Podcast appearances and mentions of john bessler

In this month's episode of Discussions with DPIC, Managing Director Anne Holsinger speaks with John Bessler (pictured), of Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law. Professor Bessler is the author of several books on the death penalty, including his 2023 book The Death Penalty's Denial of Fundamental Human Rights: International Law, State Practice, and the Emerging Abolitionist Norm. In his most recent book, Professor Bessler argues that the death penalty should be classified as torture, which would prohibit its use under international law and treaties. The reality of capital punishment, he explains, is that it is "really just a series of credible death threats." The capital charge is a death threat, the death sentence is a more credible death threat, and the execution itself is a very imminent death threat. International law already prohibits mock executions as a "classic form of psychological torture," and Professor Bessler argues that the death penalty, with its repeated threats to execute, should be viewed the same way. "[T]here's really no way to eliminate the psychological torment that is associated with scheduling someone's death and then subjecting them to that continuous threat of death during the entire process."

On June 15, 1920 a white mob killed three young Black men accused of the alleged rape of a white woman. At a Minnesota Humanities Center event on Monday, speakers reflected on the legacy of lynching and racial violence in Minnesota.--Feven Gerezgiher reports: June 15 marks the anniversary of the 1920 Duluth lynching, when a white mob killed three young Black men accused of the alleged rape of a white woman.At a Minnesota Humanities Center event on Monday, law professor John Bessler said racially motivated killings are not uncommon in Minnesota history.In the 19th century, both state sanctioned executions and lynchings occurred in Minnesota with executions fueled by this desire for vengeance or revenge and lynchings fueled by societal outrage at those responsible or thought to be responsible for heinous crimes.Bessler referred to examples like the 1862 mass hanging outside Mankato of 38 Dakota men charged with war crimes, the largest mass execution in U.S. history.In addition to the public lynching of three men, a fourth - Max Mason - was convicted of the rape, despite there being no supporting evidence. He served five years in prison after which he was released on the condition that he leave the state. He died in Memphis in 1942. Last June, 100 years later, lawyers Jerry Blackwell and Corey Gordon won Mason a posthumous pardon. The pardon came just weeks after the murder of George Floyd. Blackwell said the pardon is only a small steppingstone on the path to racial justice.The fact that the majority of posthumous pardons have gone to African-Americans underscores the importance of the posthumous pardon as a vehicle for shining light on the racial injustices of the past and also helping the nation itself as a whole with curing some of the problems we have with social and moral amnesia. //  And we can't address or fix that which we don't acknowledge even exists.The pardon was the first of its kind in Minnesota. 

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

Is it constitutional to execute an inmate who doesn’t remember the crime he committed? Or a person who might suffer excruciating pain during execution? These questions were raised by cases that came before the Supreme Court this term; joining host Jeffrey Rosen to debate them are John Bessler of the University of Baltimore School of Law and Richard Broughton of the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. These two scholars consider the death penalty’s past and present, find points of agreement between death penalty abolitionists and supporters, and predict what the new makeup of the Court will mean for the future of capital punishment.  Questions or comments about the podcast? Email us at podcast@constitutioncenter.org.

The Eighth Amendment grants us the right for protection against excessive bail, fines, or cruel and unusual punishment. But how do we define cruel and unusual? And how has that definition changed over the course of history? Is it still "an eye for an eye" out there? Walking us through everything from unreasonable bail to capital punishment is John Bessler, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Baltimore and Visiting Scholar at Minnesota Law School.

