Oct. 3 PENNSYLVANIA: Jury's deadlock means no death penalty for double murder A Luzerne County jury was unable to agree on whether an Old Forge man should get the death penalty for a double murder. That means 46-year-old William Rohland gets an automatic sentence of life in prison. The jury convicted Rohland of the murder charges last week and heard emotional testimony Monday about whether he should get capital punishment. Jurors announced that they were deadlocked Tuesday a short time after asking the judge if they were allowed to show mercy in the penalty phase. The judge told them mercy was allowed as long as it was supported by trial testimony. Rohland was convicted of killing 39-year-old Kelli Fasulka and 23-year-old Joseph Hernandez in August of last year. (source: Associated Press) LOUISIANA: Good Question: If lethal injection ruled unconstitutional, what happens to death row? The US Supreme Court went into session Monday. One of the major cases they'll look at is whether lethal injection legal under the constitution. Louisiana is one state with lethal injection executions. If the court rules that method is unconstitutional, what will happen to those who sit on death row? If the Supreme Court rules lethal injection is cruel and unusual punishment. Officials at Angola State Penitentiary say they can't speculate what that would mean for executions in this state. They add, if that ruling happens, at that point prison officials will come together to brainstorm. Right now there are 85 people on death row in Louisiana, including 2 women. Officials say the last lethal injection execution was about 3 1/2 years ago and there are no executions currently scheduled. Prison officials go on to say lethal injection is the execution method used by most states. (source: KATC News) WASHINGTON: Lethal injection neither cruel nor unusual capital punishment Capital punishment is one of the most disturbing actions we take as a society, but the fact remains it is part of our system of law and justice as the ultimate penalty for heinous crimes. As such, it was back in the news on a couple of fronts last week: * The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to examine whether lethal injection, the method of execution in Washington and 36 other states, inflicts a cruel and unnecessarily painful death on condemned inmates. We had thought the "cruel and unusual" had been addressed with the elimination of hanging as the preferred option in this state. Now it's lethal injection unless the condemned person chooses hanging. * The state Supreme Court upheld the death sentence of convicted serial killer Robert Yates Jr. In an 8-1 ruling, the state high court ruled that his conviction and sentence should stand, rejecting his arguments that Pierce County should not have been able to seek the death penalty after a plea agreement was made with Spokane, and also rejecting his argument that the death penalty is applied in a disproportionate way. A central question was how the so-called Green River killer, Gary Ridgway, could escape the death penalty after pleading guilty to killing 48 women, while less-prolific killers are sentenced to death. In both cases, the courts have it right, at least for now, though for different reasons. The challenge of lethal injection is focused on how -- and by whom -- lethal injections are performed. The American Medical Association and other major medical groups admonish their members against participating in executions, and death penalty opponents say that increases the potential for botched procedures. That assumes execution is a medical procedure, when in reality it is not -- no more so than firing squads, gas chambers or electric chairs. We do not intend to make light of this sensitive issue. But surely safeguards can be instituted that ensure the "drug cocktail" that carries out a court sentence is properly administered. Obviously, it must begin with sedation that puts the inmate into a verifiable deep sleep -- before the lethal drugs are administered. Can't that separation make it easier for medical personnel to be involved in the first step? Doctors are sworn to do all they can to preserve life. A state-ordered execution is designed to end it. And the inevitable pros and cons of the capital punishment debate aside, the 2 should not be confused. If society is going to be involved in state-sanctioned killing, then society has an obligation to do it right. As for the Yates appeal, the Washington Supreme Court was correct in ruling that a deal with one criminal should not necessarily impact the death penalty for another. It was also consistent. In April 2006, the state court, in a 5-4 ruling, upheld the death penalty for a man who fatally stabbed his wife and her 2 daughters. Dayva Cross also contended that he should not be executed while Ridgway was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. As we noted editorially at the time, "An important consideration here is that Ridgway was the special case of all special cases, one that cried out for judicial discretion in dealing with it." Writing for the majority, Justice Tom Chambers, a Wapato native, said Ridgway's plea deal came in an extraordinary case and