Dec. 8 ARIZONA: Murderer Can't Be Attorney Says Arizona Supreme Court Convicted murderer passes bar exam but fails character and fitness application A convicted murderer who graduated from law school after getting out of prison was denied admission to the Bar on Wednesday by the Arizona Supreme Court because of a lack of "good moral character." James Hamm, who served 17 years for his part in a drug-related robbery that left 2 men dead, had asked the court to allow him to practice law even though the State Bar association had recommended against his application, citing the seriousness of the crime and his failure to own up to his past. The 5-member court unanimously sided with the Bar association. Chief Justice Ruth McGregor said the court has no rule automatically barring someone with Hamm's past from practicing law, but "an applicant with such a background must make an extraordinary showing of rehabilitation and present good moral character." Among other things, the court said Hamm failed to take full responsibility for the murders. The justices cited Hamm's claim that he intended only to rob the men -- a statement the court said was inconsistent with the facts. <>P> Hamm, 57, complained in an interview Wednesday with The Associated Press that his efforts to "atone for the lives I took" seemed to have made little impression on the court. "That seems to have literally made no difference. That is very disappointing to me," said Hamm, who has been working as a paralegal in Phoenix. He said he might take his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. Matt Silverman, a spokesman for the State Bar of Arizona, said: "This is the right decision. It preserves the integrity of the legal profession." In 1974, Hamm, then 26, was selling marijuana when he was approached by two young men who wanted to buy 20 pounds of the drug. He and 2 accomplices decided to rob the men at gunpoint in the desert. Hamm, initially charged with 2 counts of murder, pleaded guilty to one and was sentenced to life in prison. He earned a bachelor's degree in sociology from Northern Arizona University through a prison program. After his sentence was commuted in 1989, he attended Arizona State University's law school. He passed the bar exam in 1999 and last year filed his character and fitness application -- a requirement to practice law. (source: Associated Press) OKLAHOMA: Oklahoma Supreme Court Overturns Robert Lambert's Death Sentence The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals on Wednesday overturned 3 death sentences given condemned killers who said they were mentally retarded. The court voted to void the sentences and give the men life without parole. 2 of the cases were from Creek County and 1 was from Comanche County. "We are carefully reviewing these rulings as they are the result of relatively new Supreme Court law," said Attorney General Drew Edmondson. "These cases are the first to be overturned, so the court has placed the state in truly uncharted waters." Edmondson was critical of the court's rules, saying they essentially did not allow the state to respond to the defendant's appeal. He said he would ask lawmakers to pass legislation so "the state's position can be appropriately presented and murderers who have lawfully been found guilty by a jury, found mentally competent by a jury and sentenced to death cannot use a court rule to escape punishment for their crimes." In the Comanche County case, the appeals court reversed the death sentence handed Maximo L. Zalazar, convicted for the 1987 stabbing death of Jennifer Prill during a burglary. The case went back to district court after the U.S. Supreme Court decreed that states cannot execute mentally retarded killers. A jury found that Zalazar was not mentally retarded, but the appeals court said it did not "have confidence" in the jury's decision. The opinion was critical of Zalazar's attorney for failing to challenge the scientific validity of mental retardation tests of the state. "Although the trial court concluded in its last finding that the evidence in question would not have impacted the verdict rendered, we do not share that same confidence," the court said. Judge Gary Lumpkin issued a dissenting opinion in each case. The court also overturned the death verdicts issued by juries in Sapulpa for Robert Wayne Lambert [pictured], convicted of two counts of murder in a case in which the victims were burned to death in a car, and Darrin Lynn Pickens, convicted of killing a convenience store clerk. Lambert and Scott Hain were accused of abducting Michael Houghton and Laura Lee Sanders, placing them in the trunk of a car and setting it on fire. Hain was executed in 2003 for his part in the murders. In the Lambert case, the appeals court said the state did not contest arguments that the defendant was mentally retarded until after the Supreme Court ruling. It said the state largely