” — namely, bleeding or swelling in the eyes or brain — can be caused by other conditions.

Roberson’s defence team has argued that Nikki suffered from chronic pneumonia in the lead-up to her death, and the medications she was given, including codeine, contributed to her death.

In Thursday’s decision, the judges on the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals agreed to pause his execution in light of a similar case being overturned in 2024.

Judge Bert Richardson contrasted the shifting nature of the medical research with the finality of execution in his concurring opinion.

“There is a delicate balance and tension in our criminal justice system between the finality of judgment and its accuracy based on our ever-advancing scientific understanding,” Judge Richardson wrote.

“A death sentence is clearly final and, once carried out, hindsight is useless. Thus, when moving forward in such a way, we should require the highest standards of accuracy so that we can act with a reliable degree of certainty.”

But the court limited its judgement to reopening Roberson’s petition for habeas corpus, which questions the constitutionality of a person’s imprisonment.

It declined to reconsider Roberson’s case as a whole. That prompted some of the judges on the court to issue a partial dissent.

Judge David Schenck, for instance, argued that “a new trial is necessary and mandated by our Constitution”, given the new evidence that has emerged in the two decades since Roberson was sentenced to death.

“The merits of Roberson’s claims and the cumulative effect of the evidence Roberson presents — in his fifth application as well as his previous and subsequent applications — would be more properly and more swiftly assessed at this point by a jury in a new trial,” Schenck said.

He added that a new trial would also offer the state of Texas “an opportunity to present this case on its merits”.

Still, some judges on the panel said they were opposed to reopening the case, arguing that the shift in medical consensus did not rule out an act of violence in Nikki’s death.

“Arguably credible and reliable scientific evidence still exists to suggest that shaking a child can cause serious injury or death,” Judge Kevin Yeary wrote in his opinion.

This is not the first time that Roberson’s case has been delayed. He has spent nearly 23 years on death row and was also slated to be executed a year ago, in October 2024.

But that execution date was scuttled in an extraordinary series of events. With his execution scheduled for October 17 of that year, a bipartisan group of legislators in the Texas House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence agreed to issue a subpoena for Roberson on October 21 — effectively setting up a battle between the legislature’s will and the court’s.

The subpoen sparked a court case about the separation of powers in Texas: A witness could not answer a legislative subpoena if the justice system executed him first.

Further, the members of the Texas House committee had argued that a 2013 state law barring the use of “junk science” in court cases had failed to be applied in Roberson’s case.

The case reached the Texas Supreme Court, which halted Roberson’s execution while the matter was resolved. Execution dates are set with at least 90 days’ notice in Texas, resulting in a prolonged pause.

On July 16, after appeals from Roberson’s defence team, a new execution date was set for this month.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, a Republican, has accused critics of Roberson’s sentence of “interfering with the capital punishment proceedings” and has repeatedly pledged to push forward with the execution.

But even those involved in Roberson’s original capital murder trial have sought to see his sentence overturned.

Brian Wharton, the lead investigator in Roberson’s case, had once testified in favour of the prosecution. But last year, he told the Texas House committee that he supported Roberson’s appeal, given the new evidence that has come to light.

“He is an innocent man, and we are very close to killing him for something he did not do,” Wharton said.

On Thursday, one of the jurors who helped convict Roberson also published an opinion column in the Houston Chronicle, asserting that she was “wrong” to side with the prosecution.

“If we on the jury knew then what I know now — about the new evidence of Nikki’s missed pneumonia, how her breathing would have been affected by the Phenergan and codeine doctors gave her that last week, the signs of sepsis, and all the things that were wrong with the version of shaken baby syndrome used in the case — we would have had a lot more to discuss,” Terre Compton wrote.

“Based on all that has come out since the trial, I am 100% certain that Robert Roberson did not murder his child.”

Texas has executed 596 people since 1982, the most of any state.

PROVO, Utah — An attorney for the 22-year-old man charged with killing Charlie Kirk asked a judge Monday for more time to review the large amount of evidence in the case before deciding if the defense will seek a preliminary hearing.

A preliminary hearing would determine if there is enough evidence against Tyler Robinson to go forward with a trial. Defendants can waive that step, but Robinson’s newly appointed attorney Kathryn Nester said her team did not intend to do so.

