Dec. 11
USA:
Unfit for Execution
To the Editor:
You correctly note that the State of Georgia, by forcing capital defendants to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are mentally retarded, has
eviscerated the Supreme Court’s ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, which held that
the Constitution prohibits the execution of the mentally retarded (“An
Intolerable Burden of Proof,” editorial, Nov. 30). But you are ingenuous to
believe that the Supreme Court might correct this error, because, in fact, the
justices have encouraged this very response.
In the nearly 10 years since Atkins, around 100 death row inmates have been
deemed mentally retarded and moved off death row. But there are dozens more
whose cogent claims of mental retardation were denied by lower courts. Many of
these denials were based on standards enacted by the states that undercut the
principle of Atkins, and many were based on tendentious clinical evidence. Of
all these denials, the Supreme Court has not reversed a single one.
It is fair to fault Georgia for undermining the Atkins decision. But we should
not overlook the Supreme Court’s role in nullifying its own ruling.
DAVID R. DOW----Houston, Nov. 30, 2011
The writer is a professor at the University of Houston and Rice University and
represents death row inmates.
(source: Letter to the Editor, New York Times)
LOUISIANA----new death sentence
Bossier City man sentenced to death for triple murder
A Bossier City man convicted of murdering his estranged wife's parents and son
has received the death penalty.
Robert McCoy, 37, was found guilty of 3 counts of 1st degree murder this past
August. A jury found McCoy shot and killed his estranged wife's mother,
Christine Colston-Young; stepfather, Willie Young; and son, Greg Colston inside
their home. Following the May 2008 crime, McCoy fled to Idaho where he was
caught 4 days later.
(source: Bossier Press)
OREGON:
Calling the question on the death penalty
John Kitzhaber has invited a debate about Oregon's death-penalty law, but is
the governor prepared to accept the results of another vote?
When Gov. John Kitzhaber granted a reprieve from the death penalty sought by
two-time killer Gary Haugen and declared a moratorium on all executions, he
also said Oregonians should debate and then reform their capital punishment
law.
That raises a question: What if voters are fine with the law the way it is
Kitzhaber is convinced that Oregon's death penalty is "broken" and a
"perversion of justice," but there is no sign that most Oregonians agree with
him. You can parse polls and argue about the extent of support for the death
penalty, but no survey suggests Oregonians are prepared to reverse their 1984
vote reinstating capital punishment.
The governor has the constitutional authority to grant death penalty reprieves
or pardons. But those who heaped praise on Kitzhaber for blocking all
executions in Oregon ought to think about the precedent of cheering on an
elected official who declares that he finds something written into the
constitution "immoral" and simply can't abide it. Suppose some day the issue is
abortion or gay marriage. Would they still think a chief executive who overrode
a law voters put into the constitution "courageous" and "bold"?
Kitzhaber called on lawmakers "to bring potential reforms before the 2013
legislative session and encourage all Oregonians to engage in the long-overdue
debate that this important issue deserves." OK, but does the governor want a
real debate, or the kind of I-talk-you-listen conversation Kitzhaber was famous
for during his first 2 terms?
The governor's staff has blocked release of many emails between the governor
and key advisers leading up to his decision in the Haugen case. A judge also
has refused to release the results of a psychological evaluation of Haugen.
Kitzhaber's legal counsel says the emails need to be kept secret to "encourage
frank communication" among the governor, his legal advisers and other staff.
About now, Oregonians could use some frank communication on the death penalty,
which they didn't get in Kitzhaber's recent campaign for governor. For
starters, when and where does the will of the people come into the discussion?
The people of Oregon put the death penalty into their constitution. Eventually,
somebody's got to ask voters whether they still want it there.
Why not call the question? Death penalty opponents keep saying the nation is
moving away from capital punishment. Numbers of death sentences and executions
are down. In just the last four years, three states -- New Jersey, New Mexico
and New York -- have banned capital punishment.
In California, opponents of capital punishment are seeking to place an
initiative on the November 2012 ballot that would replace the death penalty
with life imprisonment. A similar effort was considered in Oregon in 2002, and
abandoned after a poll apparently suggested the measure had little or no
chance.