failed to address claims of deficits in Lambert's adaptive functioning. Pickens was convicted for the 1990 robbery and killing of clerk Tommy Lee Hayes at a convenience store near Sapulpa. In that case, the appeals court held that the jury operated under the guidance of incorrect instructions from the trial judge and returned "a specious verdict." "The record of the proceedings in this case supports petitioner's claims that he proved, by a preponderance of the evidence, he is mentally retarded," the appeals court said. In another case, the court upheld the death sentence handed to Victor Wayne Hooks, convicted of killing his common-law wife and their unborn child. The court remanded the case of Patrick Wayne Murphy back to the lower court for determining the man's mental status under court guidelines. Murphy was convicted of killing a man in McIntosh County in 1999. (source: Associated Press) USA: When the State Murders Murderers The United States just executed the 1000th person since the death penalty was reinstated and Gary Gilmore was killed by firing squad on January 17, 1977. Besides the Gulf Wars, no other factor has contributed more to the moral and spiritual decline of America than these thousand State-sanctioned murders. When the State murders murderers, it makes accomplices of all its citizens. As the Los Angeles Times said in a recent editorial, "The reason to oppose capital punishment has to do with who we are, not who death row inmates are. The death penalty is inappropriate in all situations because it is unbefitting of a civilized society." The death penalty defines the cultural divide in America, reflecting sharply divergent worldviews by its defenders and decriers. But the debate is confined to secondary issues such as deterrence and fairness. That is, nearly all the arguments for and against miss the point. Whether carried out by hanging, electrocution, gas, or lethal injection, ending someone's life is an act of collective savagery that saps the spirit of a people and stains them with the very toxins they seek to extirpate. Why is that so? Because when the State puts someone to death, the poison of an individual's murder is spread throughout the society, and enters the bloodstream of the people, diminishing them and eroding the psychological, emotional, and spiritual health of the people as a whole. The erosion of civility, fellow feeling, and basic human concord in the United States in the last quarter century is directly related to the shadow of death that has progressively fallen over the land as the drumbeat of executions have piled one on top another. The amoral impulses of hate and vengeance that give rise to individual murder are drawn from the same source as State-sanctioned murder, even if they are called by the more palatable names of retribution and punishment. When the State kills, it disperses throughout the land the toxins that give rise to despicable crimes in the first place, and no citizen is immune from their effects. The measure of the social health of a country is how it treats the least and worst of its citizens. The abolishment of the death penalty is a sign of civilization in a country; the reinstatement of the death penalty was a huge step backward for America. To be a civilizing influence, the State must respond with humaneness to inhumanness. Indeed, the more vile the crime, the more necessary it is for the State to be civilized in its response. That is not some high-minded morality, or adherence to religious injunctions against taking human life. Rather than mitigating evil, the death penalty degrades a people, and increases the inhumanity and barbarity of a society. Of course, it is an outrageous hypocrisy, in this supposedly religious country, that many of the same people who call themselves followers of Jesus are the most ardent proponents of State-sanctioned murder. As journalist Michael Rowland said, "A large proportion of Americans are devout Christians, proudly living their lives according to the scriptures. But the commandment prohibiting killing is conveniently ignored when it comes to punishing people for serious crimes." The prevailing attitude of Americans is summed up best by John McAdams, Professor of Political Science at Marquette University: "If we execute murderers and there is in fact no deterrent effect, we have killed a bunch of murderers. If we fail to execute murderers, and doing so would in fact have deterred other murders, we have allowed the killing of a bunch of innocent victims. I would much rather risk the former. This, to me, is not a tough call." The primeval human reaction to violent crime is one of vengeance, retribution, and punishment. However the State's responsibility is to protect its citizens, not carry out their basest impulses. That's why injecting the emotions of the victims of violent crimes into the equation is wrong and perverse. In addition