March 17 CALIFORNIA: Attorney challenges S.J. judge----Lawyer files motion asking for new jurist in robbery case A private defense attorney is challenging the ability of San Joaquin County Superior Court Judge Terrence Van Oss to make fair decisions after an appeals court tossed out a death-penalty case Van Oss prosecuted more than 2 decades ago. Kristine Eagle, a Stockton attorney and former public defender, said Wednesday she filed a motion asking for a judge other than Van Oss to hear the case of an accused robber she represents. Eagle said she doesn't think Van Oss can rule fairly. If the California Commission on Judicial Performance, a body that investigates and addresses judicial misconduct, takes action against Van Oss in the 1980 case, the penalty ranges from a private letter of admonishment to removal from the bench. The U.S. 9th Court of Appeals last week tossed out a death-penalty case Van Oss prosecuted in 1981 as a San Joaquin County deputy district attorney. The court found that Van Oss lied about a deal that was struck with a key witness in the case. "I think he lied to the judge," Eagle said. "I don't do that. My colleagues don't do that. And I don't think it's justifiable." Van Oss presented false evidence at a trial in which Blufford Hayes Jr. was convicted of murdering Vinod "Pete" Patel, manager of the Rice Motel in Stockton, the court found. Van Oss wouldn't comment on Eagle's motion or the court's ruling. Van Oss said the case could make its way back to San Joaquin County, preventing him from talking about it. Court papers he filed speak for him, he said. "That's a real dilemma," Van Oss said. "This is one of those situations where you have to lay down and turn the other cheek." Gov. George Deukmejian appointed Van Oss a San Joaquin County Superior Court judge Dec. 13, 1989. A native of Youngstown, Ohio, Van Oss had been a prosecutor since 1971. Hayes stole $23 and several cartons of cigarettes in January 1980 from the motel where Patel was found dead, stabbed at least 22 times, with his hands and feet bound with a coat hanger. Hayes was sentenced to death for first-degree murder, burglary and robbery. The key witness, A.J. James, said Hayes confided to him shortly after the murder that he killed Patel. James also helped Hayes steal cigarettes from the hotel lobby. James was the only witness who could corroborate the burglary charge, providing the special circumstances needed to make it a death-penalty case. Court documents show that Van Oss negotiated a deal with James' attorney to grant James immunity in the Patel murder and drop all other pending felony charges against him. The 2 agreed to hide the deal from the judge and jury -- and from James as well -- so he wouldn't perjure himself on the witness stand if asked whether he'd been given any special treatment in exchange for his testimony. The court's ruling last week clears the way for a new trial for Hayes. Victoria Henley, director and chief council of the Commission on Judicial Performance, wouldn't confirm or deny an investigation into Van Oss. Her office generally receives many complaints of wrongdoing. Any disciplinary action against judges only becomes public if formal charges are filed, she said. In court papers filed last week, Van Oss said he has no doubt he's able to guarantee a fair and impartial trial as a judge. Van Oss said he doesn't condone the conduct described in the court's decision, "if it actually happened," and that he would handle the case differently today, more than 20 years later. "However, no one, even those signing on to the Hayes opinion can claim, nor did they claim, that I presented any false or unreliable evidence against the criminal defendant in that case." Van Oss said. Van Oss said the court's decision acknowledges the fact that he made efforts, "albeit misguided," to ensure the witness couldn't give perjured testimony. As an assistant deputy district attorney, Van Oss was known for promoting ethics and doing everything right, said Patrick Piggott, dean of Humphreys College School of Law in Stockton. "That has been his public stance," Piggott said. "This posture is somewhat of a surprise." David Senior, Hayes' Los Angeles attorney, said he's obviously pleased with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court's decision that gives his client some relief since Van Oss' false evidence came to light. Senior said Van Oss' tactic was common at the time inside the San Joaquin County District Attorney's Office to gain other death-penalty convictions. Van Oss should have come forward to clear it up a long time ago, Senior said. "Shame on him for doing it, and shame on him for sitting on it for 25 years," Senior said. (source: The RecordNet) ****************** Helzer brothers sentenced to death 2 brothers responsible for a gruesome spate of slayings in West Marin were officially sentenced to death on Friday by a superior court judge in Contra Costa County. But despite the death sentences, which were welcomed by many of those close to the victims, it may be years before the convicted killers are executed. Glenn and Justin Helzer, along with their housemate, Dawn Godman, killed Selina Bishop of Woodacre, her mother Jennifer Villarin of Novato - a popular bartender at the Papermill Creek Saloon in Forest Knolls - and Villarins friend James Gamble of Novato during the summer of 2000. Godman was sentenced to 38 years to life in prison in exchange for cooperating with prosecutors. Selina