March 23 USA: Execution blues----One bad deed deserves another Once upon a time, back when slavery seemed God directed and indentured servitude passed as labor relations, our founding fathers found themselves in a pickle. Public executions had lost their crime-deterrent punch. Worse, stoning seemed so Old Testament, the guillotine so French and the firing squad so non-civilian. And hanging was nothing to get all choked up about. Although it took nearly three hours for the body to cool, this time Kemmler was dead, dead, dead. What a shame! Hanging had so much potential, what with the pomp and circumstance of a trial, a ministers prayers, a public apology and a snap into eternity: an entertaining, educational experience for all. That was the ideal, not what happened day to day. Although the condemned did occasionally warn youth of the consequences of sin, more often he/she shouted obscenities, condemned the condemners and/or collapsed before the noose was snugly in place. And if the condemned was a local citizen, disgruntled relatives often demanded state-paid legal representation, an expense that turned miscreants into celebrities. Add to this Americas uncanny ability to turn a lesson plan into a party, and you can see why state leaders assumed there had to be a better way. Sure, liquor sales were up, but so was wanton destruction. "Just desserts" were confused with pastries, and all the hooting and hollering proved many had missed the point. There was one other teensy-weensy problem. Social malcontents complained that hanging was cruel and unusual punishment. If the noose was slightly loose, the condemned gurgled before slowly strangling to death. And if the noose was a smidgen too tight, the head popped off. The dilemma then was to find a form of execution that discouraged potential murderers but did not make the executioners appear more bloodthirsty than the condemned. Fortunately, modern 19th century science arrived in the nick of time. In 1882, Thomas Alva Edison established the nations first central-station light system using DC current. Four years later, George Westinghouse installed the first AC system. Both worked, but AC was more efficient and traveled farther. The situation sparked Edisons ire. Westinghouse was a usurper, about to make huge profits on his bright idea. To stop him, Edison would alert the world to the danger of AC. Putting personal beliefs aside (he despised the death penalty), Edison ordered his assistants to construct an AC electric chair. While Edisons crack team experimented on stray dogs and horses, certain social spoilsports and old-fashioned humanists questioned this new form of execution. Edison insisted that death would be instantaneous, but since no one survived a lethal dose of electricity, how could one know for sure? Edison argued that the AC current traveled faster than nerve endings could sense pain. The writhing and jerking only proved AC was too dangerous for everyday use. Enter William Kemmler, who, in a drunken stupor, murdered his almost wife. His lawyer (paid by Westinghouse?) argued that his client was innocent by reason of alcohol-induced insanity, but the all-male, no-nonsense jury decided otherwise. Kemmler would be the first to light up the electric chair. When informed of this privilege, he asked only that it be done right. On Aug. 6, 1890, William Kemmler left his Auburn Penitentiary cell to be zapped with 1,300 volts of AC current, using a stolen Westinghouse generator. Edisons experiments had proved that 10 seconds should be "instantaneous" enough, but the ever-cautious warden insisted on 17. When the current was turned off and the criminal declared dead, a Buffalo dentist stated, "We live in a higher civilization from this day." A hearty congratulations was shared by all. But then Kemmler began to breathe. This was worse than a head flying off! The warden, never one to panic, ordered the electrical apparatus reconnected and juiced the man for a full 54 seconds. Although it took nearly three hours for the body to cool, this time Kemmler was dead, dead, dead. Again. Said the attending doctor: "The man never suffered an iota of pain." Maybe. The truth is these great minds missed a golden opportunity. If they had revived William, he could have solved the riddle of lethal doses of electricity and pain. Was this execution more civilized or less? As it was, witnesses say the body arched, body fluids flowed, blood vessels burst, the brain evaporated and blue flames emitted from several Kemmler orifices, while the fragrance of roasting meat filled the room. Although never mentioned in any biography, Edison had just invented the 1st microwave oven - without the waves and without the oven. Although some Westinghouse advocates were still skeptical, the rest of the scientific and political world declared Kemmlers demise a huge success. America had found an improved way of eliminating its unwanted. One newspaper headline stated: KEMMLER WESTHINGHOUSED and Edison himself suggested that the wannabe follow in Guillotines footsteps. For the next 100 years, 26 states (reinforced by the U.S. Supreme Courts wisdom) agreed that poaching our most deranged is a legitimate and humane form of execution. And so, when the world asks, "How in Gods name does America justify capital punishment and still believe itself a peaceful, civilized nation?" we respond, "Technology has an answer for everything." (source: NUVO (Hank Fincken is an Indianapolis writer and performer) ************************ The White House's Capital Venture President Bush has pledged money for death penalty lawyers, but some think it's a bait and switch To James Bednar, who represents Oklahoma death row inmates, President George W. Bush's promise last month to help lawyers who defend capital cases was bewildering. "I about fell over when I saw what Bush had said," says Bednar, executive director of the Oklahoma Indigent Defense System. "I don't know whether it's just lip service or not. The defense bar will believe it when they see it." After all, this is the George W. Bush who, as governor of Texas, signed off on 152 executions, making the state synonymous with the death penalty. But during his Feb. 2 State of the Union address, Bush uncharacteristically drew attention to the death penalty, saying that "people on trial for their lives must have competent lawyers by their side." For many on both sides of the death penalty debate, Bush's words were perplexing. The confusion was rooted in an apparent about-face by the administration on funding for death penalty defense -- something that the White House has vigorously opposed. It also was a reflection of Bush's record on capital punishment, particularly in Texas. Last year, the White House fought a bill that called for hundreds of millions of dollars to be sent to states to aid both prosecutors and defense lawyers in capital cases. The bill passed Congress, and because of wide bipartisan support, Bush ultimately signed it. But the administration then didn't fund the law in its proposed 2006 budget. That legislation, tagged the Justice for All Act, calls for $375 million over five years, to be split evenly between lawyers defending and prosecuting death row cases. The president's remarks in his State of the Union were the first hints that the White House wanted to launch its own death penalty initiative -- albeit with a more modest approach. Bush's plan would provide $50 million over three years to be shared among defense lawyers, prosecutors and judges in state capital cases. The plan calls for grants that, unlike the original legislation, don't guarantee defenders equal access to funds. It makes some death penalty advocates wonder if the president is acting in good faith in pledging to help defense counsel -- or trying to supplant legislation he doesn't support with a watered-down version. "This is an entirely different program," says John Terzano, head of the Justice Project's Campaign for Criminal Justice Reform. "It just doesn't make sense." IN THE BEGINNING The genesis of the congressional plan to help death penalty counsel lies in a bill introduced 5 years ago by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., as the Innocence Protection Act. A lightning rod for criticism from prosecutors and victims' rights groups, the act sought to address what the bill's proponents say are some of the worst flaws in the administration of the death penalty nationwide. Among its provisions: expansion of access to DNA testing for convicted criminals and more money for capital defense counsel. It had some bipartisan support, but languished in committee. The legislation was revamped to emphasize victims' rights. It became palatable for a wider group of lawmakers when Bush began advocating in 2003 for more money to support DNA testing and labs, as part of an effort to process a backlog of unanalyzed DNA evidence in criminal cases. Provisions were added that allocated more than a billion dollars over 5 years for testing a backlog of crime scene evidence, improvement of the capacity of crime labs to conduct DNA analysis, and post-conviction DNA testing. Money for prosecutors was also added, in large part to win support from "tough on crime" politicians. "All of a sudden, this thing got turned into what's good for the goose is good for the gander," says George Kendall, a senior counsel at Holland & Knight in New York who devotes his time to pro bono matters. Bush signed the legislation shortly before the 2004 election, but might have done so with misgivings. For example, the law provides some grants for post-conviction counsel -- the attorneys who represent death row inmates appealing their sentences in state courts and in habeas corpus hearings in federal courts. Money for post-conviction lawyers, in particular, is a charged issue. Congress eliminated federal funding in 1996 for 20 death penalty resource centers nationwide, effectively closing the offices that provided post-conviction representation to death row inmates and recruited, trained and supported volunteer lawyers in those cases. Critics of the central, state-funded offices that represented death row inmates in post-conviction proceedings say its lawyers deliberately filed motions that stymied the litigation process and delayed executions. The move left states to create and fund post-conviction defense groups. Since there is no constitutional right to a lawyer in post-conviction proceedings, each state can decide whether to appoint counsel and how much to pay. Prisoners in some states ended up representing themselves in their final appeals. Fears that the Justice for All Act would resurrect the centers prompted a provision in the final version of the bill that 75 percent of the grants had to go to trial -- not post-conviction -- counsel. The Bush initiative, however, would be even more restrictive, providing no money at all for post-conviction counsel. The act also calls on states to establish effective systems for