to prevention, redressing the wrongs perpetrated upon the victims of crime (as much as possible) must be at the forefront of the State's prosecution of criminals. If not, the State is failing its citizens. Putting the emotions of victim's families on the scales of justice doesn't further that goal. If the desire for vengeance and retribution by the victim's relatives are truly important factors in the equation, then the State might as well sanction revenge killings by the relatives. The State, and its laws, are the expression of the entirety of the citizens that reside in it. The perennial question is, how are "law-abiding citizens" to deal with people who break the law, especially those who commit heinous crimes, such as cold-blooded murder, rape, and pedophilia? We need to rethink not only the primitive reaction of the death penalty, but also the entire notion of punishment, which is always tinged with retribution. In the end, the choice is not between punishment and rehabilitation, but between vengeance and prevention. (source: Scoop - Martin LeFevre is a contemplative, and non-academic religious and political philosopher. He has been publishing in North America, Latin America, Africa, and Europe (and now New Zealand) for 20 years) ************** Death penalty isn't reckless in U.S. - well, maybe Texas Maybe the problem is that sometimes the national media can be too prone to cover events rather than issues and that's why the 1,000th person executed in the United States since capital punishment resumed 28 years ago drew a disproportionate amount of attention. Kenneth Lee Boyd, who gunned down his estranged wife and father-in-law 17 years ago, died at 2:15 a.m. Eastern time Friday in a North Carolina prison after receiving a lethal injection. Boyd didn't want the dubious distinction of being No. 1,000, which in reality is a rather meaningless plateau. And it didn't last long anyway. He was followed 16 hours later by No. 1,001, when Shawn Humphries died from a lethal injection in a South Carolina prison for the 1994 murder of a store clerk. The executions have revived the ongoing debate about capital punishment and if that's the case, let's keep it in perspective. If you do the math, 1,001 executions in 28 years works out to an average of not quite 36 a year. Then consider Texas alone has accounted for 355, or more than a third of them, according to The Death Penalty Information Center Web site. The center bills itself as a nonprofit organization serving the media and the public with analysis and information on issues concerning capital punishment. Take Texas out of the picture, and the average drops to 23 per year, or fewer than one execution every 2 years per state in the rest of the country. So, with the possible exception of Texas, the death penalty is not something administered with reckless abandon or alarming frequency. The Supreme Court ruled in 1976 that capital punishment could resume after a 10-year moratorium. The 1st execution took place on Jan. 17 the following year, when Gary Gilmore went before a firing squad in Utah. Capital punishment is one of the least desirable things we do as a society, but the fact remains it is part of our system of law and justice as the ultimate penalty for heinous crimes. Certainly it should be administered with great care and caution and given the advances in technology, such as DNA testing, there are much greater assurances executions will not involve innocent people. Say what you will about the death penalty, the argument that it is less than carefully used no longer applies - with the possible exception of Texas. Even the executed are given every opportunity to have their cases revisited through appeals. For Boyd, death came 17 years after conviction. For Humphries it was 11 years later. Another case of impending execution drawing attention is that of Stanley Tookie Williams, reputed co-founder of the Crips gang who is now on San Quentin's death row in California and scheduled to be executed Tuesday - 24 years after he was convicted and sentenced to death for shooting and killing 4 people during 2 robberies in Los Angeles. He claims he has become an anti-gang activist while in prison and has even written children's books about the dangers of gang life. But prison officials don't buy his conversion and say, if anything, he continues to be linked with gang activities even while behind bars. And, of course, any redemption doesn't change the fact that he stands convicted of viciously taking the lives of 4 innocent people. Whatever happens in prison doesn't alter the reality of the crime. Williams' supporters are now pleading with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to commute his sentence to life in prison without parole. There has been no rush to execution in any of these 3 cases. If anything, the delays seem unduly extended. It's one thing to have problems philosophically