There need not be a citizen initiative in Oregon. The governor already has a
Commission on Public Safety intending to spend the next year formulating a new
criminal sentencing policy. Why not task it also with a reconsideration of
Oregon's death penalty? The Legislature could refer a constitutional amendment
to voters in 2013, and Oregonians could have the serious debate Kitzhaber says
he wants.
The death penalty is a fraught and difficult issue, and Oregonians might well
decide their law should be abandoned. But they're the ones who must make the
decision, not a governor who decides all on his own.
(source: Editorial, The Oregonian)
**********************
Release the death-penalty emails, Gov. Kitzhaber
Capital punishment is one of the most profound actions that a society can
undertake — choosing whether a human will live or die. It should be undertaken
only after the most rigorous legal, moral and ethical contemplation.
As such, Oregonians deserve to know how Gov. John Kitzhaber reached his
decision to block the execution of death-row inmate Gary Haugen. It was for
that reason that the Statesman Journal requested access to the relevant emails
involving the governor, his staff and other state officials.
His office released a number of emails 10 days ago — although they provide
little insight — and four more Friday. However, his staff withheld more than
150 emails apparently involving senior advisers.
At his Nov. 22 press conference, Kitzhaber gave a soulful accounting of his
decision to grant Haugen a temporary reprieve. By itself, that statement is
inadequate because at the same press conference the governor called for a full
public debate on the future of the death penalty in Oregon. Kitzhaber cannot
separate his Haugen decision from that larger debate, as his staff sought to do
in justifying its non-disclosure of the emails.
For example, a perusal of the emails released so far underscores the question
of why the governor took so long to act.
Haugen sought to be executed as soon as possible instead of remaining on death
row. On Nov. 22, Kitzhaber said he had delayed acting so the legal process
could take its course, which was reflected in an email released Friday.
However, by waiting, Kitzhaber forced the Department of Corrections and his
staff to go through preparations and rehearsals for carrying out the death
penalty. That work carried a financial price and, for the participants,
possibly a personal one.
The governor’s legal counsel, Liani Reeves, justified the confidentiality of
the remaining emails by saying: “The governor does not take any decision about
clemency quickly or lightly, especially one that involves matters of such
magnitude as the death penalty. Having the Governor and his senior staff be
able to have frank communications and give uninhibited advice to the Governor
on such a matter outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
But if the governor wants a candid discussion about the death penalty, that
rebuke of the public interest is a poor way to start.
Release all the emails. Let the public see how he came to his decision.
—
RECORDS REQUEST TIMELINE
Nov. 11: Statesman Journal reporter Alan Gustafson requests relevant emails
among Gov. John Kitzhaber, his staff and the Oregon Department of Corrections
from Aug. 1 through Nov. 22, the day he he was blocking the execution of double
murderer Gary Haugen.
Nov. 30: Kitzhaber’s legal counsel, Liani Reeves, begins releasing emails but
withholds 159.
Tuesday: Oregon Deputy Attorney General Mary Williams dismisses the Statesman
Journal’s follow-up petition, which asked that the governor’s office be ordered
to release the emails. She cites Kitzhaber’s status as an elected official.
Coincidentally, Dec. 6 is the date for which Haugen’s execution had been
scheduled.
Friday afternoon: Tim Raphael, the governor’s chief spokesman, says the
decision to withhold the emails was made by the governor’s legal staff, not
Kitzhaber. After being contacted by the Editorial Board, the staff releases
four additional emails.
Raphael states: “Alan Gustafson’s public records request on death penalty
emails was subject to the same legal review as all records requests that come
into the Governor’s office. The Governor’s General Counsel, Liani Reeves,
conducted that review and ultimately released more than 600 pages of documents
to Mr. Gustafson. She also told him the Governor’s office is withholding two
categories of records: privileged attorney client communications between
Department of Justice staff and the Governor’s staff and communications between
Governor’s General Counsel’s Office and Governor’s staff and; and internal
advisory communications among Governor’s Office staff internally. We stand by
that decision.”
(source: Editorial, Statesman Journal)
*****************
Kitzhaber not first governor to question capital punishment
As Gov. John Kitzhaber draws praise and criticism for his Nov. 22 order halting
all executions during the rest of his term, it's worth a closer look at the
only similar instance that a governor faced a half-century ago.
