By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, nowhere with more caprice than with the criminal justice system. On the plus side, there are at least a couple of good trends: a tilt from the death penalty (with serious qualifications about the “living death” alternative I discussed here recently) and a move away from imprisonment for victimless crimes—as evidenced by medical marijuana laws; impending reform of the Rockefeller drug laws; and Prop 36 in California, offering treatment alternatives to prison.
On the minus side, there are some grim developments. For violent felons, sentencing laws have been getting steadily worse. There have been big increases in sentencing enhancements (time added to your “base sentence” for using a gun, having prior felony convictions, gang-related nature of the crime, hate crimes, etc.). Some of these enhancements are new; others have been around for a long time but have gotten much more punitive, though there was a heartening victory in California in November with the defeat of Prop 6, which would have increased penalties for gang-related crimes.
Other bad trends include the growing use of solitary confinement units, the tendency to try juveniles as adults and, of course, the post-9/11 general loss of civil liberties, thanks to the ever more-conservative federal judiciary. This is not to forget the vindictive sex-offender laws that have been passed in the last few years.
So the introduction of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—as a sentencing option can be seen as part of the overall trend of toughening sentences for violent criminals, except when it is introduced as an alternative to the death penalty, and even here there’s a paradox: there’s much less money and access to the appeals process available in states like California to fight life imprisonment without parole, or with parole for that matter, than there is to fight the death penalty.
However, one seasoned obsrver who has worked on many death penalty defenses points out that when people go into LWOP, they are evaluated according to a detailed point system that assesses their potential danger to inmates and guards, the prison population's potential danger to them, and the likelihood they'll escape, or try to. These are the factors that lead to a decision to isolate someone. It's not an automatic part of LWOP punishment. It’s probable that most are put in the general prison population. “The LWOP is horrible,” this person says, “because it leaves people no hope of ever rejoining society or atoning. It tells them they are hopeless and worthless and that the darkest of human impulses aren't human; it denies the concept of rehab and redemption. It's bad enough without exaggerating the details. With death they will be sitting in isolation for 17 or 20 years; whereas with LWOP they'll be in the general prison population, with a job, maybe a class, the Jesus people ministering to them in groups if they like that, some friends, the use of the library.
“As you might suspect, pro-LWOP rhetoric is all tied up with defense lawyer rhetoric at trial. Everyone tells the jury how great it would be to give the guy or woman ‘a punishment worse than death’ ... because everyone at trial is terrified of the impending verdict. It's like an emergency room: all automatic pilot by the legal defense team -- reflex tactical activity, no higher thought, pandering to the hatred and anger of the community. Smart lawyers believe these cases should NEVER go to trial -- they should be pleaded out. If they do get to trial, it's all about trying to save a life, no matter what. It would probably help this situation if the death penalty were abolished. Until then, unfortunately, courtroom rhetoric bleeds into political rhetoric.”
.
The focus on LWOP tends to blur the fact that it is very hard for lifers NOT doing LWOP to get out on parole. Scott Handleman, an attorney in San Francisco who has spent much time representing prisoners in parole cases, has been helpful with the chastening data. In California last year, 31,051 prisoners were serving sentences of life with the possibility of parole. Of those, 8,815 have passed their “minimum eligible parole date,” meaning they have served long enough to be receiving parole hearings. Of those, 6,272 had hearings on the Board of Parole’s calendar last year. (Some prisoners serving beyond their minimum eligible parole date do not get hearings in a given year because they were denied for multiple years in a prior hearing.) Only 272 lifers were found suitable for parole by the board in 2008.
Moreover, the board’s decisions in these 272 cases were subject to Governor Schwarzenegger’s review. The California governor has the power, in murder cases, to reverse the board’s ruling and take away the parole date. For other life-sentence crimes, he can order the board to reconsider its decision. So only a fraction of those whose parole cases got reviewed were actually released to the streets. In 2007 the board found 172 lifers suitable for parole; Governor Schwarzenegger reversed 115 of those decisions, referred eighteen back to the board for reconsideration, modified two and let stand only thirty-seven. That means in 2007 somewhere between thirty-seven and fifty-seven life-term prisoners got out of prison in the whole state of California. Out of the roughly 30,000 prisoners who were serving sentences of life with the possibility of parole in 2007, somewhere around 0.1 percent to 0.2 percent were released. Last year the situation improved very slightly, thanks in part to a Supreme Court of California ruling that parole cannot be denied forever.
There’s a popular conception, nourished by the shock jocks on talk-radio, that people doing life sentences get put back on the streets by way of a revolving door, Willie Horton style. In fact, release for lifers is a rare phenomenon.
That being the case, what is the point of introducing LWOP as a sentencing alternative? What LWOP means is that for convicted murdurers who would otherwise get life with parole, often at very young ages, and who redeem themselves through rehabilitative efforts, even the remotest possibility of release will never become available. The hopelessness that comes with an LWOP sentence is a heavy psychological burden to bear. According to the Equal Justice Initiative, at least seventy-three inmates—most of whom are minorities—are serving LWOP for crimes committed at age 13 or 14.
It’s expensive running an ever-expanding gulag. State after state is finding that herding the dangerous classes into prison with tools such as the Rockefeller drug laws and throwing away the key for decades or forever by nonnegotiable mandatory minimum sentencing costs too much. But then there’s a problem: what to do about the prison unions and the towns (like many in New York) that survive economically only because of prison jobs, where the prison population is greater than the population of free people, and the free people love it because, apart from the jobs keeping their kids from fleeing the post-industrial or post-ag wasteland, the prisoners count in the census, giving these towns and regions more representation in statehouses, hence more political power, than they deserve.
Shades of Gogol, who was born 200 years ago this year. The motor of his great novel is the economic use of “dead souls”—deceased serfs listed by the state as assets of the landlords. The novel’s central character, Chichikov, goes around buying them up. New York State could take Gogol’s hint and start auctioning its “living dead” as income generators to other states in need. Looking at our criminal justice system here, Gogol would surely use the line carved on his gravestone: “And I shall laugh my bitter laugh.”
Round Up the Usual War Criminals!
Ten years ago NATO and its battle-commander Wesley Clark deliberately murdered 16 journalists and kindred media workers, who had the courage and the misfortune to be working at Radio Television Serbia (RTS). At 2.06 am local a bomb launched from the NATO plane slammed into the building – news desks, studios, and the makeup room – in downtown Belgrade. Most of the victims were young people – a makeup artist, technicians and production personnel.
It was an obvious war crime, even though Amnesty International prudently waited an entire decade – until this last April – to issue a report saying so. Amnesty now issues a call for NATO to be held accountable for the lives of those killed at RTS: “the bombing of the headquarters of Serbian state radio and television was a deliberate attack on a civilian object and as such constitutes a war crime”.
In the new issue of our CounterPunch newsletter Tiphaine Dickson lays out the outrageous saga of how the Western powers dealt with this atrocity, by sponsoring a kangaroo court in Belgrade which sentencedto a lengthy term one of the targets of the bomb! This was the director of RTS , Dragoljub Milanovic,. He drew nine and a half years in prison for reckless endangerment of his staff! Newspapers like the New York Times raised not a word of protest at NATO’s claim that RTS deserved to be bombed.
Dickson, a defense attorney specialized in international criminal law, recently visited Milanovic in prison, and discovered he is eligible for parole but his persecutors are trying to lock him away for a further term. In her riveting story she gives close attention to the murky role of CNN and of Eason Jordan, then chief news executive of CNN international and later – by a satisfactory irony, fired by CNN for alleging that the US military was deliberately targeting journalists in Iraq.
Subscribe now to read this important story. In the same exciting issue you’ll get former US Senator Jim Abourezk on Wounded Knee and yours truly on one of the crucibles for the Sixties upsurge, Stiles Hall in Berkeley, and its amazing director at that time, Harry Kingman.
Subscribe Now!
Alexander Cockburn can be reached at alexandercockburn@asis.com
Friday, 15 May 2009
It's Up to You to Save Troy Davis
By RON JACOBS
One wonders how many times this scenario has played out in the United States. Like a classic crime movie, the details go something like this: A group of young men, usually African-American, get involved in an activity of questionable legality. A police officer (often off-duty) intervenes. Weapons are drawn by the officer and someone else. The officer ends up dead. One of the young men is accused of the crime even though the evidence (if there is any) offers no clear link between the accused and the crime. Prosecutors rely on witnesses with minimal credibility to get a conviction. The accused young man is then sentenced to death. While he sits on death row, questions about the prosecution and conviction begin to appear in the press. The prosecution conspires with the judicial system to keep their conviction intact, refusing any motions for retrial based on new evidence. The convicted man grows old in prison, facing multiple execution dates that are only stayed by appeals that never lead to a new trial.
This is the case of Troy Davis in one paragraph. The bulk of the prosecutor's evidence presented at Davis 1991 trial in the murder of an off-duty policeman in Georgia was based primarily on that of prosecution witnesses who later recanted their testimony. In addition, most of them have claimed repeatedly that they were pressured by police to point to Davis as the perpetrator. No murder weapon was ever found and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. One of the two main witnesses who has not recanted was the original suspect in the crime.
Despite a bulk of new evidence, the state of Georgia has refused to grant a new trial. As recently as April 16th, 2009, Davis’ appeal for a new trial was rejected by a federal appeals court in a 2-1 decision. The dissenting judge was unsparing in her criticism of the Georgia's legal case and his death sentence. She wrote: "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional." Yet, the execution of Troy Davis looms in the distance.
Like almost every other case of this nature, the fundamental action that has kept Davis alive is a popular movement that spans the globe. From the streets of Atlanta to the chambers of the European Parliament, thousands have called for Davis's death sentence to be commuted, with many demanding a new trial based on the new evidence. I recently communicated with Marlene Martin, an organizer for the National Campaign to End the Death Penalty--one of the organizations spearheading the campaign around Troy. When I asked her about the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19th, she wrote me this:
The coming global day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19th--which also happens to be Malcolm X’s birthday--is really important. Troy Davis is alive today in spite of our legal system, not because of it. The fact that he hasn’t ever been allowed to present new and compelling evidence of his innocence to a jury--and could be executed without ever having the opportunity to do so--is mind-boggling.
The state of Georgia has already tried three times to kill Troy. They would rather kill him than admit wrongdoing. But they have been stopped in their tracks each and every time by the movement outside the courthouse, spearheaded by Troy’s sister Martina Correia. As a result of her efforts, and Amnesty International and many other organizations coming together to fight for Troy, people around the country and around the world know about his case. I get e-mails from all over -- England, Germany, France, New Zealand Canada--all people that support Troy.
One thing that’s clear in this fight is we can’t rely on the courts. We need to build for the day of action to be as big as it can be, and to keep organizing. Troy represents many, many others who are in prison today--too poor to afford good representation at trial, and a person of color.
Also at issue in this case is the entire question of the death penalty. The United States is one of the few nations in the so-called free world that continues to practice this barbaric form of justice. In addition, it also ranks near the top among nations that do execute some of their criminals. Add to that the well-documented racial disparity in these executions, especially when looking at the numbers of whites executed for killing blacks versus the number of blacks executed for killing whites and those executions seem even more barbaric. When one considers this, it becomes essential to challenge not only the execution of Troy Davis, but the political system that supports the practice of state-sanctioned murder. This challenge becomes even more necessary when that system also tortures those it has arrested in its "war on terror" and imprisons them indefinitely without trial. A land with such a system is closer to a police state than the land of the free. Unless those who live within its borders resist these authoritarian policies, there may come a time when such resistance will find them subject to them.
Not only is the movement to commute Troy Davis' execution and get him a new trial an effort to save a man's life, it is also part of an effort to prevent an increasingly authoritarian nation from becoming even more so. Please consider joining the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19, 2009.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net
One wonders how many times this scenario has played out in the United States. Like a classic crime movie, the details go something like this: A group of young men, usually African-American, get involved in an activity of questionable legality. A police officer (often off-duty) intervenes. Weapons are drawn by the officer and someone else. The officer ends up dead. One of the young men is accused of the crime even though the evidence (if there is any) offers no clear link between the accused and the crime. Prosecutors rely on witnesses with minimal credibility to get a conviction. The accused young man is then sentenced to death. While he sits on death row, questions about the prosecution and conviction begin to appear in the press. The prosecution conspires with the judicial system to keep their conviction intact, refusing any motions for retrial based on new evidence. The convicted man grows old in prison, facing multiple execution dates that are only stayed by appeals that never lead to a new trial.
This is the case of Troy Davis in one paragraph. The bulk of the prosecutor's evidence presented at Davis 1991 trial in the murder of an off-duty policeman in Georgia was based primarily on that of prosecution witnesses who later recanted their testimony. In addition, most of them have claimed repeatedly that they were pressured by police to point to Davis as the perpetrator. No murder weapon was ever found and no physical evidence linked him to the crime. One of the two main witnesses who has not recanted was the original suspect in the crime.
Despite a bulk of new evidence, the state of Georgia has refused to grant a new trial. As recently as April 16th, 2009, Davis’ appeal for a new trial was rejected by a federal appeals court in a 2-1 decision. The dissenting judge was unsparing in her criticism of the Georgia's legal case and his death sentence. She wrote: "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional." Yet, the execution of Troy Davis looms in the distance.
Like almost every other case of this nature, the fundamental action that has kept Davis alive is a popular movement that spans the globe. From the streets of Atlanta to the chambers of the European Parliament, thousands have called for Davis's death sentence to be commuted, with many demanding a new trial based on the new evidence. I recently communicated with Marlene Martin, an organizer for the National Campaign to End the Death Penalty--one of the organizations spearheading the campaign around Troy. When I asked her about the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19th, she wrote me this:
The coming global day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19th--which also happens to be Malcolm X’s birthday--is really important. Troy Davis is alive today in spite of our legal system, not because of it. The fact that he hasn’t ever been allowed to present new and compelling evidence of his innocence to a jury--and could be executed without ever having the opportunity to do so--is mind-boggling.
The state of Georgia has already tried three times to kill Troy. They would rather kill him than admit wrongdoing. But they have been stopped in their tracks each and every time by the movement outside the courthouse, spearheaded by Troy’s sister Martina Correia. As a result of her efforts, and Amnesty International and many other organizations coming together to fight for Troy, people around the country and around the world know about his case. I get e-mails from all over -- England, Germany, France, New Zealand Canada--all people that support Troy.