It has been 40 years since the Supreme Court ruled outright on the constitutionality of the death penalty. The court took up issues related to the death penalty — what kind of drugs can be used to kill a man, for instance — but, as to whether lethal injection by the state amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the 8th amendment, the court has not visited constitutionality since 1976. That could change in the near future because of what might turn out to be a landmark dissent by Justice Stephen Breyer. In June 2015, dissenting from the majority’s opinion in an Oklahoma case known as Glossip v. Gross, Breyer suggested that the death penalty had become so problematic in its application — arbitrary, unfair, unreliable — that it might be unconstitutional. He said the court should consider the question again and invited a new challenge to it. Legal scholars believe Breyer’s dissent sets the stage for a fresh look at the death penalty by the Supreme Court.The Brookings Institution in Washington asked University of Baltimore law professor John Bessler to analyze and annotate Justice Breyer’s dissent in the Glossip case so that more Americans could read it and understand it. The result is a small, but fascinating book titled "Against The Death Penalty," with John Bessler, one of the nation’s leading authorities on the death penalty, as editor.Links: http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-supreme-court-lethal-injections-death-penalty-20150629-story.htmlhttp://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-oklahoma-execution-20150930-story.htmlhttp://law.ubalt.edu/faculty/profiles/bessler.cfmhttps://www.brookings.edu/book/against-the-death-penalty/https://www.amazon.com/John-D.-Bessler/e/B001JS7352

Law professor and author John Bessler joins DPIC executive director Robert Dunham to discuss "Against the Death Penalty," a book version of Justice Stephen Breyer's historic dissent in *Glossip v. Gross* in which he questions the constitutionality of the death penalty. Professor Bessler edited the book and wrote an extensive introduction explaining the significance of the opinion. In a wide-ranging conversation, Bessler and Dunham discuss the dissent itself, the national context of the decision, and the possible effects of an 8-member Supreme Court.

David Wessel, senior fellow and director of the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy, looks at Hillary Clinton’s and Donald Trump’s different approaches to policy issues including taxes, family leave, and trade. Also in this episode, John Hudak, deputy director of the Center for Effective Public Management and a senior fellow in Governance Studies, provides a general election update and discusses the upcoming first presidential debate. Finally, Bill Finan interviews John Bessler, professor of Law at the University of Baltimore School of Law and an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, who edited the new Brookings volume, “Against the Death Penalty,” which offers Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s passionate dissent in a 2015 death penalty case. Thanks to audio producer Gaston Reboredo and producer Vanessa Sauter, and also thanks for additional support from Eric Abalahin, Jessica Pavone, Nawal Atallah, Basseem Maleki, and Rebecca Viser.

United States Senator Amy Klobuchar On January 4, 2007, Amy Klobuchar became the first woman elected to represent the State of Minnesota in the United States Senate. Before being elected to public office, she served as a partner in Minnesota's Dorsey & Whitney and Gray, Plant, Mooty law firms. From 1998-2006, Senator Klobuchar served as the prosecutor for Hennepin County. During her eight years as County Attorney, Amy focused on the prosecution of violent and career criminals. She was a leading advocate for successful passage of Minnesota's first felony DWI law, for which she received a leadership award from Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Her safe schools initiative, community prosecution efforts, and criminal justice reforms earned national awards, including from the U.S. Department of Justice under both the Clinton and Bush administrations. She was elected by her colleagues to serve as president of the Minnesota County Attorneys Association.Since her election to the Senate in 2006, Amy has been a strong advocate for Minnesota and has advanced issues that promote economic competitiveness. She has been a leading advocate of the effort to repeal the medical device tax in the Affordable Care Act. Senator Klobuchar was also recently appointed by President Obama to serve on the President’s Export Council. In addition, as chair of the Subcommittee on Competitiveness, Innovation, and Export Promotion, Senator Klobuchar has been a leading voice in calling for an innovation agenda that can help grow our economy and create jobs in America.She has authored legislation to help small businesses tap into new markets abroad and help students get the technical training they need for the jobs of the future. She was part of a group of senators who fought for the creation of a bipartisan debt reduction commission to address our nation's looming debt crisis. She continues to work with a bipartisan group of senators to put in place a long-term plan to responsibly reduce our debt in a balanced way.Sen. Klobuchar graduated magna cum laude from Yale University and the University of Chicago Law School. She is married to John Bessler and they have a daughter, Abigail, who is 17 and is in her senior year of high school.

Arbitrariness and the Constitution - Interview with University of Baltimore Law School professor John Bessler on arbitrariness and the history of the death penalty.