NASHVILLE, Tenn. – Gerald Galloway worked for more than 30 years in law enforcement in North Carolina, but in spite of encountering some of the hardest of criminals, he's joining other current and former law enforcement officials to voice concern about the fairness and effectiveness of the death penalty.

The new group, Public Safety Officials on the Death Penalty, seeks to explore alternatives to achieve a more just and effective public safety system.

Galloway says condemning someone to death doesn't always result in justice.

"When you look at it anecdotally, it looks as if it's a sentence that makes sense,” he states. “But if you look at it in a broader perspective in its actual implementation and what it actually delivers, it is about as dysfunctional a sentence as you can give."

Galloway points out that the death penalty is very costly to taxpayers because of multiple trials and hearings, and sometimes people on death row are later determined to be innocent.

Supporters of the death penalty say it's still needed for the most serious of crimes.

Six people have been executed in Tennessee since 2000. The death penalty costs Tennessee approximately $11 million annually, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

Galloway says one of the biggest factors in his opposition is that death sentences often are never carried out, leaving the family members of victims without closure.

"Most folks who are put on death row will never be put to death, because of the processes it takes for government to actually kill somebody,” he explains. “We don't deliver justice to surviving families of victims who wait for years and years and years for something that they've been promised that never occurs."

According to the Tennessee Department of Correction there are 67 people on death row, some of them with convictions dating back to the 1980s.



get more stories like this via email

A Texas human-rights advocacy and immigration-reform group opened two new community centers this week to help residents better understand their freedoms under the Constitution.

The El Paso-based group Border Network for Human Rights opened offices in Presidio and Del Rio to carry out community education campaigns. Executive Director Fernando Garcia said more allies are needed to end discrimination at the border.

"The fact that constitutional rights are being violated at the border," said Garcia, "and in many cases, members of our border community do not know what their constitutional rights are - legal residents and U.S. citizens."

Garcia argued that more harassment has ensued following implementation of "Operation Lone Star" - a $4 billion project that included deploying thousands of National Guard troops and state police to the border.

His group has addressed racism, discrimination and human-rights violations for 24 years, but Garcia said he hears substantially more reports of abuse - possibly because law enforcement officers lack training.

"We have Border Patrol, we have ICE, we have Customs, we have ATF," said Garcia. "We have multiple agencies and with them we've been having challenges in terms of how they are respecting civil rights of people - it is absurd."

On Wednesday, a poll of likely Texas voters by Quinnipiac University showed the border ranks as the most urgent issue facing the state.

But Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy noted that voters are divided - 51% in favor and 47% opposed - to the governor's decision to use taxpayer dollars to bus migrants to Democratic-led cities and states.

"Is this a taxpayer fund issue? Is this more a human issue?" said Malloy. "Is it about the kids who appear disappointed when they end up somewhere they didn't know they were going? I don't know, but despite the fact that top of mind is immigration and the border - there is a empathy out there. "

On the topic of empathy, Garcia said he has none for politicians shipping migrants out of state.

"They are using families, they are using immigrants for a political show," said Garcia. "That is shameful. I mean, to what extent is it acceptable to play with the lives of people, with the hopes of people, just to promote the political agenda."

A new bill in Pennsylvania would provide money for public defenders, who say they're struggling to take on the cases of people charged with crimes who can't afford an attorney.

Senate Bill 1317 would create the Indigent Defense Advisory Committee, and a Grant Fund to provide state-level funding for the public defender system. Currently, the counties kick in to provide this funding, while state dollars go to the state prosecutors.

Sara Jacobson, executive director of the Public Defenders Association of Pennsylvania, outlined why this potential change has taken so long to come to fruition.

"It's some combination of a lack of political will and the amount of money it will take to fund indigent defense adequately," said Jacobson. "It's kind of easy to say, 'Oh well, the counties should take care of that,' and then consider it a problem solved, I guess. I'm glad that our legislators are taking a look at this now."

According to a 2021 report from the state's Legislative Budget and Finance Office, Cameron County spent just over $35,000 on indigent defense in 2020 - a county with a rate of 1,600 crimes per 100,000 residents.

The bill has passed out of the state Senate Judiciary Committee, but Jacobson said it faces an uphill battle in the General Assembly.

The current system has caused the Luzerne County public defenders to stop taking new cases because of a lack of funding. And Jacobson said this is the second time in a decade that budget deficiencies have caused this to happen.

She said she feels the current method of funding public defense is failing the people who need it most.

"Public defenders in Pennsylvania have more cases, more clients, than they can handle," said Jacobson. "This is a job that's required by the Constitution. The Constitution says that the government must provide assistance, and effective assistance of counsel, in criminal cases - and Pennsylvania is falling short."

Pennsylvania is one of only two states where the state doesn't help fund indigent defense. Jacobson said changing the system would allow public defenders to do their jobs more effectively.

As "Banned Books Week" comes to a close, Connecticut libraries have been celebrating with great fervor - despite numerous book bans and challenges, here and across the country.

According to the American Library Association, this year 1,651 books have been targets of attempted bans, mostly by conservative groups or parents who want to restrict kids' access to some topics. They're mostly titles with themes of gender identity, LGBTQ content, or race and racism.

Connecticut isn't immune to these challenges, said Sam Lee, who chairs the Intellectual Freedom Committee for the Connecticut Library Association.

"The big title that we've been seeing challenged is 'Gender Queer' by Maia Kobabe," she said. "It is a graphic novel memoir about e/eir's experience identifying as agender, transgender and that experience."

So far this year, Lee said, there have been about 30 reported book challenges in the state - and there could be others, as they're not always reported to the Library Association. But to keep limitations on literature from becoming the norm, Lee advised everyone to stop by the library to read a book.

Book challenges don't always end with banning a certain title, and there are other ways the Connecticut Library Association ensures that books remain on shelves. Lee said one way this occurs is through librarians, who are trained to provide their patrons access to all types of literature. And there's a particular state law in place that applies to all Connecticut libraries.

"In Connecticut, we have a confidentiality statute covering library records," Lee said, "and that confidentiality statute protects their privacy, and enables them to read freely, and read widely and read privately, without government intrusion."

Lee described the recent book bans as "depressing" - a way to impose control by limiting people's freedoms. She feels restricting reading can even damage the health of a democracy.