Oct. 23
GEORGIA:
Federal judge: Georgia does not have to reveal execution drug provider
U.S. District Judge J. Clay Fuller on Thursday ruled that the state of Georgia
does not have to reveal information about its 1-drug execution method. In a
suit brought by 2 death row inmates challenging the constitutionality of
Mississippi's execution method, the challengers sought to establish that there
is a known and available alternative to Mississippi's 3-drug method, which they
claim to be unconstitutional. It is known that Georgia uses only the
barbiturate pentobarbital for its executions, but the identity of the provider
of the drug is protected by a 2013 state law mandating that such information is
a "state secret." Not knowing the identity of the provider, the Mississippi
challengers are unable to prove that Mississippi could obtain the drug as an
alternative to its current execution method.
Capital punishment remains a controversial issue in the US and worldwide.
Earlier this month, the Florida Supreme Court held that a trial court may not
impose the death penalty unless the jury's recommended sentence of death is
unanimous. Shortly before, the US Supreme Court vacate the death sentence of an
Oklahoma man convicted of killing his girlfriend and her 2 children in a case
where the trial judge permitted family members to recommend the sentence to the
jury. Also in October, a group of UN human rights experts spoke on the subject
of the death penalty and terrorism, calling the death penalty ineffective, and
often times illegal, in deterring to terrorism. And last month in Oklahoma,
after a botched execution in 2014 and numerous drug mix-ups in 2015, Attorney
General Scott Pruitt refused to set execution dates until new protocols have
been approved.
(source: jurist.org)
FLORIDA:
Man sentenced to death for Okaloosa murders could be resentenced
The life of a convicted serial killer could be spared after spending almost 2
1/2 decades on death row.
Frank Walls was sentenced to death in 1987 after being convicted of 2 murders
and confessing to 3 other killings, but the U.S. Supreme Court has since struck
down Florida's strict IQ standards for determining intellectual disability.
His attorneys argue he functions at the level of a 12-year-old.
The Florida Supreme Court has ordered a new hearing to see if Walls' disability
makes him ineligible for the death penalty.
It's a case so old, the trailer home where some of the murders took place isn't
even here anymore, but justices want one last look at the death penalty for the
man who admitted to killing 5 people in the 1980s.
"He was a mean man even at 20," said Don Vinson.
Vinson retired in 1996 after 32 years in law enforcement as the chief
investigator for the Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office.
"The excitement is in the chase and getting a clue from here and a clue from
there," Vinson said.
Almost 30 years ago Vinson led the chase for frank wells, who brutally killed 5
people. Most like Audrey Gigi were stabbed multiple times and raped.
3 of the murders took place in this neighborhood in the Ocean City area near
Fort Walton Beach, another in broad daylight on the beaches of Okaloosa Island
as the victim sunbathed.
"He [Walls] said, I don't know why I did it, I just hear voices sometimes,"
Vinson said.
The 19-year-old killer is now in his late forties and on his last appeal to the
state. Much has changed in more than 2 decades for the lawman.
A decision which could be weeks or months away. The state attorney says a
hearing in front of an Okaloosa County Circuit Judge will determine whether or
not Walls was intellectually disabled at the time of the crimes.
If the judge does not find him to be disabled, the state can proceed with the
execution.
The state attorney's office told us they believe they have a strong case to
move the death penalty forward. According to the prosecution, walls IQ score
was 102, far above the level of incompetence.
No date has been set for the hearing.
(source: WEAR TV news)
KENTUCKY:
Supreme Court overturns Goodwine, says ruling on death penalty premature
Fayette Circuit Court Judge Pamela Goodwine erred when she excluded the death
penalty as a potential sentencing option in a murder and robbery case, the
Kentucky Supreme Court unanimouly ruled Thursday.
The decision affects the case of Trustin Jones, 23, and Robert Guernsey, 36,
who are charged with murder and robbery in the 2013 shooting death of Derek
Pelphrey. The case, which had been on hold while awaiting a decision by the
high court, now goes back to Fayette Circuit Court.
In a decision last year, Goodwine granted a defense motion to remove the death
penalty as a sentencing option for Jones and Guernsey if they were convicted.
Goodwine had said the death penalty "is the ultimate punishment and should be
reserved and sought in cases involving only the most egregious set of facts one
could possibly imagine."
