Dec. 15 USA: Americans and the Death Penalty----Gallup reviews public opinion on the death penalty in wake of Scott Peterson case On Monday afternoon, a jury recommended death by lethal injection for Scott Peterson for murdering his wife, Laci, and their unborn child. This comes at the same time that a new study released by the Death Penalty Information Center reports a sharp decrease in the number of death sentences imposed and executions carried out over the past 5 years. Both the highly visible Peterson sentencing and the reduction in executions in this country draw attention again to American public opinion on this controversial issue. A review of Gallup polling finds that about two in three Americans say they are in favor of the death penalty for convicted murderers. But support is considerably lower when Americans are asked to choose between the death penalty and life imprisonment. Death penalty supporters cite justice and fairness as the main reasons for their support, while those opposing the death sentence say it is wrong to take a life. A majority of Americans also say the death penalty is applied fairly in this country, and nearly half say it is not imposed often enough. Support for the death penalty is higher among men than among women, higher among Republicans than among Democrats, and higher among whites than among blacks. Support for the Death Penalty Gallup began asking Americans if they are "in favor of the death penalty for a person convicted of murder" in the 1930s, and has updated this measure on a regular basis in the decades since. The results from 2 polls conducted this year show that, on average, 68% of Americans say they support the death penalty. The percentage of Americans in favor of the death penalty has fluctuated significantly over the years, ranging from a low of 42% in 1966, during a revival of the anti-death penalty movement, to an all-time high of 80% in 1994. Over the past several years, public opinion on the death penalty has been more stable, with upward of 2 in 3 Americans supporting it. Which groups of Americans are most likely to support the death penalty? In order to answer this question, Gallup recently combined the results of the nine surveys that asked the basic death penalty question from 2001 through 2004 (see "Who Supports the Death Penalty?" in Related Items). The overall results show some interesting differences: 80 % of Republicans support the death penalty, compared with 65% of independents and 58% of Democrats. Nearly 3 in 4 conservatives (74%) support capital punishment, compared with 68% of moderates and 54% of liberals. More than 7 in 10 men (74%) support the death penalty, compared with 62% of women. There are substantial differences between whites and blacks in their support for capital punishment, with 71% of whites supporting the death penalty and only 44% of blacks supporting it. There are only slight variations by age, with roughly 2 in 3 Americans in every age group supporting capital punishment. The data show that 65% of those who attend church services weekly or nearly weekly favor capital punishment, compared with 69% of those who attend services monthly and 71% of those who seldom or never attend. Death Penalty vs. Life Imprisonment Support for the death penalty is considerably lower when respondents are asked to choose between the death penalty and "life imprisonment, with absolutely no possibility of parole" as the better punishment for murder. Americans were essentially divided on this measure this past May, with 50% choosing the death penalty and 46% choosing life imprisonment. There has been a good deal of fluctuation on this specific measure in recent years. The highest level of support for the death penalty in response to this question came in August 1997, when 61% chose the death penalty and just 29% life imprisonment. On the other hand, just a few years later, in late August/early September 2000, the 2 alternatives were virtually tied, with 49% support for the death penalty and 47% for life imprisonment. Between 50% (the current percentage) and 54% have supported the death penalty in response to this question in the years since 2000, while support for life imprisonment has varied between 42% and 46% (the current percentage). (source: Gallup; the full polling, including figures, can be found at http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci=14371) ******************* Gradual Shift Seen in U.S. View of Death Penalty This December is the first month in over a decade that no U.S. prisoner will be executed, reflecting what experts say is a gradual shift in America's views toward punishing its most violent criminals. Broader concern about national security, court rulings questioning who should be executed and cases of convicts later found innocent have combined to slow the number of executions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. This year's total of 59 is down 40 % from 5 years ago. The all-time high since the reinstatement of the U.S. death penalty in 1976 was 98 executions in 1999. Last year there were 65 executions in the United States. The last execution in America was on Nov. 17, DPIC statistics show, and none is set for any time this month. The last such execution-free month was July 1994. "It's remarkable," said Douglas Berman, law professor at Ohio State University. "You have courts, governors, prosecutors, juries ... all feeling much more circumspect. "You put all those forces together and that slows the march to the death chamber down significantly," he said. Death penalty advocate Dudley Sharp cautioned that this month may be a statistical anomaly. "Within states, it's very cyclical. You'll have a very