Jan. 28 COLORADO: Arguments in state Supreme Court could lead to death penalty for 2 killers Attorneys for 2 men still awaiting sentencing on murder convictions in 2002 are preparing for a court hearing next week that will clear the books of the last remaining death penalty cases thrown into confusion by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Colorado Supreme Court has scheduled arguments Monday in the cases of Abraham Hagos, 29, and Randy Canister, 28. They were convicted before the Legislature met in July 2002 to conform state law with a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that said only juries - not judges - can sentence a criminal to death. Prosecutors had sought the death penalty for both men and appealed judges' rulings that neither was eligible for capital punishment because various parts of the new law were unconstitutional. Canister's trial was under way when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in late June 2002. The following month, lawmakers met in special session and reversed a 1995 law that sent death penalty sentencing decisions to three-judge panels instead of juries. Hagos, who is serving life without parole in an unrelated kidnapping case, was convicted in 2002 of planning the shooting death of James Roberts, who was slated to testify against Hagos in a drug case. Denver District Judge Jeffrey Bayless ruled that he couldn't be sentenced to death, saying the new law was simply an amendment to an unconstitutional law. Canister, in custody in the Arapahoe County Jail, was convicted that same year in the execution-style killings of three teenagers in an Aurora apartment complex. Arapahoe District Judge Robert Russell ruled that he was ineligible for the death penalty because the Legislature had specifically targeted Canister. At the time, the attorney general's office said the legislation wasn't specifically aimed at any one person because the U.S. Supreme Court ruling threw into question the death sentences of several people, 3 of whom were later sentenced to life in prison without parole. The state's highest court is scheduled to hear the cases back-to-back Monday. Attorneys for Hagos and Canister did not return calls. Attorney David Lane, a death penalty expert and opponent, said he had no doubt that Canister and Hagos would be ruled ineligible for the death penalty because of the timing of their cases. "The statute that they went to trial under said if any part of it is unconstitutional, it's life (in prison)," he said. "This almost borders on a frivolous appeal on the part of the state." The cases are similar, but they bring up different legal issues. In the Canister case, the judge said lawmakers violated his rights by targeting him with a law that allowed the death penalty against people who were convicted but not yet sentenced by July 12, 2002. Arapahoe County Chief Deputy District Attorney Paul Wolff declined comment. The judge in the Hagos case said the death penalty was off-limits because the new law would require seating a new jury for sentencing, which he said would violate Hagos' rights. "We will argue before the Colorado Supreme Court that Abe Hagos should still face the death penalty and that we would do that with a sentencing hearing that would utilize a 12-member jury," said Lynn Kimbrough, spokeswoman for the Denver district attorney's office. Denver attorney Scott Robinson said past rulings in the state and federal supreme courts make that option unconstitutional. "Case law says the jury needs to have participated in the finding of guilt to participate in a capital sentencing decision," he said. "It's inappropriate to think you could start with the case and pick up where it left off and impanel a jury just for the death penalty." (source: Associated Press) USA: What Happens to the Family Members of Death Row Inmates? Those who support capital punishment often claim they do so because it provides justice and closure for the victims families. However, attorney Rachel King reminds us that there are other victims who must be considered in the debate over the death penalty - the families of the condemned. Capital Consequences: Families of the Condemned Tell Their Stories (Rutgers University Press) challenges readers to question the morality of a punishment that devastates innocent families. King tells the stories of families that have lost life savings supporting an accused, endured intense public and media scrutiny, and are struggling to live with the inhumane treatment their loved ones receive on death row. "This one-of-a-kind book is devoted solely to giving voice to death row family members, the forgotten victims of capital punishment," says King, an attorney with the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. Capital Consequences is a follow-up to Kings first book, Dont Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty (Rutgers University Press, 2003), in which members of the nationwide group, Murders Victims Families for Reconciliation, encouraged an end to capital punishment. In comparing both books, King contends that families of death row inmates suffer a unique form of grief. "Because their pain tends to elicit less attention and empathy than that of crime victims families, it becomes much more desperate and isolating." Kings latest book is a powerful reminder that tragic events have tragic consequences that far outreach their immediate victims. Capital Consequences also illustrates many flaws in the judicial system. Innocent people were wrongfully convicted, defense attorneys made mistakes, prosecutors withheld evidence, and the mentally ill and juveniles were sentenced to death. Rachel King is an attorney with the Capital Punishment Project of the American Civil Liberties Union. She is a founding member of Alaskans Against the Death Penalty, and was active in a successful campaign to oppose reinstatement of the death penalty in Alaska. She has written on a variety of topics concerned with crime and capital punishment, and is author of Dont Kill in Our Names: Families of Murder Victims Speak Out Against the Death Penalty (Rutgers University Press, 2003). Capital Consequences: Families of the Condemned Tell Their Stories By Rachel King Cloth, $24.95. ISBN: 0-8135-3504-2 310 pages, 16 photographs, 6 1/89 1/4 Publication Date: February 2005 For more information, or to arrange an interview with the author, please contact Kenya Henderson at 732.445.7762, ext. 626. Contact: Kenya Henderson RUTGERS UNIVERSITY PRESS 732.445.7762 Website: http://rutgerspress.rutgers.edu/ (source: NAMC Worldwide Newsroom) NORTH DAKOTA/MINNESOTA: Amnesty opposes the death penalty We were saddened to see that 81 % in the recent Nov. 18 Forum online poll want Alfonzo Rodriguez Jr. executed if he is convicted for the murder of Dru Sjodin. In no way do we wish to cause more suffering to the Sjodin family and friends by expressing our opposition to the death penalty. We grieve that this young woman was kidnapped and murdered, a crime that cannot go unpunished. The person who committed this crime must be incarcerated. However, as members of Amnesty International, we oppose the death penalty for the following reasons: - The death penalty does not deter crime more effectively than other punishments. - Capital punishment is an inconsistent and hypocritical way to show that killing is wrong. When killing a murderer, society descends to the level of the criminal. It is a calculated and tragically irrevocable act that leaves no room for human error. - It violates the right to life. - While most nations have abolished the death penalty in law or practice, the United States continues to join a handful of nations with the highest numbers of executions. The United States has executed over 800 people since 1976, and as of December 2002, over 3,700 men and women sit on death rows across the country. The United States, China, Iran and Saudi Arabia account for over 80 % of the executions recorded by Amnesty International. - In our nation, which many consider the standard bearer of human rights, most of the 3,700 men and women who sit on death row are poor. Many suffer from mental illnesses or mental retardation. A disproportionate number are people of color. And some are innocent of the crimes for which they have been condemned to die. For these reasons, we oppose the death penalty. Regina Windham Fargo-Moorhead Chapter of Amnesty International Fargo Cosigned by the following members: Eric C. Booth, Al Coen, Diane M. Gerst, Jeffrey W. Gerst, Sr. Maris Stella Korb, PBVM, Sr. Yvonne Nelson, PBVM, Vicki Schmidt (source: The Forum)
