March 18
MARYLAND:
Ending executions in Maryland; Our view: Gov. O'Malley should use the historic
occasion provided by the repeal of capital punishment to commute the sentences
Maryland's death row inmates to life without parole
Having won approval in both chambers of Maryland's General Assembly, a landmark
bill to abolish the state's death penalty awaits only Gov. Martin O'Malley's
signature before becoming law. It is a tremendous political and moral victory
for Mr. O'Malley, a long-time opponent of capital punishment who campaigned for
a repeal during his first term only to come up short.
That leaves only one major item of unfinished business on his agenda regarding
the issue: Commuting the sentences of the five men currently on Maryland's
death row to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The governor
must use the historic opportunity presented by the abolition of capital
punishment in Maryland to unequivocally put an end to the last vestiges of this
barbaric practice in the state's prisons.
The bill abolishing Maryland's death penalty that the governor is expected to
sign does not apply retroactively to defendants who were sentenced to be
executed while the old statute was still in effect. Thus although Mr. O'Malley
has presided over a long-term de facto moratorium on capital punishment — there
have been no executions in the state since 2005 — the five men on its death row
remain condemned to die, and there is no assurance that a future Maryland
governor wouldn't allow their sentences to be carried out. That would make a
mockery of the religious, moral and practical arguments against the death
penalty that finally led to its abolition.
In applauding this year's ban on capital punishment, Mr. O'Malley cited many of
those arguments as reasons for his opposition to the practice. He noted the
voluminous body of evidence showing that the death penalty does not deter
crime, that it is inherently discriminatory along racial and class lines, that
it costs three times as much as a sentence of life in prison without parole and
that the risk of executing an innocent person can never be entirely eliminated.
Moreover, the lengthy appeals process in capital cases and the suspension of
Maryland's executions over improperly adopted regulations has left the families
of murder victims waiting decades for a sense of finality and closure. Failing
to commute the death sentences would only prolong that agony.
Aides to the governor say Mr. O'Malley will sign Maryland's death penalty
repeal soon after this year's legislative session adjourns April 8, and it's
unclear whether supporters of the capital punishment will try to reverse his
action by bringing it to referendum in the next general election in 2014.
Whether such an effort would succeed is hard to guess. The Goucher Poll,
released last week, found that 51 % of Marylanders opposed a repeal while 43 %
supported it. But the poll found that 48 %
favor a sentence of life without parole as a punishment for murder and 40 %
prefer the death penalty.
Mr. O'Malley has indicated that he will review the sentences of Maryland's five
death row inmates on a case-by-case basis. All of the men involved were
convicted of heinous and brutal crimes that merit the severest punishment. But
if it is the governor's intention to now pick and choose between those whose
sentences he will commute to life imprisonment and those he will allow to be
executed, likely under a future administration, he will undermine the very
principles on which he has based his opposition to the death penalty in the
past.
If the governor believed when campaigning for the repeal that the state's
system of capital punishment is broken, and if the death penalty is unfair,
unworkable and discriminatory, then it was certainly no less so when the five
cases now before the governor were adjudicated.
The acts for which the condemned inmates were convicted are no more or less
despicable now than they were when they were committed, and the grieving
families of their victims are no less deserving of justice. But having
established the principle that capital punishment has no place in a humane
society, it would be unconscionable for the state to continue to exact the
ultimate penalty against individuals whose crimes occurred before the law was
changed.
Despite his long-standing opposition to capital punishment, Mr. O'Malley
assured voters in his first run for governor that he would carry out the death
penalty if elected. But the circumstances have now changed. In enacting a
repeal, the General Assembly conveyed its intent that the governor convert the
sentences of death row inmates to life without the possibility of parole.
Governor O'Malley should do so as soon as possible. Both conscience and duty
demand it.
(source: Editorial, Baltimore Sun)
******************
Death penalty repeal merits referendum
Martin O’Malley yearns to be the governor who brings an end to Maryland’s
375-year record of capital punishment. And his persistent efforts to persuade a
reluctant state legislature finally succeeded Friday, when the House of
Delegates voted for O’Malley’s death penalty repeal bill, 82-56.
Now Maryland will become the 18th state to abolish capital punishment — unless
the new law is petitioned to a referendum in the 2014 general election, and
rejected by voters.
That’s certainly conceivable, in light of a recent Washington Post poll that
found backing for capital punishment among 60 % of the adult Marylanders
surveyed. Just 36 % supported replacing the death penalty with life in prison
without possibility of parole — essentially what the General Assembly has just
done. The new legislative consensus isn’t reflected at the grass-roots.
Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller Jr., who personally supports the death
penalty but knew O’Malley’s repeal measure would pass in his chamber, has been
saying he expected the bill to be taken before the voters.
But for that to happen, someone has to lead a difficult and expensive petition
drive. And when our reporter recently brought up the subject with Republican
Del. Neil C. Parrott, chairman of the petition website MDPetitions.com, he
sounded less than gung-ho: “It’s probably not going to be petitioned.”
In essence, Parrott was telling Miller “What do you think I am — the petition
genie?” He’s not keen on being used as a convenience by Democrats like Miller,
particularly when Democrats this session have dredged up legislation,
hypocritically dubbed the Referendum Integrity Act, to make it much harder for
any petition drive to succeed. If that bill passes, dragging it onto the ballot
would obviously be Parrott’s first priority.