high execution rate one year and lower the next," the Texas-based activist said. "It's the law of probability, but it is odd." Although officials may be loath to schedule executions around the holidays, recent Decembers typically have not tended to have particularly high or lower execution rates. Of the 4 executions that had been scheduled this month -- all postponed -- one that has captured public attention is Frances Newton, who would be the 1st black woman to be executed in Texas. She was convicted of killing her husband and children for $100,000 in life insurance. Her case is on hold while a court reassesses evidence, in particular a gun tested at a crime laboratory later accused of such sloppiness that even the police chief called for a halt to local executions. Highly publicized DNA testing that has cleared convicted criminals is the most persuasive factor undermining support for executions, experts say. While polls show most Americans favor capital punishment, polls also show growing support for life without parole. A FALLIBLE SYSTEM? "Those cases keep reminding people that the system is fallible," said Richard Dieter, head of the Death Penalty Information Center. "We're shifting to a different approach to punishment. It still involves harsh sentences, but the death penalty may be too extreme." The question of innocence was boosted in 2003 when former Illinois Gov. George Ryan cleared out the state's death row over concerns about wrongful convictions. Now the war on terrorism, on top of dropping crime rates nationwide, has changed Americans' fears, some suggest. "When people think about what's harming my safety, they're no longer thinking about the street criminal. They're thinking about Osama bin Laden," Berman said. A U.S. Supreme Court decision to ban execution of the mentally retarded and a pending question about the execution of juveniles have thrown scores of cases back into the legal stew. Meanwhile a number of legislatures and governors have proposed reviews of state capital laws. In 2 recent cases in Texas, a state known for its high number of executions, the nation's top court has ruled against prosecutors on questions of fairness and procedure. "All of these are trends in the same direction," said Dieter. He called the shift "a wearing away or turning aside from the death penalty because of some doubts about the way it's been applied and the dangers of executing the innocent." Internationally, the trend has swung away from capital punishment. There is no European Union death penalty, leaving the United States a rarity among major industrialized nations. Opponents say while abolition of capital punishment may not be around the corner, it's not out of the question. "I'm very encouraged.... I think abolition is as likely as a rip-roaring return of enthusiasm for the death penalty," said Michael Stark of the Campaign to End the Death Penalty. Dieter said the shift is real but gradual. "The death penalty 10, 20 years from now will be seen like the Berlin Wall. It will be an anachronism," he said. "The public is no longer clamoring 'Why aren't we killing these people faster."' (source: Reuters) *************************** Not Cruel, But Most Unusual -- It is not cruel to execute murderers like Scott Peterson. I was 18 years old in 1972. That was the year the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that capital punishment was unconstitutional. Death penalties across the country were vacated at once. The Manson family, responsible for the butchery that included the horrific stabbing of a beautiful, nine-month pregnant Sharon Tate, saw their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment with the possibility of parole. For all those murders, the killers are still alive. More recently, weve seen moms like Susan Smith and Andrea Yates drown their children in lakes and tubs. Weve seen the Green River killer plead guilty to his murders -- all 48 of them -- then provide authorities with the locations of his victims bodies in exchange for a life sentence without parole. For those brutal serial slayings of young women, Gary Leon Ridgeway will not die. If there were ever a case where the death penalty should be applied, it would be for a vicious serial killer like Ridgeway. There were the Menendez brothers. The California teens shot their parents for an inheritance, then confessed but testified that their parents abused them for years. They were spared the death penalty and sentenced to life without parole. O.J.s trial ensued, and he was found not guilty despite all the DNA evidence to convict. Until recently, a website showed photos of his bedroom with his wifes blood splattered over the walls. The Manson family, the Menendez brothers and O.J. Today, its Scott Peterson. Same state, different fates. The jurys foreman Steve Cardosi spoke with Greta Van Susteren on Fox News explaining their recommendation for the death penalty. He and other jurors were disappointed that Scott did not display emotion or remorse. Its not unusual for a cold-blooded killer to demonstrate ice and detachment. What is unusual is that emotions should play such a large part in a jurys decision to convict and return a death sentence. A conviction should be based solely on the evidence. Meanwhile, Petersons pretense of innocence was in contrast to his big ego throughout the trial proceedings. It shows how low our judicial system has sunk when a defendant is so certain a jury will acquit him that he actually acts guilty without a care for the world. This trial raised public awareness about violence against unborn children. Not once did I hear a newscaster refer to Connor as a clinically-correct "fetus." Further, the capital