appointing and qualifying lawyers for death penalty defense work. It allows for coalitions of defense attorneys, made up of private lawyers and public defenders, to do that work. Such a system, say opponents of the provision, would create a conflict of interest, allowing defenseattorneys to hire, and monitor, themselves. But because of the efforts of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, the legislation now includes a provision that allows state trial court judges to appoint and monitor defense counsel, which is what happens in many states now. Death penalty defense advocates argue that trial judges -- who are often elected -- don't necessarily appoint the best lawyers. Denise LeBoeuf, director of a post-conviction defense center, claims judges often opt for those lawyers who won't file numerous motions and clog up their dockets. Sometimes, she says, those include a roster of attorneys who rely on steady work as indigent defense counsel and contribute to judges' election campaigns. The Bush Justice Department expressed the administration's strong opposition to much of the congressional legislation and to the issue of appointing lawyers in particular in an April 2004 letter to members of the Senate and House Judiciary committees. In the letter, Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, the DOJ's top liaison with Capitol Hill, complained, "Beyond the Federal overreaching inherent in this scheme, its requirement that a defense entity be given full control over the capital defense system raises obvious concerns about conflict of interest and potential obstruction of capital punishment. ... Likewise, the defense entity would have obvious motivation to utilize its control over defense compensation and expenses to pour limitless resources into the defense side in state capital cases." OUT OF THE BLUE Although the administration's initiative is seen as a counterpunch to the Justice for All Act, some conservatives are puzzled that Bush mentioned the death penalty at all in his State of the Union address. "Among the groups that supported him for re-election I don't know anyone who is all that interested in this issue," says Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Sacramento, Calif.-based Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a pro-death penalty public interest group. "It's just not politically popular. When we get to see the actual language of it, maybe we'll see something that will tell us why he is doing it." And Paul Rosenzweig, a senior legal research fellow who focuses on criminal law at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative D.C. think tank, was also left guessing. "Maybe he's doing the righteous thing," he says. "But it's not like he is coming out against the death penalty. This is a very modest step." The White House says that the confusion is misplaced. "The president wants to make sure all Americans have confidence in the justice system and this is part of his plan," says White House spokeswoman Christie Parell. "I think it's simpler than folks are speculating." But a Democratic Senate staffer who worked on the Justice for All Act says that the White House is trying to do an end run around a hard-won bipartisan effort. "They're floundering around," the staffer says. A bipartisan push on Capitol Hill to fund Congress' plan remains as the budget moves through the appropriations process. "This is one of most important pieces of legislation passed last Congress," says Jeff Lungren, a spokesman for GOP House Judiciary Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. of Wisconsin. "It's a landmark law that improves many aspects of the criminal justice system." The American Bar Association is lobbying for full funding of congressional grants for capital defense counsel, enlisting more than 100 volunteer private firms. "We're forced into this situation of begging civil lawyers to step up and do what needs to be done," says Robin Maher, head of the ABA's Death Penalty Representation Project. "That's not a good answer. It would be better to set up an effective death penalty defender system, but you need resources to do a good job." A MATTER OF RESOURCES Andre DeGruy manages the state-funded capital defense counsel office in Mississippi. He works in an office with two other lawyers, with a budget that has shrunk to $680,000 in 2005 from $720,000 in 2001, when it was founded. DeGruy and his staff, who handle trial work, can represent only about 15 capital defendants each year. And each year, about 70 new defendants in Mississippi are eligible for the death penalty under state sentencing guidelines, he says. "I'm not expecting this money to take care of the whole problem," DeGruy says. DeGruy and his 2 colleagues do their best to offer advice to the county public defenders handling the remainder of the cases. Their assistance involves phone calls and visits to rural county courthouses, as well as publishing training guides and hosting occasional conferences to fill in the knowledge gaps of public defenders who have an already full caseload. It is this kind of training that the DOJ, which would oversee the Bush capital trial grants, says the initiative aims to help improve. But there are "slim materials available" on the proposal and there are as yet no explicit guidelines for the grants, says Sheila Jerusalem, a DOJ spokeswoman. In February, 2 weeks after the president's address, the DOJ's Office of Justice Programs hosted a focus group with prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges to help define the program, which will award grants on a competitive basis. Possible grant recipients include the National Legal Aid and Defenders Association, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Judicial College and state bar associations, Jerusalem says. Some prosecutors acknowledge that there is a funding shortfall for both sides in state capital cases, a shortfall they say the Justice for All Act could help alleviate. Kent Cattani, an Arizona assistant attorney general who oversees the state's responses to death penalty appeals, has an annual budget of $1 million and a staff of 11 lawyers. Currently, 131 inmates in Arizona face execution. "There is certainly frustration at the level of funding," says Cattani, adding that as much as he would like additional resources, money for training at the trial level would make his lawyers' work easier, since it might ensure more complete trial records. "I'd definitely like to see money infused at the start, rather than at the tail end, so you're not doing things like relitigating mental health issues 20 years later," Cattani says. WAITING FOR RELIEF In Southern states with large death row populations -- such as Mississippi, Florida and Louisiana -- death penalty advocates remain frustrated, waiting for promised money that hasn't come. LeBoeuf, of the Capital Post-Conviction Project of Louisiana, says it doesn't matter whether the funds go for trial counsel or post-conviction counsel. The system, she says, is starving. "We're not going to get into a fight over who needs money," LeBoeuf says. Her state-funded office has a $700,000 annual budget to fund six lawyers and a handful of investigators and staff. Because of shortfalls, LeBoeuf says, 20 inmates remain unrepresented on Louisiana's death row, home to nearly 100 prisoners. And relying on private contract attorneys hasn't been successful, she adds: 2 of the last 3 prisoners executed in the state had lawyers who have since been disbarred. "This community knows George W. Bush and views with great skepticism any promise of real assistance from a man who presided over so many executions," LeBoeuf says. "We're going to be very surprised if this doesn't come with strings that are either unacceptable or get in the way of independent advocacy." In Florida, where there are 382 inmates on the state's death row, a flap has developed over the increasing use of private attorneys with little criminal law experience in capital cases, something proponents of Congress' plan say could happen in greater numbers if the Justice for All Act isn't funded. Florida Supreme Court Justice Raoul Cantero III, in a January speech to the state's Commission on Capital Cases, said that a push from Gov. Jeb Bush to rely more heavily on lawyers from the private bar as a cost-cutting measure has produced some of the "the worst lawyering I've seen." In 2002, Gov. Bush -- the president's brother -- closed one of the three regional offices staffed by state-paid lawyers that focused on representing death row inmates, arguing that it could save the state up to $3.8 million a year. Other state Supreme Courts have spoken to poor funding for defense counsel in capital cases as well. And their concerns have gone beyond the problem of ineffective counsel. In a 2001 decision reversing and remanding a death penalty conviction to the lower court, the Arizona Supreme Court wrote, "So long as the law permits capital sentencing, Arizona's justice system must provide adequate resources to enable indigents to defend themselves in a reasonable way." The justices wrote that a denial of funding interfered with the "fair and orderly administration of justice," noting that there were no funds provided for a psychological expert to testify at trial about the defendant, a common practice in criminal cases. That's one of the reasons some critics say that Bush's plan is admirable but inadequate. "I'm whole-heartedly in favor of training private attorneys involved in capital cases," says Rob Warden, executive director of Northwestern University's Center on Wrongful Convictions. "But there are threshold problems in the system, including police and prosecutorial misconduct, that occur before ineffective assistance of counsel becomes an issue." DeGruy of Mississippi's Office of Capital Defense Counsel says that one thing is clear: Bush's plan is driven in part by pragmatism. "This isn't a bunch of bleeding hearts who say we need to take care of the people on death row," DeGruy says. "The system ain't functioning." (source: Legal Times) ******************************** Supreme Indifference----Railroading Moussaoui In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense. 6th Amendment The Supreme Court this week refused to interfere with the prosecution of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person charged in connection to the 9-11 attacks. The court's rebuff of Moussaoui's appeal remands his case to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals and deprives him of his 6th amendment rights. When Moussaoui's case resumes, he will be barred from his fundamental right "for obtaining witnesses in his favor"; a right that could very well acquit him of the crimes for which he is being prosecuted. Once again, the Bill of Rights is being savaged in full view of the American public without a whimper of dissent. And once again, the Supreme Court is eviscerating basic Constitutional protections in the name of national security. Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested before 9-11 when his suspicious behavior at a flight-training school drew the attention of FBI agents in Minneapolis. He has been in solitary confinement ever since. He has never denied his connection to the 9-11 conspirators, only that he was not personally involved in the Sept attacks. It was John Ashcroft who decided that Moussaoui (who is not an American citizen) should be provided with all the protections afforded to an American citizen. He foolishly believed that the case would be a "slam-dunk" and would demonstrate the munificence of American jurisprudence. It hasn't turned out that way, and the Justice Dept has had to compensate for its own incompetence by battering the Constitution at every turn. For one thing, it's doubtful that keeping a suspect in solitary confinement without bail for 4 years meets the 6th Amendment's requirement that "the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trail". In reality, Moussaoui's incarceration probably violates the 8th Amendment's directive against "cruel and unusual punishment". At the very least, it makes a travesty of our purported commitment to due process. Moussaoui maintains that terror-suspects Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh and Mustapha al-Hawsawi can provide testimony that will exonerate him of involvement in 9-11. The government has steadfastly refused Moussaoui's request saying that producing the witnesses would endanger National security. Obviously, video testimony of the 3 witnesses could have been provided without any danger to national security by deleting questionable sections of the tape. Presiding Judge Lonnie Brinkema has consistently ruled that Moussaoui must have some access to the witnesses or the charges against him must be mitigated by way of compensation. The DOJ, however, has rejected Brinkema's compromise and continues to press for the death penalty. They have offered to provide written testimony from the 3 suspects (entirely supervised by the state) that they claim will satisfy Moussaoui's 6th Amendment rights. Think of how absurd this is? The prosecution is asking for the right to supervise the testimony for the defense. In other words, they are asking to be trusted to honestly prepare the defense's case. It's complete lunacy. The remedy denies Moussaoui of the only chance he has to acquit himself of the charges against him, which means that the trail to nothing more than a sham. The refusal of the Supreme Court to even hear the case is a clear sign that they believe the death penalty is appropriate even though Moussaoui has been deprived of his rights. How? How can any court seek the death penalty when the accused is refused witnesses for the defense? What other defense is there? It defeats the very purpose of having a trail at all. If this is how the Bush-state (with the implicit support of the Supreme Court) chooses to interpret the Constitution, we'd be better off tossing the Bill of Rights on the burn-pile and summoning a firing squad forthwith. The Moussaoui case is a window into the increasingly tyrannical workings of the state, that's why it's buried on page 14a next to the Wall-Mart ad. Even for those who follow these cases, the danger seems somehow remote. But, the facts of the case are quite real and its implications will eventually be felt by every American citizen. Personal liberty is being stomped out by a right-wing Supreme Court determined to undermine the "inalienable" rights of the people. With every ruling (or refusal) they continue to enhance the already extraordinary powers of the President. (source: Mike Whitney, CounterPunch) OKLAHOMA: To death penalty advocates: Please dont kill for me "A healthy society must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil." In a time of cultural fear this quote may be used to justify the reckless use of the death penalty in the United States today. Monday, President Bush argued, in reference to the Terri Schiavo legal battle and his determination to outlaw abortion, that we as a nation should promote a "culture of life." However, during Bushs tenure as governor of Texas, more people were put to death then under any other administration. Texas now makes up over 60 % of inmates put to death nationally. How can the United States promote a culture of life when we frequently condemn people to death? One may argue that Terri Schiavo and unborn children are innocent whereas convicted felons are not, therefore they dont deserve the same rights to life. However, more than 10 % of those sentenced to death in the last 30 years have since been proven innocent by a court of law. In most states those condemned to death row only have 21 days to acquire new evidence supporting their innocence. When this time has elapsed they no longer have the opportunity to bring forth any new evidence that may prove their innocence. Im sure youve all heard the argument supporting the death penalty that it costs tax payers less to kill them then keep them in prison for life. This is completely false. A single death penalty case from the time of arrest until execution costs between $1 million to $3 million. Cases resulting in life imprisonment cost around $500,000 each, including incarceration. A national statistic shows that the state of New York alone spends more than $118 million annually on the death penalty. In 1991, New Jersey spent $16 million to impose the death