March 20
OHIO: Defense lawyer slams state over execution hold A defense attorney calls it "appalling" that the state hasn't called off today's execution of convicted killer Kenneth Biros. It had been scheduled for ten this morning, but the hour came and went as the state awaited word on appeals that are still pending. Prisons spokeswoman Andrea says things are in a holding pattern. She says the death warrant gives the state until midnight, though she says the execution would have to start by 10 p-m to give the execution team time to prepare. Defense attorney Timothy Sweeney says the state shouldn't keep his client waiting, thinking he could be executed at any time. Sweeney says another lawyer who visited with Biros today says he's holding up well. (source: Associated Press) FLORIDA: Judge: OK to ask Ross jury pool about death penalty In Bradenton, a judge Monday denied a request by Blaine Ross' defense attorneys to prohibit the state from questioning prospective jurors about their attitudes regarding the death penalty. Circuit Judge Ed Nicholas also denied Ross' request for separate juries to determine his guilt or innocence and, if necessary, penalty phases of his capital murder trial. Ross, 24, is accused of killing his parents in early 2004. Jury selection for his trial begins April 16 and prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Ross attorney Adam Tebrugge recently filed a motion arguing that asking potential jurors about the death penalty denies his client his constitutional right to have impartial jurors render a decision on guilt or innocence. Such questions, Tebrugge argued, can "negatively impact the presumption of innocence." On Friday, during a hearing at the Manatee County Courthouse, Nicholas agreed to re-examine the Florida law that requires all jurors picked in capital cases to be willing and able to consider death or life in prison without parole for the accused. Nicholas announced his decision Monday. "The court is not persuaded that death qualification in a capital case violates Ross' right to an impartial jury," Nicholas wrote in his ruling. He also denied separate juries for the 2 trial phases. Ross, who was 21 at the time of the killings, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder for the death of his parents, Richard, 52, and Kathleen, 54. Authorities say they were killed during the night of Jan. 6-7, 2004. Ross allegedly killed his parents after his mother apparently cut him out of a $107,000 inheritance. Authorities say Ross was angry with his parents, especially at his father, for cheating on his mother and for their pending divorce. (source: Bradenton Herald) NEBRASKA: Bill to repeal death penalty fails to advance ---- Debate begins anew over death penalty The Legislature voted 25-24 today against repealing Nebraska's death penalty. Speaker of the Legislature Mike Flood, left, and Sen. Ernie Chambers speak this morning on the legislative floor. In Flood, Chambers had a powerful opponent in his efforts to end the death penalty.After the vote, State Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, the sponsor of the repeal bill, said the bill probably is dead for the year. The vote followed two days of often-emotional debate in which several state senators said they were wrestling with their personal moral beliefs. State Sen. Tom Carlson of Holdrege said he was struggling to reconcile his anti-abortion beliefs with support for the death penalty. "I am so opposed to abortion, I'm pro-life," he said today. "To be consistently pro-life, maybe I should oppose the death penalty." He said that if Chambers would join with him to fight abortion, he would gladly vote against the death penalty. Chambers, however, said he views abortion as an issue involving the "personal, intimate" rights of women and not a parallel to the death sentence. Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha said the teachings of the Catholic Church have led him to support repeal of the death penalty. Although he once supported the punishment in a "knee-jerk fashion," he said, he's come to believe that capital punishment does not protect public safety and is only a form of vengeance. Other senators said they were struggling to compare cases that put some murderers on death row while others received life in prison. Sen. LeRoy Louden of Ellsworth said he continues to support the death penalty because of cases like that of Raymond Mata Jr., who was sentenced to die after killing his girlfriend's child, dismembering the boy's body and feeding parts of it to a dog. But State Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island cited the case of a Grand Island man, Germai Molina, who was sentenced to 80 years to life for second-degree murder after being convicted of beating a little girl to death with a belt for wetting her pants. Aguilar was a pallbearer at the child's funeral. ** How they voted -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Today's 25-24 vote against LB 476, a bill to repeal Nebraska's death penalty: Voting Against (25): Burling, Christensen, Engel, Erdman, Fischer, Flood, Friend, Fulton, Gay, Hansen, Harms, Heidemann, Hudkins, Janssen, Karpisek, Langemeier, Louden, Mines, Nelson, Pahls, Pankonin, Pirsch, Stuthman, White, Wightman. Voting For (24): Adams, Aguilar, Ashford, Avery, Carlson, Chambers, Cornett, Dierks, Dubas, Howard, Johnson, Kopplin, Kruse, Lathrop, McDonald, McGill, Nantkes, Pedersen, Preister, Raikes, Rogert, Schimek, Synowicki, Wallman."If anybody needs to die, that man needed to die," Aguilar said angrily. "That is the worst case of inconsistency in our law that I have ever