Sept. 30
TEXAS:
Professor With A Past
College professor Paul Krueger spent years hiding a dark secret. In the
great American tradition of reinvention, he had successfully discarded his
past for a new future.
But all that began to unravel last year when it was discovered that his
past involved a heinous crime. Just how far is society willing to go to
reintegrate that exploding population of ex-cons?.
If you passed Professor Paul Krueger on campus, you probably wouldn't give
him a 2nd glance. That's because he looks like the typical college
professor.
For 15 years, Krueger taught education and business courses, most recently
at Penn State University. He earned the respect of students and
colleagues. But unbeknownst to anyone on campus, the respected professor
was on parole for a triple murder he'd committed nearly 40 years ago.
It was a crime so horrific that it was considered one of the worst in
Texas history. Even now, Krueger can't or won't talk about many of the
details of that night. But he says it all started when he ran away to
escape an abusive father in April of 1965.
"My real thing was getting away from my father and getting away from a
real traumatic situation," recalls Krueger. "I was 17. I thought maybe I
was old enough to go off on my own. And so I left."
Krueger, who had recently left military school, ran away from his
California home with a friend. He had reportedly packed a cache of
weapons. The teenagers ended up off the coast of Texas, where they came
across three family men on a fishing trip. With his friend looking on,
Krueger pulled out a gun. Then, without warning, he started shooting.
"There's one thing that I recall of that night rather clearly. And it's
burned in my brain. We both said, 'This is a military operation.' And it
was very consistent with our supposed training," says Krueger.
"Now, that sounds bizarre. You have to realize that you had 2 very
disturbed kids. And they were looking for some kind of something, I don't
know what, to hang their hats on. To somehow find a life."
Krueger reportedly unloaded one gun. Then, he grabbed another and
continued firing. The bodies were so bullet-ridden that the autopsy
couldn't determine how many times the men had been shot. Krueger says he
didn't hate the men, and that they did nothing to hurt him. So why did he
do it?
"I see these 2 children at that time. And I'm talking about myself, and
there was this unemotional person that was devoid of feeling, saying it
was a military operation. But then, the realization of what happened came
through," says Krueger.
"It's been with me -- forever. I've tried to deal with this as an adult. I
really have. And I feel that I could never atone for something like this."
Krueger was facing the death penalty, but because the victims' widows
didn't press for it, he received 3 life sentences instead. Behind bars in
Huntsville, Texas, the triple murderer began what he calls his
transformation. And he eventually earned a bachelor's degree through a
program that brought professors into prison.
"They not only valued my education, but in spite of my circumstances of
being incarcerated, they valued me as a person, if that's hard to
believe," says Krueger. "But they really did. And I believe that in my
heart of hearts. And that motivated me to change."
But has it been a complete change? "I'm not the person of 40 years ago,"
says Krueger.
Could he snap and kill someone again? "No," he says. "Not with what I've
had to live through."
Krueger was considered such a model prisoner that a Texas parole official
eventually wrote in his file: "There is nothing further he could do to
rehabilitate himself."
So despite the fact that he had murdered three men in cold blood, Krueger
was released after only 12 1/2 years in prison. While on lifetime parole,
he went on to get 3 graduate degrees, get married, have a son and reinvent
himself as a college professor.
Did his employers ever ask about his past - if he had ever been arrested
or convicted of a crime?
"They didn't ask at Penn State, and I didn't tell," says Krueger, who
began teaching there in 1999. In March 2003, his secret past caught up
with him.
Pennsylvania learned that he was on parole from Texas because of a change
in the policies governing parolees. Word of his murderous past soon became
front-page news, and a job offer he'd just accepted from a national
university in California was rescinded.
The next day, Penn State announced that he had resigned, and officials
from both universities declined to be interviewed. But Penn State at the
time released a statement saying, "His ability to carry out his
responsibilities effectively.has been compromised in light of revelations
about his history."
