Dec. 31 LOUISIANA: Lee granted extension in death sentence appeal Attorneys for convicted serial killer Derrick Todd Lee have been granted a 5-month extension in his death sentence appeal. Lee was convicted of murdering Charlotte Murray Pace and sentenced to death in East Baton Rouge Parish in October of 2004. Lee's appeal attorney, Marcia Widder, says her New Orleans office was devastated by Hurricane Katrina and she needs extra time to prepare her defense. Prosecutor John Sinquefield says he agreed with the decision because there's no doubt Katrina did cause a major disruption to Widder's office. In her motion, Widder argued that she has not seen a copy of the court record in the case... a record she terms "voluminous." Widder also sent out a warning to the court, saying she anticipated having to ask for even more time in the future. Sinquefield says he'll examine each petition individually before deciding whether to dispute them. (source: Associated Press) USA: Year in Death IN 2005, 60 people were executed in the United States -- a tiny increase from the 59 people put to death in 2004. This figure represents at least a temporary leveling off of the precipitous decline of capital punishment in the United States since 1999, when the states executed 98 people. Yet beneath the surface, signs -- albeit inconsistent signs -- of the death penalty's decline continue. According to data from the Death Penalty Information Center, new death sentences fell dramatically again this year -- to an estimated 96 from 125 in 2004 and 276 in 1999. The overall population of death rows around the country likewise continued to fall. And this year had a remarkable development: a state effectively abolishing its death penalty. After the courts struck down New York's capital punishment law, the state legislature consciously declined to pass a new one. Even the death-happy state of Texas is making progress. This year, it executed 19 people -- well below its average of the past decade and fewer than 1/2 of the 40 people it put to death in 2000. What's more, the state legislature passed a statute allowing juries to impose life in prison without parole as an alternative to capital punishment. Though it is 2nd to Texas in executions since 1976, Virginia -- thanks to a courageous commutation by outgoing Gov. Mark R. Warner -- did not execute anyone this year. There was some movement against the trend as well. The intense regional concentration of the death penalty, which had become particularly pronounced in recent years, seemed to fade a bit this year. More states carried out executions than in 2004, and more of them were outside of the South -- the death penalty's heartland. Moreover, while state legislatures have been reining in capital punishment, Congress has been pushing the other direction. The federal death penalty keeps expanding, and Congress this year has been flirting with dangerous legislation to erode federal review of state capital convictions. That said, the overall tendency is unmistakable: At least for now, with crime and murder rates low and the threat of wrongful convictions on people's minds, the death penalty does not have the same attraction that it once had. Finally ending the death penalty in America, however, will not happen quickly. Despite any number of DNA exonerations and some serious questions raised about whether innocent people have been executed, public support for capital punishment remains unnervingly strong, if not quite as strong as it was a few years ago. What is possible now is to begin translating the apparently lessened enthusiasm for executions into laws that permit it less often. In only a few states does capital punishment operate as a day-to-day feature of the criminal justice system. In some states that permit it, it is never -- or almost never -- used at all. The example of New York shows that when policymakers are forced to confront the utility of a largely theoretical death penalty, they may turn their backs on it or at least restrict it. It is time for opponents of the death penalty to begin systematically offering other states that opportunity as well. (source: Editorial, Washington Post) ********************* Will the Real USA Please Stand Up? It is amazing the power of mythology over logic -- mythology which people can accept and believe regardless of all facts and evidence to the contrary, mythology about who they are, where they live, what their history is. It seems to me that no industrial nation suffers more under the weight of its own myths than the United States. I remember as a child how in school each morning we would have to repeat a pledge to the American flag, and we heard again and again how great, wealthy, and democratic the United States is. These things were told as eternal truths, and never questioned, while we simultaneously learned about the scientific method and the importance of factual assessment