with capital punishment, but if we're going to have it then let's do it properly and judiciously for exceptional cases and individuals. The track record since Gilmore's execution in 1977 and leading up to 1,001 Friday appears to bear that out. Texas notwithstanding. (source: Members of the Yakima (Wash.) Herald-Republic editorial board are Michael Shepard, Sarah Jenkins and Bill Lee) ****************** Support for Death Penalty Steady at 64%----Slightly lower than in recent past A criminal justice milestone was reached on Dec. 2, when Kenneth Lee Boyd became the 1,000th person executed in the United States since the Supreme Court reinstated the death penalty in 1976. Boyd was put to death by lethal injection in North Carolina for killing his wife and father-in-law. Americans' broad support for the death penalty has not wavered in the past few years. Gallup's annual Crime survey, conducted Oct. 11-13, 2005, finds 64% of Americans in favor of the death penalty for persons convicted of murder; this is exactly the same percentage as found in 2003 and 2004. However, according to the long-term trend, support for the death penalty is clearly lower today than in the recent past. From 2000 to 2002, the percentage in favor averaged 67%, and in the 1980s and 1990s, it averaged 75%. The highest individual measure of public support for the death penalty in Gallup's trend was 80%, recorded 11 years ago in September 1994. The low point was 42% in 1966. A separate question gauging death penalty support is asked each May as part of Gallup's annual Values survey. Respondents are offered a choice between the death penalty and life imprisonment without parole as the better penalty for murder. According to the May 2005 survey, 56% of Americans prefer the death penalty and 39% prefer life imprisonment. This is a change from May 2004, when only 50% said they preferred the death penalty and 46% opted for life imprisonment. The current 56% is also higher than was recorded in 2001, when 52% preferred the death penalty. These shifts run counter to the recent stability in the percentage saying they favor the death penalty for murder, and the slight decline in support for the death penalty seen since 2001. Comparison of Trends in Death Penalty Support Favor death penalty for murder----Prefer death penalty to life imprisonment 2005------64%-----------------------------56% 2004------64%-----------------------------50% 2001------68%-----------------------------52% Historical Trends Gallup's long-term trend on support for the death penalty suggests that shifting policy debates over the death penalty have shaped public opinion at times. In particular, it appears that the Supreme Court challenges to the death penalty in the 1970s may have sparked increased public support for the punishment. For most of modern U.S. history, the death penalty was considered constitutional, and it was legal in most states. Then, in the 1972 landmark case of Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court determined the Georgia death penalty statute violated the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment because it gave juries complete latitude in sentencing. This decision voided 40 death penalty statutes nationwide. However, in the 1976 landmark Gregg decision, the court upheld the constitutionality of modified death penalty statutes in Florida, Georgia, and Texas, ushering in a new era of capital punishment. After hovering around 50% in the early 1970s, the percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty increased to 57% in November 1972 (after the Furman decision), and was 66% in April 1976 (3 months before the Gregg decision was announced). By 1985, support for the death penalty had reached 72% and it remained at approximately this level or higher through 1999. More recently, the focus of death penalty legislation and litigation has been on limiting its application. In 2002, the Supreme Court ruled that the death penalty cannot be used with severely mentally retarded people, and in 2005, it ruled against executing juveniles. In January 2000, then-Gov. George Ryan of Illinois, a death penalty supporter, issued a moratorium in his state because of the high number of cases in which those on death row were ultimately proved not to be guilty of the crimes for which they were convicted. Between February 1999 and February 2000, Gallup saw a five-point decline in the percentage of Americans favoring the death penalty (from 71% to 66%). And except for one measure in October 2002, the percentage favoring the death penalty has since remained below 70%. Variations in Support Today, 38 states have death penalty laws on the books, while 12 do not. An aggregate of Gallup Polls from 2002 through today show only a slight difference in public opinion about the death penalty in these two groups of states. In those states allowing the death penalty, 68% of adults