Utah prosecutors have charged Robinson with aggravated murder and plan to seek the death penalty.

Both the defense and prosecution acknowledged at a brief hearing Monday that the amount of evidence that prosecutors have is “voluminous.” Robinson was not present for the hearing and appeared via audio from jail at his defense team’s request.

Judge Tony Graf set the next hearing for Oct. 30.

Defense attorneys for Robinson and prosecutors with the Utah County attorney’s office declined to comment after Monday’s hearing. It took place in Provo, just a few miles from the Utah Valley University campus in Orem where many students are still processing trauma from the Sept. 10 shooting and the day-and-a-half search for the suspect.

Authorities arrested Robinson when he showed up with his parents at his hometown sheriff’s office in southwest Utah, more than a three-hour drive from the site of the shooting, to turn himself in. Prosecutors have since revealed text messages and DNA evidence that they say connect Robinson to the killing.

A note that Robinson left for his romantic partner before the shooting said he had the opportunity to kill one of the nation’s leading conservative voices, “and I’m going to take it,” Utah County Atty. Jeff Gray told reporters before the first hearing. Gray also said Robinson wrote in a text about Kirk to his partner: “I had enough of his hatred.”

The killing of Kirk, a close ally of President Trump who worked to steer young voters toward conservatism, has galvanized Republicans who have vowed to carry on Kirk’s mission of moving American politics further right.

Trump has declared Kirk a “martyr” for freedom and threatened to crack down on what he called the “radical left.”

Workers across the U.S. have been punished or fired for speaking out about Kirk‘s death, including teachers, public and private employees and media personalities — most notably Jimmy Kimmel, whose late-night show was suspended then reinstated by ABC.

Kirk’s political organization, Arizona-based Turning Point USA, brought young, evangelical Christians into politics through his podcast, social media and campus events. Many prominent Republicans are filling in at the upcoming campus events Kirk planned to attend, including Utah Gov. Spencer Cox and Sen. Mike Lee at Utah State University on Tuesday.

Schoenbaum writes for the Associated Press.

‘Mass surveillance’ tech has enabled world’s most restrictive state to exert ‘control in all parts of life’, UN Human Rights Office says.

North Korea has further tightened its grip on its population over the past decade, executing people for activities like sharing foreign TV dramas, according to a major United Nations report.

The UN Human Rights Office said on Friday that tech-enabled state repression under the Kim dynasty, which has governed with absolute power for seven decades, had grown over a decade of “suffering, repression, and increased fear”.

“No other population is under such restrictions in today’s world,” concluded the agency’s report, which is based on interviews with more than 300 witnesses and victims who had fled the country and reported the further erosion of freedoms.

“To block the people’s eyes and ears, they strengthened the crackdowns. It was a form of control aimed at eliminating even the smallest signs of dissatisfaction or complaint,” recounted one escapee, cited in the report.

James Heenan, head of the UN Human Rights Office for North Korea, told a Geneva briefing that the number of executions for both normal and political crimes had increased since COVID-era restrictions.

An unspecified number of people had already been executed under new laws imposing the death penalty for distributing foreign TV series, including the popular K-Dramas from South Korea, he added.

The clampdown has been aided by the expansion of “mass surveillance” systems through technological advances, which have subjected citizens to “control in all parts of life” over the past 10 years, the report said.

Heenan also reported that children were being made to work in forced labour, including so-called “shock brigades” for tough sectors such as coal mining and construction.

“They’re often children from the lower level of society, because they’re the ones who can’t bribe their way out of it, and these shock brigades are engaged in often very hazardous and dangerous work,” he said.

Last year, the UN indicated that the forced labour could, in some cases, amount to slavery, making it a crime against humanity.

The sweeping review comes more than a decade after a landmark UN report documented executions, rapes, torture, deliberate starvation, and the detention of between 80,000 and 120,000 people in prison camps.

The new report covered developments since 2014, noting the government’s adoption of new laws, policies and procedures providing a legal framework for repression.

UN rights chief Volker Turk said in a statement: “If the DPRK [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] continues on its current trajectory, the population will be subjected to more suffering, brutal repression and fear.”

North Korea’s Geneva diplomatic mission and its London embassy have not yet commented on the report.