But the Supreme Court ruled that Goodwine should have waited to hear the
evidence at trial before deciding to exclude the death penalty.
While "the death penalty has fallen into disfavor in recent years, it remains a
viable penalty in Kentucky authorized by our legislature in specific types of
cases, including those in which the defendant is charged with committing murder
in the course of the commission of 1st-degree robbery," the Supreme Court said
in its opinion.
While a circuit judge has discretion to determine whether death is
constitutionally proportional, "there is no authority for exercising that
discretion pretrial before all relevant evidence is actually heard," the
opinion said.
Had execution been excluded, a jury that convicts on a murder charge would have
sentencing options of 20 to 50 years in prison, life in prison, life without
the possibility of parole for 25 years, or life without parole.
Fayette Commonwealth's Attorney Lou Anna Red Corn had no comment on the pending
case.
Pelphrey, 23, a student at Bluegrass Community and Technical College,
apparently was targeted because he had been in communication with Guernsey, who
thought Pelphrey carried a large amount of money, according to information
disclosed in pretrial conferences. Guernsey relayed that information to Jones,
who admitted to police he was the shooter. Pelphrey was shot to death in his
car on Ridgepoint Road near Spangler Drive.
A 3rd co-defendant, Desmond Jones, 25, a cousin of Trustin Jones, pleaded
guilty to criminal facilitation to 1st-degree robbery in 2015. A murder charge
against him was dismissed. Before he is sentenced, Desmond Jones must testify
at the trial of Trustin Jones and Guernsey.
(source: kentucky.com)
ARKANSAS:
Prosecutor seeks death penalty in Arkansas officer's killing
Prosecutors say they will seek the death penalty for a man charged in the fatal
shooting of an Arkansas sheriff's deputy.
Billy Jones, 35, is charged with 1 count of capital murder in the death of
66-year-old Sebastian County Sheriff's Cpl. Bill Cooper. Jones is accused of
killing Cooper on Aug. 10 after Cooper and others responded to a domestic
disturbance call near Hackett.
Jones also faces 10 counts of attempted capital murder, possession of firearms
by certain persons, and killing or injuring animals used by law enforcement. He
has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
Jones fired from inside his home using an assault-style rifle and refused to
negotiate a surrender until an armored vehicle backed up to his front door,
according to a prepared statement from Sheriff Bill Hollenbeck. Investigators
later searched Jones' home and found 11 guns.
In a letter filed Monday, Sebastian County Prosecuting Attorney Daniel Shue
informed the judge in the case of the decision to seek the death penalty. A
trial date has not yet been set.
Shue wrote that enough evidence qualifies Jones for the death penalty,
including the seriousness of the offense, Jones' culpability, his criminal
record, aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and potential victim-impact
evidence.
Cooper's life was honored at the sheriff's office on Thursday. U.S. Sen. John
Boozman visited the department to give his personal condolences, calling Cooper
a hero.
Cooper died 6 hours after the shooting in a Fort Smith hospital. He was a
15-year veteran of the sheriff's office.
Jones' attorneys declined to comment about the case to The Associated Press.
(source: Associated Press)
NEBRASKA:
Vote repeal to save Nebraska's death penalty
Vivian Tuttle, with a photo of her daughter Evonne, spoke in favor of the death
penalty during a hearing Tuesday in Omaha. Evonne Tuttle was 1 of 5 people
killed during a 2002 bank robbery in Norfolk.
Nebraskans are not a bloodthirsty people.
Many who have supported the death penalty for decades feel reservations about
the potential, however small, for a mistake.
And there is a salient argument from death penalty opponents that Nebraska
hasn't carried out an execution for nearly 19 years.
It's important to consider the findings of Creighton University economics
professor Ernie Goss that death penalty states pay more for criminal justice,
though the difference is debatable.
A handful of public policies, however, are so fundamental to society as
communal expressions of the limits of acceptable behavior that they cannot be
argued away. The death penalty - and its underlying principle, that of a public
stand against the most depraved killers - is one such policy. It is a statement
of the outermost boundary of an ordered society. It draws a needed line: Those
who do worse than kill, those who kill wickedly, risk losing their own lives.
In practical terms, the death penalty provides the clearest deterrent effect on
criminals already serving life sentences. Prisoners must face consequences if
they act out against guards or fellow inmates. Otherwise, little leverage
remains to keep the worst criminals from killing with impunity.
