Dec. 16


TEXAS:

The system for assigning incoming cases to Bexar County's two probate
justices could not be simpler: Judge Polly Spencer gets the odd-numbered
ones and Judge Tom Rickhoff gets the evens.

The alternating system, prescribed by state law, is designed to discourage
lawyers from picking the judge they want to hear a particular case.

But according to courthouse regulars, the safeguards are foiled easily.
"Judge shopping" is alive and well, said lawyers who often argue cases
before Spencer and Rickhoff and therefore asked not to be named.

"Lawyers are picking the judge based on whom they think would be best for
their case," one experienced probate lawyer said.

The easiest way, this lawyer said, is to come to the clerk's office with
two or three routine probate cases and, by filing those first, figure out
the judge assignment pattern. Once that's clear, the important case can be
filed with the judge of choice.

But there are less obvious ways to pick a judge, "other techniques for
staying out of a court that you haven't figured out yet," the lawyer
remarked, declining to elaborate.

Repeatedly irked by the practice, Rickhoff last month wrote letters to
court officials complaining about it and asking that a random assignment
system be installed.

"Forum shopping is a direct affront to fair and impartial justice,"
Rickhoff wrote.

He said his public complaint was prompted by the filing of a high-profile
case involving Lillian Glasser, a New Jersey widow with a $25 million
estate.

The hotly contested Glasser case landed in Spencer's court this spring
after K.T. Whitehead, the lawyer who was then handling it, first filed 2
uncomplicated wills for people who had died months earlier.

Whitehead then filed the Glasser case, and Rickhoff believes this wasn't
accidental.

"The Glasser case generated the letter, and the Glasser case is none of my
business except for the forum-shopping part, which I believe I have a duty
to eliminate," Rickhoff said.

Whitehead, who filed the Glasser case at 11:51 a.m., March 14, minutes
after filing 2 others, did not return calls seeking comment. Her office
workers referred calls to Ricardo Cedillo, now the lead lawyer in the
Glasser case.

Cedillo said he knew nothing about how the case was filed but unloaded on
Rickhoff for involving himself in a case that is being heard in another
court.

"I don't know if K.T. did or did not do anything. But as a lawyer, if
there is a way to protect your client by steering the case away from a
judge with Judge Rickhoff's track record, you owe it to your client to use
every legitimate means," he said.

"For Judge Rickhoff to be doing this, calling attention to himself, is an
insult to Judge Spencer," he said.

Spencer said she has no idea if the case ended up in her court by accident
or design, or even if judge shopping is commonplace at the courthouse, but
she called it an abuse of the system.

"There might be people who are avoiding me or people who might want to be
here," she said. "There might be times I suspect that's what happened, but
once the case is here, it's my job to hear it."

Probate court regulars gave a variety of reasons why one might seek to put
a particular case in one court or the other, and several admitted to doing
it.

"I've done it, but I can only think of one time," said one lawyer, who
said some female attorneys avoid Rickhoff's court because of a perception
of bias and a lack of confidence in his rulings and knowledge of the law.

"I really don't think it has anything to do with the strengths or
weaknesses of the judges. Rickhoff doesn't like female attorneys. He also
doesn't like guardianships. He thinks it's a waste of time," said the
lawyer.

Another female lawyer, however, said while this perception about Rickhoff
was common among women when he first took the bench, it no longer holds
true.

Rickhoff said, "I've never had that complaint and I don't believe it's a
problem."

Yet another lawyer, however, admitted to seeking out Rickhoff's court for
the speed with which the judge handles cases that might otherwise get
bogged down before Spencer.

"Generally, lawyers are trying to get out of Spencer's court. She has a
difficult time controlling lawyers. Her office is chaos. Matters that
should be routine languish on her desk for months," the lawyer said.

The lawyer, however, said Spencer's court is clearly better for certain
cases.

"If it's a complicated trust matter with a tax issue, it's a no-brainer.
You want Polly Jackson Spencer. If it's a contested, litigated will, you
want Judge Rickhoff. I think that's the way most lawyers are approaching
it," the lawyer said.

Still another experienced probate lawyer said judge shopping is not
widespread.

"The perception among those of us who have been doing cases in probate
court for years is there are probably three or four attorneys who forum
shop," said this lawyer. "Can you do it? Yeah. Are there unprofessional
lawyers who are doing it? Yeah. But it just means you can't handle
yourself in front of either judge."

Probate Judge Guy Herman of Austin, who is about to become the state's
presiding statutory probate judge, was among those receiving Rickhoff's
November letter about judge shopping.