phase of the trial only happened because Connors murder qualified as a special circumstance punishable by death. The death merchants at Planned Parenthood and NARAL must be squirming today. In conclusion, I am pleased that our courts finally did something right and delivered justice for Laci. Unfortunately, there will be years of appeals, but there is a chance that Scott Peterson may pay the ultimate price for the murders of his wife and unborn son. However, death penalty opponents who say the punishment is cruel and unusual are only half right. It is not cruel to execute murderers. It is unusual that when it comes to actual executions of death row inmates, capital cases ultimately discriminate against non-white victims. According to The Death Penalty Information Center, since 1976, 34% of defendants executed in the U.S. were black, 6.3 % were Hispanic and 57.5% were white. However, what is most important is the race of the victim. If you commit a capital crime and the victim is white, you are much more likely to be sentenced and executed. Statistics show that since 1976, the race of murder victims where executions took place was: 13.9% (black) 4% (Hispanic) and 80.6% (white). In cases involving white defendants and black victims there were 12 executions. In cases involving black defendants and white victims there were 192 executions. Had Laci Peterson been black, it would be highly unlikely that Scott Peterson would have been condemned to die, and thats wrong. What about serial killers and mass murderers? Shouldnt their appointments with the lethal needle, or preferably, the gas chamber be kept? The murders of Laci and Connor are horrible and brutal, but so was the murder of multi-millionaire Ted Ammon here in Long Island, New York. Yesterday, while the nation was focused on Scott Peterson, Danny Pelosi was convicted for Ammons murder. The public mute switch was on, and thats the real inequity. Angry voices dont cry for equal vengeance against all murderers. If all those convicted of premeditated murder were executed without years of delays and appeals, wed be able to minimize inequities regarding religion, race, ethnicity, sex and wealth. Thats what justice should really be about. (source: Bonnie Chernin Rogoff is the Founder of Jews for Life and reports on a variety of subjects including pro-life issues and politics; Intellectual Conservative) ********************* Law or soap opera? The Scott Peterson murder trial is more than a single criminal case. It is a painful reflection on the media, on the law, and on where our society has gone. The 24/7 coverage of this case, which seems to have been going on forever, has been inescapable for anyone who watches television news to follow what has been happening in the world at large. Even when there has not been a speck of new information about the Peterson case, TV news has broadcast all sorts of speculations about what the prosecution, the defense, the jurors, or the judge might be thinking. Worse yet, the law itself has turned the trial into a soap opera, even after the jury reached a verdict of guilty, by subjecting the court to an emotional orgy of testimony by the parents of the murdered woman and by Scott Peterson's mother, tearfully pleading for her son's life. Why has our law degenerated into such wrenching spectacles, which have nothing to do with justice? Does not the very fact that there are laws against murder on the books presume that both the murder victim and their loved ones have been wronged? Do we need the victim's mother to confirm what the law already presumes? Does anyone doubt that a mother does not want to see her son executed? Must she and jurors both be reduced to tears over something too obvious to require proof? What is accomplished by putting everyone through an emotion wringer, except to generate material for the media? It is more than enough to take people out of their homes and jobs for months to serve on juries, in order to determine innocence or guilt. Why needlessly subject them to the strain of spending still more time going through the process of determining something that a judge can determine without them -- namely the sentence? Is there a speck of evidence that sentences are more just, or more widely accepted, as a result of putting laymen through an emotional wringer doing something that a judge -- a trained and experienced legal professional -- can do without them? Must these jurors carry with them for the rest of their lives the feeling that they condemned someone to death, when in fact it is the law that condemns murderers to death, which should be prescribed by someone whose career consists of enforcing the law? Why should the penalties of the law be varied with the emotional presentations or acting abilities of the defendants or members of his or the victim's families? What does that have to do with law or justice? Criminals need to be confronted with penalties for their crimes, and the more those penalties are lost in a fog of other factors the less effective they are. For centuries, laws did not require all this emoting and hand-wringing. Only within the past few decades have we been plunged into all this by decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, creating new "rights" and procedures out of thin air in death penalty cases. The Constitution never required this and the public's elected representatives never voted for this stuff. But such thinking was in vogue in the circles to which judges respond and they were praised by those for whom anything that can mitigate punishment is a good thing. At the very least, the time is long overdue to recognize that such judicial activism sets off repercussions that