and logical analysis. I would like to expose some of these myths in simple terms. It seems to me that the general consensus, at least from Americans themselves, is false. Most Americans I know are of the opinion that the United States is the greatest country in the world, the richest, the most democratic, a great force of good in the world. It is the world's leading country in progressive thinking. It is a generous country that gives so much to poor countries. All of these statements are false. While the United States is certainly among the richest nations on earth, in terms of material wealth, the standard of living is not amongst the top. The richest countries in terms of per capita income are Luxembourg and Norway. In terms of natural resources, Russia is the undisputed champion. In terms of the quality of life, we must also consider the following facts about the United States. Its citizens are the only Western people who are not guaranteed some sort of health coverage. In fact, more than 45 million Americans have no health insurance, according to the U.S. Census Bureau (see also Washington Post, 27 Aug 2004, p. A01). Not surprisingly, then, the United States has the highest infant mortality rate of any Western country, ranking 28th in the world. Similarly, it has the lowest life expectancy of any Western country, ranking 24th in the world, according to the World Health Organization. The United States has the highest percentage of its population living in poverty (of industrialized nations), according to the United Nations Human Development Index. The U.S. Census Bureau has reported that in 2003, the percentage of Americans living in poverty rose to 13.5%. That's 35 million people living in poverty in the country the Americans call the world's richest! Low life expectancy, high infant mortality, tens of millions living in poverty and without health insurance. These are not exactly the hallmarks of a wealthy nation. Such is the power of myth. Similarly, in terms of generosity, the United States again misses the mark wildly. While most Americans would characterize their country as generous, in 1998 it ranked lower than any other industrialized nation in giving development aid to poor countries (as a percentage of GNP), according to the OECD Report. It should be noted here, that 1/3 of the American foreign aid budget goes to Israel. A 2002 index shows no improvement: the United States lands again squarely in last place both in terms of per capita private and government aid to poor countries (Center for Global Development and Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. From "Ranking the Rich," Foreign Policy, May/June 2004). So much for the generosity of the worlds "richest" country. These facts notwithstanding, every American I talk to seems to insist that this is not representative of the USA. When I point out slums and ghettos, in nearly every large American city from New York to Los Angeles to Denver or Chicago, my American friends seem to think these people do not really count. They aren't real Americans. They instead point out the wealth in the suburbs as a sort of counterpoint. I get the same response when I point out people living in trailer parks in rural areas. In September of 2005, the world saw image after image of Americans in New Orleans, desperate, poor, begging for help which their own government was not providing. It was clear to any observer that this was not only the result of a natural disaster or of the economic choice to fund wars rather than domestic spending on levees, but also very much the result of poverty, plain and simple. Yet when the world looked on in shock, the Americans themselves seemed unable to accept that something was incorrect with their own self-image of wealth and invulnerability. This power of myth over logical analysis extends well into the political realm. Americans generally seem to be convinced of how democratic their system is. Many believe it to be the worlds first democracy, when of course even the word itself goes back to ancient Greece. Others insist that it is the world's oldest democracy, when in fact Iceland had democracy centuries before the Europeans had even colonized the North American continent. More importantly, no one seems to notice that the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 have cast the entire system into doubt. Wrought with scandal and widespread reports of fraud, the election of 2000 installed a leader who did not win the vote of the majority of the population, and who was finally put into office not by the result of any election, but by a decision of an appointed court. And yet the attitude seems to be: "Sure, the last 2 elections were clearly fraudulent, but other than that we are very democratic." I point out that, while most industrialized countries have from 3 to 12 or more political parties which are both politically viable and represent