"There's nothing I can do about it until January. I'll stick my nose into
it at that point. It seems to me there ought to be a way to fix it under
the current system," Herman said.

Judge Rickhoff's brother, Bexar County Clerk Gerry Rickhoff, said he is
trying to fix the system. He said he tried to discourage judge shopping a
couple of years ago by removing the clerk's log book from public view, so
lawyers could not see which judge was next up for a case.

He said he also inquired about using a random number generator, but
learned it did not conform to the state statute.

The practice continues, he said.

"I was in the presence of attorneys who shall remain unnamed. They were
basically laughing about steering cases. When they start talking about it
in front of me, it's untenable," he said.

Gerry Rickhoff said he is still looking for a system allowable under the
law that cannot be manipulated by lawyers.

"Hopefully we can get it resolved. Judge assignment is a hot-button issue
in probably every courthouse in Texas," he said.

(source: San Antonio Express-News)

******************

SKEEN FILES FOR BID TO KEEP COURT POSITION


21 years as Smith County's elected criminal district attorney gave Jack
Skeen Jr. an extensive amount of jury trial experience.

The 241st District judge, who filed to run for re-election Thursday, said
he believed that experience has provided him with a solid foundation to
serve as district judge.

"The past two years have been a rewarding experience for me because I have
been able to serve as a trial judge and have had a different perspective
on criminal cases as a trial judge that as a prosecutor," he said.

For more than 2 decades he prosecuted criminals, including several death
penalty cases. Now as judge, Skeen said he has given high priority to the
trials of criminal cases when the defendants are incarcerated because of
the significant jail-overcrowding problem.

Skeen said he always keeps in mind that a judge has to rule solely on the
facts of the case and the law - that's what he said he tries to do.

>From January through October, 595 civil cases have been disposed of in
Skeen's court while 769 criminal cases have been settled from January
through November.

Skeen, 59, calls a criminal docket every Monday in his court and
emphasizes to attorneys to dispose of the jail cases, whether it be by
jury trial or plea, to move the defendants through the system. The judge
plans to continue to move the cases as efficiently as he can.

Skeen said he's been fortunate as judge to have experienced prosecutors
and contract attorneys defending indigent clients assigned to his court.
They've done excellent jobs trying cases before juries and working out
plea agreements, he said.

He said the due administration of justice requires that cases be moved
through the system considering the high volume of criminal and civil cases
filed in district courts.

This year, Skeen has presided over about 25 jury trials. Since he was
appointed to the judgeship by the governor to fill an unexpired term in
November 2003, his court has had the only death penalty jury trial and has
held individual jury selections for 2 death penalty cases, one which took
about a month but the case ended in a guilty plea.

In the past 2 years, 8 capital murder cases have been indicted and
disposed of by trials or pleas in his court.

Skeen was elected district attorney for 6 terms, serving from 1983 until
he was appointed to the judgeship. He also served as an assistant district
attorney, Tyler city attorney and Tyler Municipal Court judge. Born and
raised in Tyler, he is a graduate of Robert E. Lee High School, Tyler
Junior College, The University of Texas at Austin and Baylor University
School of Law. He was nominated by the Tyler FBI to attend the U.S.
Department of Justice FBI National Law Institute in Virginia, where he
graduated in 1993.P> Skeen, who is serving as local administrative judge
for the Smith County Council of District Judges, and his wife Barbara have
two sons, Jack Skeen III and Carter Skeen.

Tyler attorney David Dobbs will serve as Skeen's campaign treasurer.

(source: Tyler Morning Telegraph)

**************

Texas Court Misquotes Judge's Findings, Withdraws Opinion


In an unusual move on Wednesday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals
withdrew an opinion in a case involving the death of an infant after the
judge who considered the appeal in a state habeas corpus proceeding
claimed the opinion misquoted her findings.

"We withdrew the opinion to correct a factual error and hope to reissue a
corrected opinion soon," says CCA Presiding Judge Sharon Keller.

Judge Mary Lou Keel, of Houston's 232nd District Court, notified the CCA
of the error in a letter sent after the court posted its opinion online in
Ex Parte Brandy Del Briggs. Keel noted in the letter that the opinion,
written by CCA Judge Cathy Cochran, seems to quote Keel's findings.

"Instead, however, the higher court quotes proposed findings that the
court never adopted," Keel wrote in the letter.

Keel and Cochran decline comment because the appeal in Briggs is still
pending.

"I think it's a great injustice," says Charles Portz, who represents
Briggs in the habeas proceeding.