Most of my observations are drawn from two books and some remarks (public and
private) by Mark Hatfield, who was governor when he faced similar decisions in
the early 1960s. Hatfield, who went on to serve 30 years in the U.S. Senate,
died Aug. 7 at age 89.
Hatfield spoke at his alma mater Willamette University after the publication of
his 2001 memoir "Against the Grain: Reflections of a Rebel Republican."
Following his talk, Hatfield had this to say about the death penalty: "If it is
a deterrent, then we have a responsibility to maximize that deterrence — that
all capital-punishment executions be shown in prime time on television."
That remark made me sit up in my seat in Hudson Hall.
He devoted most of a chapter in that book to his opposition to the death
penalty and his opposing decisions in the cases of LeeRoy McGahuey and Jeannace
Freeman.
When Hatfield unseated Democrat Robert Holmes as governor in 1958, they were
united on at least one thing: "Both of us felt the people should reassess this
grave issue, and we fought side by side to prove the death penalty morally
wrong."
But while Holmes pledged to commute every death sentence, Hatfield was
unwilling to go that far, insisting on legal criteria, "not just personal
opinion."
Though Hatfield won with a majority of 55 %, voters rejected a repeal of the
death penalty by 51 % in that same election.
A few months before his re-election in 1962, Hatfield faced the case of
McGahuey, who was convicted of the murder of his girlfriend and her
23-month-old son. "I was becoming grimly aware I'd created my own bind, having
already promised Oregonians I would uphold the law on this issue," Hatfield
recalled.
He asked his legal counsel, Loren Hicks, whether there were legal grounds for a
commutation — and was advised there were none. (Hicks still lives in Salem, but
his wife told me last week he was unable to respond to inquiries.)
"I was with him (Hatfield) during that period and it was a difficult time for
him," said Gerry Frank, a Salem businessman and close friend.
Although Hatfield chose not to intervene, he told his press secretary and close
friend, Travis Cross, to record "every gory, scurrilous detail, fully
reported."
Cross and Hicks were present at McGahuey's midnight execution, Oregon's last of
18 that took place in the gas chamber, which Hatfield called "even a more
beastly tool than lethal injection which we now use."
14 years later, when he was a U.S. senator, Hatfield wrote in "Between a Rock
and a Hard Place" this reassessment:
"I question whether my choice would have been the same. Now, by acknowledging
as a higher duty the prior dictates of my conscience and my faith rather than
my obligation to the majority will of the people, I might rather render first
unto God rather than unto Caesar."
In 1963, the Legislature referred an abolition measure to voters. With
Hatfield's support, it passed with a 60 % majority in 1964.
Hatfield then commuted 3 death sentences, including that of Freeman, who was
convicted of the murder of 2 children in the Crooked River Gorge in central
Oregon. (Her female lover, the children's mother, was sentenced to life but
paroled after 7 years.) Freeman would have been the 1st woman executed in
Oregon; she was eventually paroled, and died in 2003.
Hatfield was serious about broadcasting executions live. Although it failed, he
attempted to attach such a requirement to federal legislation while he was a
senator.
Out of office in 2001, Hatfield had been preparing to lend his support to a
ballot initiative to repeal the death penalty, which voters reinstated in 1978,
and again in a revised version in 1984.
Hatfield, then nearing age 80, was considering a limited number of public
appearances. But sponsors dropped their effort after the terrorist attacks on
the United States on Sept. 11, 2001. Polling indicated that the measure would
be doomed.
Death-penalty advocates say support for it is as strong as it was back in 1984;
opponents say public attitudes have shifted, although there is no
Oregon-specific polling. But Hatfield never feared to sail against the
political winds.
He said in his 2001 talk: "You show me the states that have found a reduction
of significance in their murder rates because they have capital punishment —
and the ones that don't have capital punishment — and they don't bear out the
so-called rule that capital punishment is a deterrent."
(source: Peter Wong, Statesman Journal)
*******************
Gary Haugen, Death Row Inmate In Limbo After Oregon's Execution Ban
In planning for his death, Gary Haugen decided weeks ago he would take just one
possession with him -- a postcard showing a bald eagle soaring high. On the
back was a final blessing from the friend who sent it: "Fly free, brother."
