March 15 TEXAS: Death, life or the other? >From the beginning of jury selection until the panel begins its deliberations, the death penalty has always been a prickly issue for Texas citizens called to pass judgment on their peers. Prospective jurors are quizzed extensively on their views of the ultimate punishment and both prosecutors and defense attorneys are keenly aware that the only existing alternative, a sentence of "life," amounts to no more than 40 years before the possibility of parole. Not only is the issue a moral and emotional one, it's costly as well. Death penalty cases frequently involve testimony from high-priced expert witnesses, and there is also the automatic appeal Texas mandates for those sentenced to death. Recent Supreme Court decisions against executing the mentally retarded and persons who were under the age of 18 when they committed their crime underline the issue's stickiness, particularly for Texas juries. Legislation filed by 2 members of the Texas House of Representatives that would give Texas jurors the "third option" of life in prison without parole has been favorably received by many prosecutors and defense attorneys alike. HBO 66, by Ruth Jones McClendon (D-San Antonio) and Aaron Pena (D-Edinburgh), has a ways to go before becoming law. It was filed by McClendon last November and was on Jan. 27 referred to the House Committee on Criminal Jurisprudence. "I think it's a bill whose time has come," said local defense attorney David Sergi. "We waste an inordinate amount of time on the death penalty when the research shows that most people, most jurors, are looking for that third option." Hays County District Attorney Mike Wenk was more guarded. "Having prosecuted a capital murder case, my experience is that jurors do not want the responsibility of deciding whether or not to impose the death penalty," he said. Wenk was an assistant district attorney in 1994 when he secured the death penalty for Doil Lane, who kidnapped, raped and murdered eight-year-old Bertha Martinez in March of 1980. Lane remains the only person on death row sent there by a Hays County jury, though legal wranglings continue between Wenk's office and Lane's appellate attorney over the issue and degree of Lane's mental retardation. Wenk was poised to prosecute another death penalty case in January 2002 but accepted a last-minute plea bargain by attorneys for then 72-year-old Melvin Hale, who gunned down DPS Trooper Randall Vetter during an August 2000 traffic stop. In what he called the "most difficult decision I have made in my nearly 20 years as a prosecutor," Wenk's decision was guided by input from potential jurors in Hale's capital murder case as well as from jurors in a competency hearing who grudgingly deemed Hale fit to stand trial. "It has become abundantly clear that no jury of 12 Hays County citizens would agree beyond a reasonable doubt to impose the death penalty in this case," he said at the time, citing the fact that for Hale, a 40 year sentence would run past his normal lifetime. "Here is an old man who probably would have been dead long before they got around to executing him," said Sergi of the Hale case. "My feelings run with the victim's family and being a member of this community, justice had to be served. But I think it was the community speaking." Sergi pointed to the extravagant sums of money spent on death penalty cases that might be better used for other purposes. "Ultimately it costs millions to put someone on death row. That money could be spent elsewhere, like on education." He noted there are "cottage industries" of psychiatrists, psychologists and forensic experts that have been spawned by the death penalty, and that costs pile up both for prosecutors and defense attorneys. Wenk also acknowledged the financial burden. "The unfortunate reality is that the imposition of the death penalty in capital murder cases is a 'fiscal death penalty to taxpayers' and the process is so protracted by constant legal maneuvering and manipulation that 'any societal benefits in terms of deterrence, beyond deterring the convicted capital murderer, is virtually nonexistent." "I think life without parole gives jurors an option of sending a loud and clear message that this kind of crime won't be tolerated," Sergi said. "It's time to give the citizens of Texas all 3 choices." Wenk said he too could support a life without parole law "if I could be assured that 'life without parole' sentences would never be subject to any future 'legislative/judicial tinkering.'" (source: San Marcos Daily Record) NEW MEXICO: Don't kill the killers----The widow of a slain corrections officer voices her opposition to the death penalty and her support of reparations for victims My husband was the officer killed at the Guadalupe Correctional Facility on Aug. 31, 1999. I am writing this letter to express why my decision on the death penalty has changed. I no longer want the men accused of killing my husband executed, and I would rather the money spent trying to put them to death be put to victims' services. It has been 5 long years since my husband's death. In those five years, I have had mixed feelings about what should be done about the men who killed my husband - or, I should say, who had a part in my husband's death. Now I say to you: Do not execute these men facing death in my husband's slaying. I have had the opportunity to read all the reports and plea bargains to which I have a right. I was never informed about the plea bargains that actually took place - bargains that were offered in exchange for shorter sentences to witnesses for the district attorney. If I had known this, I would have detested it. I was also never told of sentencing or dates of release of these prisoners. And I was never told why restitution was not made to me but to the Department of Corrections instead. We are the ones at loss here, not the department. My rights as a victim have not been protected. I shouldn't have to go asking for information or ask that restitution be made. There are so many other things about which I also feel as if I was totally left in the dark. For instance, no one ever told me about the reparations program for victims. 