greatly different viewpoints and interests, the United States has only 2 parties, both of which have the same basic platform (i.e. pro-war, pro-free trade, pro-surveillance of their own citizens in terms of the "Patriotic Act", etc.), and I get a similar response: "Sure, but apart from that...." None of these facts seem to sway the opinions of the American citizens. Any perusal of the history of American foreign policy reveals endemic, consistent support for dictatorships; from Pinochet in Chile to Batista in Cuba, from Somoza Debayle in Nicaragua to Mobuto Sese Seko in Zaire (and the list goes on and on). And yet nearly every American, from individual citizens to newspaper editors and political columnists, will insist that the United States is a force for democracy in the world. They speak repeatedly about exporting democracy, even while their own system lacks credibility and their long history suggests the very opposite. When I mention that the United States has the largest prison population of any country (see International Centre for Prison Studies at King's College London), that it is the only remaining industrial power where the death penalty is accepted (if not to say celebrated, at least by a certain segment of the population), no American seems to find this evidence that the United States is not a particularly progressive thinking country. All of these myths add up to a country with serious self-image problems, a country suffering from self-delusion. There can be no improvement without first the recognition of the real situation, no moving forward without first an honest assessment of the facts of the matter. It seems to me that Americans have a very selective perception, a self-perception that is harmful to themselves and the rest of the world. In his eulogy for Rosa Parks, the Reverend Al Sharpton admonished the mourners that it isn't enough to call it like you see it: "a mirror isn't just to reflect what you see, a mirror is to correct what you see!" In the interest of both reflection and correction, I think it is now time to start debunking the myths. (source: Dissent Voice - Daniel Vallin is a writer who no longer lives in the United States) ***************************** Alito, In and Out of the Mainstream----In Analysis, Nominee Defies Portrayals by Left and Right During 15 years as an appeals court judge, Supreme Court nominee Samuel A. Alito Jr. has been highly sympathetic to prosecutors, skeptical of immigrants trying to avoid deportation, and supportive of a lower wall between church and state, according to an analysis of his record by The Washington Post. Alito has taken a harder line on criminal and immigration cases than most federal appellate judges nationwide, including those who, like him, were selected by Republican presidents, the analysis found. In civil rights cases, Alito has sided against 3 of every 4 people who claimed to have been victims of discrimination, based on the lawsuits in the analysis. Such a record is typical of Republican appointees on federal appeals courts in discrimination cases, the area of the law in which national studies show GOP-appointed judges differ most from their Democratic-appointed counterparts. Still, in a few areas of the law, Alito's record resembles that of the average U.S. appellate judge. His decisions on First Amendment cases have been mixed. And when workers have sued for pay or benefits, he has agreed with them about 1/2 the time. The analysis, based on a database developed through a review of more than 200 cases Alito helped to decide on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, provides a more nuanced glimpse of his ideology than the portrayal by his supporters and critics. Bush administration officials and conservative allies working to win Alito's confirmation say he fits within the judicial mainstream; some Democrats and liberal advocacy groups trying to defeat his nomination say he is an ideologue. Neither characterization is completely accurate. Instead, the analysis, along with interviews of scholars who study the courts, shows that Alito takes consistently restrictive stances on some social issues and criminals' rights but does not differ substantially from the typical judge in other areas. Overall, the analysis shows, Alito does not disagree with majority opinions more frequently than most federal appeals judges do in similar cases. Yet a closer look finds that he dissents most often in areas where his views are least typical of the average judge: cases in which he has favored religion and largely sided against immigrants and one group of convicted criminals: prisoners facing the death penalty. "Here is where Alito really takes his stand," said Kenneth L. Manning, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth who has studied the voting behavior of other appellate judges. Because Supreme Court justices are free to disregard precedent, Alito's