One thing that’s clear in this fight is we can’t rely on the courts. We need to build for the day of action to be as big as it can be, and to keep organizing. Troy represents many, many others who are in prison today--too poor to afford good representation at trial, and a person of color.
Also at issue in this case is the entire question of the death penalty. The United States is one of the few nations in the so-called free world that continues to practice this barbaric form of justice. In addition, it also ranks near the top among nations that do execute some of their criminals. Add to that the well-documented racial disparity in these executions, especially when looking at the numbers of whites executed for killing blacks versus the number of blacks executed for killing whites and those executions seem even more barbaric. When one considers this, it becomes essential to challenge not only the execution of Troy Davis, but the political system that supports the practice of state-sanctioned murder. This challenge becomes even more necessary when that system also tortures those it has arrested in its "war on terror" and imprisons them indefinitely without trial. A land with such a system is closer to a police state than the land of the free. Unless those who live within its borders resist these authoritarian policies, there may come a time when such resistance will find them subject to them.
Not only is the movement to commute Troy Davis' execution and get him a new trial an effort to save a man's life, it is also part of an effort to prevent an increasingly authoritarian nation from becoming even more so. Please consider joining the Global Day of Action for Troy Davis on May 19, 2009.
Ron Jacobs is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. His first novel, Short Order Frame Up, is published by Mainstay Press. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net
The 132nd Death Row Exoneree: Implications for the Troy Davis Case
Diann Rust-TierneyExecutive Director of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty
Posted: May 14, 2009 06:12 PM
One of the many disturbing aspects of capital punishment is that it has no guarantee against mistaken convictions and executions. This risk of mistakes was driven home again on May 12th, just days ago, when a Tennessee District Attorney dropped all charges against former death row inmate Paul House, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1986.
House spent 22 years on death row and was scheduled to be retried next month. In 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court, because he had raised a colorable claim of innocence, granted House the opportunity to challenge the legality of his conviction and death sentence on other grounds. That ruling merely gave him the opportunity to have a federal court decide whether he should be given a hearing on the question of a new trial. A federal court ultimately did determine that House was entitled to a new trial. House was released from prison in July 2008 pending his new trial. And DNA testing has excluded House as the murderer. Now that the District Attorney has dropped all charges against Paul House, he is the second exoneree this year, and the 132nd individual to be exonerated from death row since 1973.
The exoneration of Paul House ironically came on the 16th anniversary of the execution of Leonel Herrera, a Texas man, who was sentenced to death for the shooting deaths of two police officers. Herrera like, Paul House, had insisted he was innocent; affidavits indicated that his brother actually committed the crime. Herrera asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that existing procedural barriers not deny him the opportunity for a court to hear his strong claim of innocence but the Court ruled against him.
In his dissenting opinion in Herrera v. Collins, Justice Harry Blackmun said, in part, "Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder."
If the nuanced distinction between why the legal system would provide an avenue for one prisoner to prove his innocence and spare his life where no such route existed for the other is lost on you, you are not alone. To make Justice Blackmun's point more bluntly, fidelity to the rule of law demands that strong claims of innocence not be denied a fair hearing -- especially when the punishment is death.
Now comes the case of Troy Anthony Davis, where the high court will again be presented with a strong claim of innocence. Troy Anthony Davis was sentenced to death in Georgia in 1991 for the murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail- a crime for which there is no physical evidence linking him to the shooting, in which seven of nine witnesses who named him as the killer have since recanted their testimony, saying in sworn affidavits that they were coerced or pressured into implicating Davis, and for which no murder weapon has been produced.
Davis, like House and Herrera, has been fighting for years for a new trial through which to prove his innocence. Last month the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that effort, saying that the affidavits from the witnesses who recanted were introduced "too late" in the process. In her dissenting opinion, Circuit Court Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote, "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional."
If there is any lesson that should be learned from these cases it is that our capital punishment system has some serious flaws. Not the least of which is a sufficiently adequate process for assuring that no innocent man or women is executed. The route to safety is too obscured by technicalities.
The Troy Anthony Davis case presents another test for the system. We must be as determined as the lawyers and other advocates who worked tirelessly to save the life of Paul House to prevent the execution of Troy Anthony Davis. While it should not be true -- it is -- it will take an extraordinary effort to prevent a miscarriage of justice here.
The Paul House case is a chilling reminder of just how often the system makes mistakes.
It should strengthen our resolve in the Davis case.
(A Global Day of Action in support of Davis has been organized by Amnesty International USA for May 19th. For more information on scheduled events of that day, and what can be done to obtain clemency for Davis, visit http://www.aiusa.org./troydavis.)
Posted: May 14, 2009 06:12 PM
One of the many disturbing aspects of capital punishment is that it has no guarantee against mistaken convictions and executions. This risk of mistakes was driven home again on May 12th, just days ago, when a Tennessee District Attorney dropped all charges against former death row inmate Paul House, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in 1986.
House spent 22 years on death row and was scheduled to be retried next month. In 2006 the U.S. Supreme Court, because he had raised a colorable claim of innocence, granted House the opportunity to challenge the legality of his conviction and death sentence on other grounds. That ruling merely gave him the opportunity to have a federal court decide whether he should be given a hearing on the question of a new trial. A federal court ultimately did determine that House was entitled to a new trial. House was released from prison in July 2008 pending his new trial. And DNA testing has excluded House as the murderer. Now that the District Attorney has dropped all charges against Paul House, he is the second exoneree this year, and the 132nd individual to be exonerated from death row since 1973.
The exoneration of Paul House ironically came on the 16th anniversary of the execution of Leonel Herrera, a Texas man, who was sentenced to death for the shooting deaths of two police officers. Herrera like, Paul House, had insisted he was innocent; affidavits indicated that his brother actually committed the crime. Herrera asked the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that existing procedural barriers not deny him the opportunity for a court to hear his strong claim of innocence but the Court ruled against him.
In his dissenting opinion in Herrera v. Collins, Justice Harry Blackmun said, in part, "Just as an execution without adequate safeguards is unacceptable, so too is an execution when the condemned prisoner can prove that he is innocent. The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder."
If the nuanced distinction between why the legal system would provide an avenue for one prisoner to prove his innocence and spare his life where no such route existed for the other is lost on you, you are not alone. To make Justice Blackmun's point more bluntly, fidelity to the rule of law demands that strong claims of innocence not be denied a fair hearing -- especially when the punishment is death.
Now comes the case of Troy Anthony Davis, where the high court will again be presented with a strong claim of innocence. Troy Anthony Davis was sentenced to death in Georgia in 1991 for the murder of police officer Mark Allen MacPhail- a crime for which there is no physical evidence linking him to the shooting, in which seven of nine witnesses who named him as the killer have since recanted their testimony, saying in sworn affidavits that they were coerced or pressured into implicating Davis, and for which no murder weapon has been produced.
Davis, like House and Herrera, has been fighting for years for a new trial through which to prove his innocence. Last month the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that effort, saying that the affidavits from the witnesses who recanted were introduced "too late" in the process. In her dissenting opinion, Circuit Court Judge Rosemary Barkett wrote, "To execute Davis, in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence, is unconscionable and unconstitutional."
If there is any lesson that should be learned from these cases it is that our capital punishment system has some serious flaws. Not the least of which is a sufficiently adequate process for assuring that no innocent man or women is executed. The route to safety is too obscured by technicalities.
The Troy Anthony Davis case presents another test for the system. We must be as determined as the lawyers and other advocates who worked tirelessly to save the life of Paul House to prevent the execution of Troy Anthony Davis. While it should not be true -- it is -- it will take an extraordinary effort to prevent a miscarriage of justice here.
The Paul House case is a chilling reminder of just how often the system makes mistakes.
It should strengthen our resolve in the Davis case.
(A Global Day of Action in support of Davis has been organized by Amnesty International USA for May 19th. For more information on scheduled events of that day, and what can be done to obtain clemency for Davis, visit http://www.aiusa.org./troydavis.)
Mo. House passes death penalty study
Marshall Griffin, KWMU
JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2009-05-13) The Missouri House has passed a crime bill that includes authorizing a commission to study the use of the death penalty in the state.
The original amendment called for a moratorium on executions in Missouri while the study is conducted, but it was stripped out on a mostly party-line vote.
State Representative Kenny Jones (R, California) was sheriff of Moniteau County in 1991 when his wife and three deputies were murdered in a shooting rampage. He says supporting a moratorium equates to being soft on crime.
"Often we don't think about those victims of murders...it's just not only the victims, but the families that are affected throughout their lifetime," Jones said.
Fellow Republican Bill Deeken of Jefferson City had sponsored the moratorium.
"I am for the death penalty, but I would appreciate the fact if we could get the vote for the commission to study, and make sure that we are not putting someone to death that is not guilty," Deeken said.
House and Senate negotiators will try to craft a final version of the bill before the end of session Friday.
During debate, House Majority Floor Leader Steven Tilley (R, Perryville) also called on Governor Nixon to halt next week's scheduled execution of Dennis Skillicorn and commute his sentence to life in prison.
He and two other men were convicted in the 1994 murder of Richard Drummond.
Skillicorn received the death penalty, although one of his companions confessed to pulling the trigger.
JEFFERSON CITY, MO (2009-05-13) The Missouri House has passed a crime bill that includes authorizing a commission to study the use of the death penalty in the state.
The original amendment called for a moratorium on executions in Missouri while the study is conducted, but it was stripped out on a mostly party-line vote.
State Representative Kenny Jones (R, California) was sheriff of Moniteau County in 1991 when his wife and three deputies were murdered in a shooting rampage. He says supporting a moratorium equates to being soft on crime.
"Often we don't think about those victims of murders...it's just not only the victims, but the families that are affected throughout their lifetime," Jones said.
Fellow Republican Bill Deeken of Jefferson City had sponsored the moratorium.
"I am for the death penalty, but I would appreciate the fact if we could get the vote for the commission to study, and make sure that we are not putting someone to death that is not guilty," Deeken said.
House and Senate negotiators will try to craft a final version of the bill before the end of session Friday.
During debate, House Majority Floor Leader Steven Tilley (R, Perryville) also called on Governor Nixon to halt next week's scheduled execution of Dennis Skillicorn and commute his sentence to life in prison.
He and two other men were convicted in the 1994 murder of Richard Drummond.
Skillicorn received the death penalty, although one of his companions confessed to pulling the trigger.
UPDATE: Missouri GOP leader urges commutation of death sentence
By CHRIS BLANK/The Associated Press
May 13, 2009 | 5:32 p.m. CDT
JEFFERSON CITY — House Majority Leader Steven Tilley said Wednesday that Gov. Jay Nixon should commute the death sentence of a Missouri man who is scheduled to be executed May 20.
Tilley, one of the chamber's top Republican leaders, urged the Democratic governor to change Dennis Skillicorn's sentence to life in prison.
Tilley's comments came as the House debated — and ultimately defeated — a measure that would have placed a moratorium on executions until 2012.
Skillicorn was one of three men convicted of killing Excelsior Springs businessman Richard Drummond in 1994, after Drummond stopped along Interstate 70 to help when their car stalled. The man who pulled the trigger, Allen Nicklasson, also has been sentenced to death and has said that Skillicorn didn't kill Drummond.
"That's enough reasonable doubt for me, that I would be very, very concerned if this state executed that individual," said Tilley, who also cited Skillicorn's behavior while incarcerated and called the convicted murderer "a model citizen" who has helped make the prison safer.
Skillicorn has assisted with terminally ill prisoners, a family strengthening program for inmates and their children, a national Death Row newsletter and efforts to set juvenile offenders straight.
A spokesman for Nixon said the governor's office would "give a full and fair review of any clemency petition that would be submitted by Mr. Skillicorn."
Rep. Bob Nance, who represents Drummond's hometown, said executing Skillicorn is fair.
"He has gotten what he deserved," said Nance, R-Excelsior Springs.
Missouri's last execution occurred in October 2005. A federal judge in 2006 halted all executions, declaring the state's lethal injection process unconstitutional after the surgeon who previously oversaw the executions testified he was dyslexic, sometimes transposed numbers and operated without written procedures or supervision.
Federal courts have since approved Missouri's revised execution protocols, clearing the way for executions to resume. A federal judge and the Missouri Supreme Court have denied efforts to delay Skillicorn's scheduled execution.
The often rancorous House was nearly silent during debate Wednesday over the proposed death penalty moratorium as observers — including schoolchildren touring the Capitol — watched from the upper galleries. Several House members shared personal stories about family members who had been killed.
The House eventually voted 95-64 to scrap the death penalty moratorium but keep a formal study of Missouri's execution system. A 10-member commission would study death penalty cases, review possible alternative punishments and suggest possible law changes to ensure those sentenced to death are guilty and received adequate legal counsel.
The death penalty provisions were added to broader crime legislation that would have to be reconciled with senators by the end of the legislative session at 6 p.m. Friday.
Some Republican and Democratic House members said the death penalty study was needed to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Rep. James Morris, D-St. Louis, told lawmakers he had urged a judge not impose the death penalty against someone who killed his nephew.
Arguing against the moratorium were two Republican lawmakers whose relative was one of four people killed in a mid-Missouri sniper rampage in 1991.
James R. Johnson was executed in 2002 for the killing of Leslie Roark, Moniteau County Reserve Deputy; Charles Smith, Cooper County Sheriff; Sandra Wilson, Miller County Deputy; and Pam Jones, wife of Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones.
Kenny Jones now is a Republican lawmaker from California, Mo., and is the uncle of Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka, who choked back tears as he explained reading about the death of his aunt in USA Today. Kenny Jones left the chamber during parts of his nephew's floor speech.
Calling a vote for the death penalty moratorium an effort to be soft on crime, Kenny Jones urged lawmakers to remember crime victims.
"I think we have to realize that we speak for those who can't. We speak for those who have been murdered," he said.
May 13, 2009 | 5:32 p.m. CDT
JEFFERSON CITY — House Majority Leader Steven Tilley said Wednesday that Gov. Jay Nixon should commute the death sentence of a Missouri man who is scheduled to be executed May 20.