favor capital punishment, while 28% oppose it. In states where the death penalty is not allowed, 58% of adults are in favor, while 37% are opposed. (source: Gallup News Press) ******************** Death-row fiance joins US protest A woman who plans to marry an American on death row has spoken out against the death penalty after the US carried out its 1,000th execution in just under 30 years. Xenia King, 31, of The Rally, Arlesey, is engaged to convicted murderer John Christopher (JC) Marquard, who is in prison in Florida. After it was announced that murderer Kenneth Boyd had became the 1,000th convict to be killed since the death penalty was reintroduced in America in 1976, Miss King said: "I thought it was very, very sad. "The pro death penalty people describe it as a milestone because to them 1,000 is just a number. "It's really a milestone to show what a barbaric nation America is." Boyd was put to death by lethal injection last week after the Supreme Court rejected his final appeal. Miss King was aware his execution was imminent through her membership of FDRAG, the Florida Death Row Advocacy Group, and had signed a petition which was delivered to the governor of North Carolina, where Boyd was in prison. But she said: "The thing is that while it shows the governor that a lot of people are opposed to the death penalty and don't want this to happen there isn't much that we can do. It's a shame." Miss King's fianc JC is looking more likely to share a similar fate as Boyd as last month he too had an appeal turned down by the Supreme Court. He now only has one final chance to appeal for clemency. Miss King admits: "Really now we have more or less come to the end of the road." With Christmas approaching, mother-of-two Miss King admits that it is a difficult time of year not only for the convicts facing death in harsh conditions, but for their families and friends. She said: "It's always at this time of year that not just them but we also need a lot of support. "It is quite depressing really when you sit down to have this fantastic meal and you know what they've got probably isn't even cooked properly. "It kind of puts things in perspective. (sourcve: The (UK) Comet) ******************* Repeal the death penalty The facts are there: Racial bias mires death penalty sentencing in Maryland. Black people who kill whites are 2.5 times more likely to be sentenced to death than whites who kill whites and 3.5 times more likely than blacks who kill blacks. More broadly, white victim cases are twice as likely to draw the death penalty. These discrepancies were revealed almost 3 years ago when the University of Maryland - College Park released its state-commissioned study of racial and geographic disparities in death sentencing in Maryland. The study also found the state's attorney of Baltimore County, where about 7 % of state homicides happen, is 13 times more likely to seek a death sentence than its counterpart in Baltimore City, where most Maryland homicides happen. Former Gov. Parris Glendening had imposed a moratorium on executions. Gov. Robert Ehrlich lifted that moratorium as he entered office in 2003, saying he simply did not believe there was a problem with race and the death penalty. Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who personally opposes the death penalty, pledged to conduct a review but has not done so. Yet, Maryland conducted another execution Monday evening, that of Wesley Baker. Baker's case typifies what is wrong with the death penalty in our state: He was a black man convicted of killing a white victim in Baltimore County. The courts refused Baker's appeals, which raised the UMD study. One need only look at Maryland's death row to see the problem. 7 out of 8 death row prisoners were sentenced for the murder of a white person, even though every year black people are the victims in about 80 % of Maryland's homicides. There's something wrong. 4 other men have been executed since Maryland reinstituted the death penalty, all for the murders of white victims. There's something wrong. No state has a larger percentage of blacks on death row. 6 out of Maryland's 7 death row prisoners are black. There is something wrong. Recent polling indicates a majority of Marylanders think life in prison without parole is an acceptable substitute for a sentence of death. Perhaps they see how the death penalty falls unevenly on the backs of blacks and the poor and fails to serve its intended public safety purpose. Capital punishment in Maryland accomplishes only one thing: the perpetuation of a system driven by racial iniquity. No Marylander wants the death penalty to be unfairly applied. We all want our justice system to function fairly and even-handedly. The death penalty is, as the U.S. Supreme Court has said, a penalty different from all others. If it cannot be applied fairly, as certainly seems the case in Maryland, it should not be