March 15


GEORGIA:

Atlanta Shooter Deserves Death Penalty

A man on trial for rape--steals a gun and opens fire in the Atlanta
courthouse killing four people including the judge hearing his case.

His name? Brian Nichols. A 33 year-old former college football player who
had been arrested several times in the past for assault and other crimes
before going on trial for rape.

And in the news stories about the case - we hear officials say - Nichols
could face the death penalty.

Could? If this guy is convicted and does not get the death penalty, then
why have the death penalty?

As usual, his family says hes really a nice guy and they say hes not a
blood thirsty killer.

As one family member put it: "He's a good person--He came up living a good
life." Maybe - but if killing 4 people during a rampage in a courthouse
where you are trial for rape doesnt get you the death penalty, then maybe
its time to just get rid of it all together.

This guy is not some nut case or some guy doped on drugs that made him
turn into a vicious killer.

Lets face it. This guy appears to be a career criminal - a guy whos been
in trouble several times in the past, has a history of violence - and
apparently decided he was not going to let himself be found guilty of rape
- so he decided to shoot up the place to escape.

If there was a crime that deserved the death penalty - then this is it.

I mean why have the death penalty if the worst killers dont get it?

No matter how you feel about capital punishment, it's time we decide the
answer to that question.

(source: Cliff Albert, Clear Channel, San Diego)






CONNECTICUT:

Casapulla's arguments on the death penalty flawed


Robert Casapulla's piece about why Michael Ross should be executed is
another good example of how knee-jerk reactions to life get the world
absolutely nowhere.

His paragraph about how "evil" liberals are simply showcases how
uninformed and ignorant he is about left-wing viewpoints. If you're going
to criticize Liberals, you should at least have arguments better than
simply regurgitating the creepy, hateful, psychotic musings of Ann Coulter
and Bill O'Reilly. I'm willing to bet that this kid is the kind of person
who will champion the idea America is the freest country on earth and that
anyone who criticizes it should leave in the same breath. If he wants his
opinions on any serious topic such as the death penalty to be taken
seriously, he should omit unabashed partisan ranting and save it for
another piece.

Back on topic, I don't support the death penalty for several reasons, and
oddly enough, none of them include malicious disdain for American society,
as Casapulla asserts is the motivation of liberals. I do, however, oppose
the death penalty on the grounds that:

1. It does nothing to solve the problem of violence in our society. There
is no evidence that the death penalty works as a deterrent to violent
crime.

2. Innocent people have been executed. The fact our judicial system is
imperfect says to me that no punishment should be so permanent as death.

3. All the death penalty does is quiet the impassioned cries of people who
have been hurt. It doesn't undo the terrible things that happened. It
won't bring back the dead. It won't resolve the issue for the friends and
family of the victims.

4. You quote ye olde "eye for an eye" passage. I quote the cliche "eye for
an eye will make the world blind."

5. I am opposed to violence, so I do not condone acts of violence by
anybody, be it crazy weirdos like Michael Ross or the government.

Vanessa Jacques

(source: Letter to the Editor, The (Univ. Conn.) Daily Campus)






NEW YORK:

Death penalty no crime deterrent


To The Editor

No matter what opinion a person has regarding the death penalty, I think
all can agree that the subject deserves more thoughtful treatment than it
was given in your editorial on March 11.

The writer managed to produce more than 500 words in favor of the death
penalty without giving one single reason for the opinion, except the
unsubstantiated claim that 57 % of the people want it. Even that sentence
was worded in such a way as to sound like those people wanted it for
themselves.

When asking whether the death penalty is a deterrent to crime, the writer
said "arguments can be made pro and con" but did not give any argument to
support the opinion expressed.

Perhaps that is because there is no good argument for this view. We are
one of the few developed countries who still have the death penalty and
yet we are among the highest in violent crime. Most people who commit
violent crimes are not planning to get caught.

It is ridiculous to think that a killer would reason "I really want to
kill so-and-so but since I might get the death penalty, I will restrain
myself. If all I am risking is life in prison with no hope of parole, I
will do it."

Sociopaths, hardened criminals, drug addicts and jealous spouses do not
think that way.

Joan Mistretta -- Hammondsport

(source: Opinion, The Corning Leader)






ILLINOIS:

Police: Bright expects death penalty----Serial slaying suspect would
accept sentence


Larry Bright says he is ready to accept the ultimate punishment for
killing 8 Peoria women, according to a police source on Monday.

Under lock and key at the Tazewell County Jail, Bright has told police he
"expects it (to be put to death)," and he will "take it like a man," a
source has said, recalling Bright's past statements.