And don't be fooled. Lawyers who argue the cruelty of the death penalty today
would turn soon against the penalty of life in prison without parole if the
death penalty were no longer an option. So there's a question of how long life
would mean life.
Despite its flaws, the death penalty should remain an option for the worst
capital crimes. Some people are so dangerous that society can never set them
free. And some acts of violence are so heinous that the perpetrator forfeits
the right to a long life behind bars.
Consider Gottlieb Neigenfind, the 1st man the State of Nebraska put to death,
in 1903, after the state took over hangings from county sheriffs.
Newspapers described him as a "degenerate drunk" with a volatile temper. His
wife, widow Anna Peters, was a mother of four. Their marriage lasted 5 months.
On Sept. 11, 1902, he visited her family's farm near Pierce, demanding to see
his new son. Told to leave, he later returned with a revolver. He gunned down
Anna's father, then shot Anna's mother, who survived. He fatally shot Anna,
then hiked up her skirt and shot her again. Anna's sister tore free from his
grip and got away. The killer later fired on deputies.
Before he was hanged, Neigenfind said he had dreamed about the murders before
he committed them and said, "My dreams always come true."
Each of the 22 men executed since then by the State of Nebraska earned his fate
by destroying innocent lives in equally horrifying ways, from torture to rape
to killing for sport.
These are the state's worst killers.
Starkweather.
Otey.
And who could forget John Joubert, the Offutt airman who in 1983 kidnapped,
tortured and murdered Danny Joe Eberle, 13, and Christopher Walden, 12, in
Sarpy County? He later admitted killing 11-year-old Richard Stetson in Maine.
His prison drawings illustrated torturing the boys. An expert testified Joubert
would kill again if ever released. Joubert was electrocuted in 1996.
For killers like these, capital punishment should remain a viable answer. To be
sure, it should be used sparingly, with reasonable court appeals to guard
against errors.
Public opinion polling shows most Nebraskans agree. Petition circulators last
year submitted 143,478 valid signatures - enough not only to ensure a public
vote, but also to postpone repeal until after the general election.
State senators voting to eliminate Nebraska's death penalty deserve credit and
respect. Their debate afforded this issue the seriousness it deserves. Decent
people can disagree on significant issues. The question of whether to continue
to allow state government to deprive a citizen of life is a personal, moral
issue, guided often by faith.
While many Nebraskans are uneasy with Gov. Pete Ricketts' involvement in the
petition process, it is voters who will ultimately decide this issue.
If the death penalty is restored, Ricketts, corrections officials and Nebraska
Attorney General Doug Peterson need to revise the state's drug cocktail.
Options exist, from inquiring about the federal government's planned drug
cocktail for Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to exploring other states'
methods. Nebraskans aren't out for blood. But if the state does have a death
penalty, it must be able to carry out the sentence.
Nebraskans should vote REPEAL on Nov. 8 to restore Nebraska's death penalty.
(source: Editorial, Omaha World-Herald)
********************
Death penalty opponent: Killing someone while stone-cold sober
Marylyn Felion stood outside the Nebraska State Penitentiary in 1994 watching
the crowds gathered for Harold Lamont "Walkin' Wili" Otey's execution.
What she witnessed cemented her belief that the death penalty wasn't really
about the person who had committed the heinous crime. It was more about the
people gathered there that day and the society that allowed it.
The media called it a carnival atmosphere, with death penalty supporters and
opponents separated by a snow fence.
On one side supporters held signs that read, "Fry Wili" and "Welcome to the
Nebraska State Pen's First Annual Barbecue." They displayed swastikas. They
shouted at opponents: "Why don't you sit on his lap?" They sang, "Hey, Hey
Goodbye."
It was raucous, awful, hateful, Felion said.
"What it pulled out of the people on the other side of the fence was horrible,"
she said. "This was just proof of what the death penalty says about us."
The former nun, who spent 14 years with the Sisters of Mercy, leaving when she
was 32, came to her conclusions more than 40 years ago.
"If we know that this person has killed, then that's on him or her. If we turn
around and kill this person, then this speaks about us," she said. "It says
that we, also, can kill."
That is shown on the death certificate of Robert Williams, executed in the
state in 1997. The official cause of death is listed as homicide, she said.
Felion came to her anti-death penalty work after years of teaching children and
social action.