Tilley, one of the chamber's top Republican leaders, urged the Democratic governor to change Dennis Skillicorn's sentence to life in prison.
Tilley's comments came as the House debated — and ultimately defeated — a measure that would have placed a moratorium on executions until 2012.
Skillicorn was one of three men convicted of killing Excelsior Springs businessman Richard Drummond in 1994, after Drummond stopped along Interstate 70 to help when their car stalled. The man who pulled the trigger, Allen Nicklasson, also has been sentenced to death and has said that Skillicorn didn't kill Drummond.
"That's enough reasonable doubt for me, that I would be very, very concerned if this state executed that individual," said Tilley, who also cited Skillicorn's behavior while incarcerated and called the convicted murderer "a model citizen" who has helped make the prison safer.
Skillicorn has assisted with terminally ill prisoners, a family strengthening program for inmates and their children, a national Death Row newsletter and efforts to set juvenile offenders straight.
A spokesman for Nixon said the governor's office would "give a full and fair review of any clemency petition that would be submitted by Mr. Skillicorn."
Rep. Bob Nance, who represents Drummond's hometown, said executing Skillicorn is fair.
"He has gotten what he deserved," said Nance, R-Excelsior Springs.
Missouri's last execution occurred in October 2005. A federal judge in 2006 halted all executions, declaring the state's lethal injection process unconstitutional after the surgeon who previously oversaw the executions testified he was dyslexic, sometimes transposed numbers and operated without written procedures or supervision.
Federal courts have since approved Missouri's revised execution protocols, clearing the way for executions to resume. A federal judge and the Missouri Supreme Court have denied efforts to delay Skillicorn's scheduled execution.
The often rancorous House was nearly silent during debate Wednesday over the proposed death penalty moratorium as observers — including schoolchildren touring the Capitol — watched from the upper galleries. Several House members shared personal stories about family members who had been killed.
The House eventually voted 95-64 to scrap the death penalty moratorium but keep a formal study of Missouri's execution system. A 10-member commission would study death penalty cases, review possible alternative punishments and suggest possible law changes to ensure those sentenced to death are guilty and received adequate legal counsel.
The death penalty provisions were added to broader crime legislation that would have to be reconciled with senators by the end of the legislative session at 6 p.m. Friday.
Some Republican and Democratic House members said the death penalty study was needed to preserve the integrity of the criminal justice system.
Rep. James Morris, D-St. Louis, told lawmakers he had urged a judge not impose the death penalty against someone who killed his nephew.
Arguing against the moratorium were two Republican lawmakers whose relative was one of four people killed in a mid-Missouri sniper rampage in 1991.
James R. Johnson was executed in 2002 for the killing of Leslie Roark, Moniteau County Reserve Deputy; Charles Smith, Cooper County Sheriff; Sandra Wilson, Miller County Deputy; and Pam Jones, wife of Moniteau County Sheriff Kenny Jones.
Kenny Jones now is a Republican lawmaker from California, Mo., and is the uncle of Rep. Tim Jones, R-Eureka, who choked back tears as he explained reading about the death of his aunt in USA Today. Kenny Jones left the chamber during parts of his nephew's floor speech.
Calling a vote for the death penalty moratorium an effort to be soft on crime, Kenny Jones urged lawmakers to remember crime victims.
"I think we have to realize that we speak for those who can't. We speak for those who have been murdered," he said.
Saturday, 9 May 2009
Colo. may end death penalty to focus on cold cases
By P. SOLOMON BANDA, The Associated Press
2009-05-02 15:18:25.0
Current rank: Not ranked
DENVER -
Colorado and nine other states considered abolishing the death penalty this year to save money, but Colorado's proposal has a twist: It would use the savings to investigate about 1,400 unsolved slayings.
The measure has started a fierce debate between prosecutors and some victims' families. Prosecutors want to keep capital punishment as an option for heinous crimes, and they say the bill has raised unrealistic hopes about solving cold cases.
Supporters of the bill say it's more important to find and prosecute killers still on the loose than to execute the ones already tried and convicted.
"The death penalty is not relevant without a murderer brought to trial," said Laurie Wiedeman, the older sister of 17-year-old Gay Lynn Dixon, whose 1982 slaying remains unsolved. "I would like to see the person who killed my sister put to death. But to have that person free to run around and committing other crimes?"
Abolishing the death penalty would save an estimated $1 million a year in Colorado now spent on prosecutors' time, public defenders' fees and appeals, according to a legislative analysis. Supporters of the Colorado measure want that money diverted to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations cold case unit, which has just one staffer. The extra money could add eight people to the unit, the legislative analysis said.
The Colorado House narrowly passed the measure in late April, and the Senate is expected to vote before the session ends Wednesday.
Gov. Bill Ritter hasn't publicly said whether he would sign it, if it passes. Ritter was Denver's district attorney before becoming governor, and in that job he unsuccessfully sought capital punishment seven times. Before becoming district attorney in 1993, Ritter had expressed personal doubts about capital punishment.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and all but one of the state's district attorneys oppose the bill. Even if the savings were applied to a cold case unit, which Suthers and other said isn't guaranteed by the bill, many cases may remain unsolved.
"I think it's a sad situation," Suthers said. "You have hundreds of ... parents of murdered children, sitting there being led to believe that if they abolish the death penalty in Colorado their child's death will be solved.
"A million dollars doesn't buy you a lot of cold case investigation," he said.
Proponents of the bill, led by Evergreen-based Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, say Colorado's death penalty is so rarely used that it's not a deterrent. The group says hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted trying to put people to death when hundreds of murderers are free.
Suthers and other prosecutors say additional DNA testing, including a proposal pending in the Legislature to take samples at the time of a felony arrest, could do more than expanding the state's cold case unit to solve old cases.
Colorado has executed only one person in the past 42 years, Gary Lee Davis, put to death in 1997 for his conviction in a 1986 slaying.
Two men remain on Colorado's death row. Sir Mario Owens was convicted last year in the shooting deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields, a potential witness in a murder trial, and Vivian Wolfe, Marshall-Fields' fiancee. Nathan Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of murder, attempted murder and other charges for killing four people and wounding a fifth at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora in December 1993.
Both cases are in the appeals process.
The mothers of Marshall-Fields and Wolfe support the death penalty.
New Mexico this year became the second state to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007.
Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Texas considered abolishing the death penalty, but bills in those states have stalled, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
"It (budgetary concerns) was a prominent issue and an impetus for these bills getting hearings this year," Dieter said.
Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons documented 1,434 unsolved slayings in Colorado since 1970, and a CBI database for law enforcement closely matches those numbers
"We have 1,400 murderers walking around. We don't feel threatened by it, but we should," said Frank Birgfeld, whose 34-year-old daughter Paige Birgfeld disappeared from Grand Junction in July 2007 and is presumed dead.
But cold cases become harder to solve as time passes. In February, 65-year-old Tina Louise Lester was arrested in Ohio on a 1968 warrant in a Denver shooting death, but District Attorney Mitch Morrissey decided against filing charges because of the lack of witnesses who could counter Lester's self-defense claim.
"Two men in that bar, who are pivotal witnesses would have been in their late 80s," Morrissey said.
Morrissey said Denver's 11-person cold case unit sometimes identifies a suspect who is already serving a lengthy prison sentence or is dead. That brings some answers to victims' families but not the definitive conclusion of a conviction.
"Just because we're grieving doesn't mean we're stupid," said Howard Morton, executive director of Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, whose 19-year-old son Guy Oliver was the victim of a still-unsolved 1975 slaying in Arizona.
"We want these cases to be effectively addressed by the state. We know they won't all be solved," he said. "We think that some of them will be, and more importantly it sends a signal that for those who have gotten away with murder, we're coming after you."
2009-05-02 15:18:25.0
Current rank: Not ranked
DENVER -
Colorado and nine other states considered abolishing the death penalty this year to save money, but Colorado's proposal has a twist: It would use the savings to investigate about 1,400 unsolved slayings.
The measure has started a fierce debate between prosecutors and some victims' families. Prosecutors want to keep capital punishment as an option for heinous crimes, and they say the bill has raised unrealistic hopes about solving cold cases.
Supporters of the bill say it's more important to find and prosecute killers still on the loose than to execute the ones already tried and convicted.
"The death penalty is not relevant without a murderer brought to trial," said Laurie Wiedeman, the older sister of 17-year-old Gay Lynn Dixon, whose 1982 slaying remains unsolved. "I would like to see the person who killed my sister put to death. But to have that person free to run around and committing other crimes?"
Abolishing the death penalty would save an estimated $1 million a year in Colorado now spent on prosecutors' time, public defenders' fees and appeals, according to a legislative analysis. Supporters of the Colorado measure want that money diverted to the Colorado Bureau of Investigations cold case unit, which has just one staffer. The extra money could add eight people to the unit, the legislative analysis said.
The Colorado House narrowly passed the measure in late April, and the Senate is expected to vote before the session ends Wednesday.
Gov. Bill Ritter hasn't publicly said whether he would sign it, if it passes. Ritter was Denver's district attorney before becoming governor, and in that job he unsuccessfully sought capital punishment seven times. Before becoming district attorney in 1993, Ritter had expressed personal doubts about capital punishment.
Colorado Attorney General John Suthers and all but one of the state's district attorneys oppose the bill. Even if the savings were applied to a cold case unit, which Suthers and other said isn't guaranteed by the bill, many cases may remain unsolved.
"I think it's a sad situation," Suthers said. "You have hundreds of ... parents of murdered children, sitting there being led to believe that if they abolish the death penalty in Colorado their child's death will be solved.
"A million dollars doesn't buy you a lot of cold case investigation," he said.
Proponents of the bill, led by Evergreen-based Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, say Colorado's death penalty is so rarely used that it's not a deterrent. The group says hundreds of thousands of dollars are wasted trying to put people to death when hundreds of murderers are free.
Suthers and other prosecutors say additional DNA testing, including a proposal pending in the Legislature to take samples at the time of a felony arrest, could do more than expanding the state's cold case unit to solve old cases.
Colorado has executed only one person in the past 42 years, Gary Lee Davis, put to death in 1997 for his conviction in a 1986 slaying.
Two men remain on Colorado's death row. Sir Mario Owens was convicted last year in the shooting deaths of Javad Marshall-Fields, a potential witness in a murder trial, and Vivian Wolfe, Marshall-Fields' fiancee. Nathan Dunlap was convicted in 1996 of murder, attempted murder and other charges for killing four people and wounding a fifth at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant in Aurora in December 1993.
Both cases are in the appeals process.
The mothers of Marshall-Fields and Wolfe support the death penalty.
New Mexico this year became the second state to abolish the death penalty since the U.S. Supreme Court reinstated capital punishment in 1976. New Jersey abolished the death penalty in 2007.
Connecticut, Illinois, Kansas, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire and Texas considered abolishing the death penalty, but bills in those states have stalled, said Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington, D.C.
"It (budgetary concerns) was a prominent issue and an impetus for these bills getting hearings this year," Dieter said.
Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons documented 1,434 unsolved slayings in Colorado since 1970, and a CBI database for law enforcement closely matches those numbers
"We have 1,400 murderers walking around. We don't feel threatened by it, but we should," said Frank Birgfeld, whose 34-year-old daughter Paige Birgfeld disappeared from Grand Junction in July 2007 and is presumed dead.
But cold cases become harder to solve as time passes. In February, 65-year-old Tina Louise Lester was arrested in Ohio on a 1968 warrant in a Denver shooting death, but District Attorney Mitch Morrissey decided against filing charges because of the lack of witnesses who could counter Lester's self-defense claim.
"Two men in that bar, who are pivotal witnesses would have been in their late 80s," Morrissey said.
Morrissey said Denver's 11-person cold case unit sometimes identifies a suspect who is already serving a lengthy prison sentence or is dead. That brings some answers to victims' families but not the definitive conclusion of a conviction.
"Just because we're grieving doesn't mean we're stupid," said Howard Morton, executive director of Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons, whose 19-year-old son Guy Oliver was the victim of a still-unsolved 1975 slaying in Arizona.
"We want these cases to be effectively addressed by the state. We know they won't all be solved," he said. "We think that some of them will be, and more importantly it sends a signal that for those who have gotten away with murder, we're coming after you."
Spencer hearing in Altersberger case starts Friday
By BRAD DICKERSON
Highlands Today
Defense counsel for Joshua Lee Altersberger will have one more chance to argue for life in prison for their client.
Attorneys on both sides will be back in Judge J. Michael Hunter's courtroom Friday in Bartow for a Spencer hearing. It comes more than one month after a jury made a 9-3 recommendation of death for Altersberger, following his admission of guilt for the Jan. 12, 2007 murder of Florida Highway Patrol Sgt. Nicholas Sottile during a traffic stop.
Assistant State Attorney Steve Houchin said he is allowed to make legal arguments, but cannot present additional evidence. The hearing is basically the "defense's show."
"We can cross examine, but some limited cross examination," Houchin said. "We'll just play it by ear."
Most Spencer hearings are generally composed of legal argument or a minimal amount of additional evidence, according to Houchin.
"Usually, the defense is going to put everything they've got on in front of the jury to try to get a good recommendation, because if they win that, there is no next stage," he said.
Houchin said Altersberger's defense counsel has indicated it wants to put on quite a bit of additional evidence at Friday's hearing. Houchin said he was not certain what that evidence was and that the defense was not obligated to tell him.
"It appears to be factual matters," Houchin said. "Some cops here have been subpoenaed; a woman who drove by and saw part of the incident on the side of the road got subpoenaed."
Once the hearing is complete, Houchin said Hunter will take all the evidence and arguments under advisement and set another hearing in the future, where the final decision will be handed down.
The judge is supposed to give the jury's recommendation "great weight" when working on his ruling, according to Houchin.
The hearing is named for Leonard Spencer, who was sentenced in 1989 to death after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of armed robbery. In 1993, he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which led to the state's high court reversing the convictions and granting a new trial.
One of the issues the court looked at occurred during jury selection, when the judge excused potential jurors on the basis of IQ, according to the ruling. Defense counsel objected to the use of an IQ standard.
"There is no legal basis for excusing a juror based on the trial judge's arbitrary evaluation of the juror's IQ," the ruling stated.