penalty and in 1992 were forced to lay off 500 police officers because they couldnt afford to pay them. Although a Supreme Court ruling recently came out against juvenile death sentences, this is not enough. A common argument supporting the death penalty is the "Eye for an eye" axiom This is a direct quote from the Bible. However nearly every religious denomination is opposed to the death penalty. There is also an extreme racial bias when sentencing people to death. African Americans make up 42 % of current death row inmates, while they are only a little more than 25 % of the national population. In Colorado 100 % of those on death row are minorities. Lastly, the death penalty is not a deterrent for criminals. Of the 12 states that have abolished the death penalty, 10 of them have a murder rate that is lower then the national average. Before you agree that "a healthy society must stop at nothing to cleanse itself of evil" perhaps you should consider who said it. His name was Adolph Hitler. (source: Jordan Ross, opinion columnist, The Daily OCollegian) CONNECTICUT: Ross being examined by four psychiatrists When Superior Court Judge Patrick Clifford ruled in December that serial killer Michael Ross was mentally competent to accept his death sentence, he relied on the report of a state psychiatrist. When a 2nd competency hearing is held next month, he will hear from 4 doctors: 2 working for special counsel Thomas Groark, 1 for Ross and 1 working at Clifford's request. Clifford and the attorneys in the case want to avoid a repeat of January's attempted execution, which was abruptly halted amid questions over Ross' competency. In February, Clifford appointed Groark to investigate and argue the position that Ross is incompetent, a position that Ross continues to dispute. "His position is still the same," attorney T.R. Paulding said. "He hasn't wavered." Ross, 45, is facing execution for killing four young women and girls in eastern Connecticut in the early 1980s. He has been trying to end his appeals and become the 1st person executed in New England since 1960. Attorneys on both sides say they expect a competency hearing in early April. Ross is scheduled to die May 11. Groark said his investigation continues but would not comment on what his doctors have determined. His psychiatrists, Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Eric Goldsmith, are considered experts on the mental effects of solitary confinement on inmates. Public defenders used affidavits from both men in their bid to stop Ross' execution. They said Ross was trying to commit state-assisted suicide because he preferred death to the harsh conditions of death row. "The evidence of the experts on our side of the issue will be very compelling," said Chief Public Defender Gerard Smyth, who said he is working with Groark's investigators. "I expect it will be highly contested." Paulding, who has been helping the serial killer clear the legal obstacles standing in the way of his execution, hired Dr. Suzanne Gentile. She is an expert on suicide, who works at the state-run Whiting Forensic Institute in Middletown. The court will again hear from Dr. Michael Norko, who found Ross competent in December, but who questioned that finding after reading letters Ross wrote from prison. (source: Associated Press) MARYLAND: Ruling: Offensive e-mails aren't criminal A death-penalty opponent who sent e-mails laced with obscenities and references to Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden to a pro-death-penalty Web site was not guilty of a crime, a judge ruled. Police charged Rachel L. Riffee with misdemeanor electronic harassment after they traced to her 2 e-mails and 3 Web site postings sent to a pro-death-penalty site run by Frederick A. Romano, the brother of a murder victim. On March 21, Circuit Judge J. Barry Hughes acquitted Riffee, 34, of Sykesville, ruling that state law protects political speech. He said the Web site invited discussion, and a few e-mails do not constitute a pattern of harassment. Prosecutor Jennifer L. Darby, who refused to read the communications in the courtroom, said Romano felt threatened by the vicious tone of the e-mails and postings. But defense attorney Andrew M. Dansicker said Riffee did not know the communications expressing her strong anti-death penalty views would go to Romano himself, any more than someone sending a message to Microsoft would assume "Bill Gates would get it." "Theyre angry, theyre vulgar, theyre curse words - and theyre not directed at Mr. Romano," Dansicker said. Romanos Web site focused on Steven H. Oken, who was executed last June for killing Romanos 20-year-old sister, Dawn M. Garvin, in 1987. Oken also was convicted of killing 2 other women during a 15-day spree. The e-mails and postings were sent around the time of the execution. (source: Associated Press) NEW YORK: Revival of Death Debate----State Lawmakers Argue Over Whether to Bring Back Capital Punishment Dale Volker, the Buffalo area state senator and former policeman leading the push to restore the state's death penalty, stews when he talks about the law's absence. Years as a street cop burnished Volker's strict notions of criminal justice. He invokes his father, Julius, a death penalty advocate who chaired the state Assembly's Codes Committee, when urging his colleagues to vote aye. "I don't think everyone should be executed," Volker, who chairs the Senate's Codes Committee, said in an interview. "But it's a penalty that ought to be there for certain crimes." 