United States President Donald Trump has announced his government will seek the death penalty in every murder case that unfolds in Washington, DC, as part of his crackdown on crime in the country’s capital.

Trump made the announcement in the midst of a Labor Day-themed meeting of his cabinet on Tuesday as he discussed a range of issues, from weapons sales to the rising cost of living.

“Anybody murders something in the capital: capital punishment. Capital capital punishment,” Trump said, seeming to relish the wordplay.

“If somebody kills somebody in the capital, Washington, DC, we’re going to be seeking the death penalty. And that’s a very strong preventative, and everybody that’s heard it agrees with it.”

Trump then acknowledged that the policy would likely be controversial, but he pledged to forge onwards.

“I don’t know if we’re ready for it in this country, but we have no choice,” Trump said. “States are gonna have to make their own decision.”

Federal prosecutions in DC

Washington, DC, occupies a unique position in the US. The US Constitution defined the capital as a federal district as opposed to a state or a city within a surrounding state.

Elsewhere in the country, most murder cases are prosecuted by state or local authorities unless they rise to the level of a federal crime.

But in Washington, DC, the US Attorney’s Office – a federal prosecutor’s office under the Department of Justice – prosecutes nearly all violent crimes.

The administration of former President Joe Biden had backed away from the death penalty. Under the Democrat’s leadership, the Justice Department ordered a moratorium that paused capital punishment as it reviewed its policies.

Biden himself campaigned on the promise that he would “eliminate the death penalty”, arguing that more than 160 people who were executed from 1973 to 2020 were later exonerated.

“Because we cannot ensure we get death penalty cases right every time, Biden will work to pass legislation to eliminate the death penalty at the federal level and incentivize states to follow the federal government’s example,” Biden’s team wrote on his 2020 campaign website.

While Biden ultimately did not eliminate the federal death penalty, in one of his final acts as president, he commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row.

In a statement in December, he anticipated that a second Trump administration would pursue the death penalty for federal cases.

“In good conscience, I cannot stand back and let a new administration resume executions that I halted,” Biden wrote.

A reversal of policy

But when Trump took office for a second term on January 20, one of his first executive orders was to “restore” the death penalty.

“Capital punishment is an essential tool for deterring and punishing those who would commit the most heinous crimes and acts of lethal violence against American citizens,” Trump wrote in the order.

“Our Founders knew well that only capital punishment can bring justice and restore order in response to such evil.”

The Republican leader had campaigned for re-election on a platform that promised a crackdown on crime and immigration, sometimes conflating the two despite evidence that undocumented people commit fewer crimes than US-born citizens.

In the days leading up to his inauguration, Trump doubled down on that pledge, denouncing Biden for his decision to commute the majority of incarcerated people on federal death row.

“As soon as I am inaugurated, I will direct the Justice Department to vigorously pursue the death penalty to protect American families and children from violent rapists, murderers, and monsters,” Trump wrote on his platform Truth Social. “We will be a Nation of Law and Order again!”

Trump has repeatedly pushed for the increased use of the death penalty in the seven months since, including during an address to a joint session of Congress in March.

In that speech, he called on Congress to pass a law to make the death penalty a mandatory sentence for the murder of a law enforcement officer in the US.

During his first term, from 2017 to 2021, Trump gained a reputation for accelerating the use of capital punishment on the federal level.

While federal executions are rare, the first Trump administration conducted 13 of the 16 executions that have taken place since 1976, the year the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty.

The only other president to carry out capital punishment during that time was a fellow Republican, George W Bush. His administration oversaw three federal executions.

Critics fear a similar uptick in death penalty cases during Trump’s second term.

Public support for capital punishment has been steadily declining over the past decade, according to surveys. The research firm Gallup found that, as of 2024, a narrow majority of Americans – 53 percent – were in favour of the death penalty, down from 63 percent a decade earlier.

A DC crime crackdown?

Trump’s call to apply the death penalty to all murder cases in Washington, DC, coincides with his controversial push to crack down on crime in the capital city.

That comes despite data from the Metropolitan Police Department that show violent crime in the capital hit a 30-year low in 2024, a statistic shared by the Justice Department in a statement in January.

Homicides, it added, were down by 32 percent over the previous year.