After the trial ended, Spencer filed a motion for a new trial. A hearing date was set to address that motion, as well as the sentencing.
The scheduled time for the hearing came and went, and neither the judge nor the state attorney appeared, according to the ruling. The defense attorney went into the judge's chambers and found the judge, the state attorney and an assistant proofreading an order sentencing Spencer to death.
Spencer's attorney, "voiced his concern that the judge had drafted an order expressing his reasons and conclusions for imposing the death penalty prior to Spencer's counsel having an opportunity to be heard," the ruling stated.
The defendant felt the communication between the prosecution and the judge was the "culmination of a pattern of judicial bias."
Florida Supreme Court justices, in their ruling, addressed a previous case where they directed that written orders for death must be prepared before announcing sentence to the defendant.
"However, we did not perceive that our decision would be used in such a way that a trial judge would formulate his decision prior to giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard," according to the ruling.
The justices then established a procedure to be used in the sentencing phase, which included the trial judge holding a hearing to give the defendant and his or her counsel the opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to present additional evidence.
Highlands Today
Defense counsel for Joshua Lee Altersberger will have one more chance to argue for life in prison for their client.
Attorneys on both sides will be back in Judge J. Michael Hunter's courtroom Friday in Bartow for a Spencer hearing. It comes more than one month after a jury made a 9-3 recommendation of death for Altersberger, following his admission of guilt for the Jan. 12, 2007 murder of Florida Highway Patrol Sgt. Nicholas Sottile during a traffic stop.
Assistant State Attorney Steve Houchin said he is allowed to make legal arguments, but cannot present additional evidence. The hearing is basically the "defense's show."
"We can cross examine, but some limited cross examination," Houchin said. "We'll just play it by ear."
Most Spencer hearings are generally composed of legal argument or a minimal amount of additional evidence, according to Houchin.
"Usually, the defense is going to put everything they've got on in front of the jury to try to get a good recommendation, because if they win that, there is no next stage," he said.
Houchin said Altersberger's defense counsel has indicated it wants to put on quite a bit of additional evidence at Friday's hearing. Houchin said he was not certain what that evidence was and that the defense was not obligated to tell him.
"It appears to be factual matters," Houchin said. "Some cops here have been subpoenaed; a woman who drove by and saw part of the incident on the side of the road got subpoenaed."
Once the hearing is complete, Houchin said Hunter will take all the evidence and arguments under advisement and set another hearing in the future, where the final decision will be handed down.
The judge is supposed to give the jury's recommendation "great weight" when working on his ruling, according to Houchin.
The hearing is named for Leonard Spencer, who was sentenced in 1989 to death after a jury found him guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and multiple counts of armed robbery. In 1993, he appealed to the Florida Supreme Court, which led to the state's high court reversing the convictions and granting a new trial.
One of the issues the court looked at occurred during jury selection, when the judge excused potential jurors on the basis of IQ, according to the ruling. Defense counsel objected to the use of an IQ standard.
"There is no legal basis for excusing a juror based on the trial judge's arbitrary evaluation of the juror's IQ," the ruling stated.
After the trial ended, Spencer filed a motion for a new trial. A hearing date was set to address that motion, as well as the sentencing.
The scheduled time for the hearing came and went, and neither the judge nor the state attorney appeared, according to the ruling. The defense attorney went into the judge's chambers and found the judge, the state attorney and an assistant proofreading an order sentencing Spencer to death.
Spencer's attorney, "voiced his concern that the judge had drafted an order expressing his reasons and conclusions for imposing the death penalty prior to Spencer's counsel having an opportunity to be heard," the ruling stated.
The defendant felt the communication between the prosecution and the judge was the "culmination of a pattern of judicial bias."
Florida Supreme Court justices, in their ruling, addressed a previous case where they directed that written orders for death must be prepared before announcing sentence to the defendant.
"However, we did not perceive that our decision would be used in such a way that a trial judge would formulate his decision prior to giving the defendant an opportunity to be heard," according to the ruling.
The justices then established a procedure to be used in the sentencing phase, which included the trial judge holding a hearing to give the defendant and his or her counsel the opportunity to be heard and an opportunity to present additional evidence.
Accused child killer has violent past
Tampa, Florida - The man accused of throwing 3-month-old Emmanuel Murray from his car window on I-275 was told Wednesday morning the charges he's facing could carry the death penalty.
Richard McTear Jr. made his first appearance before a judge with his head bowed and hands crossed.
"Obviously you won't be getting out jail anytime soon," the judge told McTear through a videocast after reading a laundry list of charges including first degree murder, kidnapping and aggravated child abuse.
People who know McTear told 10 Connects on Wednesday afternoon they are still shocked after learning of the allegations he tossed a baby out of his car window.
"I've never seen that side of him. Never had he never shown that to me," said family friend Margaret Hammond.
His arrest record tells a very different story. He's previously been booked on charges of felony battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and domestic battery and had active warrants burglary with an act of violence, battery and child abuse stemming from a March 31st incident.
10 Connects obtained a copy of a Tampa Police offense report from 2007 detailing a violent encounter between McTear Jr. and the mother of his child.
According to the report, the woman planned to meet McTear at his grandmother's apartment so she could drop off their son.
Once she got to the Temple Terrace apartment, police say McTear got inside her car, and proceeded to punch and strangle her as their 3-year-old son watched from the backseat.
The woman was able to escape to call 911 after he threatened to cut her with a steak knife. Police say McTear then took her car, with their son still inside.
One responding officer described her wounds, "Several bleeding scratches were observed on her throat. Her upper facial area was swollen, and she had bruising on the back of her arms."
The report says the woman told police, "McTear had become hostile toward her after discovering that she is dating other men."
She also told police she filed an emergency restraining order against him after he cut up her clothes and their son's during a previous fight. Police say that injunction had not been served at the time.
Two hours later the car was found on fire. The 3-year-old was recovered at a relatives house where a witness says she saw him drop off the child and leave with what appeared to be a bottle of lighter fluid.
Police arrested McTear on charges of aggravated assault, grand theft auto, battery by domestic violence strangulation, auto burglary for battery, second degree arson, and interference with custody.
It could have been a precursor of the alleged violence to come, but McTear never faced most of the charges in connection to that 2007 incident.
The State Attorney's Office tells 10 Connects the charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, domestic battery with strangulation and grand theft auto were dismissed because the victim refused to cooperate and signed a waiver to drop the charges.
The burglary charge was dropped to trespassing.
Those who know McTear say regardless of what he did, they'll stand by his side.
"I will always love you," said Margaret Hammond, "I will always love you, you are a great person. I respect you and I admire you until the day I die."
Richard McTear Jr. made his first appearance before a judge with his head bowed and hands crossed.
"Obviously you won't be getting out jail anytime soon," the judge told McTear through a videocast after reading a laundry list of charges including first degree murder, kidnapping and aggravated child abuse.
People who know McTear told 10 Connects on Wednesday afternoon they are still shocked after learning of the allegations he tossed a baby out of his car window.
"I've never seen that side of him. Never had he never shown that to me," said family friend Margaret Hammond.
His arrest record tells a very different story. He's previously been booked on charges of felony battery, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and domestic battery and had active warrants burglary with an act of violence, battery and child abuse stemming from a March 31st incident.
10 Connects obtained a copy of a Tampa Police offense report from 2007 detailing a violent encounter between McTear Jr. and the mother of his child.
According to the report, the woman planned to meet McTear at his grandmother's apartment so she could drop off their son.
Once she got to the Temple Terrace apartment, police say McTear got inside her car, and proceeded to punch and strangle her as their 3-year-old son watched from the backseat.
The woman was able to escape to call 911 after he threatened to cut her with a steak knife. Police say McTear then took her car, with their son still inside.
One responding officer described her wounds, "Several bleeding scratches were observed on her throat. Her upper facial area was swollen, and she had bruising on the back of her arms."
The report says the woman told police, "McTear had become hostile toward her after discovering that she is dating other men."
She also told police she filed an emergency restraining order against him after he cut up her clothes and their son's during a previous fight. Police say that injunction had not been served at the time.
Two hours later the car was found on fire. The 3-year-old was recovered at a relatives house where a witness says she saw him drop off the child and leave with what appeared to be a bottle of lighter fluid.
Police arrested McTear on charges of aggravated assault, grand theft auto, battery by domestic violence strangulation, auto burglary for battery, second degree arson, and interference with custody.
It could have been a precursor of the alleged violence to come, but McTear never faced most of the charges in connection to that 2007 incident.
The State Attorney's Office tells 10 Connects the charges of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, aggravated battery, domestic battery with strangulation and grand theft auto were dismissed because the victim refused to cooperate and signed a waiver to drop the charges.
The burglary charge was dropped to trespassing.
Those who know McTear say regardless of what he did, they'll stand by his side.
"I will always love you," said Margaret Hammond, "I will always love you, you are a great person. I respect you and I admire you until the day I die."
Death penalty study debated
By BRENDAN RILEYAssociated Press Writer
last updated: May 05, 2009 06:03:11 PM
CARSON CITY, Nev. -- ]
Death penalty opponents joined with advocates of more funding for schools and other services in arguing Tuesday for a plan to determine how costly it is to continue the death penalty in Nevada.
Under AB190, reviewed by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, the study would be done by the lawmakers' staff and completed in time for the 2011 session.
The bill, sponsored chiefly by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, was approved earlier on a 30-12 state Assembly vote.
Anderson said various studies around the country have shown that costs of dealing with capital cases are "alarmingly high," and the study would determine whether it makes "good fiscal sense to continue the death penalty system in Nevada."
Michael Pescetta, an assistant federal defender and death penalty foe who has been involved in many capital cases in Nevada, said there's no dispute that such cases are more costly than those that result in no-parole life sentences.
North Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Stephen Dahl said the higher expense in capital cases stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's requirements for a high level of legal review because "death is different." He said an Iowa study showed a capital case can cost about $2.4 million compared with $1.5 million for all legal proceedings and other costs in a life-in-prison case.
Maizie Pusich, chief deputy Washoe County public defender, also backed the study, saying it will ensure that lawmakers don't "make a decision in the dark" on capital punishment. She added that as it is now a lot of money is spent on legal proceedings that could be used for education, human services and public safety programs.
Byllie Andrews of the Nevada Women's Lobby echoed the comments by Pusich, saying the funds required for capital cases might be better spent elsewhere.
Sam Bateman of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said his group was "somewhat skeptical" about the study results. But he added he appreciated the fact that the study would be done by legislative staffers who would remain neutral in doing the study.
last updated: May 05, 2009 06:03:11 PM
CARSON CITY, Nev. -- ]
Death penalty opponents joined with advocates of more funding for schools and other services in arguing Tuesday for a plan to determine how costly it is to continue the death penalty in Nevada.
Under AB190, reviewed by the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee, the study would be done by the lawmakers' staff and completed in time for the 2011 session.
The bill, sponsored chiefly by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, was approved earlier on a 30-12 state Assembly vote.
Anderson said various studies around the country have shown that costs of dealing with capital cases are "alarmingly high," and the study would determine whether it makes "good fiscal sense to continue the death penalty system in Nevada."
Michael Pescetta, an assistant federal defender and death penalty foe who has been involved in many capital cases in Nevada, said there's no dispute that such cases are more costly than those that result in no-parole life sentences.
North Las Vegas Justice of the Peace Stephen Dahl said the higher expense in capital cases stems from the U.S. Supreme Court's requirements for a high level of legal review because "death is different." He said an Iowa study showed a capital case can cost about $2.4 million compared with $1.5 million for all legal proceedings and other costs in a life-in-prison case.
Maizie Pusich, chief deputy Washoe County public defender, also backed the study, saying it will ensure that lawmakers don't "make a decision in the dark" on capital punishment. She added that as it is now a lot of money is spent on legal proceedings that could be used for education, human services and public safety programs.
Byllie Andrews of the Nevada Women's Lobby echoed the comments by Pusich, saying the funds required for capital cases might be better spent elsewhere.
Sam Bateman of the Nevada District Attorneys Association said his group was "somewhat skeptical" about the study results. But he added he appreciated the fact that the study would be done by legislative staffers who would remain neutral in doing the study.
Monday, 4 May 2009
Death penalty barrier lifted
Ruling says N.C. Medical Board can't stop doctors from monitoring executions, but other legal issues remain.
By Sarah Ovaska
sarah.ovaska@newsobserver.com
Posted: Saturday, May. 02, 2009
RALEIGH In a major decision in the debate over the death penalty, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the N.C. Medical Board can't prevent doctors from participating in executions.
The 4-3 decision addressed one of several legal challenges that have led to North Carolina's de facto moratorium on execution by lethal injection for more than two years.
The N.C. Department of Correction sued the medical board after Central Prison's warden couldn't find physicians willing to risk disciplinary action by monitoring executions. The board licenses and disciplines doctors, and had held that participation violates a doctor's core ethical duty to preserve life.
Another case involving the state's execution policy is still pending. That means the legal morass surrounding a doctor's role in executions remains tangled.
The pending case involves a protocol approved by the Council of State for lethal injections in North Carolina. The protocol calls for a doctor to be present to ensure an inmate doesn't suffer.
“Executions will not resume immediately,” said Department of Correction spokesman Keith Acree.
Mark Kleinschmidt, a defense lawyer for an inmate in the Council of State case, said, “There is no timetable, and it doesn't seem the people are in any mad rush to get through this moratorium.”
N.C. Correction Secretary Alvin Keller declined to comment on Friday's ruling.
The justices decided that Wake Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens correctly sided with the N.C. Department of Correction when he ruled in September 2007 that the N.C. Medical Board lacked the authority to prevent doctors from participating in executions. The board had appealed Stephens' ruling.
State law calls for doctors to be at executions, something the N.C. Medical Board doesn't oppose, said Todd Brosius and Thomas Mansfield, attorneys for the board.
But the board argued that ethics rules don't allow doctors to participate by monitoring vital signs, a requirement approved in February 2007 by the Council of State.
Executions in North Carolina are administered in a death chamber in Raleigh's Central Prison. A lethal injection consisting of three drugs is given to an inmate to sedate, paralyze and kill. The person actually administering the lethal injection wouldn't have to be a doctor: Nurses, emergency medical technicians and physician assistants could do it.