5 years later, I learned it was available to me. To this day I have not received my husband's belongings. I would especially like to have his wedding ring back. . . . I would rather see the death penalty abolished and reparations made to the victims' wives or husbands and to their children. I know how hard it is to go looking for a job, because my job was staying at home and taking care of the home and kids, and my husband was the breadwinner. I have faced that situation, and, believe you me, it's not easy. Let's do something good for the ones who have hopes and dreams for the future. Let's help them accomplish their goals. My husband would have wanted something like this as much as I do, because he loved his family so much and found no fault in the people who touched his heart. So I ask the Legislature and governor to get rid of the death penalty and put the money and effort into helping victims' families like mine instead. Garcia is the widow of Ralph Garcia, a corrections officer fatally stabbed while trying to stop a riot at the privately run Guadalupe County Correctional Facility in Santa Rosa in 1999. Eventually 15 inmates were charged in the killing, most of them with 1st-degree murder. But many later accepted plea bargains, in which their charges were reduced to 2nd-degree murder, rioting and other crimes. However, prosecutors decided to seek the death penalty for three of the inmates. Those cases are still in litigation. Ralph Garcia, 42, was survived by his wife, Rachel, and 3 children. (source: Commentary, Rachel Garcia, Albuquerque Tribune) OHIO: Richeys attorneys oppose appeal The legal team for an Ohio death row inmate said the states challenge to a court ruling overturning his sentence was nothing more than rehashing the same rejected legal arguments. Kenneth Richeys lawyers responded last week to arguments the state filed last month re-questing the full 6th Circuit Court of Appeals set aside a Jan. 25 ruling by 3 judges in the court and rehear his case as a full panel of 12 judges. In a 2-1 ruling, the panel at the 6th Circuit overturned Richeys death penalty sentence. The panel ruled Richeys attorneys at trial didn't do an adequate job representing him and prosecutors failed to show Richey intended to kill 2-year-old Cynthia Collins, which was required under Ohio law at the time. Richey, who also has Scottish citizenship, was convicted in 1987 in the death of Cynthia at a Columbus Grove apartment complex the previous summer. Prosecutors said he was out to get his ex-girlfriend but killed the wrong person in a fire he set. Lawyers for Richey said there was no exceptional question of law for the full 6th Circuit to hear it and the ruling did not conflict with another court ruling, according to court records. State attorneys argued the 6th Circuit had no authority to answer questions of state law. Its unlikely the full panel will set aside the ruling and rehear the case. The court receives 400 requests each year and hears only 5 to 10, a court official previously said. The ruling, as it stands, not only overturns Richeys conviction, but orders that he be retried or released within 90 days. That time, however, is on hold while the state appeals. (source: Lima News) MISSOURI: Executions Don't Always Go Smoothly (Information gathered from Death Penalty Information Center and the Missouri Department of Corrections.) Missouri was 1 of 9 states to use lethal gas as a method of execution. In 1968 a moratorium on capital punishment was invoked as a result of Furman vs. Georgia. On June 29, 1972, on a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the death penalty, as administered in Georgia, to be arbitrary and capricious and thus, cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This effectively suspended the death penalty nationwide from that date until states could revise their laws. Because of the ruling of the Supreme Court, all inmates sentenced to capital punishment at that time had their sentences reduced to Life in prison. On July 2, 1976 the United States Supreme Court ruled the revised capital punishment laws of Florida, Georgia and Texas to be constitutional. Capital punishment as a form of punishment was therefore found not to be cruel and unusual. Missouri's Capital Murder Law became effective on May 26, 1977, when Governor Joseph P. Teasdale signed into immediate effect a new death penalty bill which was designed after laws of other states that had been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court. In Missouri, lethal injection occurs when a series of drugs is administered. The first step is to inject an intravenous solution of normal saline into the arm to allow the veins to expand. Sodium Pentathol is then injected through the IV to render the subject unconscious. The second drug injected is Pancronium Bromide (Pavulon) which stops the respiratory system. Lastly, Potassium Chloride is injected which leads to the cessation of heart function. The first capital punishment inmate executed in Missouri under the new Capital Murder Law and the new Lethal Injection Statute, was George "Tiny" Mercer on January 6, 1989 at the Jefferson City Correctional Center. But since 1989, not all executions in Missouri and some in Illinois have gone smoothly. September 12, 1990. Illinois. Charles Walker. Lethal Injection. Because of equipment failure and human error, Walker suffered excruciating pain during his execution. According to Gary Sutterfield, an engineer from the Missouri State Prison who was retained by the State of Illinois to assist with Walker's execution, a kink in the plastic tubing going into Walker's arm stopped the deadly chemicals from reaching Walker. In addition, the intravenous needle was inserted pointing at Walker's fingers instead of his heart, prolonging the execution. May 10, 1994. Illinois. John Wayne Gacy. Lethal Injection. After the execution began, the lethal chemicals unexpectedly solidified, clogging the IV tube that lead into Gacy's arm, and prohibiting any further passage. Blinds covering the window through which witnesses observed the execution were drawn, and the execution team replaced the clogged tube with a new one. 10 minutes later, the blinds were then reopened and the execution process resumed. It took 18 minutes to complete. Anesthesiologists blamed the problem on the inexperience of prison officials who were conducting the execution, saying that proper procedures taught in "IV 101" would have prevented the error. May 3, 1995. Missouri. Emmitt Foster. Lethal Injection. 