My position on the appropriateness of the death penalty in our criminal justice system evolved over a long period of time. As a young man, I was a death penalty supporter. Then I spent years as a prosecutor and pursued dangerous felons in court, including murderers. In the trenches of a criminal courtroom, I learned firsthand that our system of justice is very imperfect. While it’s a good system designed with the highest ideals of our democratic society in mind, like most of human experience, it is subject to the fallibility of those who participate in it. I saw people who were poorly served by their counsel. I saw people wrongly accused or mistakenly identified. I saw discrimination. In bearing witness to those things, I came to believe that doing away with the death penalty was the only way to ensure it would not be unfairly imposed.

Connecticut becomes the seventeenth state to abolish the death penalty and the fifth to do so in the past five years. New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Illinois [JURIST reports] have all recently eliminated the death penalty, while 34 states retain its use. Last year, the Connecticut Supreme Court did uphold the death penalty [JURIST report] as lawful under the state's constitution. The death penalty remains a controversial issue worldwide. According to an Amnesty International (AI) [advocacy website] report [text, PDF], the number of countries using the death penalty dropped in 2009 [JURIST report], but more than 700 people were executed in 18 countries, with the most executions carried out in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the US.

Counsel for Arizona argued that the state was seeking very limited authority to enforce its immigration scheme, and several justices seemed willing to accept the argument. Justice Antonin Scalia, in particular, showed support for the idea that the Constitution has given states the authority to regular immigration. Counsel for the US argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government. However, he made clear from the outset that he was not making a racial profiling argument, in response to a question from Chief Justice John Roberts. Justice Elena Kagan is recused from the case. Should any portion of the law be upheld, rights groups may pursue further challenges on equal protection grounds.

This is the latest development in the ongoing reproductive rights controversy [JURIST backgrounder]. Earlier this month, Arizona passed a law limiting abortions after 20 weeks [JURIST report]. That same month, a bill limiting insurance coverage for abortions [JURIST report] was passed in Wisconsin. In March, Utah passed a law [JURIST report] requiring a woman seeking an abortion to wait 72 hours prior to obtaining the procedure. Also last month, the Idaho State Senate approved a bill [JURIST report] requiring a woman who is seeking an abortion to first receive an ultrasound. An Oklahoma court also struck down a similar law [JURIST report] last month.

The US military court referred Manning's case for court-martial [JURIST report] in February. Last month UN Special Rapporteur on torture the Juan Mendez [official website] accused the US government of cruel and inhuman treatment [JURIST report] against Manning. A US Army panel of experts declared Manning competent to stand trial [JURIST report] last April. Manning's prosecution has sparked heated debate between defenders and critics. Those who support Manning's actions refer to him as courageous for acting as a whistleblower [advocacy petition] against government crime and corruption. He has been compared to famous US whistleblowers such as Frank Serpico and Daniel Ellsberg [personal websites], who leaked information regarding corruption in the New York Police Department and the Pentagon, respectively.

The State's purported interests are made less reasonable by the fact that DNA collection can wait until a person has been convicted, thus avoiding all the threats to privacy discussed in this opinion. We simply will not allow warrantless, suspicionless searches of biological materials without a showing that accurate identification was not possible using 'traditional' methods. In cases where DNA is required for conviction, there will be likely substantial other evidence to provide probable cause for a search warrant.

In February the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit [official website] ruled [JURIST report] that buccal mouth swabs may be used to extract DNA samples from any adult arrested or charged with a felony in California. In January the Minnesota Supreme Court [official website] upheld a state statute requiring people convicted of crimes to submit a DNA sample, similarly ruling that such a mandate does not violate the Fourth Amendment [JURIST report]. In August a California appellate court struck down the 2004 Amendment [JURIST report] to the DNA Act, overturning a misdemeanor conviction for a felon's refusal to provide a DNA sample after confessing to an arson. US Attorney General Eric Holder [official website] instructed federal prosecutors in November 2010 to use DNA evidence as much as possible [JURIST report] reversing the previous policy of the Bush administration. In May 2009, a California district court upheld the constitutionality of mandatory DNA collection [JURIST report] for all persons arrested or detained under federal authority. That same year a South Carolina law was upheld that requires convicted first degree sex offenders to submit to a DNA test [JURIST report] prior to their release.

Any restriction to the wearing of religious and cultural symbols and dress in schools must be a based on assessment of the needs in each individual case. General bans risk adversely [affecting] Muslim girls' access to education and violating their rights to freedom of expression and to manifest their beliefs. The right to establish places of worship is a key component of the right to freedom of religion or belief which is being restricted in some European countries, despite state obligations to protect, respect and fulfill this right.

In January, Dutch lawmakers announced that a ban [JURIST report] on burqas [JURIST news archive] and other full face coverings will go forward later this year. If enacted, the Netherlands will become the second European country, after France [JURIST report], to ban the burqa. In August, an Italian parliamentary commission approved a draft law [JURIST report] that bans women from wearing full-face veils in public. In July, Belgium implemented a law banning women from wearing the burqa [JURIST report] in public, with violators facing the possibility of fines or up to seven days in jail. Last April, a Dutch court upheld a ban on Islamic headscarves [JURIST report] at a Catholic college saying the prohibition was in line with the school's interest in maintaining its Catholic character. In 2009, a similar ban was instituted in all Dutch-speaking Belgium schools [JURIST report]. That same year, Swiss voters approved [JURIST report] a constitutional ban on the construction of minarets by a margin of 57.5 to 42.5 percent.

The court affirmed the ruling [opinion, PDF] of the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case in September and heard oral arguments [JURIST reports] in January.