Portz, a partner in Houston's Portz & Portz, notified Briggs on Dec. 14
that the CCA overturned her conviction but had to notify her the following
day that the court withdrew its opinion.

In an 8-1 decision, with Keller dissenting, the CCA had reversed Briggs'
conviction for injury to a child in connection with the death of her son,
Daniel Lemons, in May 1999.

The error in the opinion doesn't affect the CCA's reason for reversing the
conviction. Lynn Hardaway, the Harris County assistant district attorney
who currently handles the case in the habeas proceeding, says the CCA
granted relief based on Briggs' allegation of ineffective assistance by
her trial counsel. Hardaway says the error in the opinion related to
Briggs' claim of newly discovered evidence.

(source: Texas Lawyer)






OREGON:

Facing the failings of our death penalty law


When The Oregonian's Steve Duin began his recent 5- part series on the
crime and punishment of Randy Guzek, he mentioned that it was
Shakespearean in its "tragedy, irony and despair." Duin described the
tragedy and despair of the case well. But what he didn't fully describe is
what most Oregonians will have to live with the longest: the irony. And
there are many ironies that we must face if the death penalty in Oregon is
to be workable in our day.

Irony No. 1: The Oregon death penalty statute, which we carefully tinker
with every legislative session, is a mess. And the fact that many justices
of the U.S. Supreme Court pointed that out last week when they reviewed
Guzek's case ought to make prosecution and defense attorneys alike stop
screaming at each other for a minute and agree that the statute just
doesn't work.

Irony No. 2: Guzek's will be the longest death penalty case in Oregon
history, even though it was a softball pitched right across the plate. We
will not be able to execute Guzek for at least 45 years after he committed
his grisly murders because he was convicted under an untried statute and
because of the reality of our state's post-conviction relief requirements,
which had not been the case under Oregon's earlier experience with the
death penalty.

Irony No. 3: By the time Guzek is executed, if ever, we will have spent
enough money on his case to have given at least 1,000 Oregon kids full
academic scholarships to the University of Oregon. Indeed, by the time of
his execution, Oregon will have spent more on Randy Guzek than on any
other citizen in the history of the state. And I suspect that's just the
way Guzek would have wanted it.

Irony No. 4: By the time Guzek is executed, if ever, Oregonians will first
have to witness a parade of other executions -- many of them men in their
60s, 70s and even 80s whose cases are quietly working their way through
the system now (many for nearly as long as Guzek's). That's right. Guzek
will have to get in line. He will not receive fast-track treatment. And
when Oregonians witness their state putting to death men in their 70s,
someone somewhere is going to ask the question: "Is this what the death
penalty was supposed to do?"

Irony No. 5: A fact known to very few people is that the Oregon death
penalty is now working like clockwork in cases before the state Supreme
Court, except for about 5 very old cases, including Guzek's. What that
means is that we have a 2-tiered reality in death cases in Oregon that has
nothing to do with the severity of the men's crimes (and, by the way,
there are no women on death row). Some of our worst killers will be around
the longest and will benefit most from repeal efforts that will no doubt
come in the future.

Irony No. 6: The final irony is the most bitter of all. When Oregonians
first voted to reinstate the death penalty in 1978 (it was thrown out by
the Oregon Supreme Court in 1981, leading to the repassage of the statute
in slightly different form in 1984), the statute had the following
provision:

"The judgment of conviction and sentence of death shall be subject to
automatic review by the Supreme Court within 60 days after certification
of the entire record by the sentencing court, unless an additional period
not exceeding 30 days is extended by the Supreme Court for good cause"
(original Sec. 5).

In other words, the one thing Oregonians wanted to make sure of was that
death cases would be handled quickly.

There are things that can be done to fix Oregon's law. But it is a good
bet that if we just keep knocking our heads against each other in good
adversarial fashion, the only real losers will be the people of Oregon.

(source: The Oregonian (William R. Long is a visiting law professor at
Willamette University College of Law and is author of "A Tortured History:
The Story of Capital Punishment in Oregon.")


USA:

Don't let murderers linger on death row


USA TODAY's editorial view that life in prison without parole might be
more harsh than capital punishment is wishful thinking ("Death penalty
support ebbs as tough new option arises," Our view, Capital punishment
debate, Monday).

Pictures of Stanley "Tookie" Williams indicate he was in great shape and
did not seem to have suffered that much from being on death row for more
than 20 years. He showed no remorse for killing 4 citizens. His supporters
did not recognize he was a vicious gang leader who was convicted of 4
murders and was likely responsible for an unknown number more through his
gang activities.