Prosecutors announced on Friday they planned to seek the death penalty
against Bright, 38, who allegedly confessed to killing 8 women between
July 2001 and October 2004. Bright supposedly burned some of his victims'
bodies before disposing the human remains behind his home and in rural
parts of Peoria and Tazewell counties.

Even before Friday, police say the former laborer who often worked in
masonry had prepared himself for the likely inevitable.

Police say the alleged killer doesn't come off as suicidal - "He doesn't
want to die" - rather, "he just wants to take responsibility for what he's
done," a source says.

That much has been apparent during Bright's two previous court
appearances, when he repeatedly tried to plead guilty. In February, Bright
tried three times in a matter of minutes to plead guilty to killing Linda
Neal, but the judge refused to accept it.

For months, Bright initially denied any involvement with 10
African-American women whose deaths and disappearances were the target of
an investigation by a multi-jursidictional police task force. But in
January, after police confronted him with a 2nd warrant to search his home
at 3418 W. Starr Court, Bright allegedly began confessing.

So far he is charged with only 2 murders, Neal, 40, and Brenda Erving, 41.
Illinois law mandates at least a life sentence for Bright if he's
convicted of both, but under statute, he also is eligible for the death
penalty.

On Monday, Bright appeared in court in a black-and-white striped jumpsuit
and looked slightly disheveled as Circuit Judge James Shadid appointed
attorneys certified to handle death penalty cases for his defense. Bright
sat silent during the six-minute hearing.

Bright has told police he is remorseful toward his victims, and especially
their family.

He has even admitted to police he'll likely change his mind about
"accepting" the responsibility "a day or two before" he might be put to
death, but says he'll "deal with it when the time comes. . . . It's what I
deserve."

(source: Peoria Journal Star)

*************************

Jim Durkin Appointed to Committee to Study the Death Penalty


House Republican Leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego) on Friday appointed former
Prosecutor and Republican State Representative Jim Durkin to the Capital
Punishment Reform Study Committee. This Committee, said Cross, will
examine and oversee the way the death penalty is administered in Illinois.
Durkin's law background, extensive career in public service and commitment
to keeping our neighborhoods safe make him a worthy nominee, said Cross.

"It is essential that appointees to this Committee be persons with the
highest degree of hands-on experience and a record of intelligent
responses to the challenges facing law enforcement authorities in today's
challenging environment," said Cross. "With his prosecutorial experience
and record as a member of the General Assembly, our leadership team is not
aware of anyone in this state more qualified to fulfill this challenge
than Jim Durkin," said Cross. "I am honored to appoint him to this
Committee, and look forward to working with him on this issue in the
coming months."

The Committee will particularly focus on PA 93-605, which was introduced
in 2003 and became the most significant new act of state legislation
dealing with the death penalty in a generation. Now a law, it asks the
state, the courts and the state's attorneys to make significant changes in
the ways in which death penalty cases are brought to trial.

"As a sponsor of this legislation, I am fully aware that continuing
professional oversight is necessary to examine how these changes are being
implemented throughout Illinois," said Cross.

The Capital Punishment Reform Study Committee is mandated to report
annually to the General Assembly on the implementation of PA 93-605. The
Committee is required by statute to submit its final report to the General
Assembly by November 19, 2008.

Durkin is currently a partner at the Chicago law firm of Wildman Harrold
Allen & Dixon.

(source: PR Newswire)

*************************

Madigan seeks top-level probe of cop's claims----Trooper says murder
investigation blocked


The Illinois attorney general is seeking a review of allegations that
state police officers investigating a Downstate double-murder were
thwarted by their supervisors because a potential suspect had made hefty
political donations.

3 high-ranking Illinois State Police officials have made sworn statements
backing the allegations made by Lt. Michale Callahan, and those
depositions will be among the documents brought to the attention of the
governor's executive inspector general.

Callahan has filed a federal lawsuit alleging he was demoted because he
doggedly pursued the investigation of a 1986 double murder in Paris, Ill.,
and later accused two superiors of telling him to back off.

The decision by Atty. Gen. Lisa Madigan's office Monday to make Gov. Rod
Blagojevich's inspector general "aware of the pleadings in the case" came
just hours after the attorney general lost a bid to have Callahan's case
tossed out of federal court.

In ruling against a motion to dismiss the suit, U.S. District Judge Harold
A. Baker shot down arguments made by Madigan's office. The attorney
general's office, which is required to represent the 3 defendants to
Callahan's suit on the Illinois State Police force, had argued that
Callahan's allegations were not a matter of public concern protected by
the 1st Amendment.

"The wrongful conviction of 2 men is certainly a matter of public
concern--especially when the real murderer might escape prosecution,"
Baker wrote in his ruling. "Callahan's report of conduct undermining a
federal investigation is undoubtedly a matter of public concern."