After she left the Omaha convent, she taught in Omaha inner-city schools and
traveled school-to-school working with kids with behavior problems.
But after traveling to Nicaragua in 1985 and witnessing the human rights
violations and terrorist tactics of U.S.-backed and funded rebel groups, she
returned to Nebraska, quit her job, sold her house and began working for peace.
Since last year, she has been one of the most active volunteers for Retain A
Just Nebraska, campaigning to retain the 2015 law (LB268) that eliminated
capital punishment in the state. Many days you can find her at the
organization's Omaha office.
Just inside the Regency Parkway office entrance is a sign that asks, Retain A
Just Nebraska? Visitors and volunteers have written their replies:
"If a person is already locked up, why do we have to kill him?"
"The death penalty is discriminatory. It does not apply to the wealthy."
"Save $."
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
In rooms throughout the office are posters of Catholic popes' anti-death
penalty teachings, bulletin boards with campaign notes and messages, and an
artist's rendering of Williams, the last person executed in Nebraska.
The artist was Felion, who had developed a deep relationship with Williams in
his waning years before his execution. Her drawing captured a peaceful smile on
Williams' face, a smile she said she had witnessed that remained on his lips
after his death in the electric chair. As his spiritual adviser, she knew he
had been transformed, was remorseful, and ready to meet his fate.
Felion, now 79, had begun to question her own feelings about the death penalty
when she was in her 30s.
She knew one issue that could condemn a person was the heinousness of the
crime. And the death penalty, she said, should be for the most heinous.
"Well, but who decides?" she said. "And who draws the line? And where do you
draw the line?"
How do you explain to parents that the murder of somebody else's loved one
deserves the death penalty, but your child's murderer does not? she said.
Her mind was going in circles trying to figure out what she called a hierarchy
of heinousness.
"And all of a sudden it was as if my perception, instead of being out there
trying to establish a hierarchy, turned around and looked back at me," she
said.
It was a startling moment when she realized it was not about hierarchies and
murderers, but about the people who seek death as revenge or punishment, she
said.
She thought about how judges, in determining heinousness, look at whether the
murder was premeditated, whether it was cold blooded and ritualistic.
"Well, I want to tell you, there is nothing more premeditated and cold-blooded
and ritualistic than an execution," she said.
If anyone else locked up a person and told him that on a specific date he was
going to kill him, we would be horrified, she said. That's what the state does.
"Most murders are under the influence of drugs and alcohol and passion, right?"
she said. "We do this stone-cold sober."
She says "we," she said, because in a democracy "we all have our finger on the
button."
After the Legislature voted last year to eliminate the death penalty, Felion
thought she could go home and put her feet up, and no longer worry about
Nebraska prisoners being being put to death by the state.
But here she is again, she said, trying to ensure that Williams' execution be
the state's last, as he prayed.
She understands there are people, including some victims' family members, who
want revenge for heartbreaking murders.
"But our system of justice is not based on revenge," she said. "It's based on
punishment and reparation, in so far as possible."
Nebraska surprised the world in 2015 with its vote to abolish the death
penalty, she said, which made this conservative state appear to be one made up
of positive, forward-looking people.
Nebraska voters must retain the law that eliminates the death penalty, she
said.
"We've already done this. We've already moved into the future," Felion said."I
think it's just going to be a shame if we step backwards."
(source: Lincoln Journal Star)
*******************************
Catholic Church intensifies effort to abolish Nebraska's death penalty
The Catholic Church in Nebraska has stepped up efforts to convince voters to
reject the death penalty.
The state's 3 bishops and the Nebraska Catholic Conference have joined the
Catholic Mobilizing Network Nebraska to organize public presentations and an
online advertising campaign. The group is urging Catholics and non-Catholics to
vote to retain the Nebraska Legislature's 2015 repeal of the death penalty.
With modern penal systems, the death penalty is no longer necessary to protect
society, the group argues. The church also encourages moving away from
vengeance and toward mercy "even for those among us who have committed the most
heinous of acts," said Alex Kelly, coordinator of the new group.
The group's online ad features the Rev. Craig Loecker, pastor at St. Leo
Catholic Church in Omaha.
Death penalty proponents, who obtained the signatures needed for the Nov. 8
referendum, say capital punishment in Nebraska is reserved for a small number
of killers who deserve to be executed. They also argue it helps protect prison
officers from violence by inmates who would have nothing left to lose if the
death penalty were eliminated.