My question is: Why did he get to spend more than 20 years on death row?
Convicted murderers sentenced to die should remain on death row for the
time needed for appeals, but that should be no longer than three years.
Williams cost the taxpayers of California millions of dollars during his
incarceration on death row.

Each state should tighten its death penalty laws and limit petitions by
convicted murderers.

Jim Dublinski, Salt Lake City

(source: Letter to the Editor, USA Today)

*******************

Christians and executions


There is no more decisive issue than the death penalty ... separating
Europe from the United States. Even more than the use of torture or
preventive war.

If an explanation, rather than a justification, can be put forward for the
American tenacity, this lies within the nature of the U.S. democracy, so
profoundly different from European democracies. In a direct democracy, in
which the relationship between elected and electors is far more immediate
than it has been in Italy until now, if the citizens are in favor of the
gallows, their representatives do not have much choice.

They can be, and many are in private, horrified. But very few ... have
sufficient courage to offer resistance.

Naturally, the key to direct democracy does not help us understand why 2/3
of Americans, and the large majority of those who claim ... to be devoted
Christians, continue to believe in the punishment.

(source: Editorial, Houston Chronicle)

********************

Justice and a Needle----Williams death must inject some sense into the
death-penalty debate


What do China, Iran, Cuba, Egypt, and the United States have in common?
They all allow the death penalty. In fact, the United States is the only
Western democracy to still allow executions. This past Tuesday, the United
States criminal justice system struck again, as Stanley Tookie Williams, a
cofounder of the street gang the Crips, was executed by the State of
California. While there is no question that the crimes Williams was
convicted of were horrific, Williams reformation in jail was remarkable
and could have served as a model for other prisoners.

It is morally reprehensible that the death penalty still exists in a
country that disavows "cruel and unusual punishment" in its very
constitution. The death penalty exists today as a grisly spectacle meant
to soothe the retributive minds of a majority of Americans as much as it
does to deter potential violent criminals from committing crimes. But
punishment should not be tailored to the electorate. Rather it should
follow the same moral norms that every citizen of the United States is
expected to follow - moral norms that prohibit killing except in
self-defense. As Stanley Williams reportedly tried to help the technician
deliver his own lethal injection, it can hardly be argued that the state
believed Williams to be an imminent danger. With the myriad problems
afflicting the current criminal justice system, the death penalty also
allows for tragic mistakes. Innocent people have too often had their
convictions overturned for us to have confidence in the accuracy of the
system.

In the name of moral consistency, it is incumbent on all governors to
grant clemency to those who face execution and commute their sentences to
life imprisonment without parole. Until the federal government or the
states ban the death penalty, governors should have the courage to protest
the travesty that is government-sanctioned execution. Governors are not
automatons that must bend to the pressure of unjust laws. They more than
any other individuals have the power to achieve true justice.

Tookie Williams, before his execution, served as a prime example of why
the death penalty should be abolished. Williams showed that even the
cruelest criminals can be rehabilitated to exert positive influences
outside their jail cells. While it is regrettable that he never apologized
for the crimes he committed, Williams accomplished praiseworthy projects
while in prison. He wrote a series of childrens books designed to steer
young people away from street gangs and towards a life of nonviolence. He
produced public-service announcements urging kids to stay out of gangs,
and he participated in anti-violence mentoring programs via telephone.
Newark city officials also credited Williams for helping to broker a peace
between the rival gangs the Crips and the Bloods, which helped lead to a
drop in Newarks murder rate.

The killings Williams committed and the crimes his founding of the Crips
caused are tragic and horrific. But the work Williams did in prison to
help stem gang violence is laudable. Williams could have continued that
work if his sentence had been commuted to life without parole. Instead,
California killed Williams. The state did nothing more than prove to the
youths Williams taught not to kill that death is sometimes the only
acceptable punishment. 25 years in jail changed Williams mind about the
rightness of murder. How long will it take the rest of us?

(source: The Harvard Crimson (Massachusetts)

***************

O'Reilly echoed right-wing falsehood that Supreme Court overturns 9th
Circuit at a "record rate"


On the December 12 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, Fox News host Bill
O'Reilly falsely stated that decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit are being overturned by the Supreme Court at a "record
rate," while Fox News senior judicial analyst Andrew P. Napolitano
declared the 9th Circuit court "beholden to Hollywood." In fact, during
its 2004-05 term, 3 other circuit courts were reversed by the Supreme
Court at a higher rate than the 9th Circuit. Moreover, in the three terms
prior to the 2004-05 term, the percentage of cases the Supreme Court
reversed from those appealed by the 9th Circuit was almost identical to
the national average for federal circuit courts -- either slightly higher
or slightly lower.*

The 9th Circuit, also known as the Western circuit, is headquartered in
San Francisco but also has courtrooms in Pasadena, California; Portland,
Oregon; and Seattle.