had been duped by the Helzers into helping them launder $100,000 of extorted money through her bank account. The Helzers had murdered the extortion victims, Ivan and Annette Stineman of Concord, who had been clients of Glenn Helzers when he worked as an investment banker. All five victims were murdered to cover the Helzers tracks as they pursued a bizarre plot the brothers believed would hasten the return of Christ. The trio, who dubbed themselves the "Children of Thunder," planned to use the money to finance what Glenn Helzer called the "War on Satan," his plan to assassinate the leaders of the Mormon church and proclaim himself the churchs head. But the Helzers plans were derailed when the body parts of several of their victims were discovered in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta. The brothers, with Godman, had dismembered the victims and tossed their remains into the delta. Glenn Helzer, who received five death sentences on Friday, pled guilty after his arrest. His brother, Justin, entered an insanity plea, but was found guilty by a jury who recommended that he be put to death last June. "All these murders committed by the defendant were calmly and gruesomely committed," Judge Mary OMalley was reported to have said when she delivered Glenn Helzers sentence. Public defender Dan Cook, Justin Helzers attorney, said the verdict did not come as a surprise to his client, who "didnt show any particular reaction." Cook said that after his sentence was delivered, Justin Helzer read a brief, cryptic statement he had prepared saying that he hoped there would one day be peace and harmony in the world. "The meaning wasnt immediately clear," Cook said of the statement. The news of the Helzers death sentences came as a relief to many who were close to the victims. "Im just glad its over, and sorry everyone had to go through what they went through," said Dave Wilson of Forest Knolls, who worked with Villarin at the Papermill Creek Saloon and whose mother owns the bar. Wilson expressed his ongoing dismay at the slow trial process. "They should have executed them an hour after they found them guilty," he said. Those who felt vindicated by Fridays verdict may find more frustration in the fact that the Helzers probably have a long time to wait before their executions. Under California state law, any case in which the convicted is sentenced to death is automatically appealed. Moreover, before the appeal process can begin, convicts must wait for a public attorney to be assigned to them. Such openings, explained Cook, can take years. "Theyre going to have to get in line," Cook said, noting that competent public defenders willing to take on appeal cases for prisoners condemned to death are usually in short order. "Were talking years [before the Helzers are assigned public attorneys]. First, the trial record has to be verified. In a case like this, that could take a fair amount of time." (source: Pt. Reyes Light) OREGON: Lesbian killer death sentence upheld The Oregon Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the murder convictions and death sentence of Robert Acremant, who admitted killing a lesbian couple in 1995 for money prosecutors say he wanted to use to rekindle a relationship with a Las Vegas stripper. Acremant pleaded guilty to aggravated murder, kidnapping and robbery in the Dec. 4, 1995, slayings of Roxanne Ellis, 53, and Michelle Abdill, 42, after they refused to give him money from their property management business. Prosecutors said Acremant killed the women in a desperate attempt to rob them of money he wanted to spend on a stripper whom he called his girlfriend. Acremant made conflicting statements about why he killed the women. He told police at one point that, while he did not like lesbians, he killed the women for money. The murders alarmed the gay community because Ellis and Abdill had worked on the campaign that defeated a statewide measure to limit the rights of homosexuals. Acremant lured the women to a Medford duplex apartment, where he tied and gagged them with duct tape. He shot them twice in the head after forcing them to lie in the back of a pickup truck, which was discovered with the bodies in a Medford parking lot 3 days later. (source: kgw.com) USA: Why Bush Flip-Flopped on the Issue of Mexican Nationals on Death Row The timing of last week's Executive Order requiring state courts in Texas and elsewhere to review the death penalty cases of 51 Mexican nationals was probably designed to ease upcoming talks between Mexican President Vicente Fox and U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. But that didn't totally explain why President Bush, whose disdain for international law enforcement perhaps equals his support for executions, flip-flopped on enforcing the World Court of Justice's finding that the U.S. had violated the Vienna Conventions on Consular Relations and that, therefore, the death-sentenced inmates were entitled to review of their cases. A week later, another motive for Bush's pronouncement emerged. On March 7, Rice informed the United Nations that the United States "hereby withdraws" from the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. What this means is that although the U.S. will continue to comply with the provisions of the treaty requiring that any foreign national arrested outside their home country be informed of their right to contact their nation's consulate, the U.S. no longer accepts the jurisdiction of the World Court to enforce the agreement. According to a March 10 Reuters news report, the withdrawal from the protocols was triggered by the World Court's recent, adverse ruling. "We didn't want any more of them," State Department spokesman Richard Boucher was quoted as saying. It's still unclear how the president's maneuvering will impact a related Texas case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jos Medellin, a Mexican on death row, has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to enforce the World Court order. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 28, but Medellin's attorneys have asked the court to postpone action until Texas courts hold the required hearing. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office opposes the request, asserting that neither the World Court nor the president can tell Texas courts what to do. (source: Column, Rita Radostitz, Austin Chronicle) ************** Bush signals mixed on serving justice Sometimes, being a good neighbor is a matter of life and death. That was the case when the Bush administration instructed state courts to grant new hearings to Mexican citizens on death row - instructions outlined in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of the 51 nationals facing execution, 15 are in Texas, igniting a controversy among state officials. "We respectfully believe the executive determination exceeds the constitutional bounds for federal authority," Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said in a statement. The turf war is petty. Justice is about fairness, not jurisdictions. The Mexicans claim they were denied meetings with diplomats from their homeland, a violation of international laws. If the allegations are valid - the International Court of Justice has sided with the prisoners - it could have undermined the quality of their defense, and that is wrong. President Bush is not asking for the convictions to be overturned; he is merely instructing the courts to review the cases. If the prisoners are guilty, there is no reason to think they will be set free by virtue of new hearings. Mexican officials were pleased with the move, but this was not just about being a good neighbor; this was also about justice. Yet, two days after instructing state courts to review the cases, the president withdrew from the international protocol that allowed him to take that action - a turnabout that seemed to perplex the international community. The United States ratified the protocol, along with the rest of the Vienna Convention, in 1969, requiring the international court to make the final decision when jailed foreigners say they have been denied the right to see a diplomat from their homelands, as in the case of the Mexican nationals. The withdrawal will not affect the cases of the Mexican nationals, but it will impact similar cases in the future, affecting not only foreigners in this country but also Americans in other countries. The move could come back to haunt Americans arrested in other nations. (source: Editorial, San Antonio Express-News) ********************** Southern Justice On February 28, the Bush Administration stunned legal observers by ordering new hearings for 51 Mexican nationals on death row in Texas. The decision came a year after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague ruled that denying the defendants meetings with diplomats from Mexico violated international law. A week after Bush's reversal, the Administration withdrew from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Specifically, a two-paragraph letter from Condoleeza Rice informed Kofi Annan that the US was opting out of the Optional Protocol to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. "It's a sore-loser kind of move," University of Georgia law professor Peter Spiro told The New York Times. "If we can't win, we're not going to play." Ironically, it was the US that proposed the protocol in 1963 as a means to protect Americans abroad by allowing the ICJ--the United Nation's highest court--to decide whether jailed foreign nationals had been denied the right to see a diplomat from their home countries. Just as with the Geneva Conventions, the Bush Administration argues that a law that used to be in America's best interest is now obsolete. "We are protecting against future International Court of Justice judgments that might similarly interfere in ways we did not anticipate when we joined the optional protocol," said State Department spokeswoman Darla Jordan. The ICJ has hardly constrained the Administration thus far. Ashcroft's Justice Department expanded death penalty cases at the federal level, blacklisted uncooperative prosecutors in states where the death penalty is legal but inactive, and disproportionately targeted African-American defendants. (New Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' sloppy record as counsel helped earn Bush the nickname of "Texacutioner" while governor.) American unilateralists who claim The Hague has been scrutinizing American courts with a magnifying glass ignore the many ways the Bush Administration has pushed the boundaries of capital punishment. In practice, international law strengthens America's legal system. The Supreme Court specifically cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in its recent 5-4 decision abolishing juvenile executions. "The opinion of the world community, while not controlling our outcome, does provide respected and