But Trump has maintained that crime fell only when he deployed more than 2,000 armed National Guard troops to patrol the city this month.

“Crime in DC was the worst ever in history. And now over the last 13 days, we’ve worked so hard and we’ve taken so many – and there are many left – but we’ve taken so many criminals. Over a thousand,” Trump said at Tuesday’s cabinet meeting.

He also claimed – without evidence – that the local government in Washington, DC, gave “false numbers” in its crime reporting.

“What they did is they issued numbers: ‘It’s the best in 30 years.’ Not the best. It’s the worst. It’s the worst,” Trump said. “And they gave phoney numbers.”

Just a day before, Trump signed an executive order to develop a new unit within the National Guard “to ensure public safety and order in the Nation’s capital”.

But under the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, the federal government is largely prohibited from using military forces for domestic law enforcement except in cases of disasters or major public emergencies.

Trump has described crime in Washington, DC, as a national emergency although local leaders have disputed that assertion.

At several points during Tuesday’s cabinet meeting, he defended his strong-arm approach to law enforcement as necessary, even if it earns him criticisms for being a “dictator”.

“The line is that I’m a dictator, but I stop crime. So a lot of people say, ‘You know, if that’s the case, I’d rather have a dictator.’ But I’m not a dictator. I just know to stop crime,” Trump said.

Federal authorities in the United States revealed Tuesday that they will not seek the death penalty against three reputed Mexican drug cartel leaders, including an alleged former partner of the infamous “El Chapo” and the man accused of orchestrating the killing of a Drug Enforcement Administration agent.

Court filings showed decisions handed down in the trio of prosecutions, all being held in Brooklyn, N.Y.

The cases involve drug and conspiracy charges against Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, 75, charged with running a powerful faction of Mexico’s Sinaloa cartel; Rafael Caro Quintero, 72, who allegedly masterminded the DEA agent’s torture and murder in 1985; and Vicente Carrillo Fuentes, 62, also known as El Viceroy, who is under indictment as the ex-boss of the Juarez cartel.

Prosecutors from the Eastern District of New York filed a letter in each case “to inform the Court and the defense that the Attorney General has authorized and directed this Office not to seek the death penalty.”

The decision comes despite calls by President Trump use capital punishment against drug traffickers and the U.S. government ratcheting up pressure against Mexico to dismantle organized crime groups and to staunch the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs across the border.

A White House spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

It’s rare for the death penalty to be in play against high-level Mexican cartel figures. Mexico long ago abolished capital punishment and typically extradites its citizens on the condition they are spared death.

In Zambada’s case, the standard restrictions did not apply because he was not extradited. Zambada was brought to the U.S. last July by a son of his longtime associate, Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán. Zambada alleges he was ambushed and kidnapped in Sinaloa by Joaquín Guzmán López, who forced him onto an airplane bound for a small airport outside El Paso, Texas.

Zambada has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and remains jailed in Brooklyn while his case proceeds. A court filing in June said prosecutors and the defense had “discussed the potential for a resolution short of trial,” suggesting plea negotiations are underway.

Frank Perez, the lawyer representing Zambada, issued a statement Tuesday to The Times that said: “We welcome the government’s decision not to pursue the death penalty against our client. This marks an important step toward achieving a fair and just resolution.”

Federal authorities announced in May that Guzmán López, 39, an accused leader of the Sinaloa cartel faction known as “Los Chapitos,” would also not face the death penalty. He faces an array of drug smuggling and conspiracy charges in a case pending before the federal court in Chicago.

Another son of El Chapo, Ovidio Guzmán López, 35, pleaded guilty to drug trafficking, money laundering and firearms charge last month in Chicago. Court filings show he has agreed to cooperate with U.S. authorities in other investigations.

Caro Quintero and Carrillo Fuentes were two of the biggest names among a group of 29 men handed over by Mexico to the U.S. in February. The unusual mass transfer was conducted outside the typical extradition process, which left open the possibility of the death penalty.

Reputed to be a founding member of Mexico’s powerful Guadalajara cartel in the 1980s, Caro Quintero is allegedly responsible for the brutal slaying of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena 40 years ago.