that his cooperation "resolved the tragedy of many unsolved deaths and disappearances that probably would have otherwise remained unsolved forever. "Ridgway's abhorrent killings, standing alone, do not render the death penalty unconstitutional or disproportionate. Our law is not so fragile." The Ridgway case allowed a competent prosecutor -- the late King County Prosecutor Norm Maleng -- to craft a deal that brought closure to not only the unsolved murders, but for the families of victims as well. We didn't particularly like the disposition at the time either, but can't argue with the results. We can understand why capital punishment opponents seek any and all ways to scuttle it. But these back-door attempts to focus on the method -- such as lethal injection -- beg the larger question. If we as a society don't want the ultimate penalty for heinous crime, then take it off the books. But as long as it's there, the focus should be on making an inhumane act as humane as possible. Properly done, lethal injection is neither cruel or unusual. (source: Editorial, Yakima Herald Republic) USA: The death penalty injection paradox----The search for 'humane' capital punishment could end up making state-sanctioned killing more prevalent. In agreeing to decide whether some executions by lethal injection are so painful as to violate the Constitution, the Supreme Court has given at least some death row inmates a reprieve. After deciding last week to hear a lethal-injection case from Kentucky, the court stayed a scheduled execution in Texas. Executions in California already were on hold pending a federal judge's approval of new lethal-injection procedures. Opponents of the death penalty -- including this page -- must welcome any legal development that leads to fewer executions, even in the short term. But it would be a mistake to regard the Supreme Court's decision to review Kentucky's lethal-injection procedures as the beginning of the end of the death penalty. In the debate over capital punishment, lethal injection is a sideshow. To be sure, some death penalty opponents have sought to make it the main event. Last year, after a federal judge in San Jose postponed the execution of Michael Morales because of defects in the lethal-injection procedure, one lawyer observed that states were "hitting the wall in the futile search for a humane death penalty." We wish that were so. But if the definition of a "humane" execution is one in which there is no "unnecessary risk of pain and suffering" -- the standard being urged on the high court by lawyers for two Kentucky inmates -- it is clearly within the ken of science to provide such a procedure. If surgical patients can be reliably anesthetized, so can prisoners. Given that fact, it is shocking that with present protocols, an inmate may not be unconscious when he is injected with drugs that cause paralysis and then death. By all means, the high court should require states to ensure that inmates facing the death penalty don't suffer unnecessary pain. But that is a gesture of basic humanity, not the ultimate solution. It isn't the "how" of capital punishment that has led other civilized societies to abolish the death penalty. It's the "what" -- the taking of a human life by the state when there are other ways to both punish the perpetrator and protect society. Paradoxically, then, if the Supreme Court authorizes more humane methods of execution, it may abet an increase in state-sanctioned killing -- and thus deepen this nation's inhumanity and moral isolation. (source: Opinion, Los Angeles Times) ****************** No right to a painless death penalty When Michael Anthony Taylor kidnapped 15-year-old Ann Harrison while she was waiting for her school bus, then raped and brutally murdered her, he didn't seem to care about the pain and agony she suffered at his hand. But now that Taylor has been convicted and sentenced to capital punishment by lethal injection, he's suddenly concerned with how much pain he might feel at his deserved death. Taylor claims that Missouri's triple-chemical process of lethal injection exposes him to a risk that if he is not sufficiently unconscious he could feel pain but be unable to indicate so. (If this is where I am supposed to feel sorry for Taylor, I'm sorry, but I don't.) Taylor argued to the federal courts, and will soon argue to the Supreme Court, that this chance of pain constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. But Taylor obviously knows what it means to inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and a mere chance of pain is not enough for him to avoid an immediate execution. The Supreme Court's decision to hear Taylor's case is already causing other states to scramble. In Alabama, Gov. Bob Riley, in a knee-jerk reaction, stayed the execution of Thomas Douglas Arthur, who was supposed to die on Sept. 27 for a 1982 murder-for-hire. Arthur was convicted of shooting Troy Wicker through the eye as his victim slept. While we will never know whether Wicker suffered pain in his death, Gov. Riley is changing Alabama's execution protocol to make sure murderers like Arthur slip peacefully and painlessly away under the watchful and monitoring eyes of state doctors and officials. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" was never meant to preclude the death penalty or pain associated therewith. Hanging, electrocution and death by firing squad have all been used in our country to carry out capital punishment. Anti-death penalty activists have successfully convinced legislatures in recent years to reject such forms of capital punishment in favor of the seemingly more "humane" method of lethal injection. Now their latest attack on the death penalty is to oppose even lethal injection on the basis that the procedure might possibly cause pain. This slow and steady march away from capital punishment began when the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Trop v. Dulles (1958) that the meaning of "cruel and unusual punishment" can change with "the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." These so-called "evolving standards" conveniently serve as the beginning of the end of the death penalty for liberals who feel that "progress" in a "maturing society" is only achieved when the country is forced to adopt their views (and those of the United Nations) that capital punishment must be abolished altogether. The basis for capital punishment in our law was clearly stated by Sir William Blackstone in his "Commentaries on the Laws of England" in 1765: With regard to offences mala in se [inherently wrong], capital punishments are in some instances inflicted by the immediate command of God himself to all mankind; as, in the case of murder, by the precept delivered to Noah ... "whoso sheddeth man's blood ... by man shall his blood be shed." Our Founding Fathers recognized in the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution, ratified with the Eighth Amendment in 1791, that a person may be "deprived of life" provided they receive "due process of law." Today, courts in every state must provide ample safeguards in criminal trials to those charged with a capital offense. Unfortunately, there are some in high places who would like to do away with capital punishment completely. One of the most outspoken critics of the death penalty is currently on the U.S. Supreme Court. Senior Associate Justice John Paul Stevens recently admitted in a New York Times article that, rather than apply the law as it is, he has tried to narrow the category of offenders who are eligible for the death penalty. What he and many other judges refuse to admit, however, is that it is the job of the legislature, and not the courts, to determine how and when capital punishment ought to be administered. Because the nature of man does not change, we will continue to experience man's inhumanity to his fellow man. For acts such as those committed by Michael Anthony Taylor in Missouri and Thomas Douglas Arthur in Alabama, we will continue to need the death penalty not only as a matter of justice but also as a deterrent to crime. Those who inflict cruel and painful deaths on their helpless victims have no right in the Eighth Amendment or anywhere else in our Constitution to demand pain-free punishments for their horrendous crimes. (source: WorldNetDaily----Judge Roy Moore) ********************** Clifford Chance death row appeal flounders The US Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by Clifford Chance on behalf of Americas longest-serving death row inmate, Jack Alderman. The firm had argued that Alderman, convicted in 1974 for the murder of his wife, was the victim of ineffective counselling in his original trial. Alderman has consistently maintained his innocence. Clifford Chance partner Jeremy Sandelson, who was instrumental in the firms involvement, said he was disappointed by the Supreme Courts decision but remained hopeful other avenues were still open. "We are now down to the last two heads," said Sandelson. "We will continue with the lethal injection challenge and put evidence before the Supreme Court as to why it is a breach of the eighth amendment. In the meantime, Clifford Chance will continue to work very hard on the issue of a new trial." On Monday (1 October) the Supreme Court rejected the argument, clearing the way for the Superior Court of Chatham County, where Alderman was originally convicted, to issue a warrant for his execution. The case comes at a time of huge controversy across the US in relation to the death penalty. On Tuesday (25 September) the Supreme Court unexpectedly agreed to consider the constitutionality of lethal injection as a method of execution on the grounds that it may contravene the eighth amendment of the US constitution. The eighth amendment prohibits "cruel and unusual punishment." 2 weeks ago a federal judge in Tennessee ruled that lethal injection presented, "a substantial risk of unnecessary pain and could "result in a terrifying, excruciating death." Any delay in the Alderman case would give Clifford Chance additional time to pursue another course of action, namely seeking a retrial on the basis of new evidence it argues it has uncovered. (source: The Lawyer)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----PENN., LA., WASH., USA
Rick Halperin Wed, 3 Oct 2007 10:56:10 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