Then Haugen expected to be strapped to a gurney and injected with three
chemicals that would kill him.
But the day of his execution has come and Haugen is no closer to death, freedom
or any kind of a resolution than he was four years ago when he joined the ranks
of those on death row. Gov. John Kitzhaber last month (Nov. 22) declared a
moratorium on executions while he remains in office and called for a statewide
debate over Oregon's capital punishment system.
Haugen couldn't help but feel some pride in Kitzhaber's move, at least
initially. The 49-year-old twice-convicted murderer was the one who provoked
the governor's major policy reversal by waiving his legal appeals and demanding
the state put him to death.
But the reality of a lifetime on death row is settling in. Haugen still spends
as much as 23 hours a day in the same 6-by-10-foot cell. He still has a death
sentence hanging over him. But he doesn't know how soon -- if ever -- the state
will carry out or commute his punishment.
"I'm in ... limbo," Haugen said. "I didn't ask for this. I'm ready to go."
He now hopes to challenge the governor's reprieve, arguing that a death
sentence that doesn't allow death amounts to cruel and unusual punishment.
While legal experts acknowledge Haugen has a point, they don't give him much
chance of succeeding.
Kitzhaber cited Article 5, Section 14 of the state's constitution, which
clearly states that the governor has the power to grant reprieves, commutations
and pardons for all offenses except treason, "subject to such regulations as
may be provided by law."
"The prisoner essentially has no rights in this sense," said Tung Yin, a
criminal law professor at Lewis & Clark Law School in Portland. "You don't have
the right to demand that the governor not issue a reprieve."
There is no "right" to be executed, said Clatsop County District Attorney Josh
Marquis, a well-known supporter of the death penalty.
"As upset as I am at the governor at putting his personal feelings above his
oath of office, he has the plenary power of commutation, reprieve and pardon
and there is pretty much nothing anyone can do about it."
Haugen's case is complicated by the fact that it's fairly unusual. Richard
Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, could
recall only one other case when an inmate volunteered for execution and a
governor overrode the wish. The center collects information about the death
penalty and has a board with members opposed to capital punishment.
In 1996, Gov. Jim Edgar of Illinois commuted the death sentence of Guinevere
Garcia who had opposed clemency requests by anti-death penalty groups. Yet she
didn't oppose the commutation to life in prison once the governor granted it,
Dieter said.
Still, Haugen's claim isn't frivolous, said Yin.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer recently issued a dissent arguing
that the lengthy wait between sentencing and execution constitutes cruel and
unusual punishment. He disagreed with the rest of the justices who denied a
request to stay the execution of Manuel Valle in Florida. Valle was executed in
September.
And the European Court of Human Rights has long held that the excessive wait of
inmates living under a death sentence amounts to inhuman and degrading
treatment, Yin said. That has factored into its decisions to refuse to
extradite those in European custody to the United States unless prosecutors
pledge not to seek the death penalty.
But Yin said he expects the argument would have little traction in the United
States. "My sense is that American courts are not necessarily going to be
receptive to this kind of claim," he said.
Haugen's attorney, Steven Gorham, said he agrees that the governor's reprieve
with no resolution constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. He declined to
comment on future legal strategy.
"We just don't know if it does get to court, what will happen," he said.
The next move may be up to the Legislature. Kitzhaber called on state lawmakers
to come up with reforms for their 2013 session.
The death penalty, the governor said, has become "an extremely expensive" life
sentence for all but the inmates who volunteer to waive their appeals. And the
crimes of the 36 men and one woman on Oregon's death row often are similar to
those of people serving life sentences, he said -- points that Haugen has often
made in his criticisms of the state's death penalty.
Relatives of the two people killed by Haugen have said they're frustrated with
Kitzhaber's decision to let the inmate live. It denies the families justice,
said Ard Pratt, the ex-husband of victim Mary Archer. Haugen beat Archer to
death with his fists, a baseball bat and a roofing hammer in 1981 in her
northeast Portland home. She was the mother of his ex-girlfriend.