The killing, portrayed on the Netlfix show “Narcos: Mexico” and recounted in many books and documentaries, led to a fierce response by U.S. authorities, but Caro Quintero managed to elude justice for decades. Getting him on U.S. soil was portrayed a major victory by Trump administration officials.

Derek Maltz, the DEA chief in February, said in a statement that Caro Quintero had “unleashed violence, destruction, and death across the United States and Mexico, has spent four decades atop DEA’s most wanted fugitives list.”

Carrillo Fuentes is perhaps best known as the younger brother of another Mexican drug trafficker, Amado Carrillo Fuentes, the legendary “Lord of the Skies,” who died in 1997. Once close to El Chapo, El Mayo and other Sinaloa cartel leaders, the younger Carrillo Funtes split off to form his own cartel in the city of Juárez, triggering years of bloody cartel warfare.

Kenneth J. Montgomery, the lawyer for Carrillo Fuentes, said Tuesday his client was “extremely grateful” for the government’s decision not to seek the death penalty.”I thought it was the right decision,” he said. “In a civilized society, I don’t think the death penalty should ever be an option.”

Trump has been an ardent supporter of capital punishment. In January, he signed an order that directs the attorney general to “take all necessary and lawful action” to ensure that states have enough lethal injection drugs to carry out executions.

Trump’s order directed the attorney general to pursue the death penalty in cases that involve the killing of law enforcement officers, among other factors. For years, Trump has loudly called for executing convicted drug traffickers. He reiterated the call for executions again in 2022 when announcing his intent to run again for president.

“We’re going to be asking [that] everyone who sells drugs, gets caught selling drugs, to receive the death penalty for their heinous acts,” Trump said.

Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi lifted a moratorium on federal executions in February, reversing a policy that began under the Biden administration. In April, Bondi announced intentions to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, the man charged with assassinating a UnitedHealthcare executive in New York City.

Bonnie Klapper, a former federal narcotics prosecutor in the Eastern District of New York, reacted with surprise upon learning that the Trump administration had decided not to pursue capital cases against the accused kingpins, particularly Caro Quintero.

Klapper, who is now a defense attorney, speculated that Mexico is strongly opposed to executions of its citizens and officials may have exerted diplomatic pressure to spare the lives of the three men, perhaps offering to send more kingpins in the future.

“While my initial reaction is one of shock given this administration’s embrace of the death penalty, perhaps there’s conversations taking place behind the scenes in which Mexico has said, ‘If you want more of these, you can’t ask to kill any of our citizens.’”

Tennessee’s Supreme Court says Byron Black’s execution can proceed amid worries that a medical device may prolong his death.

A court in the United States has ruled that the southern US state of Tennessee can move forward with the execution of a man with an implanted defibrillator, despite concerns that the device could result in a botched execution.

The case before the Tennessee Supreme Court on Thursday concerned Byron Black, currently on death row after his conviction in a 1988 triple murder.

Black’s execution has been delayed multiple times, but a date was set on August 5 for him to receive a lethal injection.

However, in July, his defence team argued the execution could not proceed without first deactivating Black’s defibrillator, for fear it would continuously shock his heart as he passed away, resulting in an unnecessarily painful and prolonged death.

Davidson County Chancery Court Judge Russell Perkins previously ruled that Black’s defibrillator would have to be removed prior to execution.

But the Tennessee Supreme Court overturned that decision, arguing that removing the defibrillator in advance would amount to a “stay of execution”.

The state justices added that the lower court’s order was invalid because it had exceeded its authority.

Kelley Henry, one of Black’s attorneys, said that she is looking at the opinion before making a decision about next steps.

Lawyers for the state said on Wednesday that healthcare workers, many of whom view participation in the execution process as a violation of medical ethics, were not willing to facilitate the defibrillator’s removal.

The court did not address concerns over whether possible complications to the execution caused by the device could violate Black’s constitutional right against cruel and unusual punishment. It also left open the possibility that Black could still win a reprieve against his execution.

Botched executions have been a subject of debate for years in the US, one of the few Western countries that still uses capital punishment.

Capital punishment carried out through methods such as lethal injection and electrocution can be frequently error-prone, sometimes resulting in painful, drawn-out deaths for prisoners.

A 2022 report by the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC) found that seven out of 22 attempted executions in the US were “visibly problematic” and included “executioner incompetence, failures to follow protocols, or defects in the protocols themselves”.