7 minutes after the lethal chemicals began to flow into Foster's arm, the execution was halted when the chemicals stopped circulating. With Foster gasping and convulsing, the blinds were drawn so the witnesses could not view the scene. Death was pronounced thirty minutes after the execution began, and 3 minutes later the blinds were reopened so the witnesses could view the corpse. According to William "Mal" Gum, the Washington County Coroner who pronounced death, the problem was caused by the tightness of the leather straps that bound Foster to the execution gurney; it was so tight that the flow of chemicals into the veins was restricted. Foster did not die until several minutes after a prison worker finally loosened the straps. The coroner entered the death chamber twenty minutes after the execution began, diagnosed the problem, and told the officials to loosen the strap so the execution could proceed. In an editorial, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch called the execution "a particularly sordid chapter in Missouri's capital punishment experience." June 28, 2000 Missouri. Bert Leroy Hunter. Hunter had an unusual reaction to the lethal drugs, repeatedly coughing and gasping for air before he lapsed into unconsciousness. An attorney who witnessed the execution reported that Hunter had "violent convulsions. His head and chest jerked rapidly upward as far as the gurney restraints would allow, and then he fell quickly down upon the gurney. His body convulsed back and forth like this repeatedly. ... He suffered a violent and agonizing death." (source: KSDK News) USA: The court has given juveniles the right to kill The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that persons under the age of 18 convicted by local juries cannot be executed because it is cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution. As an opponent of the death penalty, I agree with the concept but find the reasoning in the decision deeply troubling. The court's decision would have been more palatable if it had found capital punishment, regardless of age, as cruel and unusual. Capital punishment not only violates the Constitution, it violates one of God's commandments. But that, I suppose, is another question now before the court. During my years as publisher of a weekly newspaper, I covered many capital murder trials. In one such trial, an elderly man was convicted of killing his brother-in-law after years of undergoing harassment at the instigation of the victim. The judge sentenced the man to 10 years in prison because of his age. What does the killers age have to do with anything? I asked then, as I do now. The victim is just as dead as if the killer were 65 or 15. The Supreme Court overturned one of its earlier decisions that had ruled that it was okay to execute youngsters at age 17. More correctly, the court affirmed the Missouri Supreme Court's decision to ignore the U.S. Supreme Courts earlier decision. The Missouri Supreme Court violated an age-old principle of jurisprudence - that only the U.S. Supreme Court can overrule its own rulings. "To add insult to injury," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in his dissenting opinion, "the Court affirms the Missouri Supreme Court without even admonishing that court for its flagrant disregard of our precedent ... Until today, we have always held that it is this Courts prerogative alone to overrule one of its precedents." The reasons the Supreme Court used for changing their old ruling are equally disturbing. The court based its decision on three vague and troubling principles. First, the court said that a "consensus, as expressed in particular by the enactments of legislatures that have addressed the question," had concluded that juveniles should not be executed. On that argument, then the court should have no problem reinstating prayer in schools. The consensus seems to be that children should be allowed to pray in school. The second basis for the Court's decision was its "own determination in the exercise of its independent judgment, to demonstrate that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles." In other words, it was the majority's "opinion" that execution of juveniles was wrong. Never mind what the Constitution and earlier court decisions had to say on the issue. Finally, the court relied on what is described as "The overwhelming weight of international opinion against the juvenile death penalty ..." The United States, the court pointed out, is the only country in the world that sanctions the juvenile death penalty. Here again, Justice Scalia makes more sense when he writes in his dissent "the basic premise of the Courts argument - that American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world - ought to be rejected out of hand." Perhaps the issue that is most troubling is not the legal wrangling but the reality of the decisions impact on everyday Americans. The court has, in essence, given juveniles the right to kill. And if you do not believe this, take a look at the defendants own words in this case. Simmons, the defendant in the case before the court, swore to his friends and co-defendants that they could "get away with it" because they were minors. With their decision, the Supreme Court has given gang members in the country a new weapon. They will send their under-age members to kill on their behalf with the full knowledge that they will escape the ultimate punishment. (source: Wilson County News - Alfredo E. Cardenas is a freelance writer who lives and works in the Austin area)
