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)