decisions are an imperfect barometer of how he might rule if he succeeds Sandra Day O'Connor, a pivotal member of the high court. Still, scholars said that his opinions since joining the 3rd Circuit in 1990 yield important clues, such as which areas of law he is passionate about, whether he strives for consensus and how his views align with Supreme Court decisions. To examine his record, The Post looked at how Alito voted on all 221 cases he has helped to decide in which the 3rd Circuit -- which handles appeals from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and the Virgin Islands -- issued a divided ruling. Those cases provide a revealing window to a judge's ideology, judicial scholars say, because they involve legal issues that are unclear. In that way, they also are most like the cases the Supreme Court hears, said Donald R. Songer, a political scientist at the University of South Carolina who studies appellate courts. The idea of trying to gauge a judge's ideology from his voting patterns on different types of cases is unpopular among law professors who prefer to study legal reasoning case by case. But the method used by The Post is well accepted among political scientists -- many of whom clump together votes on types of cases to determine whether a judge is liberal or conservative, a step The Post did not take. The analysis included 34 majority opinions and 55 dissenting ones that Alito wrote, plus 132 in which he voted but did not put his views in writing. Overall, the opinions Alito wrote are largely devoid of impassioned rhetoric or broad philosophical assertions. He grounds his views in close readings of legal precedents, statutes and government regulations. Of the cases The Post examined, Alito upheld the rulings of a lower court about half the time, which is typical of appeals judges nationally. Routinely, he defers to government officials and others in positions of authority. He sometimes chastises his fellow judges for what he regards as overstepping their authority by imposing their own judgments, rather than merely assessing the legality of actions by prison guards, defense lawyers and immigration officials being challenged -- actions he often upholds. His written opinions often are "very thoughtful, well constructed and well argued," said Martin H. Redish, a constitutional scholar at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago who reviewed several cases in the Post analysis. At the same time, he said, Alito is "clearly tough-minded . . . having very little sympathy for those asserting rights against the government." With Alito's Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to start Jan. 9, the debate over his nomination has escalated to a political brawl. At the core of the partisan fight is a pair of memos he wrote 2 decades ago, when he was a Justice Department lawyer in the Reagan administration. In them he made clear that he opposed Roe v. Wade , the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion nationwide. There were 2 abortion cases in the analysis. Alito voted to restrict abortion rights in one -- the well-known Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey , in which the Supreme Court later disagreed with him -- and voted to protect such rights in the other. Alito's place in the nation's decades-old abortion wars, the analysis shows, is not what most defines him as a judge. The Prosecutors' View In the summer of 1991, Kourtney Kauffman was released against his doctors' advice after a 5-day stay at a psychiatric center in Harrisburg, Pa. 2 days before he was hospitalized, 5 guns were stolen from a nearby house. 5 days after he got out, Kauffman was arrested while trying to sell 4 of the weapons to a firearms dealer. On his lawyer's advice, he pleaded guilty to illegally possessing the guns and received a 15-year sentence. A few years later, Kauffman sought to have his conviction overturned, arguing that his lawyer had not discussed the possibility of an insanity defense, even though a psychiatrist who had examined him the day he was arrested concluded he was "undoubtedly psychotic at the time." A U.S. district judge turned Kauffman down, and he appealed. The two 3rd Circuit judges with whom Alito heard the case -- like him, appointed by President George H.W. Bush -- ordered a new trial for Kauffman. Although a court must be "highly deferential" to the decisions of a lawyer representing a criminal defendant, the majority ruled, Kauffman's counsel was inadequate because he had not investigated his client's history of mental illness or considered an insanity defense. Alito disagreed. Because the lawyer had represented Kauffman in the past, Alito wrote in his dissent, he knew his client well enough to make a "tactical decision" that a guilty plea was the best course. The court majority, he wrote, "fails to heed that important admonition" that judges should be reluctant to 2nd-guess