extend far beyond anything the judges may have contemplated, much less be able to monitor and reshape realistically. More often, politically correct whims get set in concrete. The Constitution of the United States requires "due process of law." But that very concept implies that there can be such a thing as undue process. There can be too much, as well as too little, legal process. The Scott Peterson case demonstrates that legal processes can be excessive, not only in terms of time, but also in terms of the kinds of non-legal considerations and indulgences that are allowed into the administration of justice. Courts do not have unlimited resources or unlimited time. How many other cases must be put on hold while emotions are vented? How many other criminals must be allowed to walk the streets awaiting trial while the courtroom becomes the scene of a soap opera? (source: Opinion, Thomas Sowell, The (DC) Town Hall) **************************** Death sentence vs. life in jail A jury handing down a death sentence this week for Scott Peterson sent a shockwave through California and much of the nation - a far greater reaction than that of Peterson. Perhaps the shock was caused by what many say is a growing aversion to the death penalty in America. A recent Gallup Poll found that while 50 % of Americans favor the death penalty, 46 percent think life without parole is the preferable option. That's quite a change from a similar poll just 7 years ago, in which 61 % favored capital punishment, compared to 29 % supporting life without parole. Why the change in attitude? The anti-death penalty folks say it's because recent cases have raised serious questions about guilt and innocence, most likely a reference to situations like the one in Houston, Texas, where there have been so many problems with the crime lab's handling of capital-case evidence that the sheriff of Harris County supports a moratorium on executions until the mess is straightened out. Harris County, by the way, has generated more death sentences than any other county in Texas, a state that happens to be among the most active when it comes to executions. In fact, the South and Southwest lead the nation in death sentences, accounting for 85 % of legally sanctioned executions this year. Texas is way out front with 23 executions in 2004. Such a concentration of death sentences and executions may have something to do with the nation's overall attitude about crime and punishment. Are the South and Southwest really that much more violent than the rest of the nation? Or are prosecutors there simply more zealous in their pursuit of the guilty? And while that Gallup Polls shows the public's growing interest in life without parole as an alternative to a death sentence, a separate Gallup survey indicates that more than half of Americans favor the eye-for-an-eye approach to punishment. That, of course, could be either a death sentence or life without parole, depending on your point of view. Something is happening, because executions overall are down 40 % in the past five years. Some experts think that's because government budgets have been stretched thin, and prosecuting a capital case is very expensive. There also is the fact that the rate of violent crime has decreased in recent years, so maybe we all feel safer. Experts also say Scott Peterson may be better off with the death sentence. It will keep him isolated and away from other inmates, who don't look kindly on those who commit crimes against women and children. Of course, theoretically, it also will cost him his life. (source: Opinion, Santa Maria Times) ************************ Growing role of emotion in jury verdicts -- Peterson case shows how jurors can make decisions, even about death penalty, based on personal demeanor. Since they reached their decision earlier this week to recommend the death penalty for Scott Peterson, the jurors in his trial have made it clear that there was no single piece of evidence that made up their minds - either to convict or to condemn him to death. Yet, time and again, several have returned to one crucial point: Throughout the trial, Peterson never showed the slightest hint of grief, remorse, or sadness. They are comments that set the legal world on edge. To be sure, juries have always watched defendants during their trials - reading meaning into every tic and tantrum. But with so little solid evidence in the Peterson case, his demeanor seems to have played an unusually prominent role in the jury's decisions. Although the high profile of the Peterson trial makes it unique in many ways, legal experts worry that the emphasis on emotion here reveals a more fundamental shift in juries nationwide, as Americans increasingly weigh "Law and Order" acts of contrition as much as actual evidence. "The drama of the courtroom and how you evaluate it is important," says Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, who has been following the trial. "That has always been a part of the equation, but I've never heard it articulated as clearly as by this jury.... This case highlights it." Apparently, it was particularly true during the penalty phase of the case, which ended on Monday with the jury's decision to recommend death for Peterson for the murder of his wife and unborn child. In a press conference following the trial, a panel of three jurors mentioned Peterson's stoicism during the proceedings, suggesting that it would be unnatural for an innocent man to behave that way. "The witnesses [for Peterson during the penalty phase] meant nothing because the jury was looking at Peterson," says Professor Levenson. In other ways, Monday's decision contrasts with recent trends. Although support