The protocol requires a doctor to monitor a condemned inmate's “essential body functions” and tell the warden if the inmate shows signs of suffering.
The medical board, Justice Edward Thomas Brady wrote in the majority opinion, “may not discipline or threaten discipline against its licensees solely for participating in execution alone.”
Justices Robert Edmunds Jr., Mark Martin and Paul Newby sided with Brady.
The three justices who dissented, Chief Justice Sarah Parker and justices Robin Hudson and Patricia Timmons-Goodson, argued that the state legislature should ultimately decide whether the medical board can discipline doctors regarding executions.
There are 163 inmates on death row, including five who were convicted in Mecklenburg County.
One of the most recent additions to death row was Michael Wayne Sherrill of Mecklenburg County. He was sentenced to death in February for the 1984 murder of a young Charlotte woman. It was the first time a Mecklenburg jury had ordered the death penalty in nearly a decade.
The last N.C. execution took place Aug. 18, 2006, when Samuel Flippin, 36, was put to death for killing his 2-year-old stepdaughter.
The medical board's lawyers said they were disappointed. The board will likely discuss its next options when it meets on May 20. The Associated Press and Observer staff writer Cleve R. Wootson Jr. contributed.
By Sarah Ovaska
sarah.ovaska@newsobserver.com
Posted: Saturday, May. 02, 2009
RALEIGH In a major decision in the debate over the death penalty, the N.C. Supreme Court ruled Friday that the N.C. Medical Board can't prevent doctors from participating in executions.
The 4-3 decision addressed one of several legal challenges that have led to North Carolina's de facto moratorium on execution by lethal injection for more than two years.
The N.C. Department of Correction sued the medical board after Central Prison's warden couldn't find physicians willing to risk disciplinary action by monitoring executions. The board licenses and disciplines doctors, and had held that participation violates a doctor's core ethical duty to preserve life.
Another case involving the state's execution policy is still pending. That means the legal morass surrounding a doctor's role in executions remains tangled.
The pending case involves a protocol approved by the Council of State for lethal injections in North Carolina. The protocol calls for a doctor to be present to ensure an inmate doesn't suffer.
“Executions will not resume immediately,” said Department of Correction spokesman Keith Acree.
Mark Kleinschmidt, a defense lawyer for an inmate in the Council of State case, said, “There is no timetable, and it doesn't seem the people are in any mad rush to get through this moratorium.”
N.C. Correction Secretary Alvin Keller declined to comment on Friday's ruling.
The justices decided that Wake Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens correctly sided with the N.C. Department of Correction when he ruled in September 2007 that the N.C. Medical Board lacked the authority to prevent doctors from participating in executions. The board had appealed Stephens' ruling.
State law calls for doctors to be at executions, something the N.C. Medical Board doesn't oppose, said Todd Brosius and Thomas Mansfield, attorneys for the board.
But the board argued that ethics rules don't allow doctors to participate by monitoring vital signs, a requirement approved in February 2007 by the Council of State.
Executions in North Carolina are administered in a death chamber in Raleigh's Central Prison. A lethal injection consisting of three drugs is given to an inmate to sedate, paralyze and kill. The person actually administering the lethal injection wouldn't have to be a doctor: Nurses, emergency medical technicians and physician assistants could do it.
The protocol requires a doctor to monitor a condemned inmate's “essential body functions” and tell the warden if the inmate shows signs of suffering.
The medical board, Justice Edward Thomas Brady wrote in the majority opinion, “may not discipline or threaten discipline against its licensees solely for participating in execution alone.”
Justices Robert Edmunds Jr., Mark Martin and Paul Newby sided with Brady.
The three justices who dissented, Chief Justice Sarah Parker and justices Robin Hudson and Patricia Timmons-Goodson, argued that the state legislature should ultimately decide whether the medical board can discipline doctors regarding executions.
There are 163 inmates on death row, including five who were convicted in Mecklenburg County.
One of the most recent additions to death row was Michael Wayne Sherrill of Mecklenburg County. He was sentenced to death in February for the 1984 murder of a young Charlotte woman. It was the first time a Mecklenburg jury had ordered the death penalty in nearly a decade.
The last N.C. execution took place Aug. 18, 2006, when Samuel Flippin, 36, was put to death for killing his 2-year-old stepdaughter.
The medical board's lawyers said they were disappointed. The board will likely discuss its next options when it meets on May 20. The Associated Press and Observer staff writer Cleve R. Wootson Jr. contributed.
Court: Doctor must be present during execution
RALEIGH -- The North Carolina Supreme Court issued its ruling Friday on doctors being present during executions.
Last November, the court began hearing arguments on what roles, if any, doctors should play in executions.
Previously, the North Carolina Medical Board did not want doctors to participate in executions. And if a doctor did, he or she could face disciplinary action.
According to the board, a doctor assisted execution violated a code of ethics that doctors must uphold. However, attorneys for the Department of Correction argued that doctors are needed during an execution to monitor an inmate's vital signs and to certify an inmate's death.
Lawyers for the state argued that a doctor should monitor an execution to prevent cruel or unusual punishment. But the medical board and the American Medical Association said state lawmakers wanted a doctor to be present but not actively participate.
The court ruled 4-3 that state law "by its plain language, envisions physician participation in executions in some professional capacity."
The ruling also said the Medical Board ethics position statement "directly contravenes the specific requirement of physician presence. ... because the position statement is an invalid exercise of defendant's statutory powers, we affirm the decision of the trial court."
Friday's ruling states that a doctor and a prison warden or deputy warden must be present at the time of execution. The ruling ends a more than two-year state moratorium on executions.
Last November, the court began hearing arguments on what roles, if any, doctors should play in executions.
Previously, the North Carolina Medical Board did not want doctors to participate in executions. And if a doctor did, he or she could face disciplinary action.
According to the board, a doctor assisted execution violated a code of ethics that doctors must uphold. However, attorneys for the Department of Correction argued that doctors are needed during an execution to monitor an inmate's vital signs and to certify an inmate's death.
Lawyers for the state argued that a doctor should monitor an execution to prevent cruel or unusual punishment. But the medical board and the American Medical Association said state lawmakers wanted a doctor to be present but not actively participate.
The court ruled 4-3 that state law "by its plain language, envisions physician participation in executions in some professional capacity."
The ruling also said the Medical Board ethics position statement "directly contravenes the specific requirement of physician presence. ... because the position statement is an invalid exercise of defendant's statutory powers, we affirm the decision of the trial court."
Friday's ruling states that a doctor and a prison warden or deputy warden must be present at the time of execution. The ruling ends a more than two-year state moratorium on executions.
Tuesday, 28 April 2009
Supreme Court Gets Hamilton County Death Penalty Case
Court To Determine If Disabled Standard Should Apply In 1992 Case
WLWT.com
updated 5:50 p.m. ET, Fri., April 24, 2009
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a 1992 murder case from Hamilton County.
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray is asking the court to reverse a lower court decision that set aside the death sentence imposed on Michael Bies for his murder of a 10 year-old Cincinnati boy.
Bies and an accomplice lured Aaron Raines into an abandoned building and bludgeoned him to death. A Hamilton County jury convicted Bies of aggravated murder, attempted rape and kidnapping, and further recommended a sentence of death. The Ohio Supreme Court had affirmed the conviction and death sentence in 1996.
In a 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later ordered that Bies' death sentence be set aside because the Ohio Supreme Court briefly mentioned the mental retardation issue in one of its earlier opinions.
Cordray said he maintains that the Ohio Supreme Court never determined that Bies is mentally retarded under the Atkins standards.
If Cordray prevails, the court will return the case to the Hamilton County courts, which will conduct a hearing, take evidence and issue a finding on Bies' mental capacity.
"Developmentally disabled individuals cannot be executed, period," said Cordray in an news release. "However, it is important that the proper procedures be followed to make that determination for any death row inmate. We believe the federal courts should have allowed the Ohio state courts to determine this issue anew after Atkins was decided and resulted in a major change in the law. Should we prevail, I have every confidence that Mr. Bies will receive a full and fair hearing in the Ohio courts."
WLWT.com
updated 5:50 p.m. ET, Fri., April 24, 2009
WASHINGTON - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Monday in a 1992 murder case from Hamilton County.
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray is asking the court to reverse a lower court decision that set aside the death sentence imposed on Michael Bies for his murder of a 10 year-old Cincinnati boy.
Bies and an accomplice lured Aaron Raines into an abandoned building and bludgeoned him to death. A Hamilton County jury convicted Bies of aggravated murder, attempted rape and kidnapping, and further recommended a sentence of death. The Ohio Supreme Court had affirmed the conviction and death sentence in 1996.
In a 2002 case, Atkins v. Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution prohibits the execution of mentally retarded defendants. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit later ordered that Bies' death sentence be set aside because the Ohio Supreme Court briefly mentioned the mental retardation issue in one of its earlier opinions.
Cordray said he maintains that the Ohio Supreme Court never determined that Bies is mentally retarded under the Atkins standards.
If Cordray prevails, the court will return the case to the Hamilton County courts, which will conduct a hearing, take evidence and issue a finding on Bies' mental capacity.
"Developmentally disabled individuals cannot be executed, period," said Cordray in an news release. "However, it is important that the proper procedures be followed to make that determination for any death row inmate. We believe the federal courts should have allowed the Ohio state courts to determine this issue anew after Atkins was decided and resulted in a major change in the law. Should we prevail, I have every confidence that Mr. Bies will receive a full and fair hearing in the Ohio courts."
Sunday, 5 April 2009
Ottawa 'disappointed' with beheading sentence
Tiffany Crawford, Canwest News Service
OTTAWA -- The Harper government said Thursday it was ‘deeply disappointed' by news a Saudi court had upheld the death by beheading sentence of a Canadian man who was convicted in the 2007 death of another man.
"We are deeply disappointed at the reports that a Saudi court has upheld its decision to sentence Mohamed Kohail to death," said Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. "Canada continues to express its concern for a fair and transparent review of the wording and the sentence."
The decision by the Jidda General Court sends the matter back to the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council -- essentially an appeal court -- for a final ruling.
Mr. Obhrai told the House of Commons that Cannon has requested that Canadian officials review the final court decision when it is issued.
Aubrey Harris, who works on a campaign to abolish the death penalty for Amnesty International, said there could still be a positive outcome for Kohail in the Supreme Judicial Council.
"The lower court is refusing to change its decision," he said, "but what it means is (Kohail's) case must now go back before the . . . council, which had originally felt that his case should be overturned. So it is a matter of waiting and seeing."
Mr. Harris said it's unclear if the delay will allow for more evidence to be presented in court.
There was no word on developments regarding Kohail's younger brother, Sultan, who was charged in the same incident.
Sultan was originally tried in Saudi youth court and sentenced to 200 lashes -- but now faces trial in adult court, where he could also face a death sentence.
Liberal MP Dan McTeague, the party's consular affairs critic, argues there's evidence to suggest Kohail's case was one of self-defence and he does not deserve a death sentence, which would be carried out by sword.
Kohail, a 23-year-old Montrealer, was living temporarily in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, when he got involved in a schoolyard brawl in January 2007. The fight resulted in the death of an 18-year-old man.
The Kohail family maintains evidence -- not permitted to be entered at the separate trials of their two sons -- suggests the two were trying to escape from a mob and did not cause the injuries that led to the Syrian man's death.
"It hasn't been a fair run," Mr. Harris said. "The court system is undergoing modifications and a number of them haven't taken effect yet, but [the council] may have the power to overturn lower court rulings."
Mr. Harris said the court's final decision will likely be made "in a few weeks," and he hoped the Canadian government would push for Kohail's release.
"The Canadian government must intervene," he said.
Mr. McTeague also has concerns about how the court decision was made without any public written documentation.
"This, in itself, is significant because it was done, in my view, in a very perfunctory way . . . and said, ‘ya, too bad, we're sticking with the decision.'"
The Kohails settled in Montreal after emigrating to Canada in 2000 and became Canadian citizens in 2005.
With files from the Montreal Gazette
OTTAWA -- The Harper government said Thursday it was ‘deeply disappointed' by news a Saudi court had upheld the death by beheading sentence of a Canadian man who was convicted in the 2007 death of another man.
"We are deeply disappointed at the reports that a Saudi court has upheld its decision to sentence Mohamed Kohail to death," said Deepak Obhrai, parliamentary secretary to Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon. "Canada continues to express its concern for a fair and transparent review of the wording and the sentence."
The decision by the Jidda General Court sends the matter back to the Saudi Supreme Judicial Council -- essentially an appeal court -- for a final ruling.
Mr. Obhrai told the House of Commons that Cannon has requested that Canadian officials review the final court decision when it is issued.
Aubrey Harris, who works on a campaign to abolish the death penalty for Amnesty International, said there could still be a positive outcome for Kohail in the Supreme Judicial Council.
"The lower court is refusing to change its decision," he said, "but what it means is (Kohail's) case must now go back before the . . . council, which had originally felt that his case should be overturned. So it is a matter of waiting and seeing."
Mr. Harris said it's unclear if the delay will allow for more evidence to be presented in court.
There was no word on developments regarding Kohail's younger brother, Sultan, who was charged in the same incident.
Sultan was originally tried in Saudi youth court and sentenced to 200 lashes -- but now faces trial in adult court, where he could also face a death sentence.
Liberal MP Dan McTeague, the party's consular affairs critic, argues there's evidence to suggest Kohail's case was one of self-defence and he does not deserve a death sentence, which would be carried out by sword.
Kohail, a 23-year-old Montrealer, was living temporarily in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, when he got involved in a schoolyard brawl in January 2007. The fight resulted in the death of an 18-year-old man.
The Kohail family maintains evidence -- not permitted to be entered at the separate trials of their two sons -- suggests the two were trying to escape from a mob and did not cause the injuries that led to the Syrian man's death.
"It hasn't been a fair run," Mr. Harris said. "The court system is undergoing modifications and a number of them haven't taken effect yet, but [the council] may have the power to overturn lower court rulings."
Mr. Harris said the court's final decision will likely be made "in a few weeks," and he hoped the Canadian government would push for Kohail's release.
"The Canadian government must intervene," he said.
Mr. McTeague also has concerns about how the court decision was made without any public written documentation.