The Catholic group plans to host informational events next week in Omaha, Grand
Island and Lincoln. The events will feature talks by Joe D'Ambrosio, who
wrongfully spent 20 years on Ohio's death row, and Marietta Jaeger-Lane of
Montana, who co-founded a national forgiveness group after her 7-year-old
daughter was slain by a serial killer in 1973.
(source: KWBE news)
COLORADO:
DA candidates answer questions about death penalty, restorative justice
If elected, will you serve the entire term regardless of what office or
opportunities become available?
Bruce Brown: District Attorney's are term limited to 2 terms. I will not ask
voters to enlarge that term. I endeavor to serve voters effectively during my
term and to plan for continuity to ensure a seamless transition to my
successor. Personal opportunities would factor into a decision to serve the
entirety of my final term.
Bruce Carey: Yes, I will serve the full term. I have no further political
goals.
Sanam Mehrnia: If elected I will undoubtedly serve my entire term. I am an
attorney and I have always been in pursuit of justice. My aspirations have
always been to be an attorney and will remain so. As a defense attorney I seek
justice for my clients, and as a prosecutor I will seek justice for my
community and victims of crime.
Do you support or would you pursue the death penalty?
Bruce Brown: The law requires a District Attorney to consider the death penalty
in first-degree murder cases where certain aggravating facts occur. The
District continues to experience a historic surge in homicide and each new case
leads the office to conduct an objective, fact driven analysis to determine the
propriety of capital punishment. When asked by the Vail Daily in 2012, I
publicly stated my general belief that the Aurora Theatre Shooting case did not
merit the death penalty given a lack of criminal history by the perpetrator,
despite the horrific nature of the crime. I recognize the reluctance of
Coloradans sitting as jurors to impose the death penalty and would not seek the
death penalty unless I was convinced such a sentence was consistent with our
collective conscience.
Bruce Carey: Philosophically I do not support the death penalty. In the 27
years I have practiced law in this judicial district, there has been no
occasion that I would have advocated for the death penalty. I would not use the
death penalty as leverage in pursuing plea bargains and I don't believe it is
an effective deterrent. I'm not suggesting we change Colorado law, I may
consider the death penalty under the most egregious circumstance.
Sanam Mehrnia: I am opposed to the death penalty as it stands today and am of
the opinion that it needs to be abolished. One innocent person put to death is
one too many. Recently, we have had too many cases of death row inmates being
exonerated through newly discovered evidence. It is unclear how many innocent
people have been put to death without having the opportunity or benefit of new
technology that could possibly prove their innocence. Further, the cost of
putting an inmate to death is astronomical. To keep an inmate on death row is
only one small portion of the cost. There are numerous other costs that the
public may not be completely aware of, such as the cost of the many appeals
that ensue. Until we as a society know with absolute certainty of someone's
guilt and can reduce the cost to taxpayers, I stand in opposition to the death
penalty. If in office, for all the reasons stated above, I would never pursue
the death penalty.
Define your version of a restorative justice program, and how quickly would you
try to institute one?
Bruce Brown: Restorative Justice programming currently exists within the
District. Our Juvenile Diversion program keeps kids out of the courtroom and in
the classroom by structuring a contract by which the delinquent child repairs
the harm he or she has done, and includes authoring an apology letter to the
victim. In certain instances, offenders and victims are asked to participate in
a face-to-face meeting involving community members and trained professionals.
Bruce Carey: Restorative Justice is a program of criminal justice that focuses
on the rehabilitation of offenders through repairing the harm done and
reconciliation with victims and the community at large to allow victims and
offenders to live harmoniously together in our communities.
The programs statistically are shown to reduce recidivism, improve victim
satisfaction and reduce fear of re-victimization.
I will begin formal planning of the program on November 10th, 2016. The program
will be outlined and we will begin implementation within my first 3 months of
office. As we work through challenges, we will grow the program in scope and
from county to county.
Sanam Mehrnia: Restorative Justice is a modern approach that emphasizes
repairing the harm caused by a criminal act. It holds the offender accountable
for their actions and it greatly reduces recidivism. Restorative justice
recognizes that crime causes injury to the community, insists that justice
repair those injuries and that all parties effected be involved in the process.
