You've been warned

Response to the European Union's Statement on the Death Penalty

As delivered by Chargé d'Affaires Kyle Scott
to the Permanent Council, Vienna
February 12, 2009

Thank you, Madame Chairwoman.

We would like to thank the European Union for its routine expression
of concern regarding the death penalty in the United States.

As we have stated on many occasions here in this forum, the use of
the death penalty in the United States is a decision of
democratically elected governments at the federal and individual
state levels. It is not prohibited by international law, nor does
capital punishment violate any OSCE commitments. The people of the
United States, acting through their freely elected representatives,
have chosen, in most states, not to abolish the death penalty.

The U.S. judicial system provides exhaustive protections to ensure
that the death penalty is not applied in an extra-judicial, summary
or arbitrary manner. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held that
capital punishment itself does not violate the U.S. Constitution.
Capital punishment may only be carried out subject to the extensive
due process and equal protection requirements, and after exhaustive
appeals.

And I would also point out, as we have on numerous occasions, that
capital punishment continues to be the subject of vigorous and open
discussion among the American people.

Madame Chairwoman and fellow delegates, while we very much respect
the importance that the European Union attaches to this issue and the
passion with which they hold those views, we would ask that the
European Union's passion not overtake their checking of facts.

Edward Bell was a repeat offender who openly threatened a police
officer with killing him and eventually carried out that threat,
shooting the man at point blank range in the head. Mental retardation
was never an issue in the Bell case. It was never alleged by his
attorneys, was never mentioned by any of the advocacy groups
following this case, nor put as a question at any step of the
exhaustive judicial process in this case.

With regard to the question of consular access, the Jamaican
Consulate was promptly informed by the Virginian authorities of Mr.
Bell's arrest -- despite Mr. Bell's own demands that they not be
informed. The Winchester authorities, recognizing their obligations
under U.S. and international law, nonetheless promptly informed
Jamaican Consulate authorities of his arrest.

With regard to the case mentioned in Tennessee, the United States is
a country governed by the rule of the law, and the state of
Tennessee, as one would expect when there was a challenge before our
Supreme Court regarding procedures used by Tennessee in carrying out
capital punishment, put on hold any further implementation of capital
punishment until such time when the case was decided by the Supreme
Court. There never was any official or de-facto moratorium; simply
the process of due review by our courts.

Thank you.

(Distributed by the Bureau of International Information Programs,
U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://www.america. gov)