Haugen pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility
of parole.
Clarinda Polin Perez, the widow of victim David Polin, told Oregon Public
Broadcasting that she felt the execution would have helped her close that
chapter of her life and move past her husband's murder. Polin had been serving
time at the Oregon State Penitentiary when Haugen and another prisoner stabbed
him 84 times and crushed his head in 2003. A jury convicted Haugen and
co-defendant Jason Brumwell, and sentenced both to death.
(source: Huffington Post)
CALIFORNIA:
Abolish the Death Penalty, Replace With Life Without Parole----Imposing the
death penalty is much more expensive than imposing a sentence of life without
parole, because the Constitution requires a long and complex judicial process
for death penalty cases.
The death penalty should be abolished in the United States because life without
parole is more humane, less discriminatory, and a less costly alternative – and
it avoids the risk of executing an innocent person. Thirty-four states impose
the death penalty, including California, Oregon, and Washington, and there are
41 Federal capital crimes for which the death penalty can be applied.
Each state has its own list of capital crimes. For example, in 1977 California
reinstated the death penalty for first degree murder under special
circumstances, including murder for financial gain, murder by a person
previously convicted of murder, murder of multiple victims, murder with
torture, murder of a peace officer, and murder of a witness to prevent
testimony.
From 1976 through November 18, 2011, there have been 1,277 state executions in
the United States with Texas leading with 477 and California with 13. Since the
death penalty was reinstated in 1988, 58 federal defendants have been executed.
As of January 1, 2011, 3,251 prisoners are on death row awaiting execution.
The death penalty is widely used because, supposedly, it acts as a deterrent.
As this argument goes, people will think twice about committing a capital crime
which may result in the death penalty. Yet, the murder rate in the 16 non-death
penalty states is consistently lower than death penalty states, and the gap has
widened since 1990. During the 17th century, when the public hanging of
pickpockets drew crowds to English cities, pockets in the crowd were being
picked as the trap door was being sprung. So much for the death penalty being a
deterrent!
Imposing the death penalty is much more expensive than imposing a sentence of
life without parole. Why? Because the Constitution requires a long and complex
judicial process for death penalty cases. This process is needed to ensure that
innocent men and woman are not executed for crimes they did not commit. Even
with these protections, the risk of executing an innocent person cannot be
completely eliminated.
According to a number of surveys, it is less expensive to imprison killers for
life than to execute them. For example, California has spent $4 billion since
1978 to execute 13 people, or about $308 million for each death penalty case.
And a study by Judge Arthur L. Alarcón and Paula M. Mitchell found that
California spends $184 million more per year on death penalty cases than it
would have for life without parole sentences.
Race also plays a significant role in the disproportionate application of the
death penalty and for this reason it is considered discriminatory. For example,
since 1976, while African Americans comprise just 12.1 % of the US population,
35 % of all death penalty sentences were handed down to African Americans. By
comparison, 56 % of death penalty defendants since 1976 were White, 7 % Latino.
There is no way of knowing how many of the over 1,300 people executed since
1976 may have been innocent. Once the defendant is dead, there is little
incentive for defense attorneys and others to continue the case. The Death
Penalty Information Center www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/executed-possibly-innocent
published a list of 8 inmates “executed but possibly innocent.” At least 39
U.S. executions are claimed to have been carried out despite evidence of
innocence or serious doubts about guilt.
web.archive.org/web/20100627053204/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/wrongfulconvictions/issues/deathpenalty/Executinginnocent/
The death penalty then is no more effective in deterring crime than a sentence
of life without parole. The death penalty is discriminatory and the risk of
executing an innocent person can never be eliminated. Moreover, the lengthy
appeals deprive victims’ families of closure and costs the states millions of
dollars that could be better spent elsewhere.
Anti-death penalty advocates plan to begin a state-wide campaign to qualify the
“Savings, Accountability and Full Enforcement for California Act”, or SAFE
California www.safecalifornia.org.