significant confirmation for our own conclusions," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. The Supreme Court was due to hear the arguments of the 51 Mexican immigrants later this month. By reopening the cases and withdrawing from the ICJ, the Bush Administration subverted the highest courts in both America and the world. "Element 1 was to take the bat out of the Supreme Court's hand," Harold Hongju Koh, dean of Yale Law School, told The Times. Signatories to the ICJ protocol include China, Iran, Kuwait and Pakistan. Debating the death penalty in the context of international law illustrates the isolation of the US on both fronts. America was the last civilized nation to finally outlaw the executions of juveniles. The European Union, and a growing number of countries in the developing world, have abolished the death penalty completely, most recently Bhutan, Samoa, Senegal and Turkey. "The express affirmation of certain fundamental rights by other nations and peoples underscores the centrality of those same rights within our own heritage of freedom," Justice Kennedy wrote in Roper v. Simmons. By ignoring international law, the world's superpower undermines international decency. (source: Ari Berman, The Nation) ************************ Verbal Fisticuffs: Capital punishment - Righteous punishment or outdated biblical code? Argument: The most basic argument in favor of the death penalty is the notion that it acts as a deterrent. The promise of a clean bed, outdoor activities and the ability to live out the rest of your life in a cushy prison will undoubtedly not have the same effect on a potential criminal's decision as the threat of death might. Capital punishment is essential for maintaining order and low levels of crime in a civilized society. A: Justice is a concept that our government must incorporate into its actions, and some heinous crimes are, without doubt, worthy of a death sentence. Moral relativism cannot be used when dealing with capital punishment. When we begin to factor out righteous punishments, then we ourselves are committing crimes. We cannot doubt our ability to carry out justice in society. This quote from "Boondock Saints" summarizes my 2nd point: "We must always fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil that we must fear the most, and that is the indifference of good men." A: Finally, I would like to deal with the issue of potentially innocent people receiving the death penalty. Today we have new capabilities, such as DNA testing, that make verdicts more accurate. Also, what of innocent people who receive life in prison? Our justice system operates on the idea that its verdicts are correct, if that was not assumed it would undermine the basic existence of the system. We must have either complete confidence in the courts or implement an entirely different method of distributing justice. --Evan Berard ----------- Rebuttal: The most damning evidence that stands in opposition to the effectiveness of the death penalty is whether or not it functions successfully as a deterrent. The FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 2003 (published in October 2004) shows that the average number of murders in states with the death penalty is 530,000 in comparison to the 290,000 of states without capital punishment. Capital punishment has nothing to do with maintaining low levels of crime and a civilized society; in fact, it probably exasperates and coarsens civil society. R: Justice is more than a concept that is incorporated into the government's actions; it's a system by which our laws are written and enacted. Modern day justice should not incorporate simplistic, ancient codes like an eye for an eye; rather it should move towards a system that rises above the tactics of thugs and warlords. Moreover, justice in an unequal system is no justice at all, so we need not worry about moral relativism in our nation, and instead devote serious concern to the inequalities in our justice system. R: Even if DNA testing was 100 % accurate and reliable, our nation would still be faced with the inequalities and injustices in the legal system that make the death penalty unjust. Amnesty International studies show that black and white murder victims are essentially equal, but 80 percent of the people executed since the death penalty was reinstituted were only for the murders of white victims. As for innocent people who receive life, if this is the wrong verdict, then the DNA tests that we presently put so much faith in can ascertain that and then justice can be served by reverting the sentence. Death is irreversible, and therefore, unjust. --Eileen Arnold (source: Commentary, Fairfield Mirror) Execute the death penalty - Capital punishment not the answer to deterring crime Remember the wild teenage weekends spent camping and sharing bottles of coffee brandy stolen from Grandma's liquor cabinet? How about cutting class in high school to head to the quarry for an impromptu cliff-jumping session? Or what about the time you and some friends hid behind the hedge on Main Street and pegged passing traffic with rocks? OK, so these are my memories I'm projecting as the universal stereotype of adolescence, but they all fall under the same heading: youthful indiscretions. No doubt, you can add your own hilarious hijinks to the list. So, too, can the Supreme Court of the United States; two weeks ago, the Court voted 5-to-4 to add murder to the list of youthful indiscretions