In an on-air discussion with O'Reilly, Napolitano, a former New Jersey
Superior Court judge, accused the judges who sit on the 9th Circuit of
being "beholden to Hollywood." He said that the appeals court judges are
"typical liberals in that they think they know better than people do. They
second-guess jurors because they believe they're smarter than jurors. They
second-guess prosecutors. They second-guess public defenders and defense
counsel." Second-guessing -- or reviewing -- lower court actions is, in
fact, the function of an appellate court.

As Media Matters for America has documented (here, here and here), the 9th
Circuit's reversal rate of 76 % during the 2003-04 Supreme Court term was
virtually the same as the national average of 77 % for all circuit courts.
Likewise, the percentage of reversals -- 75 % -- of 9th Circuit decisions
for the 2002-03 Supreme Court term was almost the same as the national
average of 73 % for the total number of federal circuit court cases
reviewed. For the 2001-02 term, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate was 76 %
while the national average was 78 %.

During the 1990s, however, the 9th Circuit's reversal rate did exceed the
national average, most notably during the 1996-97 term, when the court's
95-percent reversal rate topped the national average of 71 % and "earned
the Western circuit its reputation as the nation's 'most reversed,'"
according to a July 3, 2004, article in the Sacramento Bee.

During its 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court reversed 84 % of the cases it
chose to hear from appeals of 9th Circuit decisions, compared to a 73
%average reversal rate for all circuit courts of appeals. But the high
court reversed 100 % of the decisions it heard from the 1st, 2nd, and 10th
circuits.* Circuit court reversals in the 2004-05 term rank as follows:

Circuit - Cases Taken - Cases reversed - Reversal rate

1st -- 4 -- 4 -- 100%

2nd -- 2 -- 2 -- 100%

10th -- 3 -- 3 -- 100%

9th -- 19 -- 16 -- 84%

3d -- 4 -- 3 -- 75%

8th -- 4 -- 3 -- 75%

5th -- 7 -- 5 -- 71%

4th -- 3 -- 2 -- 67%

6th -- 11 -- 7 -- 64%

7th -- 2 -- 1 -- 50%

11th -- 10 -- 5 -- 50%

These differences in percentages, however, are not substantively
significant given the limited number of cases the Supreme Court chooses to
review, resulting in comparisons of very small numbers. For instance, in
the 2004-05 term, the Supreme Court heard 19 cases appealed from the 9th
Circuit, reversing 16 of those decisions; the high court reversed all 4
cases it heard from the 1st Circuit and the 2 cases it heard from the 2nd
Circuit. The 7th Circuit had 1 of its 2 cases reversed; with 5 of 10 cases
reversed, the 11th Circuit had, along with the 7th Circuit, the lowest
percentage -- but not the lowest number -- of cases reversed.

Because the 9th Circuit carries a larger caseload than any appellate court
in the nation, critics of the Western circuit often express its reversal
rate in absolute numbers rather than percentages. When expressed in
absolute numbers, the 9th Circuit logically experiences the largest number
of reversals by the Supreme Court. In 2004, the court disposed of 12,600
cases, leaving 14,900 still pending. By comparison, the 5th Circuit, which
carries the second-largest federal appellate caseload, disposed of 7,700
cases, leaving 5,700 pending.

>From the December 12 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:

NAPOLITANO: The 9th Circuit, for historical reasons, has gathered most of
the liberal judges. It is far and away more left-wing than all the other
circuit courts in the country. They are beholden to Hollywood. They are
typical liberals in that they think they know better than the people do.
They second-guess jurors because they believe they're smarter than jurors.
They second-guess prosecutors. They second-guess public defenders and
defense counsel. They're looking for every little opportunity they can --

O'REILLY: And you can find -- you can find an ample opportunity in any
criminal case.

NAPOLITANO: I also think there's some political ideology here. I think
many of the judges of the 9th Circuit who have been reversing these
convictions have been on death penalty cases where they don't believe in
the death penalty.

O'REILLY: Do they try to impose their view?

NAPOLITANO: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: What can the Supreme Court do?