lawyers' conduct. U.S. v. Kauffman is typical of Alito's perspective on criminal cases. Of 33 such cases in the analysis, he sided with criminal defendants only 3 times, aligning with prosecutors more often than the average GOP-appointed judge in divided cases. His high rate of favoring the prosecution is nearly identical to that of the Supreme Court's new chief justice, John G. Roberts Jr., according to the University of Massachusetts's Manning, who performed a similar analysis of Roberts's record from his 2 years on a different federal appeals court. As in the Kauffman case, Alito voted in 2/3 of the criminal cases to uphold the rulings of a lower-court judge. His votes in one small group of those criminal cases -- four appeals from inmates facing death sentences -- were even more consistent. Every time, he voted against sparing the prisoner from execution. Nationally, federal appeals judges in disputed cases vote to give relief to prisoners sentenced to death about 1/3 of the time. Such a record, the University of South Carolina's Songer said, implies that Alito would behave differently from Justice O'Connor, who has been willing in recent years to restrict the use of the death penalty. Cool on Immigrants If Alito's treatment of criminal cases is unusual, his record is more ordinary in a few other areas. This is particularly true in lawsuits by employees who claim to have been denied wages, benefits or union rights. Of 19 such cases in the analysis, Alito voted in favor of workers nearly half the time -- about the same as judges nationwide and more often than the average Republican-appointed judge. In 1991, his was the sole vote siding with 228 Philippine seamen working on Kuwaiti oil tankers in the Persian Gulf who alleged that they deserved to be paid minimum wage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. It was around the time of the Persian Gulf War, and their ships had temporarily been reflagged under the U.S. flag because it was dangerous in that region for vessels from neutral countries. The court majority ruled the sailors did not deserve the pay because they were outside U.S. waters and their ships were only temporarily reflagged. Alito countered that the legislative history of the labor law "makes clear that Congress intended for the minimum wage requirement to apply to all seamen on all American vessels." Alito has been less sympathetic to employees who claim to have been discriminated against on the basis of race, sex, age or disability, siding squarely with them in just three of 15 such cases in the analysis. In those and other discrimination cases, his voting pattern is comparable to the typical Republican-appointed judge. He also is similar to other Republican appointees in overall deference to the government. For example, he agreed with the government position in all but 1 of 7 cases in which prisoners alleged violations of their rights. The only kind of case involving the government in which Alito ruled against its interest most of the time was when companies challenged federal regulations. His treatment of immigration issues -- siding 1 time in 8 squarely with immigrants who were trying to win asylum or block their deportation -- makes Alito less sympathetic to immigrants than most Republican appointees. At a time when other circuit judges nationwide have criticized as too harsh the reasoning and conduct of the Board of Immigration Appeals, Alito has displayed "almost total deference" to the board, said Owen M. Fiss, a Yale Law School professor who, with 21 Yale faculty and students, has analyzed the more than 400 published opinions Alito has written. In the 1994 Tipu v. Immigration and Naturalization Service, 2 judges with whom he heard the case -- both GOP appointees -- threw out a deportation order against a Pakistani immigrant convicted on a drug conspiracy charge. The top administrative board that considers immigrants' appeals, they reasoned, had made mistakes, ignoring that Mohammed Zafar Tipu had played a minor role in the conspiracy, received a high school degree while serving a light prison sentence and cared for an ailing brother. Alito wanted to uphold the deportation. "The majority has wandered well beyond the limited scope of appellate review that we are permitted," he wrote in his dissent. "Whatever else one may think about [the immigration board's] decision, it was not arbitrary, irrational or contrary to law." Last year, the 3rd Circuit blocked the deportation of a Korean couple, longtime residents of the United States who were convicted of a tax violation, concluding that the crime was not an "aggravated felony" that required them to be removed. Alito, in a dissent, gave a lengthy interpretation of what he believed Congress had in mind when it wrote a section of federal immigration law -- and the majority chided him, writing that a judge should reach decisions "unaided by speculation." Larger Role for Religion Alito has agreed consistently with people who are trying to expand the role of religion in public life, the analysis shows. 