Still, setting referendum politics aside, a capital punishment repeal deserves
a vote from all Marylanders. This is an abandonment of the legal system’s
traditional ultimate deterrent for reasons that boil down to unwillingness to
put anyone to death unless it can somehow be proved the legal system is immune
to racial prejudice and errors arising from human fallibility — an
impossibility, of course.
We’re not clear about why it is worse for the state to take years to decide to
execute someone than it is to allow police officers to shoot to kill when they
judge their safety or that of members of the public to be imperiled. Are those
judgments, frequently made in a fraction of a second, infallible? And without
the death penalty, what is the deterrent for prisoners who are already serving
life sentences, without possibility of parole, when it comes into their head to
murder another prisoner, or a guard?
Perhaps we just lack the finer sensibilities of so many legislators. But
judging from the polls, a lot of Marylanders share our views — and should have
a chance to have their say at the ballot box.
(source: Editorial, Capital Gazette)
FLORIDA:
Death penalty in Florida a study in inefficiency
The Legislative proposal for a constitutional amendment to transfer from the
Supreme Court to itself the authority to establish procedures relating to
post-conviction or collateral review of capital cases is a tacit admission that
capital punishment in Florida is ineffective and inefficient.
Since the last 6 executions in Florida involved inmates who had lingered on
death row in excess of 25 years, one must agree capital punishment is
inefficient. The fact that we have executed only 7 % of those sent to death
row since capital punishment was reinstated makes it foolish to suggest that
capital punishment is a deterrent.
Even agreeing that capital punishment has major flaws, what will the proposed
amendment accomplish, other than drive an additional wedge between the
legislative and judicial branches?
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to reduce the time between judgment
and execution. The motivation is understandable, but the accomplishment of the
goal is near impossible.
Our Supreme Court has worked diligently to review and revise the rules to make
the system more efficient, always with the rights of the accused in mind.
The obstacles facing this legislatively proposed "quick fix" are the Florida
and United States Constitutions, the due process rights of the accused and the
federal habeas corpus proceedings which enforce these rights.
The Legislature simply will not be able to substantially reduce the time within
which a convicted capital defendant can seek redress and still provide the due
process that citizens expect and the courts require.
Many, particularly the family and friends of the victim, are frustrated that it
takes so long for a convicted murderer to finally face justice. They want to
see the matter finally resolved. Even they, however, will agree it is better to
let the system work in a way to make sure an innocent person is not executed in
some rush to execution.
As good as juries and judges are, they are not perfect. We are blessed with a
good and fair appellate process to carefully and fully review their work.
Closure does not require the death penalty.
What the victims' families really want is the harshest sentence available. If
the harshest sentence is life without parole, most would find that acceptable.
This is evident by the fact more and more states are abandoning capital
punishment.
The Legislature should recognize that not only is capital punishment
inefficient and ineffective, it is also outrageously expensive. The projected
average cost for a life sentence without parole for the last 6 inmates executed
is $1,116,750.
This is determined by multiplying the cost of incarceration per year ($25,071)
times the life expectancy of the inmate when he was admitted to death row,
totaling the cost of all six inmates and then dividing by six.
Actually executing these inmates cost between $6,121,000 and $25,500,000 each.
These figures are arrived at by adding the undisputable cost related
exclusively to the death penalty: the additional cost of housing the inmates
on death row [an extra $8,668 per year] times the number of inmates on death
row [now in excess of 400] for a total of $3,467,200. Adding the cost of the
collateral attorneys [their budget for 2010-2011 was $8,775,000,] the total
comes to $12,242,200.
Since the last 6 executions occurred over a three-year period (three in 2012, 2
in 2011 and one in 2010) this minimum cost must be tripled to $36,726,600 and
divided by 6 to get an average per execution. The maximum average figure is
determined similarly by using the Death Penalty Information Center's estimates
that the total annual cost to Florida to maintain the death penalty is
$51,000,000. Martin Grossman, executed in 2010 for the 1984 killing of wildlife
officer Peggy Park, cost the state between $12,242,200 and $51,000,000.
Instead of pushing a constitutional amendment that might do more harm than
good, the legislators should take a statesman-like position and conduct a
cost-benefit analysis of the death penalty.
They might be surprised.
(source: Opinion; Charles M. Harris of Titusville, Senior Judge of the Fifth
District Court of Appeal, was a member of the appellate court from 1989 to
2003----The Sun-Sentinel)
ARIZONA:
Testimony resumes in Jodi Arias death penalty trial as defense nears end of its
case
Testimony resumes in Jodi Arias' death penalty trial after an expert explained
last week how she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and memory loss
since killing her lover in Arizona.
Arias is charged with first-degree murder in the June 2008 death of Travis
Alexander in his suburban Phoenix home.
Authorities say she planned the attack. Arias initially told authorities she
had nothing to do with it then blamed it on masked intruders. Two years after
her arrest, she said it was self-defense.
Psychologist Richard Samuels, a defense witness, was set to resume testimony
Monday. Arguments were set to determine whether the judge would allow Samuels
to testify if the killing appeared premeditated based on interviews with Arias
and a review of crime scene photos.
(source: Associated Press)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