heard of. That is why I'm struggling with this." That's the reaction Chambers was hoping for as the Legislature conducted its first full-scale debate over the death penalty since 1988. With 22 new lawmakers at the State Capitol this year, Chambers said many state senators haven't yet wrestled with the death penalty in depth. Debate of Legislative Bill 476 - Chambers' proposal to change the maximum penalty for 1st-degree murder from death to life in prison without possibility of parole - began Monday. "They came here with one viewpoint, but they're uncertain now," Chambers said of fellow lawmakers. "They can see things are wrong. Things have been wrong." One mind - that of Gov. Dave Heineman - appears to be unwavering on the subject. Heineman promised to veto a death penalty repeal bill if it reaches his desk. It would take 30 votes to override a veto. "I support the death penalty and I'm opposed to its repeal," Heineman said. He urged lawmakers to heed the majority of Nebraskans who he said favor capital punishment. 12 states, including Iowa, do not have the death penalty. Chambers, whose 37-year tenure is the longest in the Legislature's history, also is the Legislature's longest-standing death penalty opponent. He has introduced a bill to abolish the death penalty in every 2-year legislative term since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. But the formidable Chambers has a powerful opponent this year: Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, the speaker of the Legislature. Chambers described what he called the inconsistencies and expense of capital punishment. Flood pointed to the 2002 murders of five people in his district during a botched bank robbery. Three of 10 men now on Nebraska's death row - Erick Vela, Jorge Galindo and Jose Sandoval - were sentenced for their roles in the Norfolk crime. "Some cases are so heinous, so awful, pitiless, emotionally abusive - to the point where you don't want to hear the facts," Flood said. "They warrant the death penalty." 29 people have been sentenced to death in Nebraska since 1976. 3 executions have been carried out - Harold Otey in 1994, John Joubert in 1996 and Robert Williams in 1997. Other inmates have left death row when the courts overturned their sentences or they died of suicide or natural causes. Chambers said the courts have struggled without success to ensure that the death penalty is reserved for the worst murders. Even though Nebraska's death sentencing law tries to define murders that deserve the death penalty, some people escape a death sentence despite committing terrible crimes, while others wind up on death row for reasons other than the relative severity of their crime, Chambers said. The lucky ones may have better lawyers, he said. Chambers said studies have shown that race can factor into the death penalty decision. One landmark study showed that those who murder a white person are four times more likely to get a death sentence than those who murder someone who's not white. Flood read aloud each of the factors under Nebraska law that could justify a death sentence, arguing that they offer rational criteria for the decision. He said society is entitled to retribution for some crimes. (source: Omaha World-Herald) ******************* Abolishment Supporters Dominate Death Debate----Death Penalty Debated For First Time In 20 Years Debate on Monday on whether to repeal the death penalty was dominated by state lawmakers who want to make Nebraska one of 12 states without the ultimate penalty. But there will be plenty of time for supporters of the death penalty to pose their arguments. Sen. Mike Flood of Norfolk, the speaker of the Legislature, said a vote could come within the next couple days. The repeal bill -- LB476 -- was introduced by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha, who has tried to rid the state of the death penalty every legislative term for more than 30 years. There have been 3 executions in Nebraska since the lawmakers last debated the death penalty in 1988. The crowds that gathered outside the state penitentiary in Lincoln during those executions were what some senators remembered on the floor. "I was sickened by the disregard of the lack of dignity surrounding the death of a man," said Sen. Gail Kopplin of Gretna. Chambers calls the death penalty grotesque and cruel for all involved, while fellow opponents say it does not act as a deterrent to murderers. "The state should not kill anybody," Chambers said on Monday. He and some other senators argued that the electric chair is cruel and unusual and not applied fairly. "The death penalty appears to be heavily biased toward racial minorities and the poor," said Sen. Bill Avery of Lincoln. "I find this most disturbing." Flood said the death penalty is a deterrent and serves as retribution. Flood talked about the Norfolk bank slayings to make his point. "Shooting them in the leg and in the neck -- it was awful. And that type of behavior warrants the death penalty," Flood said. "You're doing this to get back at them because you're mad, and we are mad. And that's on the table." Former state Sen. Loren Schmidt was there the last time senators debated the issue. The 1-time death penalty supporter turned opponent said he believes society is changing, just as he did. "I don't see the vehemence in support of the death penalty on the floor today we saw in my career," Schmidt said. The closest Chambers has come was in 1979, when his bill passed on a 26-22 vote but was vetoed by then-Gov. Charley Thone. (source: KETV News) OREGON: ... And safety for all? In mid-February, this newspaper in this