NAPOLITANO: The Supreme Court can enforce literally an act written by the
Congress in 1996 which says when a federal court -- the 9th Circuit --
reviews a state prosecution, it starts with the presumption that the
prosecution was valid, appropriate and fair. The 9th Circuit seems to be
applying the pre-'96 mentality when federal judges were literally
permitted to second-guess their state court counterparts. Congress put a
stop to that, but the 9th Circuit hasn't done so.

O'REILLY: But the Supreme Court already overturned 75 % of the cases from
the 9th that it gets. Can it get anything other than continue to overturn
at a record rate?

(* source: Senior Reference Librarian for the 9th Circuit)

(source: Media Matters)

********************

Death-penalty case emphasizes wasted potential


Even as a death-penalty opponent, I couldn't muster much enthusiasm for
boarding the "Save Tookie" bandwagon that stopped abruptly Tuesday when
the convicted killer and notorious Crips gang founder was executed in
California.

State-sponsored killing is barbaric and just a more sterile and
blame-dispersing way to kill people than the sawed-off-shotgun method
Stanley "Tookie" Williams used in the four murders for which he was
convicted almost 25 years ago.

Something just didnt quite work about this case to give Tookie
poster-child status in the anti-death-penalty cause. Perhaps it was the
heinous nature of his crime - 2 of his victims were elderly shopkeepers.
Maybe it was the fact that his leadership in the Crips gang inspired
thousands of other young men to lead violent lives.

I dont think it was his initial badness that tempered my zest for his
cause. Those of us who oppose the death penalty have to resolve from the
get-go that no matter how bad the crime, the person who committed it
should not be killed by the government.

Life behind bars? Sure. Regardless of reformation or redeeming acts in
prison, people still need to do their time. Williams had gained lots of
high-powered friends and widespread attention because he wrote some books
urging kids not to get involved in gangs.

What bothere me most about the celebrity-powered public relations campaign
to save Williams life was the implication that he was somehow better than
the convicted killers with whom he shared death row.

What this case emphasized for me was the wasted human potential in every
one of Americas prisons and, yes, the squandered talent and intelligence
of the 515 adults who spent Thursday in the Winnebago County Jail.
Twenty-one minors were at the countys juvenile facility.

Some of them, like Williams, have talents of one kind or another that
could develop in some significant way behind bars. The years likely would
not be pleasant, but they would offer ample time for self-reflection. In
some prisons, inmates attend classes, read books, get counseling, write,
draw, think.

I dont know how often it happens, but I guess its possible for a person to
emerge from prison with better character than when he or she went in.

Whenever a convict stands out for having an extraordinary intellect or
artistic gifts, those talents are discounted because of the circumstances.
After all, how could anyone who commits terrible crimes have any
understanding of culture or beauty?

Its almost a cliche for killers to get religion behind bars. I have two
letters from Ray Lee Stewart, who killed 6 people here in 1981. In the
last letter, written shortly before his execution, he refers to his
Christian conversion. At some point in his 15 years on Illinois death row,
he had discovered his humanity. He was a different man, he said, from the
one who killed 6 people on a spree in 1981. Yet, nobody other than the
usual anti-death-penalty activists went to bat for Stewart when he was
killed by lethal injection in 1996.

None of us knows what happened early on to Tookie Williams or Ray Lee
Stewart to turn them into killers. No, were not to blame. They made
choices.

We have an opportunity through education and prevention programs to
uncover and nurture hidden talents and natural skills in some young people
before they get to prison and discover through the resources available
there that they could have been somebody.

For them, as for Williams and Stewart, its too late.

(source: Column, Judy Emerson, Rockford (Ill.) Register Star)

*******************

The Death Penalty Was Meant To Be A Deterrent


For 25 years, Stanley Tookie Williams thumbed his nose at the American
justice system as well as the families of his victims. The way he and his
unscrupulous lawyers were allowed to manipulate the system should serve as
an example of how much reform is needed for capital punishment.

The way the death penalty is currently administered, renders the
punishment rather irrelevant. The average stay on death row in the United
States is eleven years. By the time the condemned receives his fate, the
crime has long since been forgotten by the public and many of the victims'
loved ones have passed away before receiving any closure.

If the death penalty was carried-out in a swift fashion, it would serve as
much more of a deterrent. The almost clandestine manner in which the
offender's life is ended, defeats the purpose of the ultimate punishment.

Once a defendant is given a sentence of death, he should have no more than
one year to appeal the case. The seemingly endless string of appeals is an
abuse of the system at the expense of the American taxpayer.

Publicity-seeking criminal defense attorneys take on those cases, already
convinced of their own client's guilt as well as of the futility of the
exhausting appeals process.