The judge set an April 11 jury trial date for the suit, suggesting that
the allegations, first made more than a year ago, could finally get a full
public airing.

Madigan's office had sought to dismiss the veteran state police
lieutenant's accusations. The office argued that Callahan was simply
reassigned because his dispute with one superior about the investigation
was disrupting the Downstate office where they worked.

Madigan, however, said she would forward Callahan's allegations to
Inspector General Zaldwaynaka "Z." Scott. The actual referral had yet to
be made, spokeswoman Melissa Merz said.

"We're very concerned about the allegations that have been raised by the
lieutenant," said Abby Ottenhoff, a spokeswoman for Blagojevich. "They are
extremely problematic if they are true."

Ottenhoff said Illinois State Police Director Larry Trent plans to meet
soon with the U.S. attorney's office to discuss the allegations. "We
welcome any outside review of the matter," she said.

Slayings in 1986

On July 6, 1986, Karen and Dyke Rhoads were stabbed to death in their
Paris home. Former drinking buddies Gordon "Randy" Steidl and Herb
Whitlock were convicted in early 1987 of murder.

Steidl, who spent more than 17 years in prison, including 12 on death row,
was released last May. A federal judge ordered a new trial. Madigan's
office declined to appeal, and prosecutors dropped charges.

A hearing on whether Whitlock should receive a new trial is to start
Monday in Paris, about 20 miles from Terre Haute, Ind.

In her deposition, Major Edie Casella, Callahan's immediate superior in
April 2001, said she was told not to reopen the Rhoads case because it was
"too politically sensitive." Casella, who backed Callahan's effort to
reopen the case, said that was the 1st time in her 21-year career she had
received such a warning.

A supervisor above both Casella and Callahan "advised the group ... that
the case was too politically sensitive, and that it had come from higher
up than her," Casella said in a deposition.

"I want to use the term shell-shock," she added. "I just don't think that
that is a comment that should be provided to individuals from a
high-ranking person."

The supervisor "said that basically we were to cease and desist on that
case, that it was too politically sensitive and that that came from above
her," Sgt. Greg Dixon, who worked for Callahan and was supportive of his
efforts, said in his deposition.

In October 2001, Casella was replaced. "Edie was a fine commander," Dixon
said. "And just like bam, she was gone." Dixon also was moved elsewhere a
short time later.

The new supervisor over Callahan was opposed to pursuing the case, Dixon
said. "I didn't understand why, from what we found, that if there was a
possibility you got 2 innocent guys in jail, why we wouldn't work as hard
getting them out as we did putting them in there, if indeed they were
innocent," he said.

'Too politically sensitive'

Capt. John Strohl, a 25-year veteran who supervised Callahan at the start
of his look at the Rhoads case, also recounted the "too politically
sensitive" remark in his deposition. "I haven't really been involved in a
lot of investigations, but I have never heard anything like that in my
career," he said.

But the supervisor who allegedly made the comment denied it in her
deposition. "I've used the term `politically sensitive,'" said Col. Diane
Carper. "Again, I don't remember attaching `too politically sensitive,'
implying it's too politically sensitive to touch."

Callahan, a 24-year veteran nearing retirement, says his superiors
thwarted his investigation, which was backed by federal officials, because
a potential suspect had donated tens of thousands of dollars to former
Gov. George Ryan's political campaign.

He does not allege wrongdoing by Ryan. But he does allege that donations
to Ryan by the businessman, who is not named in court documents and has
not been charged with a crime, led his superiors to put the brakes on his
investigation.

"Callahan had come to believe that two innocent men had been convicted of
murder," Judge Baker said. "He believed the evidence pointed to a third
man who was never adequately investigated."

In a court document filed Friday, the attorney general argued that
Callahan was "not speaking as a member of the public, he was speaking as
an employee" when he pressed for the investigation and made the
accusations against the two superiors. The document asked that the case be
summarily dismissed, which Baker refused to do.

Madigan's office contended Callahan was shifted from investigations to
patrol because his differences with his immediate superior "disrupted"
their office "to the point that it was not functioning."

Callahan's superiors "offered a legitimate reason for the employment
action," the document states. "There was nothing suspicious about the
transfer."

"The case does not concern who was guilty of a double murder or whether
the state police should have dedicated more resources to an
investigation," states the attorney general's reply to a memorandum and
affidavit that spell out Callahan's allegations.

"I disagree with that," said John A. Baker, Callahan's attorney. "They
didn't like what Callahan was doing. That's our theory. ... They are
trying to change the issues."

(source: Chicago Tribune)



Reply via email to