by nullifying the death penalty for underage killers. The Court ruled that executing minor murderers violates the Eight Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment." My question is this: When is executing any human being not "cruel and unusual?" The decision has the Supreme Court split, with Justice Antonin Scalia lambasting his fellow justices for implying that "American law should conform to the laws of the rest of the world." What should be an issue of the basest of human rights - the right to life - has been cemented as a political volleyball. This isn't an issue of religious beliefs or politics. Instead, it is a reflection of the absurdity with which we govern ourselves as a society. We accept that humans are fallible beings who frequently make mistakes and improper decisions, even when confronted with evidence that directly refutes our position. We are a biased and highly subjective species. With this in mind, why do we think that we have the authority to make the ultimate decision with regards to a person's life? Condemning a person to death is an irreversible decision. I've yet to run into someone who's been resurrected, and I'm quite sure medical science won't harness the technology of reanimation in the near future. To have such a sentence handed down by one human to another is simply illogical. If even one innocent man has been the victim of unjust capital punishment, then the death penalty has failed us all. The argument that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent against murder is certainly solid, until one realizes that this argument is a straw man raised to move attention away from the pertinent issue - that of our fallibility as humans. Imperfect and subjective humans should never be tasked with deciding whether another human has the right to live or die. I'm not sure if some omnipotent god-figure granted each of us life, but I do know that I was never given the right to take another human's life. Even if we exist in an infinite random universe that operates with the imprecision of a craps table, there exists no rule book that states that I have the ability to remove others from the game as I see fit. Debating the nuances of the death penalty is akin to debating whether or not it is better to have the right leg amputated over the left. Either way, the handicap is the same. In this same way, we shift the debate from the entire issue of capital punishment to its meaningless details. Rationalizing state-sanctioned murder in exchange for another murder is folly, and it highlights the tragic irony with which we exist as social beings. Until we can be sure - without exception - that convicted killers really are killers, support of capital punishment is support of a mechanism of death that may be applied in error. Incarcerate the convicted killers and let your god sort out their fate at a later date. Supreme Court justices are made of the same imperfect flesh and bone as you and I. Let's hope they keep that in mind they next time they rule on capital punishment. Aaron Barnes (source: Mainecampus.com; Aaron Barnes is senior English major.) NEW YORK: NY State Senate Passes Bill To Bring Back Death Penalty The New York State Senate passed legislation last Wednesday co-sponsored by Glendale Senator Serphin Maltese that, if signed into law, would reinstate the death penalty in New York. The Senate also created a web site to give New Yorkers the opportunity to sign an online petition in support of the death penalty. The Senates action on death penalty legislation was announced at a press conference in Albany on March 1st. Benjamin Nazario of Flushing, whose brother was one of five victims killed at a Wendys restaurant in May 2000, attended the conference in support of the legislation. Republican Senators are urging Democratic leaders of the Assembly to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. "I am absolutely positive that the death penalty is a strong deterrent to crime," said Maltese, a former Queens prosecutor and former deputy chief of the homicide bureau. In support of his position, the senator cited figures noting that since the death penalty was enacted in 1995, the number of murders in New York state and the number of violent crimes have decreased by 40 %. New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, a statewide coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the abolition of capital punishment, immediately disputed the senators claims about the link between the death penalty and a decrease in crime and criticized the Senates recent legislation. "The murder rate was already declining well before 1995," said Susan Schindler, NYC chapter coordinator for NYADP. "To attribute it to the existence of the death penalty is just plain incorrect. Theres not one report or study that shows the death penalty deters crime or murder." NYADP and other advocacy groups also expressed concern that the web site set up by the Senate allows supporters to express their opinions but does not give opponents that option. "A lot of people are totally outraged," said Shari Silberstein of Equal Justice USA. "Something sponsored by the Senate should at least represent both sides of the issue." In addition to signing the online petition, visitors to the web site will also be able to read information and statistics on the impact of capital punishment to reduce crime, get more information on the death penalty bill and receive updates on the status of the