The families of the victims also refused to talk with 60 Minutes on
camera. But while the widows had helped spare him from the death penalty,
other family members now say they're angry not only over Krueger's
teaching career, but that he'd been released from prison at all.
Back on campus, many of his former students, including Noela Haughton,
Brian Lee and Bobby Jeter, rallied to his defense.
"If someone said to you, there is a murderer among you, he would be the
last person on my mind," says Haughton.
"He is a wonderful professor and I think every day he's not in the
classroom, we're losing again as a society," adds Lee.
But did the fact that Krueger committed these murders in cold-blood change
their opinions? "He served his time for that. He paid his debt to
society," says Jeter. "If we're to believe in our criminal-justice system,
how can you continue to penalize him for that?"
But Pennsylvania State Rep. Matt Baker was so outraged that a triple
murderer was on staff at Penn State that he proposed a law requiring all
Pennsylvania universities to conduct criminal background checks before
hiring professors.
"I think safety has to come first and foremost," says Baker. "When one
thinks about attending college, I think the last thing that goes through
their minds is that their professor might have committed a heinous crime
of murder, let alone a triple murder."
Krueger, who has been out of prison for more than 25 years, has been a
law-abiding citizen. Is there any reason to be concerned about student
safety? And is it fair to penalize him for something that he's already
served time for?
"A convicted triple murderer would be viewed as perhaps too great a risk,"
says Baker. "Some people would think that he should have gotten the death
sentence. Some people believe he perhaps should have at least gotten a
life sentence. Certainly not just 12 1/2 years for 3 murders of innocent
people. So, I personally don't believe he should be in a public position
of authority and of trust."
Just how much authority and trust society is willing to grant ex-cons is
the question. Some states have banned them not just from sensitive
positions like working in nursery schools or law enforcement, but also
from licensed professions, such as barbers or landscape architects.
Bryan Collier, head of the Texas parole division, oversees Krueger's
parole and that of 77,000 other ex-convicts. Are there certain jobs that
society is not yet ready to have parolees in?
"I definitely think so. I'm not sure that if you commit a crime of that
nature, that limiting your ability of what you can achieve may be part of
the process of paying for that crime," says Collier. "I'm not sure that
that's wrong."
Does he think that society truly believes in rehabilitation? "I'd like to
think so," says Collier. "But I would say there are definitely areas where
none of us feel comfortable with someone who is either on parole, has a
conviction. It still raises an area of concern for all of us."
Over the past year, Krueger has been unsuccessfully applying for teaching
jobs. Does he think he deserves the same opportunities as those who
haven't committed murder?
"Given the person that I am today, yes," says Krueger. "I think I bring
value into the classroom."
But why should he get a 2nd chance?"
"I would ask those people if they would please tell me what more that I
need to do," says Krueger. "Is there anything that I could do to further
atone? And I'll try, honest."
(source: CBS News)
***********************
Police chief calls for halt of executions until evidence confirmed
Police Chief Harold Hurtt today stopped just short of calling for a
moratorium on executions from Harris County.
The chief, who came to Houston from Phoenix in Februrary and found his new
department embroiled in a series of DNA lab scandals, said no Harris
County executions should be scheduled until all relevant evidence has been
thoroughly re-examined.
Police are about a quarter of the way through their review of hundreds of
boxes of evidence from thousands of criminal cases that had been forgotten
in a storage room.
Hurtt also said the 9 executions already scheduled through March should
not be allowed to go forward until all evidence has been thoroughly
reviewed.
"I think it would be very prudent for us as a criminal justice system to
delay further executions until we have had time to review the evidence,"
he said.
(source: Houston Chronicle)
USA:
The Juvenile Death Penalty: How Far Have We Evolved?
ACLU Supreme Court Preview: 2004 Term
Statement of Vivian Berger, ACLU General Counsel
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
One of the most significant cases on the Court's docket this term is Roper
v. Simmons, 03-633, which raises the question of whether inflicting the
death penalty on offenders under the age of 18 at the time of the crime
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth
Amendment. The Missouri Supreme Court held that it did. While the ACLU
opposes all forms of capital punishment, we believe there are many factors
that make the juvenile death penalty especially heinous.