Thus enabling the victim, offender and affected member of the community to be
directly involved with responding to crime.
Victim Offender Mediation: Interested victims in this process have the
opportunity to meet their offender in a safe and structured environment,
engaging in discussion of the crime and its effect on the victim - facilitated
by the assistance of a trained mediator. The goal is to permit victims to meet
the offenders on voluntary basis in order to aid in their healing and to
encourage the offender to learn about the impact of their criminal act and to
take responsibility for the resulting harm.
Community Group Conference: Brings together victim, offender, and family,
friends and other key supporters in deciding how to address the aftermath of
the crime. It allows victims to be directly involved in responding to the
crime, increases offender awareness, and engages the party's support system in
order to aid in victim healing and to assure the offender does not reoffend. It
allows for a sentencing plan that addresses the concern of all interested
parties.
I would also focus on establishing Advocacy Groups for both Mental Health and
our Veterans.
I would commence work on implementation of all mentioned programs as soon as I
take office. The collaborative effort of the different departments and the
community would be key to timely and effective implementation.
(source: Vail Daily)
CALIFORNIA:
Man accused of killing Modoc County deputy could face death penalty
Modoc County is a rural area of northern California close to the border with OR
and he is believed to be the 1st sheriff's deputy killed on duty in their
history.
Jack Lee Breiner shot and killed deputy Jack Hopkins Wednesday during a
confrontation as Hopkins was responding to a report of a domestic disturbance,
Undersheriff William "Tex" Dowdy said during an emotional news conference in
Alturas Thursday morning. Hopkins, 31, was shot to death Wednesday, Oct. 19,
2016, while responding to a disturbance call, the Modoc County Sheriff's Office
said.
"Our thoughts and prayers go out to Deputy Hopkins, his family, his co-workers,
his many friends and to all those impacted by this tragic and senseless loss of
a dedicated law enforcement professional and friend", said the statement.
The sheriff's office statement did not describe where on the property Hopkins
was shot but said the deputy had "entered the property to investigate the call
when he confronted the main suspect" and was killed. Authorities said Breiner
was in a Redding hospital on Thursday and is expected to survive.
Hopkins is the fourth law enforcement officer in California to die in the line
of duty in the last 2 weeks.
"We don't know when the suspect will be available for court proceedings", said
Funk.
Hopkin's body was transported to his family in Redding Thursday morning, which
was accompanied by a large procession of law enforcement.
"The streets were lined with several people from the community with banners",
Wilburn said.
California Attorney General Kamala D. Harris said Hopkins' killing showed how
"each and every day, courageous men and women kiss their families goodbye and
risk their lives in service of others".
Modoc County Sheriff's officials say Jack Breiner shot and killed Deputy Jack
Hopkins.
Shortly after news of Hopkins' death spread, the Alturas Municipal Airport
wrote on Facebook that he had been recently transferred from Alturas Police
Department to the Sheriff's Office. He had five siblings and raised in the
small community of Montague in Siskiyou County, Dowdy said.
The Butte County Sheriff's Office, under the direction of Lassen County Sheriff
Dean Growden, is handling the criminal investigation into the murder of Hopkins
and attempted murder of Poindexter.
A dispatcher received a call about an officer-involved shooting shortly after
Hopkins arrived. Dowdy said planning for a memorial service is also under way,
though a specific time and location had not been chosen as of Thursday.
Breiner is listed in California's sex offender registry as having committed
lewd or lascivious acts with a child ages 14 or 15 and annoying or molesting a
child under age 18.
(source: crcconnection.com)
*******************
Voters should end the death penalty in California
Voters on Nov. 8 will decide the fate of the long-dormant death penalty in
California.
2 competing propositions address the controversial practice, which was last
used by the state corrections system more than 10 years ago.
Proposition 62 would repeal the death penalty and commute the sentences of
those currently on death row to life in prison without possibility of parole.
Proposition 66 would change death penalty case appeal processes and set a
5-year limit on state court reviews of such cases.
Whether to continue or end this ultimate, state-sanctioned punishment is a
tough question. The ground has been shifting in this debate nationally,
however. While 30 states, including California, still have a death penalty, 10
states have abolished capital punishment since 2007. 4 other states have
governor-imposed bans on inmate executions.