"This, in itself, is significant because it was done, in my view, in a very perfunctory way . . . and said, ‘ya, too bad, we're sticking with the decision.'"
The Kohails settled in Montreal after emigrating to Canada in 2000 and became Canadian citizens in 2005.
With files from the Montreal Gazette
Steve Goble's It's Debatable: Nothing sensible about the death penalty
By STEVE GOBLE
News Journal
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray thinks the appeals process for death penalty cases is far too lengthy.
I can solve the problem in four words: Dump the death penalty.
The long appellate process sometimes defeats the possibility of justice being served, Cordray said last week. Long waits make it difficult when, after a dozen years in the courts, a retrial involving a new prosecutor and new police officials is required, he said.
"If it does lead to a retrial, it's very difficult to feel that fair justice can be achieved on a redo because so much changes over time, particularly in presenting factual evidence to juries," he said.
It is interesting Cordray mentioned things that change over time. One thing that often changes is the quality of forensic evidence. Better science and investigative techniques come along, and sometimes show the wrong people are on death row.
That, to me, is reason enough to dump the death penalty. If Cordray thinks redoing a trial is difficult, he should try redoing an execution.
On a gut level, I think some crimes merit death. Some evils make me lose all sympathy for the perpetrators.
The problem, of course, is making certain we get the right perpetrators. Too often, we don't.
The American Civil Liberties Union reports that since 1973, 123 people nationwide have been released from death row because they were innocent. Seven others were executed even though they probably were innocent. A study reported in the Stanford Law Review documents 350 capital convictions in which it was later proven the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 25 people were executed. Fifty-five of the 350 cases took place in the 1970s, and another 20 between 1980 and 1985.
In many instances, DNA evidence is what sets innocent men free. Such evidence is relatively new -- it wasn't available when many people were wrongly convicted. A lengthy appeals process saved their lives, by keeping them alive until forensic evidence could prove their innocence.
The idea that innocent people might be run over while society seeks justice is appalling. When the issue is whether to take someone's life, "correct most of the time" is a worthless standard.
Today, about 3,350 people are on death row nationwide, the ACLU reports. Almost all are poor, many are mentally disabled, more than 40 percent are black and a disproportionate number are American Indian, Latino or Asian.
Ohio has 175 inmates on death row, Cordray's office reported last week. About half are black.
Some of these condemned may be innocent. How many are we willing to sacrifice?
Some argue capital punishment deters crime. Studies disagree with that claim. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime or murder rates than states without. States that abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in crime or murder rates, the ACLU says.
The Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit resource center in Washington, D.C., cites a national survey showing most police chiefs say the death penalty doesn't reduce homicides, because murderers don't think about possible punishments.
Think about most of those who commit crimes that could land them on death row. They're not our best and brightest. They often have limited ability to think beyond the next five minutes. They are in a rage, or hopped up on drugs, or desperate for their next fix. The last thing they are likely to consider is the consequences of their actions.
One more data point: A Death Penalty Information Center analysis of statistics from 2001 to 2007 shows Southern states, which execute far more inmates than the rest of the U.S. combined, have consistently had the highest per capita murder rates.
Some deterrent.
The ACLU cites numerous studies that show racial disparities in how the death penalty is applied. People who kill whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than those who kill minorities. Blacks who kill whites have the greatest chance of receiving a death sentence.
Cordray has said the appeals process properly results in second looks at some cases. Good for him. The next step is for him to realize that such instances are reason enough to flush the death penalty. He should use his office to promote such change.
According to Cordray's report, there are 21 inmates on Ohio's death row whose appeals are all but exhausted. Are any of them innocent? Maybe not, but I wonder. Is it worth the risk of executing them? No.
Evidence shows we have an imperfect judicial system, run by fallible human beings. Our courts get a lot of things right, and they have a lot of built-in protections to help assure they do. Still, mistakes are made. The merciful, sensible, moral thing to do is to not put convicts to death in the first place. We should work toward that.
In the meantime, let's not start erasing vital protections just to save time and fuss.
We're talking about human life here. It's worth the time and fuss.
Steve Goble is a copy editor and page designer for the News Journal. Look for his column, "It's Debatable," in the Community Conversation section every Sunday, and visit his blog on our Web site. E-mail him at sgoble@nncogannett.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
News Journal
Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray thinks the appeals process for death penalty cases is far too lengthy.
I can solve the problem in four words: Dump the death penalty.
The long appellate process sometimes defeats the possibility of justice being served, Cordray said last week. Long waits make it difficult when, after a dozen years in the courts, a retrial involving a new prosecutor and new police officials is required, he said.
"If it does lead to a retrial, it's very difficult to feel that fair justice can be achieved on a redo because so much changes over time, particularly in presenting factual evidence to juries," he said.
It is interesting Cordray mentioned things that change over time. One thing that often changes is the quality of forensic evidence. Better science and investigative techniques come along, and sometimes show the wrong people are on death row.
That, to me, is reason enough to dump the death penalty. If Cordray thinks redoing a trial is difficult, he should try redoing an execution.
On a gut level, I think some crimes merit death. Some evils make me lose all sympathy for the perpetrators.
The problem, of course, is making certain we get the right perpetrators. Too often, we don't.
The American Civil Liberties Union reports that since 1973, 123 people nationwide have been released from death row because they were innocent. Seven others were executed even though they probably were innocent. A study reported in the Stanford Law Review documents 350 capital convictions in which it was later proven the convict had not committed the crime. Of those, 25 people were executed. Fifty-five of the 350 cases took place in the 1970s, and another 20 between 1980 and 1985.
In many instances, DNA evidence is what sets innocent men free. Such evidence is relatively new -- it wasn't available when many people were wrongly convicted. A lengthy appeals process saved their lives, by keeping them alive until forensic evidence could prove their innocence.
The idea that innocent people might be run over while society seeks justice is appalling. When the issue is whether to take someone's life, "correct most of the time" is a worthless standard.
Today, about 3,350 people are on death row nationwide, the ACLU reports. Almost all are poor, many are mentally disabled, more than 40 percent are black and a disproportionate number are American Indian, Latino or Asian.
Ohio has 175 inmates on death row, Cordray's office reported last week. About half are black.
Some of these condemned may be innocent. How many are we willing to sacrifice?
Some argue capital punishment deters crime. Studies disagree with that claim. States that have death penalty laws do not have lower crime or murder rates than states without. States that abolished capital punishment show no significant changes in crime or murder rates, the ACLU says.
The Death Penalty Information Center, a nonprofit resource center in Washington, D.C., cites a national survey showing most police chiefs say the death penalty doesn't reduce homicides, because murderers don't think about possible punishments.
Think about most of those who commit crimes that could land them on death row. They're not our best and brightest. They often have limited ability to think beyond the next five minutes. They are in a rage, or hopped up on drugs, or desperate for their next fix. The last thing they are likely to consider is the consequences of their actions.
One more data point: A Death Penalty Information Center analysis of statistics from 2001 to 2007 shows Southern states, which execute far more inmates than the rest of the U.S. combined, have consistently had the highest per capita murder rates.
Some deterrent.
The ACLU cites numerous studies that show racial disparities in how the death penalty is applied. People who kill whites are more likely to receive a death sentence than those who kill minorities. Blacks who kill whites have the greatest chance of receiving a death sentence.
Cordray has said the appeals process properly results in second looks at some cases. Good for him. The next step is for him to realize that such instances are reason enough to flush the death penalty. He should use his office to promote such change.
According to Cordray's report, there are 21 inmates on Ohio's death row whose appeals are all but exhausted. Are any of them innocent? Maybe not, but I wonder. Is it worth the risk of executing them? No.
Evidence shows we have an imperfect judicial system, run by fallible human beings. Our courts get a lot of things right, and they have a lot of built-in protections to help assure they do. Still, mistakes are made. The merciful, sensible, moral thing to do is to not put convicts to death in the first place. We should work toward that.
In the meantime, let's not start erasing vital protections just to save time and fuss.
We're talking about human life here. It's worth the time and fuss.
Steve Goble is a copy editor and page designer for the News Journal. Look for his column, "It's Debatable," in the Community Conversation section every Sunday, and visit his blog on our Web site. E-mail him at sgoble@nncogannett.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What if They Gave an Execution and No One Came?
The state of Washington now finds itself without an executioner, following the abrupt resignation of its lethal injection team. The four volunteers who administer lethal injections to death-row inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla quit their positions because of fears their identities might become revealed as a result of a judicial ruling. A state judge, Chris Wickham, wanted to review the four individuals’ credentials, qualifications and experience in administering lethal drugs as part of a lawsuit filed by death-row inmates over the constitutionality of the execution procedure. The judge would not have revealed any information that would have personally identified the team members, but apparently the individuals were still worried about having their records held under seal at the state attorney general’s office.
Currently, there are no executions scheduled in Washington, which gives officials time to assemble a new team. The state Department of Corrections has been in touch with officials in other states in case Washington has to “borrow” a lethal-injection team. Washington has not had an execution since August 2001.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Currently, there are no executions scheduled in Washington, which gives officials time to assemble a new team. The state Department of Corrections has been in touch with officials in other states in case Washington has to “borrow” a lethal-injection team. Washington has not had an execution since August 2001.
-Noel Brinkerhoff
Friday, 3 April 2009
State's execution team resigns, fearing identities would be reveale,"
From the Blog Standdown :
Friday, April 03, 2009
More from Washington State
is today's Seattle Times report.
Four people who have volunteered to administer lethal injections to death-row inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla quit their positions this week, apparently worried that their identities could become public as a result of an ongoing court case to decide whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
The four resigned Tuesday, which was the deadline Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham had set for the team's records -- detailing the members' credentials, qualifications and experience in administering lethal drugs -- to be submitted for his review.
The state is now without a lethal-injection team, and it's unclear what effect the resignations will have on the court proceedings.
Death-row inmate Darold Stenson, who was sentenced to die in 1994 for killing his wife and business partner, filed his lawsuit last year, claiming that lethal injection can result in excruciating pain if not administered correctly.
Two other death-row inmates, Jonathan Gentry and Cal Coburn Brown, later filed similar suits, and the three cases were consolidated. Gentry was convicted in 1991 in Kitsap County of fatally bludgeoning 12-year-old Cassie Holden near Bremerton in 1981. Brown raped, tortured and murdered Holly Washa, 22, of Burien, in 1991.
The resignations are "a surprising and disturbing development," said Scott Englehard, the attorney representing Gentry. "This issue has nothing to do with guarding their identities."
Englehard said the plaintiff's attorneys already agreed that no identifying information related to the team members would be disclosed. The records were to be reviewed in camera, a time-honored legal tradition in which only a judge sees sensitive and confidential documents and then decides what information attorneys will be privy to, he said.
His client and the other plaintiffs have a right to inquire about the team's "experience or qualifications to properly carry out a lethal-injection execution," Englehard said.
Dan Sytman, a spokesman for State Attorney General Rob McKenna, confirmed the resignations and said the four were worried about Wickham's order to have their records held under seal inside the state attorney general's office. Typically, those records are kept in the office of the superintendent at the state penitentiary in Walla Walla, he said.
And:
The team members' identities are a closely guarded secret, known only to a handful of people, said Eldon Vail, secretary of the state DOC. He said even he doesn't know who's on the team.
"Historically and in the future, we'll do everything we can to guard their identities," Vail said. "It's not easy finding individuals" willing to serve on the lethal-injection team, and anyone who participates in an execution does so voluntarily.
There are currently no scheduled executions, "so we have some time" to figure out how to go about assembling a new team, Vail said. He's been in touch with other officials in other states, who have agreed to send a lethal-injection team to Washington if needed, but only if members' names are kept confidential.
AP reports, "Washington state's execution team resigns," via Google News.
Four people designated to administer lethal injections to death-row inmates at the Washington State Penitentiary have resigned, apparently worried that their identities could become public in court.
The Seattle Times reported Thursday that the four resigned Tuesday for fear that their names would become known as a result of litigation on whether lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment.
Tuesday was the deadline to give Thurston County Superior Court Judge Chris Wickham records detailing the execution team members' credentials, qualifications and experience in administering lethal drugs.
Darold Stenson, sentenced to die in 1994 for killing his wife and business partner, filed a lawsuit last year contending that lethal injection can result in excruciating pain if not administered correctly. Stenson's execution date had been set for September before being postponed because of the court case.
Two other death-row inmates, Jonathan Gentry and Cal Coburn Brown, have filed similar lawsuits and the cases were consolidated before Wickham.
In December the state prison system's chief physician, Dr. Marc Stern, resigned because he said preparing for an execution would violate medical ethics.
The execution team's resignations leave the state without personnel to perform lethal injections. The agency will begin assembling a new team, and officials said other states have agreed to send a lethal injection team to Washington if needed.
Yesterday's initial coverage of the mass resignation is noted here.
Friday, 20 March 2009
Death penalty rift in states continues
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=385489
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Death penalty rift in states continues
By John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Gov. Bill Richardson’s decision Wednesday (March 18) to repeal New Mexico’s death penalty and replace it with a maximum sentence of life without parole is being hailed by supporters as a major victory in the decades-old debate over state-sanctioned executions.
But the decision—which follows New Jersey’s repeal in 2007 and brings to 15 the number of states that do not execute inmates—also underscores the nuanced modern landscape of capital punishment.
Click on link to read ths story :
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=385489
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Death penalty rift in states continues
By John Gramlich, Stateline.org Staff Writer
Gov. Bill Richardson’s decision Wednesday (March 18) to repeal New Mexico’s death penalty and replace it with a maximum sentence of life without parole is being hailed by supporters as a major victory in the decades-old debate over state-sanctioned executions.
But the decision—which follows New Jersey’s repeal in 2007 and brings to 15 the number of states that do not execute inmates—also underscores the nuanced modern landscape of capital punishment.
