Jan. 9
ARIZONA:
Arizona court reduces Shawn Grell's death sentence to life
The Arizona Supreme Court reduced the death sentence of man who doused his own
daughter with a gasoline and watched her burn to death more than a decade ago
in east Mesa.
The court ruled in a decision announced Wednesday that Grell's sentence will be
natural life in prison, without possibility of parole, because of evidence he
is mentally retarded.
Grell was sentenced twice to death for the gruesome murder of his 2-year-old
daughter, once by a judge and once by a jury, with both focused on whether he
is retarded and if he could be held responsible for her death.
"We are fully aware of the horrific nature of this crime and the devastation it
has brought upon Kristen's family," Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch wrote in
the ruling.
"But given the recognition under our Constitution that defendants with mental
retardation are less morally culpable for their crimes ... Grell is ineligible
for execution," the ruling said.
Kristen Salem's murder on Dec. 2, 1999, is considered among the most heartless
and senseless crimes in the East Valley.
Grell picked up Kristen at a day-care center, took her out to the desert on the
eastern fringe of Mesa, doused her with gasoline and lit her on fire.
But the issue of whether Grell is mentally retarded has dominated the case for
more than a decade. Grell pleaded guilty to murdering his daughter, leaving the
mental retardation issue the focus of his sentencing.
Now-retired Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Barbara Jarrett sentenced
Grell to death in 2002, ruling that Grell's attorneys did not prove
conclusively that he is mentally retarded.
The state Supreme Court ordered a 2nd sentencing when Arizona's death penalty
law was overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, which required that jurors, not
judges, establish the aggravating factors for the death penalty.
After the evidence was presented to jurors, they sentenced Grell to death again
in 2009, a ruling that triggered an automatic appeal to the Arizona Supreme
Court.
(source: The Arizona Republic)
MARYLAND:
Md. Senate president: Voters might decide whether to repeal death penalty
Maryland voters could get the final say on whether the state repeals the death
penalty, Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr. said Wednesday, just hours
before the General Assembly was set to convene for its annual 90-day session.
During a radio interview, Miller (D-Calvert) said repeal legislation - a
long-stymied priority for Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) - has a good shot at passage
if the governor puts the full power of his office behind it this session.
If O'Malley can show he has 24 votes needed in Senate, President Miller has
said he'll free bill from committee.
"I think if the governor uses his persuasive techniques, of which he has many,
I think the bill will pass the Senate, quite frankly," Miller said.
Miller predicted that the bill would also pass in the House and that opponents
of the measure would petition it to a ballot, as happened with same-sex
marriage last year.
Under that scenario, Maryland voters would decide in November 2014 whether to
end capital punishment in the state or keep in on the books.
Miller's prediction was among several made by state leaders during Wednesday
morning's taping of "The Marc Steiner Show" on WEAA FM 88.9.
O'Malley said he believes a statewide ban on assault weapons will pass the
General Assembly. The measure is likely to be included in a package of
legislation that the governor will propose next week in response to last
month's massacre in Newtown, Conn.
Comments by the 3 leaders Wednesday underscored growing momentum for a death
penalty repeal, which has been bottled up in a Senate committee in recent
years.
Miller repeated a recent promise made to O'Malley to allow debate on the Senate
floor if the governor can show he has the 24 votes needed for passage.
A count this week by The Washington Post identified 23 likely Senate votes for
a repeal bill, one short of passage. But an additional 4 members have said they
would consider supporting O'Malley-backed legislation, which is also a priority
this session for the NAACP and the Catholic Church.
Advocates for repeal say support is stronger in the House, a view bolstered by
a statement made Wednesday morning by Busch: "I believe it's time to repeal the
death penalty."
Under the legislation, death sentences would be replaced with life in prison
without the possibility of parole.
Miller reiterated that he is personally supportive of the death penalty in some
cases but said he is willing to give the issue a full airing nevertheless.
"If you've got a bull by the tail, you let the bull go," Miller said.
(source: Washington Post)
*******************************
Make death penalty quicker, cheaper and more effective
Amnesty International's Frank Jannuzi wrote one of those letters that causes me
to ask, "Where do I begin to answer?" ("Time to repeal Maryland's death
penalty," Jan. 8).
In the 2nd paragraph, he alludes to the fact that imposition of the death
penalty is "extremely expensive," and it is; but the question is, why should
that be? No matter which method is used to end the life of a heinous criminal,
the "means" to accomplish that are actually inexpensive. How much do those
chemicals cost, or that burst of electricity?
The imposition of the death penalty is extremely expensive because it allows
for endless appeals at the expense of taxpayers, including the families of the
victims! Many of these cases go on for so long that the heinousness of the
crime is forgotten or the witnesses actually die! Legislators should be
working, not to abolish the death penalty, but to find ways to make it more
cost-effective! How about this? One trial, one appeal, then either acquittal,
or execution. Now that would quite effectively and greatly reduce the costs.
How expensive is it for the public to incarcerate for life a convicted
murderer?
In the same paragraph, he resorts to the old mantra of death penalty opponents,
that "it does not deter crime." That argument is specious and impossible to
prove. How many times a day do "ordinary" law-abiding citizens become so
angered, so enraged with someone, that they might murder them, only to relent
because they understand the possible ramifications (loss of their own lives) of
such acts? No one can say how many times this happens, but similarly, no one
can seriously claim that it doesn't happen either. So, at least a part of the
time, the reality of a looming death penalty deters murderous conduct!
The effectiveness of the death penalty is greatly compromised when it isn't
used. There needs to be a "certainty" attached to it to make it effective, and
that hasn't happened. One unarguable, incontestable and unmitigated fact about
the death penalty is that it is a certain and complete cure for recidivism;
deny that if you will, Mr. Jannuzi!
I am all for any effort to completely eliminate any doubt concerning the death
penalty! DNA tests, certainly! Certification of "eye witness" accounts, once
again, certainly! Whatever is required; but once it has been determined, beyond
any reasonable doubt, that the assailant is guilty, "We the People" owe them
their right to a speedy trial (and disposition) unencumbered by dragging the
process out endlessly with appeal after appeal at taxpayer's expense.
One last note: Due to Mr. Jannuzi's position as deputy executive director of
Amnesty International, I believe his commentary to be colored more by his
ideology than common sense!
Robert Di Stefano, Abingdon
The writer is a retired major with the Baltimore City Police Department.
(source: Letter to the Editor, Baltimore Sun)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