According to Amnesty International, the US executed 24 people in 2023, the third-highest number of confirmed executions in the world after Iran and Saudi Arabia. The US also had the fifth-highest number of death sentences, after China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Somalia.

A 2024 Gallup poll found that 53 percent of people in the US still support the death penalty, while 43 percent disapprove. Those figures, however, represent some of the lowest levels of support on record, with favour dropping sharply over the last several decades.

The doctoral student has admitted to breaking into the rental home and killing four University of Idaho students.

A former criminology doctoral student has pleaded guilty to murdering four roommates in an Idaho college town in 2022.

Bryan Kohberger, 30, admitted to the killings under a plea agreement that takes the death penalty off the table. The case drew national attention in the United States for its brutality and the shock it caused in a community where murders are relatively rare.

At Wednesday’s hearing, Kohberger answered a series of questions from Judge Steven Hippler.

“Did you, on November 13, 2022, enter the residence at 1122 King Road in Moscow, Idaho, with the intent to commit the felony crime of murder?” the judge asked.

“Yes,” Kohberger replied.

“Are you pleading guilty because you are guilty?” the judge then inquired.

“Yes,” Kohberger said.

Kohberger had previously pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder and burglary charges. On Wednesday, however, he confirmed to the court that he had broken into a rental home where four University of Idaho students were staying.

Passing through a sliding door in the kitchen, Kohberger then killed the four friends, who appear to have no prior connection to him. Prosecutors did not disclose a motive for the slayings.

The plea agreement, as outlined by Hippler, called for Kohberger to be sentenced to four consecutive life terms in prison and to waive his rights to appeal or seek reconsideration of the sentence.

Formal sentencing is tentatively set for July 23.

The killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college town of Moscow, which hadn’t seen a murder in five years.

The victims were identified as Kaylee Goncalves, Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle and Madison Mogen.

Mogen and Goncalves hailed from Idaho, while Kernodle was from the southern state of Arizona. Her boyfriend, Chapin, was from Washington state. All four of the victims were either 20 or 21 at the time of their deaths.

Autopsies showed each was stabbed multiple times, including some defensive injuries.

Families react as Kohberger faces life sentence

The murders occurred during the early morning hours in an off-campus house the three women shared.

Kernodle and Chapin had attended a party the night before, while best friends Mogen and Goncalves had visited a local bar and food truck. All four are believed to have returned to the house before 2am local time (9:00 GMT). Their bodies were found hours later that morning.

Two other women in the house at the time survived unharmed.

According to prosecutors, a surviving roommate told investigators she heard someone crying in one of the victims’ bedrooms on the night of the murders and opened her door to see a man, clad in black, walk past her and out of the house.

Authorities said they linked Kohberger to the murders using DNA evidence, cellphone data and video footage. He was arrested weeks after the killings in Pennsylvania, where he was visiting family, and was returned to Idaho to face charges.

In a statement through a lawyer, Goncalves’s family criticised the plea agreement as mishandled: a “secretive deal and a hurried effort to close the case without any input from the victims’ families”.

On Wednesday, prior to the hearing, Steve Goncalves, father of victim Kaylee, was asked whether he believed the four life sentences provided justice in the case.

He replied, “No, of course not. It’s daycare. Prison is daycare.”

But a statement read by a lawyer representing Mogen’s family members said they “support the plea agreement 100 percent”, adding that the outcome brought them closure.

Takahiro Shiraishi was hanged for the murders of eight women and one man whose body parts he concealed in his small apartment.

Japan has executed a man who was found guilty of killing and dismembering nine people he made contact with on social media, the first use of capital punishment in the country in nearly three years.

Takahiro Shiraishi was hanged on Friday after he was sentenced to death for the 2017 murders of eight women and one man in his apartment in Zama city in Kanagawa near Tokyo.

He was dubbed the “Twitter killer” as he had contacted his victims via the social media platform, now known as X.

Shiraishi admitted to committing the murders after reaching out and offering to help people – who were contemplating suicide – to die. He had stashed bits of the bodies of his nine victims in coolers around his small apartment, according to media reports.