The execution should also be made public. For the condemned, the process
should be humiliating and harsh. The method of lethal injection is much
too easy, it is more humane than the convicted deserves. Ideally, the
guilty man would be marched through a crowd of onlookers in nothing but
his underwear, led to the gallows and hanged. While this scenario may seem
draconian or even barbaric to some--just consider the fact that the life
of the murderer is effectively over the moment he is convicted, the only
useful purpose his life can then serve is as a deterrent to others.

Executions should also be carried-out within the communities where the
crime was committed. The local community feels both a sense of loss and
violation, when a violent crime takes place within its borders, yet is
always robbed of a sense of justice.

Many years ago, executions were held publicly and they were done so to
serve as a reminder to any would-be criminals. The main purpose of capital
punishment is not to rid the community of a murderous savage, nor is it
even to give a sense of closure to loved ones left behind--those benefits
are merely secondary. The main purpose of imposing the death penalty upon
someone is to serve as a deterrent to others.

Until the death penalty is declared swiftly, harshly, and publicly--the
American justice system will remain a joke and our streets will continue
to be frightening places. As it stands, the inmates are running the
asylum.

(source: American Daily - Dave Gibson is a freelance writer and part-time
political consultant living in Norfolk, Va.)

**********************

Death penalty is revenge, not justice


I listened to the relatives of the victims of Stanley "Tookie" Williams,
co-founder of the Crips gang, and heard their pain and anger at the
killer.

I know that if my child were killed I would feel the same way. I'd ask for
punishment that would involve hammers.

But that doesn't change the fact that they were calling for revenge, not
justice.

Gary Gentry, Laveen

(source: Letter to the Editor, Arizona Republic)






CALIFORNIA:

Death penalty appeal needs reform


The recent spotlight on the execution of multiple-murderer Stanley
"Tookie" Williams has once again highlighted the flaws in California's
death penalty law. Williams was convicted in 1981 of murdering 4 people
and sentenced to death. Williams was put to death Tuesday, 26 years after
his victims took their final breaths.

Williams' case demonstrates just how dysfunctional the death penalty
process is in California.

The seemingly endless appeals process for condemned killers now faces a
backlog of about 650 individuals living on death row. Since the death
penalty was re-established in California in 1977 only 11 executions have
taken place, while 30 death-row inmates have died from natural causes.

For the handful of executions that have taken place, the average delay
from the courthouse steps to the chamber at San Quentin is 16 years.

Under both California and federal law there is a specific, detailed and
lengthy appeals process that must be followed before an inmate may be
scheduled for execution.

Adding to the delays is the fact that the kinds of inmates who commit
capital offenses tend to be indigent and unable to pay for their own
defense. Those with some financial means usually exhaust their resources
before the appeal process is completed. As a result most death penalty
appeals fall on the shoulders of the Office of the State Public Defender.

Those cases must then be prioritized, funded and staffed along with the
myriad other cases the public defender is tasked with, resulting in still
more delays.

Is it even possible then to both fulfill the wishes of California's
citizens and comply with the lengthy appeals mandated under federal law?
Clearly it is possible, as demonstrated in the state of Texas. Compared
with California's 11 executions in 30 years, Texas has carried out 355
capital sentences, during the same time period. Texas has streamlined its
death row appellate process and eliminated other legal hurdles, without
denying any single killer his right to appeal.

Similar capital punishment reform can be accomplished in California, which
is why I have co-authored Senate Bill 378 (Morrow). In the mid-1990s, the
Legislature created the California Habeas Corpus Resource Center (HCRC)
whose purpose is to represent indigent death row defendants and get the
appeal process moving. SB378 builds on those efforts by nearly tripling
the size of the HCRC from its present 45 lawyers and staff to 127. SB378
also contains a dozen or so other legal remedies, which will eliminate
unreasonable delays in the resolution of post-conviction issues and reduce
the number of proceedings in capital cases.

The Stanley "Tookie" Williams case has reminded us once again how violent
murderers continue to live out their lives on death row, reading and
writing and taking a deep breath each morning when they awake. At the same
time, the families of their victims continue to shed tears for the cruel
and violent loss of their loved ones. It is not about any one killer and
the regret he may have for horrors committed long ago. It is instead time
to send a message to potential killers in our midst.

It is time to show that punishment for the most brutal murders will be
swift and severe. Our families deserve nothing less.