3 cases in the analysis deal with the boundaries between church and state, and Alito's decisions parallel about a dozen other -- unanimous -- cases he has heard that were not examined by The Post, said Ira C. Lupu, a constitutional scholar at George Washington University Law School. Alito's views differ from those of most appellate judges and all the current members of the Supreme Court, Lupu said, because "he is on the side of whoever is trying to include or advance a religious message." Alito has taken a narrow view of the First Amendment's establishment clause, which forbids the government to sponsor any religion, and an expansive view of its free-exercise clause, which protects people's rights to worship as they want. In an establishment-clause case in the analysis, American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey ex rel. Lander v. Schundler , Alito wrote a 1999 majority opinion upholding the constitutionality of a holiday display in front of City Hall in Jersey City. A lower court had banned the display a few years earlier, when it featured a Hanukkah menorah and a Christmas tree. 2 weeks later, the city put it back up with changes, adding a large plastic Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, a red sled and Kwanzaa symbols. Alito said the secular additions "demystified" the religious symbols and made the display legal. In a dissent, Judge Richard Lowell Nygaard, a Reagan appointee, wrote that the "addition of a few small token secular objects is not enough to constitutionally legitimate the modified display." In a free-exercise case, Alito sided with a boy named Zachary Hood in Medford, N.J., who, as a kindergartner, made a poster on which he had drawn a picture of Jesus as an example of something he was thankful for. In first grade, when allowed to bring a book to read to class, he brought "The Beginner's Bible: Timeless Children's Stories." The court's majority ruled in favor of the school system and teachers, who removed the boy's poster from a wall and forbade him to read the Bible stories to his class. Alito dissented, writing that "discriminatory treatment of the poster because of its 'religious theme' would violate the First Amendment." He reasoned that "public school students have the right to express religious views in class discussion or in assigned work, provided that their expression falls within the scope of the discussion or the assignment." Alito has greater sympathy for First Amendment rights when it comes to religion than other free-speech issues. Of six First Amendment cases in the analysis that did not involve religion, he voted to uphold such rights once. Last February, for instance, he helped to decide a class-action lawsuit by inmates in a unit of a Pittsburgh prison set aside for especially violent prisoners. Inmates in the unit were not allowed to have newspapers, magazines or photographs -- and they sued, alleging the rule violated their free-speech rights. The court's majority found the ban unconstitutional. Alito disagreed. Citing a precedent that "instructs courts to extend considerable deference to judgments of correctional officials," he wrote that the prison officials were reasonable in believing the restrictions might deter other inmates from misbehaving -- and that the segregated prisoners did not face absolute restrictions, because they could get around the ban by improving their behavior enough to get out of the unit. In November, the Supreme Court decided that it will hear the case. (source: Washington Post) OHIO: Wife seeks mercy for spouse accused of killing their son The family of a man who told authorities he drowned his son in a bathtub doesn't want prosecutors to pursue the death penalty. Michael Luebrecht, 36, of Fort Jennings, has been charged with aggravated murder in the May death of his son, Joel. Luebrecht told a 9-1-1 operator that he drowned his son. Putnam County Prosecutor Gary Lammers has said he will seek the death penalty in the case, which is scheduled for trial in February. "We are the victims here," said Amy Luebrecht, the baby's mother and Michael Luebrecht's wife. "He took Joel away from us. We are forgiving him. It's not like the prosecutor has to seek vengeance on behalf of the victim." Amy Luebrecht's sister, Susan Darby, said Lammers hasn't listened to the family's wishes. "He's really not looking out for the victim's family in this situation. None of us think Mike deserves the death penalty." Lammers said he has met with the family and understood their desires. He said the family's connection with both the suspect and victim makes it difficult to abide by their wishes. "I don't know if it'd be appropriate to speak to my own personal views about this," Lammers said. "I look at it as my job as an