The Desert Sun Editorial Board recommends voters approve Proposition 62 and
reject Proposition 66 to bring an end to the death penalty here. It's time to
end a system that has seen people of color and residents of particular areas of
the state more likely to face this unfairly applied punishment.
If both initiatives are approved Nov. 8, the measure with the most yes votes
will prevail.
Supporters of Proposition 62, including Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, Jimmy and
Rosalynn Carter and ACLU California, argue that capital punishment has proven
to be an ineffective, costly blunder for the Golden State, which has seen just
13 executions since 1978.
The most recent inmate executed - Clarence Ray Allen, who murdered a woman in
1974 and arranged the murders of 3 people from prison later - was put to death
in January 2006 at age 76 after having spent more than 23 years on death row.
Death row inmates cost the state 18 times what those sentenced to life cost,
yet this shouldn't just be about the dollars.
Proponents of capital punishment say justice for society and closure for
victims' families require that the ultimate penalty remain an option for the
most violent, despicable criminals. That could be a compelling argument indeed,
were it not for California's haphazard, legally challenged history when it
comes to capital punishment.
Waiting 23 years for a resolution by execution, having to go through the
emotional highs and lows of appeals and hearings, cannot be the type of closure
most families want. In fact, one of the co-writers of the ballot argument in
favor of ending the death penalty is Beth Webb, the sister of a woman murdered
in 2011.
"California's death penalty system is a long, agonizing ordeal for our family.
As my sister's killer sits through countless hearings, we continually relive
this tragedy. The death penalty is an empty promise of justice. A life sentence
without parole would bring real closure," Webb wrote.
Backers of competing Proposition 66, including law enforcement associations,
the California District Attorneys Association and DA Mike Hestrin, argue that
the death penalty should remain an option when dealing with the most heinous
crimes. Streamlining it via Proposition 66's changes would correct the problem
of long delays, they say.
The changes, however, are complex and ripe for legal challenges and potential
for actually increasing delays in an already clogged legal system.
Among these are the designation of Superior Court, where the cases originate,
as the venue for initial appeals and limitation of successive appeals; a
requirement that attorneys who take noncapital appeals also accept death
penalty appeals; and placing an arbitrary, 5-year limit on the state court
appeals process.
While backers argue these moves would speed up the process, adding the burden
of such appeals to the originating Superior Court system is just as likely to
do the opposite as well as create a conflict of interest. In addition,
compelling appellate lawyers not experienced in capital cases to take such
cases could result in many dropping that line of litigation or end up with an
innocent condemned convict having inexperienced counsel to his or her literally
fatal detriment.
Don't discount the odds of such an event. A 2014 study by University of
Michigan law professor Samuel Gross estimated that 1 in 25 inmates sentenced to
death across America from 1973-2004 was innocent. If California has a death
penalty, it should be made as bulletproof as possible when it comes to
questions about whether an innocent person might be condemned.
The best solution for California is ending the death penalty and offering
victims and society the closure of having the worst offenders spending life in
prison without parole.
Vote yes on Proposition 62 and no on Proposition 66.
(source: Desert Sun Editorial Board)
OREGON:
Oregon needs a conversation about the death penalty
For almost 5 years now, Oregon's death penalty has been on hold. Gov. Kate
Brown announced recently that will continue until at least the end of the year.
If she is re-elected, it will continue through her term until 2018.
It would be better if the governor led Oregonians beyond the waiting game. We
need to have an honest discussion about the death penalty and whether it
continues to be the punishment a majority of voters favor for those who commit
the most heinous crimes in this state.
Oregon's death penalty was adopted in 1864, rescinded in 1914, adopted again in
1920, rescinded in 1964, adopted in 1978, declared unconstitutional in 1981 and
reinstated in 1984. With the exception of the 1981 court ruling, it was voters
who decided to make the changes.
When then-Gov. John Kitzhaber put a moratorium on executions in 2011, he did so
in part because he believed the penalty to be morally wrong. But he did more
than simply slap a moratorium in place. Kitzhaber called for a "long overdue
debate" among the state's residents and lawmakers about the death penalty.
That hasn't happened. It should. Brown should see that it does. There should be
a vote of the people to decide what happens with the death penalty in Oregon.
(source: Bend Bulletin)
*********************
Death row inmate with low IQ can't be executed for double murder, judge says
A Portland judge has ruled that a double murderer sent to death row for
shooting his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend has an "intellectual
disability" and shouldn't be executed for his crimes.