for the death penalty has remained strong across much of America, revelations of scores of false convictions - some of them on death row - have softened the harsh stance of the tough-on-crime 1990s. Death penalty sentences are declining nationwide, according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). "Lawyers around the country are securing life sentences in very difficult cases," says Richard Dieter of the DPIC, which opposes the death penalty. "Jurors are aware that the death penalty is full of problems." To some analysts like Mr. Dieter, the case is an anomaly because of the media circus surrounding it. "It distorts the process that would naturally occur," he says. Yet others see lessons in the trial - perhaps even a follow-on effect for juries in other high-profile proceedings. "These jurors received quite a bit of applause, literally, for what they did, and jurors like to be approved of," says Levenson. "No jury wants to be vilified like the O.J. [Simpson] jury." The jury's actions, however, leave many questions ahead - for lawyers appealing the case and experts looking into its meaning. Victor Streib, a law professor at Ohio Northern University in Ada, has seen juries judge seemingly remorseless young defendants "whose way of dealing with the world is to have bravado." "It's a problem," he says. But for him, it was even more obvious in the Peterson trial, and the attention the case generated could give it disproportionate weight in some legal corners. "I can see defense attorneys scrambling more than ever before to coach clients to show emotions, even when they don't feel it," he says. (source: The Christian Science Monitor) ********************* Christian cheers for death penalty? The article Tuesday in The Republic about Scott Peterson's sentencing had a paragraph that began, "A cheer went up outside the courthouse as the jury announced its decision . . ." It behooves us all to step back a moment and reflect on that statement. What type of society would condemn a man for killing his wife and child, then cheer when that man is condemned to death himself? What kind of mentality cheers at the announced death of a person, regardless of what we think of that person? Supposedly this country is in the grip of the Christian right. Now, I haven't been to church for quite some time, but I recall something in Christianity about forgiving your enemies, judging others as you would be judged, casting stones, leaving judgment to God. And I think I recall something in the Scriptures that was very significant to this article. If I could only . . . Ah, yes. Now I remember. There was some brief note in the Bible about thou shalt not kill. Way to go, Christian America. You should worry more about the true meaning of your faith and forget about Passions and Da Vinci Codes. May God forgive the Christians in this country because they have truly lost their way. Michael J. Perez, Phoenix (source: Opinion, Arizona Republic) IOWA--re: federal death penalty case Retrial hinges on jury, judge actions The Dustin Honken murder case returns Thursday to the federal courtroom in Sioux City with jury tampering and the possibility of a retrial among the issues attorneys are expected to argue. Honken, 36, was convicted Oct. 14 by a federal jury of 17 criminal counts in the 1993 slayings of 3 adults and 2 children. The jury recommended the death penalty in the deaths of the 2 children and life sentences for killing the 3 adults. Co-workers of a juror who was allegedly harassed by her boss during the trial have been ordered to testify as Honken's attorneys bid for a new trial. Federal authorities have subpoenaed eight people connected with a Sioux City paving company where the unidentified juror works. Her allegations briefly stalled deliberations during the final week of the trial, which ended Oct. 27. The death verdicts were rendered only after Juror 523 was dismissed and replaced with an alternate. The woman earlier told court officials that her boss repeatedly made comments such as "killer" and "fry him" on days when the trial was not in session and the juror was at work. The comments, which federal prosecutor C.J. Williams said initially could have been described as a possible example of jury tampering, are one of several issues to be discussed Thursday. Subpoenas were issued to 7 people at Irving F. Jensen Co., and the unidentified juror. Defense lawyers Alfredo Parrish and Leon Spies last month asked a judge to throw out the death verdicts. Honken's attorneys said arguments to overturn the death penalties must be kept secret because documents discuss "specific information concerning individual jurors." In sealed documents, which were ordered open to the public last week, there are indications that stringent courtroom security was due, at least in part, to Judge Mark Bennett's worry "that he or his family may have been the subject of threats by the defendant or defense witnesses." The threats, which U.S. District Court officials refused to describe, are mentioned on two pages of a 33-page bid to overturn the case. The motion, for at least a new trial, includes an argument that Honken was denied a fair trial because Bennett refused to recuse himself from the case. Defense lawyers say they learned of the alleged threats only after the verdicts were reached, court papers say. The judge "neglected to reveal this apprehension of danger, and the security measures taken in response to this perceived danger, even though the circumstances, if true, would suggest to a reasonable person that the court's impartiality might be questioned," the document says. Bennett has declined to comment this week but said the issue could come up at the