March 21 NEW YORK: N.Y. is above the death penalty To The Editor: Almost exactly a year ago, my family and I moved from Berlin, Germany, to Corning. We all agree in how thankful we are for the warm welcome in this town, and we are delighted about the respectful and polite way in which everybody is treating us. The sense of citizenship that we encounter in Corning, and which is conveyed to our children by their school, has an admirable standard. However, I am worried about State Sen. George Winner's comment on the death penalty in the March 13 issue of The Leader. Apart from dealing with the formal, legislative aspects of this barbarian practice, his article comes down to the sentence: "It comes down to a personal decision of belief." To make it a matter of belief, whether or not the state should kill people, is unacceptable and reminds me more of the darkest Middle Ages than of a modern, civilized society. Sen. Winner asks if we believe the death penalty helps prevent crimes. Well, again, I can't see that this is a matter of belief. Almost all the world, except for the U.S. and some rogue countries, does without the death penalty, and most do pretty well. I don't see that Europe has a higher violent crime rate than the United States. To me, it seems that the death penalty purposts a culture of death, not of life. If only one person would be put to death innocently by a judge's order, and don't tell me this could not happen, the state committed what it should try to prevent - murder. I wonder if the same people who want the death penalty reinstated so fervently defend the Ten Commandments put on a court's door, the fifth of which reads "Thou shalt not kill." Dedo von Kerseenbrock-Krosigk-----Corning (source: Opinion, The Corning Leader) CONNECTICUT: Ross Ready To Go Ahead----Lawyer: Serial Killer Hasn't Changed His Mind About May 11 Execution Throughout January, serial killer Michael Ross dominated the headlines and survived 5 execution dates. He is now scheduled to die by lethal injection May 11. The intensity of that last week in January - when lawyers seeking to halt the execution filed a flurry of federal appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court twice cleared the way for Ross to be executed - has been followed by a period of relative quiet. There have been no court hearings since Feb. 10, when Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford set Ross' new execution date, and none are expected until early next month. Most of the activity in the case is going on behind the scenes, and often behind bars. At the Feb. 10 hearing, Clifford appointed lawyer Thomas Groark to play devil's advocate to Ross' assertions he is mentally competent to "volunteer" to be executed. Groark is expected to focus on whether Ross' decision is driven by despair and the harsh conditions of death row, where he has spent 17 years, and is tantamount to "state-assisted suicide." Groark, a highly respected commercial litigator, said last week, "We've just been preparing our case." He would not elaborate. Ross' lawyer, T.R. Paulding, said Thursday that at least one psychiatrist who is considered an expert on death row syndrome, Dr. Eric Goldsmith, has met with Ross, and that another, Dr. Stuart Grassian, is scheduled to meet with him this week. Both psychiatrists had submitted affidavits to Ross' former public defenders, who were vigorously challenging the finding of competence throughout December and January, even though they no longer represented him and Ross made it clear he did not welcome their intervention. Paulding said Ross is still committed to proceeding with his execution. "He hasn't wavered at all in that regard," Paulding said. Clifford, another Superior Court judge, the state Supreme Court and one federal judge ruled the public defenders and others seeking to intervene on Ross' behalf, including Ross' father, had no authority to do so because Ross was competent to make decisions. Dr. Michael Norko, appointed by Clifford to assess Ross' competency, had deemed the Cornell University graduate mentally competent in a report and during a Dec. 28 hearing before Clifford in Superior Court in New London. But a second federal judge, Chief U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny, dramatically changed the legal dynamic when he challenged Paulding's role and even threatened to go after his law license in a scathing conference call with Paulding and other lawyers in the case Jan. 28. The call occurred less than 12 hours before Ross was scheduled to be put to death, and seven hours before the U.S. Supreme Court lifted the stay that was the last legal hurdle to his execution. It was Paulding - with Ross' acquiescence - who halted the execution, even as family members of the victims were preparing to be taken to the execution chamber to witness it. Paulding then filed motions in federal and state court Jan. 31 that effectively halted the fifth execution time, set for that same day at 9 p.m. Paulding said he has hired a psychiatrist of his own, Suzanne Gentile, to evaluate Ross. Gentile is assigned to Whiting Forensic Institution in Middletown, where she works in the competency restoration service division. Paulding said she has expertise in the area of suicide. Paulding said Ross initially resented the additional psychiatric evaluations and particularly the notion that he is not competent, but now is in "relatively good spirits." "He understands now that under this theory of leaving no stone unturned, I wouldn't say he's welcoming it, but he's certainly going along with it," Paulding said. "He feels the judge will still find him competent." (source: Hartford Courant) ILLINOIS: Death penalty bill has merit Illinois legislators are once again weighing in on the death penalty issue. It's a passionate issue, whichever side you're on -- as it should be. Even in the name of justice, taking a person's life is questionable to many people. Does it really heal the wounds? Does it really deter crime? Does it desensitize society and reinforce the concept of killing as a solution? There are arguments to be made on both sides. The new debate centers around a proposal which would require a jury to be certain of a criminal's guilt "without any doubt," rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt," as has been the standard in years past. A bill that would create the new standard passed the Illinois House on Wednesday and now goes to the Senate. While reserving judgment on the philosophical and ethical ambiguities surrounding capital punishment, we think the proposal is not without a rational. It won't placate die-hard opponents of the death penalty. Nor will it satisfy those who hate paying for life-long incarceration. But it may help in some small way to resolve the pathetic state of affairs our state has found itself in. It has been five years since former Illinois governor George Ryan placed a moratorium on capital punishment in the state, commuting 167 death sentences to life in prison after DNA and other evidence put many cases in question. There are some who think he went too far, but few can deny the horrendous injustice of executing innocent people for crimes they didn't commit -- which authorities may very well have done before DNA analysis said they had the wrong person. Even the possibility that an innocent person could ever be put to death in such a manner is cause enough for some to ban capital punishment -- forever. It's a hard point to refute. But what about the worst cases? What about serial murderers such as the BTK killer who tortured his victims, some of them children, before slowly killing them? What about terrorists and mass murderers who seem to delight in shedding blood? In the absence of a definitive consensus on the ethical front, raising the bar for jurors to "without any doubt," may be the best compromise we can hope for. (source: Edwardsville Intelligencer)