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Michael Greenlick issued his written ruling
after noting that Michael Davis' IQ was measured as low as 61 or 62 when he was
a schoolboy. An IQ of 100 is considered average and people with IQs of below 70
are considered to have an intellectual disability.
The term has replaced the phrase "mental retardation" in professional circles.
As the judge noted, it encompasses more than an IQ score: It also is defined by
a person's inability to function in society.
The judge noted that ample evidence existed that Davis had such difficulties --
likely stemming in part from being beaten in the head and suffering brain
damage as a child. Davis, who attended Los Angeles public schools, stuttered
and was teased by classmates. He was labeled "educable mentally retarded" while
he was in high school.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that executing people with intellectual
disabilities is unconstitutional because it amounts to cruel and unusual
punishment.
Davis' defense attorney, Andy Simrin, said several Oregon death row sentences
have been reversed in light of the Supreme Court's ruling, but this is the 1st
time he knows of it happening in a contested case when the prosecution and
defense didn't agree whether the offender had intellectual disabilities.
Davis, now 60, was 35 in November 1991 when he barged into a motel room at the
Ara'Bel Motel on Portland's Sandy Boulevard and shot to death 32-year-old
Gerald Glenn Phillips. Phillips was dating Davis' ex-girlfriend, Belinda Fay
Flannigan, 30. Davis also shot and killed Flannigan, police believe as she
cowered near the motel room's sink.
Police immediately suspected Davis, but they couldn't build a case against him
until nearly 11 years later, when in 2002 he was indicted for the double
murder. He was sentenced to death in 2005.
Davis' long appeals process began after that.
Part of the process landed the case in Judge Greenlick's downtown Portland
courtroomduring a 3-day hearing in June. Greenlick didn't issue his ruling
until Wednesday.
During the hearing, the prosecution contended that Davis wasn't intellectually
disabled and pointed to evidence that showed varying IQ results. The
prosecution's expert pegged Davis' IQ between the high 70s to the low 80s.
Prosecutor Jeff Howes said the low-60s IQ score recorded while Davis was a
student in Los Angeles was tainted by racial bias. Davis is African American.
Howes also pointed to essays and other writing by Davis, including his thoughts
on the war in Iraq post-9/11. Davis, who has spent much of his adult life
incarcerated, also complained in an inmate communication form about having to
pay for some eyeglasses.
"He's writing better than a lot of lawyers I know," Howes said.
The prosecutor described Davis' "perfectly proper grammar," even down to the
correct usage of "it's."
But the judge said in his ruling that there was "insufficient evidence" that
Davis actually wrote the pieces submitted as evidence.
"(P)eople with intellectual disability often endeavor to hide their deficits
out of embarrassment or shame, and people affected often enlist others to
provide assistance," Greenlick wrote.
The judge said he was giving little weight to the testimony of the
prosecution's expert -- and that he was puzzled at how the expert arrived at
his analysis of Davis' IQ.
Instead, Greenlick said, he found all 3 of the defense's experts credible.
Based on their testimony, the judge found that Davis' intellectual disability
lowered "his capacity to understand information, communicate, learn from
mistakes and experiences, engage in logical reasoning, control impulses, and
understand the reactions of others."
In statements in response to Greenlick's ruling, Oregonians for Alternatives to
the Death Penalty and the Oregon Justice Resource Center used Davis' case to
criticize the death penalty for its long and costly process, which they say is
riddled with problems.
Greenlick's ruling comes several weeks after another decision struck a blow to
Davis' death sentence. Last month, a Marion County Circuit judge upheld Davis'
aggravated murder convictions but reversed his death sentence because Davis
wasn't evaluated for possible intellectual disability before he was sentenced.
That ruling opens the door for a new sentencing trial to determine if Davis
should instead be sentenced to one of two lesser punishments: spending the rest
of his life in prison or a life sentence with the possibility of release after
30 years.
For the time being, Davis is still on death row at the Oregon State
Penitentiary, along with more than 30 others. It's unclear if he will move
anytime soon because his case is still in flux.
Among many questions left to be answered, attorneys for the state need to
determine if they can appeal or whether they want to appeal.
Also of note, Gov. Kate Brown's office announced earlier this week that Brown
plans to continue her moratorium on executions through her new term if she wins
election.
(source: oregonlive.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