Thursday hearing. The lengthy document includes defense challenges to decisions made by Bennett at all stages of the trial. Honken, formerly of Britt, was convicted Oct. 14 of killing Greg Nicholson on July 25, 1993, just weeks after Nicholson, a former drug dealer, had agreed to implicate Honken in an investigation of a multistate methamphetamine ring. Nicholson's girlfriend, Lori Duncan, and her daughters, Kandace and Amber, were killed the same day. 4 months later, Terry DeGeus, another dealer turned informant, was murdered. Their bodies were discovered in 2000 in shallow graves in farm fields southwest of Mason City. Each had been shot once in the back of the head. At this point the jury's verdict of two death penalties and a sentence of 3 life-in-prison sentences is a "mandatory recommendation." Bennett said he would not issue the official sentence until all post-trial issues, including those on the agenda for Thursday, are addressed. (source: Mason City Globe Gazette) NEW YORK: Death losing its popularity There once was a time when death was a real big winner in New York. This period began in the 1970s as crime in the city and the suburbs began shooting up. Murder rates were climbing. The drug business was getting rougher and moving into nicer neighborhoods. Add some pandering politicians to the mix and some screaming tabloid headlines. Before you knew it, the easy-answer crowd had an easy answer for all this crime: Let's kill the criminals. Never mind that the death penalty has always been useless at reducing crime. It sounded marvelous in a TV sound bite or a legislative hearing room. And by the middle 1980s, only a very brave New York politician - or one with his own political death wish - would dare to stand between a nervous public and the so-called "ultimate punishment." If you doubt this, go ask Mario Cuomo. A principled death-penalty opponent who vetoed every capital-punishment bill that crossed his desk, Cuomo paid the ultimate electoral price in 1994. He was beaten by the fervently pro-death Gov. George Pataki, who promptly gave New Yorkers a new death-penalty law. Of course, no one has ever been killed under New York's current death-penalty law. The state's last execution was 1963, under an earlier law that was found unconstitutional. And no one will be killed any time soon. On June 24 of this year, the state's highest court ruled that New York's latest death penalty is also legally flawed. "Under the present statute, the death penalty may not be imposed," the judges said. Which is where things stand today. So why are we suddenly talking about the death penalty again? No, it isn't just the California jury that voted on Monday to put Scott Peterson to death. Republicans in the New York Legislature, with Pataki's support, have introduced a bill to put capital punishment back into law. At 10 o'clock this morning on West 44th Street, in a meeting hall at the Bar Association of the City of New York, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver will hold a rare public hearing on whether the state should be in the death business again. A big crowd is expected today. But just before the hearing begins, people from 300 religious groups, unions, activist organizations and others will announce a giant coalition to keep the death penalty off the books in New York. Standing at the front of this group is Andrew Cuomo, Mario's son. The issue is the same it has always been. But suddenly, the ground is not. "I remember when my father first ran," said the younger Cuomo, who was federal housing secretary and made a brief run for governor two years ago. "The only thing people knew the governor of New York did was he passed the death penalty. The only thing they knew about my father is that he was against the death penalty, and they were for it." But something has obviously changed in the past 10 years on the politics of death. "Crime is down," Cuomo said. "The discussion is more sober. People are in a different place. I'm not sure it was the death penalty that people really wanted before. It was their way to say, 'I'm afraid of crime. I'm afraid for my family and not enough is being done.' It is their way of saying, 'I am so scared and angry, I'll go to the extreme. "People understand now we can accomplish the same thing by mandatory life in prison without parole. We can keep people off the street forever so they'll never be in a position to hurt anyone ever again." It sounded almost reassuring to hear Andrew Cuomo talk yesterday. A Cuomo fighting the death penalty in New York. But here was the switch: It might actually help him politically. This coalition is assembling facts and figures and honing the argument. The 117 people wrongly put to death since 1973. The development of DNA. The death-penalty moratoriums in Illinois and New Jersey. The inevitable possibility of mistakes. It isn't just the Republicans who have God on their side. The religious here are especially striking. And all of them think the state shouldn't be killing people. Many of the state's top Democrats - Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, Eliot Spitzer, Speaker Silver - have all come out in recent years for some version of a death penalty. But these hearings could easily push them the other way. "It is unimaginable to me that this governor and this Legislature will want to be known for having this one accomplishment," Andrew Cuomo said - "giving death to New York State. That would be the cruelest irony. They can't reform education. They can't reform the tax code. They can't bring jobs back upstate. The only thing they can do is bring back death? I don't believe they'll do it." (source: Column, Ellis Henican, Newsday)