Click on link to read ths story :
http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=385489
Campaign to End the Death Penalty Celebrates Abolition in New Mexico
Campaign to End the Death Penalty Celebrates Abolition in New Mexico
Governor Bill Richardson did the right thing when he signed House Bill 285, which outlawed the death penalty. New Mexico now becomes the 15th state without the death penalty, and the second state to abolish it legislatively, after New Jersey in 2007. Activists who worked for repeal are celebrating their hard-fought victory, which took thousands of people making phone calls, writing letters and attending rallies. As Christy Armell from the Albuquerque chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty says, “it’s a great time for all New Mexicans, but also for this country, as we are setting an example that there is no need for the death penalty and it is not good public policy. New Mexico has spoken loud and clear and we have chosen to become part of the 14 other states that understand respect for life means every life. I am proud to be a New Mexican today.”
Passage of the legislation represents a growing recognition that the death penalty is too flawed to fix and has no place in a just society. As Governor Richardson said, “From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That's not something to be proud of.”
Richardson also recognized that race is a persistent factor in who gets the death penalty, and that all too often it condemns the innocent to die. He spoke for a growing number of people, both in New Mexico and around the country when he said, “I don’t have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.”
The death penalty in New Mexico and around the country did get it wrong. Four men, Thomas Gladich, Richard Greer, Ronald Keine and Clarence Smith, were sentenced to die for crimes they did not commit and later exonerated, while only one person has been executed there since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. Nationally, 130 people have been exonerated from death rows. Passage of this legislation is a victory for future New Mexicans who will no longer risk death for crimes they did not commit. We urge other states around the country, some of which also are considering abolition legislation, to follow in the footsteps of New Mexico and get rid of their own death penalty systems.
Our fight in New Mexico, however, is not over. House Bill 285 was not retroactive, and the two men on death row, Robert Fry and Timothy Allen, still face execution. We are disappointed that Governor Richardson has stated that he will not commute their sentences, and we call on him to reconsider, as any use of the death penalty, as he himself implied, violates the standards of a society that values human rights.
It is also the case that HB 285 introduced a Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentence in a state where it did not previously exist. Just as it does with the death penalty, the United States lags behind much of the world in its use of LWOP, another brutal, inhumane sentence that former California death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams, who was executed in 2005 despite his remarkable personal transformation, called “slow death in a cage”. The struggle for justice continues, in New Mexico and around the country.
Call (773)955-4841 for more information about the Campaign to End the Death Penalty
To donate, visit http://www.nodeathpenalty.org
Governor Bill Richardson did the right thing when he signed House Bill 285, which outlawed the death penalty. New Mexico now becomes the 15th state without the death penalty, and the second state to abolish it legislatively, after New Jersey in 2007. Activists who worked for repeal are celebrating their hard-fought victory, which took thousands of people making phone calls, writing letters and attending rallies. As Christy Armell from the Albuquerque chapter of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty says, “it’s a great time for all New Mexicans, but also for this country, as we are setting an example that there is no need for the death penalty and it is not good public policy. New Mexico has spoken loud and clear and we have chosen to become part of the 14 other states that understand respect for life means every life. I am proud to be a New Mexican today.”
Passage of the legislation represents a growing recognition that the death penalty is too flawed to fix and has no place in a just society. As Governor Richardson said, “From an international human rights perspective, there is no reason the United States should be behind the rest of the world on this issue. Many of the countries that continue to support and use the death penalty are also the most repressive nations in the world. That's not something to be proud of.”
Richardson also recognized that race is a persistent factor in who gets the death penalty, and that all too often it condemns the innocent to die. He spoke for a growing number of people, both in New Mexico and around the country when he said, “I don’t have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime. If the State is going to undertake this awesome responsibility, the system to impose this ultimate penalty must be perfect and can never be wrong.”
The death penalty in New Mexico and around the country did get it wrong. Four men, Thomas Gladich, Richard Greer, Ronald Keine and Clarence Smith, were sentenced to die for crimes they did not commit and later exonerated, while only one person has been executed there since reinstatement of the death penalty in 1977. Nationally, 130 people have been exonerated from death rows. Passage of this legislation is a victory for future New Mexicans who will no longer risk death for crimes they did not commit. We urge other states around the country, some of which also are considering abolition legislation, to follow in the footsteps of New Mexico and get rid of their own death penalty systems.
Our fight in New Mexico, however, is not over. House Bill 285 was not retroactive, and the two men on death row, Robert Fry and Timothy Allen, still face execution. We are disappointed that Governor Richardson has stated that he will not commute their sentences, and we call on him to reconsider, as any use of the death penalty, as he himself implied, violates the standards of a society that values human rights.
It is also the case that HB 285 introduced a Life Without Parole (LWOP) sentence in a state where it did not previously exist. Just as it does with the death penalty, the United States lags behind much of the world in its use of LWOP, another brutal, inhumane sentence that former California death row prisoner Stanley Tookie Williams, who was executed in 2005 despite his remarkable personal transformation, called “slow death in a cage”. The struggle for justice continues, in New Mexico and around the country.
Call (773)955-4841 for more information about the Campaign to End the Death Penalty
To donate, visit http://www.nodeathpenalty.org
STATEMENT BY BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS
For
Immediate Release
March 19, 2009
CONTACT:
Leila McDowell
202/463-2940 ext. 1005
STATEMENT BY BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE NAACP
ON NEW MEXICO’S REPEAL OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and the state legislature made the right decision in repealing capital punishment. The governor’s inspirational leadership is an exemplar of the intersection of morality and wise governance that serves our nation well.
We congratulate our New Mexico State Conference and Sante Fe Branch that worked tirelessly to support the repeal. Their efforts helped result in a strong bipartisan vote in the New Mexico legislature reflecting a growing consensus that the death penalty has failed the people of New Mexico. They are joining millions of citizens nationwide who understand that capital punishment risks executing the innocent, is unfairly applied, fails victims’ families and law enforcement and wastes scarce taxpayer dollars .
Coretta Scott King said, "As one whose husband and mother-in-law have both died as the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder."
Coretta’s prescient quote presaged a growing chorus of deep concern about the death penalty across the country.
In this time of fiscal crisis, it is more important than ever to make smart choices when it comes to meeting the needs of our citizens. By repealing the death penalty, New Mexico can now focus resources on the important issue of providing tangible assistance to the families of murder victims.. Additional measures making their way through the legislature will enable New Mexico to use the savings gained from ending the death penalty to provide a reparation award to children of murder victims, provide services and programs to murder victims’ families, create a murder victim family services fund and require employers to provide leave to crime victims to attend judicial proceedings.
Governor Bill Richardson and the state legislature are to be applauded for their moral courage. In doing so, they light a candle for smart crime policies for our entire nation. We sincerely hope that their enlightened leadership will clear a path for other states to follow.
Founded in 1909, the NAACP--the nation's oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization—is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Its more than half-million members and supporters throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.
Immediate Release
March 19, 2009
CONTACT:
Leila McDowell
202/463-2940 ext. 1005
STATEMENT BY BENJAMIN TODD JEALOUS
PRESIDENT AND CEO OF THE NAACP
ON NEW MEXICO’S REPEAL OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and the state legislature made the right decision in repealing capital punishment. The governor’s inspirational leadership is an exemplar of the intersection of morality and wise governance that serves our nation well.
We congratulate our New Mexico State Conference and Sante Fe Branch that worked tirelessly to support the repeal. Their efforts helped result in a strong bipartisan vote in the New Mexico legislature reflecting a growing consensus that the death penalty has failed the people of New Mexico. They are joining millions of citizens nationwide who understand that capital punishment risks executing the innocent, is unfairly applied, fails victims’ families and law enforcement and wastes scarce taxpayer dollars .
Coretta Scott King said, "As one whose husband and mother-in-law have both died as the victims of murder assassination, I stand firmly and unequivocally opposed to the death penalty for those convicted of capital offenses. An evil deed is not redeemed by an evil deed of retaliation. Justice is never advanced in the taking of a human life. Morality is never upheld by legalized murder."
Coretta’s prescient quote presaged a growing chorus of deep concern about the death penalty across the country.
In this time of fiscal crisis, it is more important than ever to make smart choices when it comes to meeting the needs of our citizens. By repealing the death penalty, New Mexico can now focus resources on the important issue of providing tangible assistance to the families of murder victims.. Additional measures making their way through the legislature will enable New Mexico to use the savings gained from ending the death penalty to provide a reparation award to children of murder victims, provide services and programs to murder victims’ families, create a murder victim family services fund and require employers to provide leave to crime victims to attend judicial proceedings.
Governor Bill Richardson and the state legislature are to be applauded for their moral courage. In doing so, they light a candle for smart crime policies for our entire nation. We sincerely hope that their enlightened leadership will clear a path for other states to follow.
Founded in 1909, the NAACP--the nation's oldest, largest and most widely-recognized grassroots–based civil rights organization—is celebrating its 100th anniversary this year. Its more than half-million members and supporters throughout the United States and the world are the premier advocates for civil rights in their communities, conducting voter mobilization and monitoring equal opportunity in the public and private sectors.
Sunday, 15 March 2009
Gov. Richardson to Decide Future of Death Penalty in NM
by Mary Shaw
On Friday, March 13, the New Mexico Senate voted 24-18 to repeal the death penalty in that state. This action follows a corresponding vote in the New Mexico House of Representatives in February.So the bill is on its way to Governor Bill Richardson's desk. The future of the death penalty in New Mexico is now in his hands.And, unfortunately, he appears to be on the fence.After yesterday's legislative victory, Richardson issued the following statement on the subject:
"This is an extremely difficult issue that deserved the serious and thoughtful debate it received in the Legislature. I have met with many people and will continue to consider all sides of the issue before making a decision."The governor has three days from the time he receives the bill until he must take action (excluding Sunday).
I urge everyone interested in this important issue to contact Governor Richardson today and ask him to support the death penalty repeal.
You can call the governor's office at 505-476-2200 or email him through his website at http://www.governor.state.nm.us/.
If you are undecided on the issue, like Richardson, or if you want to refer to some talking points while contacting his office, here is a summary of the reasons why I personally oppose the death penalty:
The death penalty is applied unevenly and unfairly, and minorities are victimized in the process. Studies in several states have shown that the death penalty is applied in a discriminatory, arbitrary, and uneven manner, and is used disproportionately against racial minorities and the poor.
For example, a 1998 study of death sentences in Philadelphia found that African-American defendants were almost four times more likely to receive the death penalty than were people of other ethnic origins who committed similar crimes. Where is the justice here?
In addition to its biased application, the death penalty is demonstrably not a deterrent, and is irreversible, which is a problem given so many cases of death row inmates who have been exonerated after conviction, based on DNA or other evidence. (How many other innocent persons weren't lucky enough to be proven innocent prior to their executions? We know of at least a few.)
On a more philosophical note, Amnesty International describes the death penalty as "the ultimate, irreversible denial of human rights."These are some of the reasons why most European nations have abolished the death penalty.
It has been more than a year since New Jersey abolished the death penalty, and prosecutors -- yes, prosecutors! -- in that state have found no problems with the new system, which replaced execution with life in prison without parole.
Ergo, I see no good reason to retain the death penalty, but a lot of good reasons to abolish it.Fingers crossed for New Mexico.
http://www.maryshawonline.com/
http://www.maryshawonline.com/
Mary Shaw is a Philadelphia-based writer and activist, with a focus on politics, human rights, and social justice. She is a former Philadelphia Area Coordinator for the Nobel-Prize-winning human rights group Amnesty International, and her views (more...)
Friday, 13 March 2009
Capital punishment in New Mexico
The New Mexican
3/12/2009 - 3/13/09
3/12/2009 - 3/13/09
Here's a list of all legal executions performed by the New Mexico Department of Corrections (between 1913 and 1929 all executions there were the responsibilities of individual county sheriffs):
July 21, 1933: Two men die in the state's new electric chair. The first was Thomas Johnson, a black man convicted of killing 18-year-old Angelina Jaramillo, who had been raped and killed in her Santa Fe home. Through the years some have claimed that Johnson was framed by authorities. Author Ralph Melnick wrote a book called Justice Betrayed (2002) in which he argues Johnson was innocent and the guilty party was part of the victim's family. Melnick points out that Johnson's race constantly was made an issue in The New Mexican at the time, with Johnson frequently referred to as "The Negro" in this newspaper's stories and headlines. The paper even ran an editorial saying the killing was evidence that black people should not be permitted to live in Santa Fe.
Santiago Garduño was executed the same day as Johnson. He was convicted of murdering his stepson. Garduño gave the boy a drink of whiskey laced with strychnine.
May 10, 1946: Pedro Talamonte, who was convicted in Gallup of murdering his 25-year-old wife.
June 13, 1947: Louis Young was the second black man accused of killing a white or Hispanic Santa Fe woman to die in the electric chair. Young was a prison inmate who worked as personal handyman at the prison warden's home which was near the victim's house. Young confessed to the crime following a late-night interrogation in his cell by authorities, though he soon recanted, saying the confession was forced. Despite efforts by civil rights organizations throughout the state, Young was executed.
Feb. 19, 1954: Arthur Johnson, who was convicted of murdering and robbing a Hobbs man.
Oct. 29, 1954: Frederick Heisler, who was convicted of murdering a man who had given him a ride hitchhiking.
Feb. 24, 1956: James Larry Upton, who also was convicted of murdering a man who had given him a ride hitchhiking. According to newspaper accounts, several spectators at his electrocution were drunk and rowdy.
Jan. 8, 1960: David Cooper Nelson, who was the first and only New Mexico inmate to die in the gas chamber. He was the third New Mexico inmate to be executed after being convicted of murdering a man who had given him a ride hitchhiking.
Nov. 6, 2001: Terry Clark was convicted of the 1986 murder of 9-year-old Dena Lynn Gore in Artesia. Clark voluntarily halted his appeals process. He, so far, is the only New Mexico to be executed by lethal injection.
Death-penalty debate: Decades of doubt
Death-penalty debate: Decades of doubt
Photo: Nov. 6, 2001: Maria Santelli, left, and Rian Haney pause for a moment of silence after Terry Clark is executed. Clark, who was convicted of the 1986 murder of 9-year-old Dena Lynn Gore in Artesia, voluntarily halted his appeals process. He is the only person in New Mexico to be executed by lethal injection.
After centuries of commuted sentences and controversy, state closer than ever to repealing capital punishment
Photo: Nov. 6, 2001: Maria Santelli, left, and Rian Haney pause for a moment of silence after Terry Clark is executed. Clark, who was convicted of the 1986 murder of 9-year-old Dena Lynn Gore in Artesia, voluntarily halted his appeals process. He is the only person in New Mexico to be executed by lethal injection.