legislation. The death penalty was enacted in New York state in 1995. After 9 years, it was effectively abolished by the Court of Appeals. In June 2004, the court ruled that the "deadlock instruction" given to jurors at the beginning of trials improperly coerced them to vote for the death penalty. The "deadlock instruction" tells jurors that they either must reach a unanimous verdict to impose the death penalty or a unanimous verdict to sentence a defendant to life without parole. If there is a deadlock and jurors fail to reach a verdict, the judge imposes a more lenient sentence that eventually makes the defendant eligible for parole. The Court of Appeals found that jurors who feared a deadlock and eventual parole for a defendant may feel coerced to choose the death penalty instead, even if they have reservations about it. The recent bill introduced by Maltese and Dale Volker of Erie County addresses the issue of coercion by giving juries 3 options: imposing a sentence of life in prison without parole, life in prison with the possibility of parole or the death penalty. "With this technical fix to the states death penalty statute that addresses the Court of Appeals unreasonable concerns, we can now reactivate the law and move forward in protecting our residents from those who kill and kill again," Maltese said. Those opposed to capital punishment say the Senate is not taking into account findings from the past decade, showing numerous problems with the death penalty. "The Senate is missing the boat on this," said David Kaczynski, executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty. "The Senate is ignoring a decade of lessons on the flaws and failures of our states death penalty experiment." Among the flaws, Kaczynski indicated new information about innocent people who are sentenced to death, the death penaltys cost to taxpayers, as well as racial and geographic bias. According to Queens College sociology professor Andrew Beveridge, six percent of the murder one indictments in New York City resulted in a death sentence, compared to 23.1 % upstate. Furthermore, those accused of killing a white victim are more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence than those accused of killing a non-white victim. These findings are disputed by Maltese. "The fact remains that our capital punishment statute is free from racial, religious, ethnic, geographic and all other forms of bias," he said. "As former chairman of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committees, I know it is a valuable tool that should be available to prosecutors in deterring criminal behavior and has proven over and over again that it has saved thousands of lives." Opponents say the death penalty does not have the public support it had in 1995. Kaczynski, brother of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, pointed to a poll released on March 8th by Siena College showing that, by a margin of 56 to 29 %, New Yorkers prefer life without parole instead of the death penalty as the maximum sentence for those convicted of the worst crimes. When asked whether the death penalty should be reinstated, New Yorkers said no by a margin of 46 to 42 %. In 1995, 94 members of the Assembly voted in favor of death penalty legislation. In February, the Assembly held public hearings to evaluate the law in light of new information. When the death penalty was reinstated 9 years ago, there were no such hearings. A joint panel of the Codes, Judiciary and Corrections Committees conducted 5 days of public hearings during which nearly 150 witnesses spoke. A majority opposed the reinstatement of the death penalty. Corona Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, chairman of the Corrections Committee, is working on a synopsis of the hearings. "I voted against the death penalty in 1995 and I have seen nothing that would change my vote," he said. "We spent 10 years and $170 million on a bill that, even at the time, some people thought was unconstitutional." During the years that the death penalty was in effect in New York state, 7 defendants were sentenced to death. All seven are still alive. The Senates web site address is www.deathpenaltyNY.com. New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty can be reached at www.nyadp.org. (source: Queens Chronicle) ********************* NY State Senate Passes Bill To Bring Back Death Penalty The New York State Senate passed legislation last Wednesday co-sponsored by Glendale Senator Serphin Maltese that, if signed into law, would reinstate the death penalty in New York. The Senate also created a web site to give New Yorkers the opportunity to sign an online petition in support of the death penalty. The Senate's action on death penalty legislation was announced at a press conference in Albany on March 1st. Benjamin Nazario of Flushing, whose brother was one of five victims killed at a Wendy's restaurant in May 2000, attended the conference in support of the legislation. Republican Senators are urging Democratic leaders of the Assembly to bring the bill to the floor for a vote. "I am absolutely positive that the death penalty is a strong deterrent to crime," said Maltese, a former Queens prosecutor and former deputy chief of the homicide bureau. In support of his position, the senator cited figures noting that since the death penalty was enacted in 1995, the number of murders in New York state and the number of violent crimes have decreased by 40 %. New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, a statewide coalition of organizations and individuals committed to the abolition of capital punishment, immediately disputed the senator's claims about the link between the death penalty and a decrease in crime and criticized the Senate's recent legislation. "The murder rate was already declining well before 1995," said Susan Schindler, NYC chapter coordinator for NYADP. "To attribute it to the existence of the death penalty is just plain incorrect. There's not one report or study that shows the death penalty deters crime or murder." NYADP and other advocacy groups also expressed concern that the web site set up by the Senate allows supporters to express their opinions but does not give opponents that option. "A lot of people are totally outraged," said Shari Silberstein of Equal Justice USA. "Something sponsored by the Senate should at least represent both sides of the issue." In addition to signing the online petition, visitors to the web site will also be able to read information and statistics on the impact of capital punishment to reduce crime, get more information on the death penalty bill and receive updates on the status of the legislation. The death penalty was enacted in New York state in 1995. After 9 years, it was effectively abolished by the Court of Appeals. In June 2004, the court ruled that the "deadlock instruction" given to jurors at the beginning of trials improperly coerced them to vote for the death penalty. The "deadlock instruction" tells jurors that they either must reach a unanimous verdict to impose the death penalty or a unanimous verdict to sentence a defendant to life without parole. If there is a deadlock and jurors fail to reach a verdict, the judge imposes a more lenient sentence that eventually makes the defendant eligible for parole. The Court of Appeals found that jurors who feared a deadlock and eventual parole for a defendant may feel coerced to choose the death penalty instead, even if they have reservations about it. The recent bill introduced by Maltese and Dale Volker of Erie County addresses the issue of coercion by giving juries 3 options: imposing a sentence of life in prison without parole, life in prison with the possibility of parole or the death penalty. "With this technical fix to the state's death penalty statute that addresses the Court of Appeals' unreasonable concerns, we can now reactivate the law and move forward in protecting our residents from those who kill and kill again," Maltese said. Those opposed to capital punishment say the Senate is not taking into account findings from the past decade, showing numerous problems with the death penalty. "The Senate is missing the boat on this," said David Kaczynski, executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty. "The Senate is ignoring a decade of lessons on the flaws and failures of our state's death penalty experiment." Among the flaws, Kaczynski indicated new information about innocent people who are sentenced to death, the death penalty's cost to taxpayers, as well as racial and geographic bias. According to Queens College sociology professor Andrew Beveridge, 6 percent of the murder one indictments in New York City resulted in a death sentence, compared to 23.1 % upstate. Furthermore, those accused of killing a white victim are more than twice as likely to receive a death sentence than those accused of killing a non-white victim. These findings are disputed by Maltese. "The fact remains that our capital punishment statute is free from racial, religious, ethnic, geographic and all other forms of bias," he said. "As former chairman of the Senate Crime Victims, Crime and Correction Committees, I know it is a valuable tool that should be available to prosecutors in deterring criminal behavior and has proven over and over again that it has saved thousands of lives." Opponents say the death penalty does not have the public support it had in 1995. Kaczynski, brother of "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, pointed to a poll released on March 8th by Siena College showing that, by a margin of 56 to 29 %, New Yorkers prefer life without parole instead of the death penalty as the maximum sentence for those convicted of the worst crimes. When asked whether the death penalty should be reinstated, New Yorkers said no by a margin of 46 to 42 %. In 1995, 94 members of the Assembly voted in favor of death penalty legislation. In February, the Assembly held public hearings to evaluate the law in light of new information. When the death penalty was reinstated nine years ago, there were no such hearings. A joint panel of the Codes, Judiciary and Corrections Committees conducted 5 days of public hearings during which nearly 150 witnesses spoke. A majority opposed the reinstatement of the death penalty. Corona Assemblyman Jeff Aubry, chairman of the Corrections Committee, is working on a synopsis of the hearings. "I voted against the death penalty in 1995 and I have seen nothing that would change my vote," he said. "We spent 10 years and $170 million on a bill that, even at the time, some people thought was unconstitutional." During the years that the death penalty was in effect in New York state, seven defendants were sentenced to death. All 7 are still alive. The Senate's web site address is www.deathpenaltyNY.com. New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty can be reached at www.nyadp.org. (source: zwire.com)