applied at all. Hence, I sponsored legislation to repeal the death penalty during the 2005 legislative session. I will introduce such legislation again next year and until we are rid of the death penalty in our state. I believe that the imposition of the death penalty discourages respect for life. As a former federal law enforcement officer, I have never been "soft on crime." Nor do I care more for the accused than the victim. And I will continue to support initiatives which I believe help keep law enforcement out of harm's way. In ridding ourselves of the death penalty, I am convinced we will gain a subconscious increase in the respect for life among our youth and our citizens, thereby reducing homicides. At a time when the death penalty seems to be falling out of favor, I believe it is incumbent upon me as an elected official to push for it's reconsideration as punishment. Ehrlich and Steele should take seriously how the death penalty falls most heavily on blacks. In the 21st century, we should be long beyond a system where race plays so heavily. (source: Del. Darryl A. Kelley, D-Prince George's, represents Maryland's 26th legislative district--DC Examiner) ********************** Court Weighs Juries' Death Penalty Decisions Less than a week after the nation's 1,000th execution since states resumed capital punishment, the Supreme Court devoted its entire session Wednesday to the intricacies of jury deliberations in death penalty cases. In cases out of Oregon and Kansas, the court was presented with questions about jurors who harbor lingering doubts about a defendant's guilt while being asked to impose a death sentence or who believe that evidence for and against execution is equal. The justices spent a lot of time struggling to understand the legal positions taken by lawyers for the 2 death row inmates who preferred that the high court stay out of their cases. The states of Oregon and Kansas asked the justices to find that their respective supreme courts wrongly extended the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment to the 2 cases. But the lawyers for the inmates threw the justices off by offering little support for decisions by their courts that favored their clients. "You win on the Eighth Amendment ... and when you leave the courthouse, you say, 'I don't want it anymore,'" an incredulous Chief Justice John Roberts told attorney Richard L. Wolf, who represents an Oregon inmate. The Oregon court ruled that Randy Lee Guzek has a constitutional right to present alibi evidence during a sentencing trial. The Kansas court used Michael Lee Marsh's case to find the state's death penalty statute unconstitutional because it could force juries to impose death sentences if aggravating evidence of a crime's brutality and mitigating factors explaining a defendant's actions are equal in weight. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor waved off Wolf's insistence that Guzek should be able to capitalize on "residual," or lingering doubts a jury may have after conviction. "I don't see how it's relevant to go in at sentencing and say there are all these doubts," O'Connor said. "By finding (guilt) beyond a reasonable doubt, there's not a reasonable doubt left." In Marsh's case, Justice Stephen Breyer doubted that a jury has ever found that evidence for and against a death sentence was of equal weight. "This is a lawyer's hypothetical," he said. For Guzek and Marsh, the arguments went downhill from there. But the cases remain significant because they arise at a time when the court is undergoing one of its biggest shake-ups in decades. The court has a new chief and it is losing O'Connor, one of its most influential members, to retirement. O'Connor has often been the swing vote in capital cases, including a 5-4 decision earlier this year that overturned a ruling against a Pennsylvania inmate by appeals court Judge Samuel Alito, President Bush's pick to replace O'Connor. In 1972, the high court struck down the death penalty because of arbitrary sentencing procedures used by states. Four years later, justices said states could use the death penalty if they added safeguards to sentencing procedures. But in recent years, O'Connor and other justices, including Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens, have expressed concerns that capital defendants are not getting adequate legal representation. Guzek was convicted by an Oregon jury for the June 1987 murders of Rod and Lois Houser, the uncle and aunt of his former high school girlfriend. His murder convictions have been upheld by the state's highest court. But changes in Oregon law and mistakes by the trial judge led the Oregon Supreme Court to overturn his death sentence 3 times. Oregon Solicitor General Mary Williams argued that allowing Guzek to offer evidence of his innocence during the sentencing hearing is improper because it will force prosecutors to prove