officer of the court and the state. I present the facts, and the trier of fact can make the determination." He said he will consider the family's concerns. Luebrecht dropped his original plea of not guilty by reason of insanity and pleaded not guilty last month in Putnam County Common Pleas Court. Luebrecht's lawyer, William Kluge, said his client's mental health will be a key part of his defense, but it is difficult to prove insanity in court. Putnam County sheriff's deputies said Luebrecht picked up Joel from a baby sitter in May and brought the child home. A volunteer firefighter who lives across the street found the boy, still in his clothes, on a bed in the home in Fort Jennings, which is about 60 miles southwest of Toledo. Kluge said the family unanimously supports dropping the death penalty request. "What they really want is him to get the help he needs," Kluge said. (source: Plain Dealer) ILLINOIS: Hancock County man facing death penalty dealt setback Time is running out for Dan Ramsey. "He's running on fumes," Hancock County State's Attorney Jim Drozdz said. "He's running out of appeals." Ramsey of Keokuk was spared from death by lethal injection in 2000 after being convicted of a pair of shooting deaths on July 8, 1996, in Illinois. As in all death penalty cases, automatic appeals kicked in, and in early 2000 the Illinois Supreme Court overturned Ramsey's conviction and ordered a new trial based on a legal technicality. Thus, began a series of appeals by Ramsey to prevent a retrial. "He has been fighting a 2nd trial tooth and nail," Drozdz said. In September, an appeal by Ramsey to the 3rd district appellate court was rejected. In his appeal, Ramsey requested his case be dismissed because a retrial violated double jeopardy protection. The appellate court argued the appeal was without merit. Earlier this month, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to reverse the appellate court's decision. On Thursday, a bid by Ramsey to have criminal proceedings halted until an appeal made to the U.S. Supreme Court is decided was also rejected by the Illinois Supreme Court. The move by the state's highest court allows prosecutors in Hancock County to move ahead with their case. "The U.S. Supreme Court is his last chance ... but I doubt they will take up the case, so we plan on moving ahead," Drozdz said. Ramsey, now 27, was convicted of 1st-degree murder and sentenced to death by lethal injection by a McDonough County, Ill., jury on June 3, 1997, for the deaths of 12-year-old Lonna Sloop of rural Dallas City and 16-year-old Laura Marson of Basco, Ill. Ramsey, 18 at the time of the killings, had taken Marson on a first date that night, killed her and left her duct-taped body in a grain silo. He then lured several adults away from the home of his former girlfriend, Rachel Sloop, 16, and went to the home, where he shot and killed Lonna Sloop and attempted to kill Rachel Sloop and 2 children, Cody and Courtney Hamelton, who were 2 and 3, respectively. He then turned the gun on himself, but sustained only a head wound. Former Illinois Gov. George Ryan commuted the death sentences of all 167 death row inmates in 2002 as one of his last acts as governor. Ramsey's appeal status at the time means he was not one of those cases. Ramsey has been incarcerated at the Hancock County jail since 2000. An arraignment hearing is expected to be scheduled in late January. (source: The Hawk Eye) ARIZONA: Homicides 2005: Ripple effect of deaths 'enormous'----2/3 of victims had criminal records, new study shows; impact of slayings reverberates through neighborhoods where they occurred 56 people died at the hands of other human beings in Tucson this year. And while 2/3 of the dead had criminal records and likely were killed by someone with a criminal record, according to a new study by police, the ripples from their deaths affect many more Tucsonans. People may dismiss many of last year's killings as just bad guys killing bad guys, but Assistant Police Chief John Leavitt said most of those killed weren't involved in activities that warranted a death penalty. "Every victim ... has a family, and those families grieve," Leavitt said. "The ripple effect is enormous." Such was the case with Darrell J. Smith, shot to death in broad daylight in his neighborhood near South Craycroft and Golf Links roads. He left behind a pregnant girlfriend. "He was my life," she sobbed upon finding him dead. His friend and boss, Bill Wyko, was stunned, saying he was "always there for his friends and family." Neighbors also felt the ripples of Smith's violent demise. "I felt unsafe," said Susana Sanchez, 23. Because of the killing, she said, she still worries that something bad could happen to her husband or son. Claudia Van Der Sande, 33, said she became a little more cautious, a little more vigilant when coming from and going to her home. "I guess I was a little paranoid," Van Der