Simmons presents the Justices with the opportunity to overrule Stanford v.
Kentucky. Decided in 1989, Stanford (a consolidated case involving
defendants who had killed at the ages of 16 and 17) rejected by a bare
majority the claim being urged by Christopher Simmons. A year earlier, in
Thompson v. Oklahoma , a plurality joined by Justice O'Connor concurring
in the judgment overturned the death sentence imposed on a 15-year-old
offender. At present, the Eighth Amendment line has thus been drawn at age
16.
Because the legal landscape has changed in relevant ways since the late
1980's, Simmons provides the Court with an overdue opportunity to end to
what Justice Stevens has rightly called a "shameful practice" (In re
Stanford , 2002, dissent). Four members of the current Court -- Justices
Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer as well as Stevens, the author of Thompson --
are already on record as ready to overrule Stanford. On this, as on so
many other issues, either Justice O'Connor or Justice Kennedy is the most
likely 5th vote.
For a long time, the Court has determined whether a practice is cruel and
unusual by looking to the "evolving standards of decency that mark the
progress of a maturing society" ( Trop v. Dulles , 1858). Its members
have, however, divided over the proper scope of this inquiry. While all
would look to pertinent statutes as well as sentencing verdicts by juries
as indicators of whether Americans have set their face against death for
juveniles, the liberal contingent also regards international opinion and
the views of professional and religious bodies as relevant factors.
By contrast, Justice Scalia (who wrote for the Court in Stanford ),
Justice Thomas, and Chief Justice Rehnquist have strongly inveighed
against considering the world community's notions of justice. Undisputed,
however, is the fact that countenancing death for minors makes the United
States a virtual pariah among nations: since 2000, the only countries
other than ours to have executed juvenile offenders are Iran, Pakistan and
the Democratic Depublic of Congo.
In any event, a legislative "headcount" limited to the United States
reveals that a total of 31 jurisdictions (30 states plus the federal
government) do not allow death-sentencing of juveniles; that is an
increase of seven since Stanford. (12 jurisdictions have abolished capital
punishment entirely.) Even where permitted to do so, moreover, jurors very
rarely impose the death penalty on youths. Juvenile executions are
especially infrequent; only 22 have occurred since 1976 - 18 of these in
Texas, Virginia and Oklahoma. These numbers strongly suggest that society
has reached a consensus against this "shameful practice."
In addition to examining evolving standards, the Court must make its own
judgment whether, in the context at issue, the death penalty is
disproportionate to the defendant's culpability, on the ground that it
fails to contribute measurably to retribution and deterrence -- the
"acceptable" goals of capital punishment. Simmons contends that on this
score, too, his death sentence does not pass muster. Among other things,
he argues that 16- and 17-year-olds lack a fully formed capacity to
exercise rational, mature judgment and control their conduct. Not only are
they less deterrable and blameworthy than adults, but also they suffer
from greater disadvantages in coping with the adjudicative process.
Developments in a parallel area of death penalty jurisprudence augur well
for Simmons' cause. Penry v. Lynaugh, decided the same day as Stanford,
rejected a categorical attack on death-sentencing the mentally retarded.
But in 2002, in Atkins v. Virginia, the Justices overruled Penry, relying
on grounds that seem to apply equally in the juvenile setting -- such as
the steadily increasing number of jurisdictions outlawing the practice (in
Atkins , also 31), the defendants' diminished deterrability and
blameworthiness, and their reduced ability to function in the criminal
justice system.
Numerous amici curiae, including child advocacy organizations,
psychological and medical associations, and former United States
diplomats, have filed briefs in support of Simmons. The ACLU has signed on
to a brief by civil rights groups which documents the disproportionate
influence of racial discrimination in the infliction of death on minors.
The ACLU amicus brief in Roper v. Simmons is online at
http://www.aclu.org/court/court.cfm?ID=16391&c=286
(source: ACLU)