After centuries of commuted sentences and controversy, state closer than ever to repealing capital punishment
Steve Terrell The New Mexican
3/12/2009 - 3/11/09
New Mexico for centuries has been reluctant to execute criminals, even though the state has had some form of capital punishment law on its books for virtually all of its history since the Spanish colonial era.
Even during the blazing days of the Wild West, judges routinely requested Territorial governors commute death sentences. And governors frequently complied. Some governors even spoke out against the death penalty.
Why the reluctance? Some speculate it's the influence of the Catholic Church. At least one historian says it might have roots in a series of executions in 1847 by the U.S. government of native New Mexicans who rebelled against the American occupation of New Mexico.
History might be in the making. The state Senate appears to be closer to codifying that reluctance by repealing the death penalty than it has been in decades, and Gov. Bill Richardson, who in the past has supported the death penalty, recently has dropped hints that he could sign the abolition. At a news conference this week, Richardson stressed he had not made up his mind on the issue and would be talking to advocates on both sides if House Bill 285 is passed by the Senate.
The bill, which passed in the Senate Judiciary Committee this week — a hurdle that identical bills have failed to clear in recent years — is expected to go to the Senate floor for a vote as early as today.
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Gail Chasey, D-Albuquerque — who has been carrying capital punishment repeal bills for the past decade — would eliminate the sentence of lethal injection, replacing it with life in prison without possibility of parole. Currently a life sentence means the convict isn't eligible for parole for at least 30 years.
Here is a look at the history of the death penalty in New Mexico.
A tradition of reluctance: In this year's capital punishment debate in the Legislature, both sides have referred to the fact that in the past 49 years only one person — child rapist and killer Terry Clark — has been executed. And Clark, who was lethally injected in November 2001, voluntarily ended his appeals process, which had gone on for 15 years.
Death penalty opponents use this to illustrate that the death penalty is not a useful law-enforcement tool and that keeping the law on the books only wastes money on lengthy appeals.
Supporters say the fact there are so few executions only proves that the state has been properly cautious in applying capital punishment.
But it's not just in recent years that New Mexico has appeared reluctant to impose the ultimate sentence.
Former State Historian Robert J. Torrez, author of a 2008 book called Myth of the Hanging Tree: Stories of Crime and Punishment in Territorial New Mexico, said in an interview this week that New Mexico juries, an sometimes even judges, never have been anxious to sentence criminals to death.
"There were only two capital cases in the Spanish colonial period," Torrez said. Each of those cases involved two defendants, which means there were only four executions during that time, Torrez said. One case was in 1779, the other in 1809.
It's likely the influence of the Catholic Church had something to do with those low numbers. Allan Sanchez, executive director of the New Mexico Conference of Catholic Bishops, said that after the Inquisition in the mid-1500s, the Church "pulled back and looked at its theology." In the 1700s and 1800s, the church doctrine was that if a criminal could be rendered harmless to society, he shouldn't be executed, Sanchez said.
During the period when New Mexico was under the Mexican government, 1821-1846, there are no records of any executions being carried out, Torrez said. He agreed it's possible that some records from those years have been lost.
During New Mexico's Territorial period, 1846-1913, there were a total of 51 legal executions by state and local authorities, all by hanging. According to Torrez's book, there were about 100 convictions in state courts during that time for first-degree murder, which at the time carried an automatic death sentence.
Some died in prison and a few escaped. But nearly half who weren't executed were pardoned or had their sentences commuted by the territorial governor.
In many cases, Torrez points out, territorial judges themselves — who had no say in the sentence because of the automatic death penalty — requested clemency from the governor because of some extenuating circumstance.
Torrez's execution figures in the Territorial days do not include the 20 New Mexicans who were hung after being convicted by military courts for an insurrection, sometimes called "The Taos Rebellion." This revolt against the American occupation took place in 1847.
These executions, which Torrez calls "the harsh introduction of American jurisprudence," might explain why juries and even judges were not so gung-ho on capital punishment, the historian said. He notes that the counties that bore the brunt of the retaliation by American forces — Taos, Rio Arriba and Mora — had some of the lowest rates of convictions in capital cases during Territorial days.
Some territorial governors spoke out against the death penalty, Torrez wrote. Although he signed the death warrant for the last man hanged during the Territorial period, Gov. George Curry told lawmakers that capital punishment was not a deterrent to crime and that an execution "involves an element of revenge repugnant to civilization." And in 1851, Gov. James Calhoun told the Legislature, "Humanity shudders at the thought of capital punishment."
Electric chairs, gas chambers:
In the early years of statehood, from 1913 to 1923, there were 20 legal executions. Twelve of those hanged were Mexican nationals.
In 1929, the Legislature passed a law making it the state's responsibility, rather than individual county sheriffs, to carry out executions. The method of execution was changed from hanging to electrocution.
The state's electric chair was first used in 1933. It would be used a total of seven times between that year and 1956. Reporter and author Tony Hillerman, who died last year, covered the 1956 execution of James Larry Upton for The New Mexican.
"I did a sidebar for the paper on the kind of Roman holiday they made out of this execution," Hillerman said in a 1999 interview with The New Mexican. "They had it in a big room, in the old penitentiary near downtown. They had about 110 drunk sheriff's posse types in there celebrating. It was really a grisly kind of thing. The politicos controlled the tickets. It was kind of like getting tickets to a Lobos-Utah game."
Upton had been composed and ready to die, Hillerman recalled. "Then he sees this great mob of drunken louts gaping at him like a circus." The grim spectacle of the execution apparently prompted the Legislature to passed a law limiting witnesses for executions.
By 1960, the method of execution changed again. Gas chambers were now in vogue around the country. But only one person would be executed that way in this state, David Nelson Cooper, who was executed in January 1960
.
Ten years later, the Legislature passed a law eliminating the death penalty for any crime except the murder of a law enforcement officer. Gov. David Cargo commuted the sentences of the inmates on death row. Cargo said in a 1998 interview with The New Mexican that there were "two or three" inmates whose sentences were commuted.
In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down death penalty laws, saying capital punishment was administered unevenly by the various states and thus was cruel and unusual punishment.
The next year, New Mexico's Legislature overwhelmingly passed a law similar to the old Territorial law, making execution automatic for anyone convicted of first-degree murder.
Although nobody was executed in New Mexico under that law before it was struck down as unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court, four members of a California motorcycle gang during that period were sentenced to death for the murder of a man in Albuquerque. The four eventually were exonerated and released after the chief witness admitted she lied on the witness stand and the true killer confessed and led authorities to the murder weapon.
Capital punishment today:
In 1979, the Legislature passed the current law. Only those convicted of first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances are eligible for execution.
Those circumstances include: killing a law-enforcement officer or a prison guard, killing a fellow inmate, killing while trying to escape from incarceration, murder for hire, murdering to prevent a witness of a crime from testifying and murder while trying to commit rape, kidnapping or child molestation.
Death row began to fill up again. The last time a Santa Fe jury imposed a death sentence was in 1983, when Ricky Garcia, a prison inmate, was sentenced to die for killing a guard.
But in November 1986, outgoing Gov. Toney Anaya surprised the nation by commuting the sentences of Garcia and the other four killers awaiting execution. Although he was blasted by many in the state, Anaya on Wednesday said he feels good about the fact the current repeal bill should at least come close to passing.
"Sometimes a good idea takes a long time," he said. In 1999, Clark, who was sentenced to death shortly after Anaya left office, first said he wanted to drop his appeals. He changed his mind several months later, but by 2001 he made the request again and this time a judge agreed with his wishes.
On Nov. 6, 2001, hired executioners from the Texas Corrections Department injected Clark with lethal doses of drugs purchased through the state Health Department.
Contact Steve Terrell at 986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com.
Read his political blog at roundhouseroundup.com.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Mixed Opinions of a Judge Accused of Misconduct
Mixed Opinions of a Judge Accused of Misconduct
A refusal to accept a last-minute appeal in a death penalty case could end the career of a top judge in Texas.
By GRETEL C. KOVACH
By GRETEL C. KOVACH
Published: March 7, 2009
DALLAS — If Sharon Keller, the presiding judge of Texas’ highest criminal court, has ever doubted her judgment, she has not shown it.
Elena Grothe/Austin American-Statesman
Sharon Keller, who was first elected to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 1994, is now its presiding judge.
In 1998, Judge Keller wrote the opinion rejecting a new trial for Roy Criner, a mentally retarded man convicted of rape and murder, even though DNA tests after his trial showed that it was not his semen in the victim.
“We can’t give new trials to everyone who establishes, after conviction, that they might be innocent,” she later told the television news program “Frontline.” “We would have no finality in the criminal justice system, and finality is important.”
Gov. George W. Bush eventually pardoned Mr. Criner.
To Judge Keller’s detractors, the Criner decision highlighted what they see as her strong and habitual bias for the prosecution. Many Texas defense lawyers describe her as a law-and-order zealot who rejects most appeals out of hand. Her defenders argue that she has been fair and impartial, though unabashedly conservative, in her interpretation of the law.
Now, Judge Keller is again defending her actions, this time in a judicial misconduct case that could end her career.
Seventeen months ago, lawyers for a man facing execution sought extra time to file a last-minute appeal. Judge Keller refused to delay the closing of her clerk’s office past 5 p.m., even though late filings are common on the day of a scheduled execution. The man, Michael Richard, was put to death by lethal injection a few hours later.
Based on that case, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct last month charged Judge Keller with incompetence, violating her duties and casting public discredit on the judiciary.
Judge Keller, who was first elected chief judge of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2000, faces a public trial and could be forced off the bench.
Her lawyer insists that she did nothing wrong and that she was being blamed for the mistakes of the defendant’s lawyers and court staff.
Judge Keller, whose current term runs through 2012, rarely grants interviews and did not respond to requests for comment. But others are taking up her cause.
“Sharon is a hard worker,” said Dan Hagood, a defense lawyer and longtime friend from Dallas who served as her campaign treasurer when she ran for election to the court in 1994. “She never complains, never explains.”
Judge Keller, 55, has always kept her own counsel; her colleagues at the court have given her the nickname Mother Superior because of her reserved and diligent demeanor and her devout Roman Catholic faith.
Friends say she is witty and well read, an engaging conversationalist in one-on-one encounters over cocktails, but the quietest one at the table at weekly card games with fellow alumni of Rice University.
What some consider rigid heartlessness in her legal opinions, others admire as calm confidence and the strength of her convictions.
“She doesn’t have a callous bone in her body,” said Knox Fitzpatrick, a lawyer who works with her on the state’s Task Force on Indigent Defense. “She has the highest standard of ethics; she is the ideal judge. Emotions have nothing to do with it: She follows the law, she looks at the facts and makes a dispassionate opinion.”
But Jim Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, described Judge Keller as “unhearing.”
“She’s just totally shut down on capital cases,” Mr. Harrington said. “It’s one thing to take a hard line in terms of punishments and convictions. It’s another to not be receptive to the idea that people are entitled to an appeal, that there may be error in this system.”
Supporters point out, however, that under Judge Keller’s leadership as chairwoman of the task force, Texas has expanded the number of public defender offices to 15, from 7; increased the number of people represented by about 38 percent; and raised state spending on the program to almost $60 million, from $19 million.
People also say they admire how Judge Keller has raised her son as a single mother and how close she is with her extended family, which financed the bulk of her campaign to join the court.
Judge Keller had graduated from Rice with a degree in philosophy when her father, the founder of a Dallas chain of hamburger and beer drive-ins, encouraged her to study law, which she did at Southern Methodist University. After a brief stint as a defense lawyer, she joined the Dallas district attorney’s office in 1987 and became a star of the appellate division.
In 1994, she campaigned for an opening on the Court of Criminal Appeals, describing herself as “pro-prosecution.” She was elected along with a number of conservative Republican female justices, the same year that Mr. Bush ousted Ann Richards as governor.
Within a few years, the nine-member Court of Criminal Appeals had flipped from being all Democrats to all Republicans. And the rate of reversal of death penalty cases plummeted.
“I think she epitomizes what a judge should be: a fair and impartial umpire,” said Mr. Hagood, the Dallas defense lawyer.
But Charlie Baird, a Democrat who was voted off the Court of Criminal Appeals in 1998, said bitterly that Judge Keller remained true to her campaign promises.
“It was always one-sided to her, and her side was the state always wins,” Mr. Baird said. “She was always advancing a purely political agenda on behalf of far-right Republicans.”
Now Judge Keller is being forced to explain her actions of Sept. 25, 2007, the day Mr. Richard was executed.
According to the judicial conduct commission’s notice of formal proceedings, Mr. Richard, who had confessed to the rape and fatal shooting of a nurse in 1986, was scheduled to be executed at 6 p.m. Earlier that day, his lawyers were busy drafting filings based on his mental capacity when the United States Supreme Court announced that it would hear arguments considering the constitutionality of lethal injections.
Mr. Richard’s lawyers switched tactics to take advantage of the development.
As 5 p.m. approached, lawyers with the nonprofit Texas Defender Service were having computer problems. They called the court and asked for a few extra minutes to file.
Judge Keller had gone home early that afternoon to meet a repairman, and the court counsel, Edward Marty, reached her by telephone to ask if they could keep the clerk’s office open.
A week later, in an interview with The Austin American-Statesman, Judge Keller offered her account of what had happened.
“I got a phone call shortly before 5 and was told the defendant had asked us to stay open,” she said. “They did not tell us they had computer failure. And given the late request, and with no reason given, I just said, ‘We close at 5.’ I didn’t really think of it as a decision so much as a statement.”
Another judge was waiting at the court for after-hours pleadings in the case but was never notified of the communications from the defense, as required by court policy, the commission concluded. Mr. Richard was executed at 8:20 p.m.
Judge Keller’s lawyer, Charles L. Babcock, said that many people shared in a failure of communication that day and that her role was minor.
“Hindsight being 20/20, I think Judge Keller is certainly sorry that the system broke down,” Mr. Babcock said. “As far as her overt actions, I don’t think she feels she did anything wrong. Nor do I.”
A version of this article appeared in print on March 8, 2009, on page A14 of the New York edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