Sande said. Smith was among the 67 percent of victims with criminal records. >From 1993 to 2000, Smith served three years in prison after conviction in an assault case and also was arrested on suspicion of writing a bad check, endangerment - both charges were dismissed. He also was indicted on a domestic violence, but the outcome of that case was not immediately available.. He had no record of problems in the last 5 years of his life. Bad guys killing bad guys? More than 2/3 of the people who were killed this year in homicides had criminal histories, and if the killings of four babies are excluded, the proportion of victims with criminal histories jumps to nearly 3/4, according to a draft of a new study by the Police Department. They may be engaged in illegal activities and may be running with people who also have criminal histories, Leavitt said. The draft tracks homicides through Dec. 13, by which time there were 54 in Tucson. The study shows that of the 36 victims with criminal records included in the study: - 26 % had drug arrests. - 26 % had alcohol-related arrests. - 21 % had assault arrests. - 12 % had weapons misconduct arrests. Of 42 suspects identified by Dec. 13, 69 % had prior arrests. Of those with prior arrests: - 29 % had drug arrests. - 20 % had alcohol-related arrests. - 20 % had assault arrests. We all are affected Nobody is blaming the victims, but choices they made put them into situations that increased their chances to be killed, Leavitt said. Gail Leland deals with homicides daily as director of Homicide Survivors. While it makes sense that many homicide victims are involved in criminal activity themselves, she was surprised at how high the number was. "I don't think anybody deserves to be murdered," Leland said of victims who have criminal histories. "They deserve to be held accountable for their actions." Homicides across the city and county affect everyone, not just immediate friends, family and neighbors. "The effect of homicides going unchecked," Leavitt said, is that "people no longer feel safe in their neighborhoods, and the feeling of safety is a critical element of people's quality of life." When guns blaze, there always is the chance an innocent person will be caught in the crossfire, he said. Tougher to prosecute Family and friends of people who have had unfavorable brushes with law enforcement tend to be wary of the police. Some depend on money from the dead family member's illegal activity to survive, Leland said. Some of them are simply scared. "They have just experienced the brutal murder of a family member, and they're afraid they may be next." Benjamin Jimenez knows all of that too well. He is the Police Department's most experienced detective, having spent 14 years as a homicide detective. When murder victims have been involved in crimes, "usually the witnesses (have), too," Jimenez said. "It's frustrating, because you sit across from them in the interview room, and you know they're lying to you." Witnesses fear retaliation and being labeled a snitch, Jimenez said. If witnesses eventually find themselves in jail, facing serious charges, then they want to talk to "cut a deal." It all makes for difficult cases to solve and prosecute as defense attorneys pounce on witnesses' varying stories to police, Jimenez said. Looking for solutions The fact that 67 % of the city's murder victims had arrest records points out a need for early intervention by social service agencies with young people involved with crime, Leavitt said. The city needs more anti-domestic violence and child abuse programs and more money for those already here, Leavitt said. Also, the city needs more funding for alcohol and drug addiction treatment programs, as well as for after-school youth sports. The after-school sports programs help. They "keep kids off the street at a time when they are most likely to be unsupervised and to get involved in crime," Leavitt said. Police also can do more, such as patrol "hot spots" known to foster youth problems and crimes. "We want to try to prevent future homicides, so we have to look very carefully at what's causing these homicides," Leavitt said. But, he added, "We're not often invited to drug deals, where many homicides occur. "No one had the right to kill any of these people. What we're trying to do is find factors that are common to people becoming victims of homicides." Key Numbers 67 - % of homicide victims who had arrest records 69 - % of the 42 suspects identified who had prior arrests 34 - % of homicides committed in which drugs were the motive. Drugs were the No. 1 motive, followed by gang activity, with 17 %; and domestic violence, 13 %. Homicides, 2004 versus 2005 Homicides in the metro area: Area --- 2004 --- 2005 Tucson --- 56 --- 56 Unincorporated Pima County --- 27 --- 20 South Tucson --- 2 --- 1 Marana --- 1 --- 2 Oro Valley --- 0 --- 0 Sahuarita --- 0 --- 0 (source: Tucson Citizen)