space pointed out that the time had arrived for Ontario elected leaders to focus on public safety. The issue then, as it is now, revolves around how big a priority public safety and police resources really should be for this community. Since then, a nearly deadly attack on a young woman living in rural Malheur County has thrust the public safety issue into the spotlight. A woman was attacked in her home and forced to wait more than an hour for a Malheur County Sheriffs Office deputy to respond to her home. That incident clearly illustrates that the public safety issue is more than a simple problem for a single city it is a countywide challenge. It is also one Malheur County elected leaders must address soon. Much of the recent attention regarding public safety resources was on the Malheur County Sheriffs Office. However, that agency just happened to be the one at the center of the incident revolving around the woman in her rural home. In reality, the situation could have happened to another agency anywhere in our area. Several important questions leap forward regarding public safety in Malheur County. Is the issue one of personnel? Do agencies such as the Malheur County Sheriffs Office need more deputies and, if so, how do we pay for them? Is the issue simply overblown? Perhaps public safety in Malheur County is not a major issue? How important is 24-hour police coverage in this county? Some area police departments such as the Ontario Police Department put officers on the street 24 hours a day. What is Chief Mike Kee doing that makes this possible? Maybe 24-hour coverage is not really all that important? After all, the area has made it through many years, apparently, without that type of coverage, and, as far as we know, only 1 serious incident has occurred to bring the issue into the limelight. Maybe the police forces in our county have more than enough people and just need to use them differently? These questions, and many more, deserve to be studied by area elected leaders. Perhaps a countywide panel consisting of key elected leaders from different cities and the county could ponder this issue and then develop a solid plan to present to voters to solve the public safety challenge. In the end, though, a key challenge will revolve around money. Who will pay for any kind of public safety personnel boost is the critical question. Finding the right kind of funding may mean elected leaders locally need to engage politicians at the next level, such as state and federal representatives. A solution to this problem can be found, but it will take cooperation and political engagement on all levels, not just here in Malheur County. However, elected officials here at home owe it to the public to address this issue promptly and to explain whatever progress, or lack thereof, they encounter on the subject. (source: Opinion, The Argus) CALIFORNIA: A broken system The actor Mike Farrell has put his notoriety as an entertainer to work as a voice in one of the most divisive debates in American life: The question of whether capital punishment is just. He came to Napa Valley last week on his crusade to end capital punishment. Wherever one stands on capital punishment, one thing is certain: The California system of executing the murderers sentenced to death does not work. Nearly 700 people occupy death row in California. Many have been there for decades, their victims gone for even longer. More people on the row die of suicide or natural causes than have their sentences meted out. Meanwhile, the public clash over the death penalty is a debate of absolutes, much like the debate over abortion. Some Californians argue that they simply do not want the state to kill in their name, that the death penalty is "cruel and unusual" no matter how it is applied. Yet the majority of citizens often have shown support for the law. 20 years ago, the people of California forced out of office the chief justice of the California Supreme Court, Rose Bird, in essence because Bird and a majority of the court found reasons to toss out any and every death penalty case that came to them. Death penalty supporters see the law as a deterrent, as a fair way to address those who have committed unspeakable acts against others, simply as an eye for an eye. Things are not so black and white for the courts that rule on such cases. Most of the time, there is little question of guilt or innocence, but the appeals turn on whether the legal process was fair. These questions can become frustratingly technical, but such concerns prompted the U.S. Supreme Court to throw out the death penalty in Georgia 30 years ago in a landmark ruling, as the law clearly was not applied in the same way to people of different races. Then, there are those relatively uncommon cases where there is a question of guilt. The risk of executing an innocent person is not one to be taken lightly. Currently, California both has and doesn't have a death penalty law. While accused murderers may be sentenced to death, a federal court recently held California's lethal injection regime is flawed. A moratorium on executions is in place. If we are to have a death penalty law, it must both be fair and relatively swift. Full appeals and habeas corpus proceedings are a must: The state cannot risk executing an innocent person or one who has been denied constitutional rights. Yet the appeals process cannot be allowed to tie up cases indefinitely, undermining the work and will of jurors and eroding the rights of the survivors of the victim or victims. If the law is just, then failing to carry it out makes a mockery of it. (source: Napa Valley Register)