(source: Visalia Times Delta -- Sen. Roy Ashburn, R-Bakersfield,
represents the 18th Senate District including Tulare, Kern, Inyo, and San
Bernardino Counties)

*******************

Hoping for an end to the death penalty


The night the governor of our state decided to murder Stanley "Tookie"
Williams, I stood on the bridge from 11 p.m. until 12:20 a.m. with a sign
and candles. I was there maybe 10 minutes when 3 young adults came up and
asked if I was there for Tookie. I said I was there for him and for the
injustice of it all. One of the young men said he stopped because he just
wanted to shake my hand and thank me for being out there. The 3 spoke well
about their concerns and feelings. At the same time a young woman walked
from across the street and stood behind them. They said they couldn't stay
but extended warm thanks. The young woman behind them, Michelle, said she
wanted to stay awhile. I had extra candles and gave her one. We spoke for
the entire duration, until 12:16 when I figured that Tookie's death was
upon us. She was wonderful. We spoke about everything under the sun, so
much seriousness, so much thoughtfulness, so much kindness. How wonderful
to share the hour with such a wonderful young woman, whose smile and
consideration warmed the night up as much as the wool jacket and gloves.

Michelle said she had thought about driving home down Lincoln. For some
reason she choose to come down Third Street. I told her about the words my
mentor always said to me, "You never know from what bush a rabbit might
jump." By choosing another path, she was brought to hold a candle on the
bridge and stand with me where together on this evening we could hold a
light for compassion and hope for a better tomorrow.

A few people honked in support, a cab driver among them. One drunk coming
out of the bar on Main Street sped by and screamed something foul and
incoherent. I wish that that was the only discord under the calm cool
night with the ducks quacking down along the river bank.

Governor Schwarzenegger has shown such a malicious contempt for human
life. I am stunned by the arrogance and the disregard for justice, for
truth, for understanding. We live in a destructive world, where even our
government condones murder, violence and torture. Perhaps our governor is
living out his cinematic dreams of truly being able to kill and get away
with it. Let the credits role.

How can we teach if we do not set the example? How can we learn if we are
not willing to be taught? Meeting those four young people was just one of
the good things around the state that came from this sad night. I'm sure
that there were many inspiring moments where grief was comforted by hope.
That night, compassion and understanding got a better footing on the
planet. Good things will come from that night. We must build on this
movement to end the death penalty. We must build on the movement to create
a more compassionate world.

I feel good about the young people in Napa.

(source: The Napa Valley Register-- Lowell Downey lives in Napa.)

**************

For Williams, due process


Numerous legal appeals to challenge the 1981 death sentence of Stanley
"Tookie" Williams had been considered and rejected. The gang thug
convicted of gunning down four people in cold blood finally received due
process, and it was richly deserved.

His execution in California this week was the unfortunate but appropriate
fate of the co-founder of the notorious Crips gang, who became the latest
"celebrity" con to gain high-profile attention with claims of redemption
found on death row.

The condemned 51-year-old, who once presided over a street family some law
enforcement officials consider more deadly than the Mafia, insisted he was
not the same man who led the violent Crips decades ago.

He was a redeemed killer, he said, a man who convinced a cadre of
Hollywood celebrities and other death penalty opponents that he could do
more good alive than dead. The Tookie who faced a date with lethal
injection at San Quentin State Prison in California renounced his old
ways, crusaded for anti-violence from his cell, and even wrote children's
books to urge youngsters to just say no to gangs.

His alleged transformation behind bars touched many well meaning
supporters both famous and unknown who rallied to his cause for clemency.
And because anybody can nominate anybody for a Nobel laureate,
international fans nominated the seasoned con touting sincere redemption
for a Nobel Peace Prize.

How could California possibly execute a man of such stature and saving
grace?

The answer is justice under the law.

He was convicted of murdering a 26-year-old convenience store clerk and,
within days, killing a husband, wife, and daughter at the Los Angeles
motel they owned. Witnesses at his trial testified that he boasted about
the killings and said of one, "You should have heard the way he sounded
when I shot him."

The testimony states that Williams then made growling noises and laughed.
A relative of one of the victims said her stepson begged Williams for his
life before being shot twice in the back. Lora Owens called the inmate's
execution long overdue.

Those who disagreed, those who called Williams a powerful force for peace,
were content to look past a killer who never expressed remorse for killing
nor formally cut ties with his Crips.

Maybe Tookie Williams truly had an epiphany about his crimes and genuinely
hoped to influence younger generations to learn from his mistakes. But
what they must also learn is that justice will be served - even for a
killer who managed to turn himself into a sympathetic figure.

(source: Editorial, Toledo Blade)



Reply via email to