his guilt all over again. The second case centered on Michael Lee Marsh, who was convicted in the June 1996 killings of Marry Ane Pusch and her 19-month-old daughter, M.P. Marsh's lawyer, Rebecca E. Woodman, said Kansas law would force jurors to impose capital punishment if they find aggravating factors offered by the prosecution and mitigating evidence touted by the defense are equal. It that happens, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said, it's the defendant's fault for not proving his case to the jury. The cases are Oregon v. Guzek, 04-928, and Kansas v. Marsh, 04-1170. On The Net: Supreme Court: http://www.supremecourtus.gov (source: Associated Press) ******************* New precedent for death penalty? While the rest of the world has been focused on former Crips member Tookie Williams and Kenneth Boyd - the 1,000th execution since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 - the Supreme Court yesterday considered a narrower question on capital punishment. In oral arguments Wednesday, the nine justices considered the question of the "presumption of death" in Kansas v. Marsh. At issue is whether or not the Kansas capital-punishment statutes violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. Kansas has a peculiar law. Though it allows for mitigating factors to offset aggravating factors in jury deliberations concerning the death penalty, in cases in which the mitigating factors do not outweigh the aggravating evidence, the state imposes the death sentence. That doesnt seem like a problem, does it? But Kansas goes one step further than most states. It says that if the two factors tie, a so-called "equipoise," then the death penalty will also be imposed. Since the court ruled capital punishment constitutional in 1976, it has created a series of precedents that sought to define and limit the scope of the ruling. Each successive ruling has created more and more stipulations, looking for some sort of "sweet spot" that balances the interest of the state with the rights of individuals. For Justice Antonin Scalia, at least, the Kansas case seems to have hit his sweet spot. The justice quickly zeroed in on the safeguards that Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline laid out. In order for a person to receive the death penalty, the jurors must find unanimous agreement and proof beyond reasonable doubt of the aggravating factors, while the state itself has a very limited definition of capital murder. Just in case the jury feels the need to recommend the death penalty but doesnt find it palatable, it may always opt to show the convicted person mercy. Yes, Kansas has a mercy clause. Justice Scalia was quite intrigued by the idea, perhaps seeing the Holy Grail of capital punishment that he has been seeking. Mr. Scalia has been vocal for years in his dislike of the complicated series of rulings that govern the death penalty. A mercy clause, in addition to these safeguards, seems to be his solution. It wasnt just Justice Scalia who was interested in the particulars. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy also had their curiosity piqued. At one point, Justice Kennedy remarked that only people who could not muster mitigating factors could be executed under Kansas law. It was Justice David Souters musing that Kansas law has a "presumption of death" that may be incompatible with the Eighth Amendment that proved the strongest comment against the Kansas law, but that was quickly refuted by the justices questions about process. Despite basing most of her case on jurisdictional concerns, Rebecca Woodman, the attorney for Michael Marsh, ended spending most of her half hour trying to convince the judges that the application of the law was less rosy than Mr. Kline had led them to believe. The Court largely shrugged away her suggestions that the Eighth Amendment issue was not in play. Its interesting that while the country is largely engaged in questioning the morality and social-justice implications of the death penalty, the nine justices of the Supreme Court heard possibly one of the most important capital-punishment cases since 1976 with little fanfare. And they stuck to the narrow issue of law. Imagine that. Our appointed judiciary is more concerned with legal justice than our elected lawmakers. Does that say something about the voters or the officials? In the end, however, opponents of the death penalty will not find much to hang their hats on with the latest arguments. The Court seems likely to uphold Kansas law, with the "mercy option" becoming the benchmark for other similar cases. Its a victory for jurors, who can now take a side option if they have moral objections to capital punishment, but it is hardly a victory for those waiting on death row. (source: Charles Parsons is a senior majoring in literature in English and is editorial page editor of The (Univ. Wisconsin) Badger Herald)