If passed, the SAFE California Act would replace the death penalty with life
without parole; require work and restitution into the Victim Compensation Fund;
and increase public safety by directing $100 million saved from death penalty
costs into a fund to solve unsolved murders and rapes. And the initiative just
may pass. In September, the Public Policy Institute of California published a
poll www.ppic.org/content/pubs/survey/S_911MBS.pdf showing that 54 percent of
Californians prefer life imprisonment without parole, while only 39 percent
favored the death penalty.
It is time to abolish the death penalty and replace it with a sentence of life
without parole. If SAFE California passes, then California may set the standard
for the remaining states that still impose the death penalty.
(source: Salem-News.com writer Ralph E. Stone was born in Massachusetts. He is
a graduate of both Middlebury College and Suffolk Law School. We are very
fortunate to have this writer's talents in this troubling world; Ralph has an
eye for detail that others miss. As is the case with many Salem-News.com
writers, Ralph is an American Veteran who served in war. Ralph served his
nation after college as a U.S. Army officer during the Vietnam war. After
Vietnam, he went on to have a career with the Federal Trade Commission as an
Attorney specializing in Consumer and Antitrust Law. Over the years, Ralph has
traveled extensively with his wife Judi, taking in data from all over the
world, which today adds to his collective knowledge about extremely important
subjects like the economy and taxation)
ALABAMA:
Inmate: Judge Allowed Drinking During Trial
A new death penalty ruling from the Alabama Supreme Court sides with Mobile
County Circuit Judge Charlie Graddick, who's now running for chief justice.
Death row inmate Jeremy Bryan Jones contends in an appeal that Graddick let an
alcoholic juror drink during his 2005 trial, which ended in a death sentence.
His claim is revealed in an opinion released Friday by the court.
Jones' attorney claims a juror revealed that Graddick allowed him to drink
while sequestered for the trial, and that Graddick knew the juror was an
alcoholic. The lawyer argues Graddick didn't tell the defense and may now be a
witness during appeals.
The Supreme Court says Graddick can remain on the case, however.
Jones was convicted in the slaying of 43-year-old Lisa Marie Nichols in Mobile
County.
(source: Associated Press)
FLORIDA----new death sentence
McCoy deserves death, jury says
A Walton County jury has recommended that Thomas Ford McCoy Jr. be put to death
for murdering a former co-worker more than 2 years ago.
The 12-member jury took about two hours to sift through a weeks’ worth of
testimony and evidence to arrive at an 11-1 decision.
Its recommendation will be given strong consideration by Circuit Judge Kelvin
Wells, who will sentence McCoy early next year. A date had not been set Friday.
McCoy already had pleaded guilty to fatally shooting Coca-Cola vending machine
repairman Curtis Brown on April 10, 2009, at Northwest Florida State College’s
Chautauqua Center in DeFuniak Springs.
Brown, a former co-worker of McCoy’s, was ambushed by a false service call and
shot 6 times. Each shot would have been fatal, according to a medical
examiner’s testimony.
The jury was asked to determine whether McCoy should be put to death by lethal
injection or spend the rest of his life in prison.
“We respect the jury’s verdict,” said attorney John Jay Gontarek, who
represented McCoy with lawyer Sharon Wilson.
Gontarek said state law requires a death sentence would be appealed to
Florida’s Supreme Court.
After the verdict was read, emotions that had been held in check during the
long week in court bubbled to the surface. Brown’s wife broke into sobs as she
and other relatives of the victim left the courtroom.
Assistant State Attorney Bobby Elmore, who argued for the death penalty
recommendation, said Brown’s relatives chose not to speak to the media after
the hearing.
Elmore used his closing argument Friday morning to hammer home the cold,
calculated nature of McCoy’s crime.
“Hate, hate, hate made him do this. Hate drove him,” Elmore said. “We’d like to
understand his hate … we’d like to understand it, but the point is not how he
came to hate, the point is how that hate grew. He wasn’t full of sadness when
he put that gun in his hand. He could have controlled it.”
In her closing argument, Wilson tried to convince jurors that McCoy deserved
compassion.
During the week she had provided evidence of a history of mental illness in the
McCoy family and testimony from a clinical psychologist who found he was
suffering from major depression with homicidal and suicidal tendencies when he
shot Brown.