Justice Minister Keisuke Suzuki, who authorised Shiraishi’s hanging, said he made the decision after careful examination of the case, taking into account the convict’s “extremely selfish” motive for crimes that “caused great shock and unrest to society”.

The execution on Friday was the first in Japan since July 2022 of a man sentenced to death for a stabbing rampage in Tokyo’s Akihabara shopping district in 2008.

It was also the first time the death penalty was carried out since Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s government was inaugurated last October.

Last September, a Japanese court acquitted Iwao Hakamada, who had spent the world’s longest time on death row. The court found he was wrongfully convicted of crimes committed nearly 60 years ago.

One of the highest-profile executions in Japan was carried out in 2018 of the guru Shoko Asahara and 12 former members of the Aum Shinrikyo doomsday cult, which orchestrated the 1995 sarin gas attacks on Tokyo’s subway system that killed 14 people and made thousands ill.

Capital punishment is carried out by hanging in Japan, and prisoners are notified of their execution just hours before it is carried out, which has long been decried by human rights groups for the stress it puts on death-row prisoners.

Japan and the United States are the only two members of the Group of Seven industrialised economies to retain the death penalty.

There is strong public support for the practice in Japan. A government survey in 2024 of 1,800 respondents found that 83 percent viewed the death penalty as “unavoidable”.

The death sentence has been removed from eight criminal offences in Vietnamese law and replaced with life imprisonment for offenders.

Vietnam will end capital punishment for eight categories of serious crime – including embezzlement, attempts to overthrow the government and sabotaging state infrastructure, state media has reported.

The state-run Vietnam News Agency reported on Wednesday that the country’s National Assembly unanimously passed an amendment to the Criminal Code that abolished the death penalty for eight criminal offences.

Starting from next month, people will no longer face a death sentence for bribery, embezzlement, producing and trading counterfeit medicines, illegally transporting narcotics, espionage, “the crime of destroying peace and causing aggressive war”, as well as sabotage and trying to topple the government.

The maximum sentence for these crimes will now be life imprisonment, the news agency said.

Those who were sentenced to death for capital offences before July 1, but have not yet been executed, will have their sentences commuted to life imprisonment, the report said.

The death penalty will remain for 10 other criminal offences under Vietnamese law, including murder, treason, terrorism and the sexual abuse of children, according to the report.

During a National Assembly debate on the proposed criminal code amendment last month, the issue of dropping the death sentence for drug trafficking was the most contentious.

“Whether it’s a few grammes or a few tonnes, the harm caused by drug transport is immense,” one legislator said, while another said removing the death sentence for drugs would send the wrong signal at a time when drug cases were increasing in the country.

Capital punishment data is a state secret in Vietnam and it is not known how many people are currently on death row in the country.

Execution by firing squad in Vietnam was abolished in 2011 and replaced by the administration of a lethal injection.

Reporting from Sacramento — Past efforts to repeal the death penalty in California have centered on moral or ethical objections. This year, proponents of Proposition 62, which would replace the punishment with life in prison without parole, are focusing on economics.

Prominent supporters of the measure have repeatedly pointed out that the state’s taxpayers have spent $5 billion on the executions of only 13 people in almost 40 years. Online ads have urged voters to end a costly system that “wastes” $150 million a year.

“Sometimes, something is so broken it just can’t be fixed,” a voiceover says in one commercial, as a blue-and-white china vase shatters to the ground.

“Let’s spend that money on programs that are proven to make us safer,” a crime victim pleads in another.

But as voters weigh two dueling death penalty measures on the Nov. 8 ballot — one to eliminate executions, another to speed them up — researchers are at odds over the actual costs and potential savings of each. Independent legislative analysts, meanwhile, believe Proposition 62 could save taxpayers millions, while concluding that the fiscal impact of Proposition 66’s attempt to expedite death sentences is unknown.

Death penalty cases are often the most expensive in the criminal justice system because the costs associated with capital punishment trials and the incarceration of death row offenders are vastly higher.

The expenses begin to accrue at the county level. Capital cases require two trials, one to decide the verdict and another the punishment. They require more attorneys, more investigators, more time and experts and a larger jury pool.

The costs grow as the state must pay to incarcerate inmates during a lengthy appeals process: The average cost of imprisoning an offender was about $47,000 per year in 2008-09, according to the nonpartisan state legislative analyst’s office. But housing a death row inmate can lead to an additional $50,000 to $90,000 per year, studies have found.