“Mental disabilities are part of the diverse frailties of humankind … consider
how they affected him over his life. He’s a flawed human being. He was born
with a flaw, like a fault line in the earth,” Wilson said. “He sought help. He
knew something wasn’t right. But finally the pressure on this fault line was
too great. Something had to give, and it did, and here we are.”
Wilson closed her argument with a plea: “Lock him up for the rest of his life,
but please don’t kill him. We’ve had enough of that already.”
No one from McCoy’s family was in the courtroom Friday when the jury’s
recommendation was read. None of the people who testified on his behalf as
friends were present, either.
McCoy’s only reaction came shortly after the recommendation was read when he
removed his glasses and used a handkerchief to wipe his eyes.
(source: Northwest Florida News)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Free the death penalty - let justice run its course
Imagine a democracy in which key players are committed to making sure that
duly-enacted laws don't work. These players slow things down. They hire
confederates who also want to sabotage the system. Then they shrug and claim
that, while they want to enforce the law, success is impossible and, besides,
prohibitively expensive.
Maureen Faulkner has had to deal with forces opposed to the death penalty since
her police officer husband, Daniel, was murdered on Dec. 9, 1981. Philadelphia
police found Faulkner mortally wounded and Mumia Abu-Jamal with a bullet wound
in his chest, his own handgun and five spent shell casings. Four eyewitnesses
testified against Abu-Jamal. Yet famous people like Mike Farrell and Ed Asner
lauded him as a "political prisoner." Because Faulkner was white and Abu-Jamal
was black, they branded the guilty verdict the fruit of racism - even though
two jurors were African American.
You may have seen the photo of the officer's widow hugging the police
commissioner after Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams announced that
he would drop efforts to carry out the jury's death sentence. You may have read
that Williams did so with the blessing of Maureen Faulkner.
What you may not know is that Faulkner agreed with Williams because she lost
faith in the criminal justice system. "The disgusting reality with the death
penalty in Pennsylvania is that the fix is in before the hearings even begin,"
Faulkner explained in a statement. Federal judges, she added, "are the fixers."
In 2001, a federal judge upheld Abu-Jamal's conviction but threw out the death
sentence because the 1982 jury did not adhere to a 1997 interpretation of a
1988 appellate ruling. In 2008, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court told the Third Circuit to reconsider. Upon
reconsideration, in April the Third Circuit stuck with its original outcome.
Williams and Faulkner agreed that there was little point in pushing for a 2nd
death-penalty hearing.
In California, it's the same story. In February 2006, U.S. District Judge
Jeremy Fogel stayed the execution of Michael Morales because the judge believed
there was less than a 0.001 percent chance that the man convicted of
bludgeoning, knifing, strangling, raping and killing 17-year-old Terri Winchell
might feel pain under California's 3-drug lethal injection protocol.
In April 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kentucky's three-drug protocol. In
February, the Ninth Circuit court upheld Arizona's lethal-injection process.
Arizona resumed executions. Yet in California, there is only delay. A different
federal judge wants a review of new procedures designed to make California's
lethal injection even more humane. The new timetable would delay California's
death penalty until at least September 2012. And then, who knows?
"California's execution protocol is equal to or better than those already
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit," Kent Scheidegger of
the pro-death penalty Criminal Justice Legal Foundation noted last month.
"There is no legitimate basis for further delay."
And: "If the judges wanted these cases to go forward, they could go forward."
The worst of it is, it doesn't matter if juries found defendants guilty of
capital murder. It doesn't matter if voters approved their state's
death-penalty law. It doesn't matter if the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld
states' capital-punishment protocols. As long as there are judges and
politicians willing to undermine the appellate process, capital punishment
opponents don't have to win at the ballot or in front of the nation's top court
to beat the death penalty.
And as long as the media don't challenge dubious claims of a convicted killer's
innocence, the delay tactics may even seem benign. But Maureen Faulkner knows
otherwise. Her family lived through a three-decade ordeal as the "free Mumia"
crowd lionized a cop killer. Now she's had enough.
As she wrote last week, "Should the jury decide on a death sentence again as
they should, we would then start the whole decades-long appeals process over
again, and we will be forced to repeat the past 30 years as if they never
happened."
(source: Opinion, Debra J. Saunders, San Francisco Gate)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