Paula Mitchell, a professor at Loyola Law School who is against the death penalty and has advised the Yes on Prop. 62 campaign, puts the cost of the entire death penalty system since 1978 at about $5 billion.

That figure, updated from data compiled in a 2011 report, includes 13 executions since the death penalty was reinstated through a 1978 ballot measure; it was suspended in 2006 because of legal challenges over injection protocols. The figure also includes the cost of trials, lengthy appeals and the housing of nearly 750 inmates on California’s death row.

The initial study estimated taxpayers spent $70 million per year on incarceration costs, $775 million on federal legal challenges to convictions, known as habeas corpus petitions, and $925 million on automatic appeals and initial legal challenges to death row cases.

Mitchell and other researchers said Proposition 62, which would retroactively apply life sentences to all death row defendants, would save the state most of that money.

“It is sort of a fantasy that this system is ever going to be cost efficient,” said Mitchell, who has been named the university’s executive director of the Project for the Innocent.

But proponents of Proposition 66 argue the system can be reformed. The ballot measure would designate trial courts to take on initial challenges to convictions and limit successive appeals to within five years of a death sentence. It also would require lawyers who don’t take capital cases to represent death row inmates in an attempt to expand the pool of available lawyers.

In an analysis for its proponents, Michael Genest, a former budget director for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, contends such changes would save taxpayers $30 million annually in the long run. Proposition 62, in comparison, would cost taxpayers more than $100 million due to this “lost opportunity” over a 10-year period.

But independent researchers with the legislative analyst’s office found plenty of factors could increase or reduce the chances of either ballot measure saving taxpayers money.

Overall, they found Proposition 62 was likely to reduce net state and county costs by roughly $150 million within a few years.

The actual number could be partially offset if, without the death penalty, offenders are less inclined to plead guilty in exchange for a lesser sentence in some murder cases. That could lead to more cases going to trial and higher court costs, according to the legislative analyst’s office.

Yet over time, the state could see lower prison expenses, even with a larger and older prison population, since the costs of housing and supervising death row inmates is much higher than paying for their medical bills, analysts said.

“If Prop. 62 goes into effect, they can be housed like life-without-parole inmates, some in single and some double cells,” legislative analyst Anita Lee said. “It would fall to [the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation] to do an evaluation of risks.”

Calculating the fiscal impact of Proposition 66 is much more complicated, the office found, as the measure leaves more open questions on implementation, such as how the state would staff up with additional private attorneys.

Silicon Valley is pouring millions into repealing California’s death penalty. Will it make a difference? »

Legislative analysts said the costs in the short term were likely to be higher, as the state would have to process hundreds of pending legal challenges within the new time limits. Just how much is unknown, but the actual number could be in the tens of millions of dollars annually for many years.

Also unknown, analysts said, is the proposition’s effect on the cost of each legal challenge. The limits on appeals and new deadlines could cut the expenses if they result in fewer, shorter legal filings that take less time and state resources to process.

But they could increase costs if additional layers of review are required for habeas corpus petitions, the initial legal challenges in criminal cases, and if more lawyers are needed.

Meanwhile, potential prison savings could reach tens of millions of dollars annually, depending on how the state changes the way it houses condemned inmates. Transferring male inmates to other prisons rather than housing them in single cells at San Quentin could lead to lower costs. But how much depends on how many the state can move.

Mitchell said it was “pretty much delusional” to expect Proposition 66 to ever save the state money. For that to happen, she said, California would have to execute “one person every week, 52 people a year for the next 15 years, assuming they are all guilty.”

But Kent Scheidegger, author of the proposition and legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, argued the legislative office’s numbers were skewed, while security costs for dangerous inmates would likely have to remain just as high.

“They don’t become any less dangerous if you change their sentence from death row to life without parole,” he said.

[email protected]

@jazmineulloa

ALSO:

What happens if both death penalty measures are approved by voters on Nov. 8?

How ‘MASH’ actor Mike Farrell became a leading voice against the death penalty in California

In ‘No on 62, Yes on 66’ campaign ad, murder victim’s mother urges California voters to keep the death penalty

Updates on California politics