9 months after the state's highest court struck down the decade-old law as unconstitutional because one provision required judges to give jurors coercive instructions, Volker sponsored a Senate bill passed earlier this month that would reinstate capital punishment. The vote came despite calls to study the law's effects and followed a series of hearings held by the Democrat-led Assembly. Those hearings produced testimony that further stoked growing opposition in the Assembly. Putting the Pressure On Volker, 64, said Republicans, the majority in the Senate, now plan a campaign to pressure the Assembly to take up a vote. The effort will culminate during the 2006 election cycle, when a number of high-profile races - including the competition for governor - will place criminal justice at the forefront of voters' minds. "The Assembly is going to be in a tough position not to vote," Volker said, especially as Democratic candidates court more conservative upstate voters. None in the Assembly has sponsored a bill to revive the death penalty. The Democratic front-runner for governor, state Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, backs the death penalty in certain instances. But support for the death penalty among Spitzer's Democratic political allies in the Assembly has declined since the state Legislature overwhelmingly reinstated the law in 1995. Republican Gov. George Pataki had successfully employed it in his defeat of incumbent Mario Cuomo. But experts say the issue no longer carries the political weight it once did and the Republicans' forcefulness may prove a political error. A poll earlier this month by the Siena Research Institute at Siena College found New Yorkers split over reinstating the law, with 46 % against and 42 % in favor. Of 600 registered voters, 56 % preferred life without parole as an alternative compared to 29 % who did not. The margin of error is 4 % points. "The pro-death penalty side cannot use public pressure to try and move those opposed," said Joseph Caruso, Siena's director of polling, "and those opposed to the death penalty do not have to fear political backlash." Prompted by a changed public mood, the Assembly held 5 hearings in the fall and early winter and is now preparing a report before it decides whether to put the issue before its members for a vote. Pataki and Senate leaders criticized the Assembly for the hearings, saying they were a stall tactic. "This is an issue that has been before the Legislature for decades," said Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno (R-Brunswick). Changing Minds But Assembly Democrats say the hearings have converted many in their conference who once supported capital punishment. Assemb. Joseph Lentol (D-Brooklyn), chairman of the Codes Committee, voted for the death penalty in 1995 but said the hearings changed his mind. "I was on the cusp and then I heard testimony from people who have narrowly escaped death," he said. Now Volker, who had attacked the hearing process as a fruitless exercise, says the Senate may hold its own hearings. "They had hearings against it and we'll have our own hearings for it," he said. "They're going to pass a bill, then ask your opinion," said Assemb. Jeffrion Aubry (D-Corona). "That's really democratic." Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington-based research group that does not take a stand on capital punishment, said, "There is a rethinking of the death penalty going on across the country." Since 2000, death penalty sentences have dropped by 50 %, from about 300 to 150 per year, while executions declined by 40 % over the same period, Dieter said. The most notable reversal came in Illinois in 2003 when then-Gov. George Ryan commuted the sentences of 167 people on death row. The state had halted executions after it released 13 death row inmates over a 23-year period because of new evidence or bad trials. Proponents of the law in New York say national trends have nothing to do with New York's statute. The state has not executed a death row inmate since 1963, and backers say in the 10 years the law was in play, there were no incidents of wrongful convictions. They also point to the use of DNA evidence as a way to prevent errors. "There is no real solid proof that someone was executed who is not guilty," Volker said. Volker said there are some issues that rise above a need for scientific review, namely the death penalty and abortion. Senators should vote their conscience, he said. "In the face of strong beliefs, data doesn't change his mind," said Sen. Liz Krueger, a Manhattan Democrat who had called for a moratorium on the death penalty before last year's court ruling. Debating the Numbers Pataki and his Republican counterparts in the Senate say the death penalty contributed to a 41 % decline in murders statewide, from 1,551 in 1995 to 922 in 2003. But Jeffrey Fagan, a professor of law and public health at Columbia Law School who helped craft the 2000 study, said, "That is ridiculous." The state's homicide rate had begun to decline in 1991 and nationally murder rates have also been dropping, he said. Republicans have also stood alongside murder victims' families who are lobbying for the law's reinstatement. Benjamin Nazario, whose brother Ramon was killed along with 4 other people in a massacre at a Wendy's restaurant in Flushing in 2000, appeared with Republicans at a news conference this month. He spoke of a young nephew who lost his father at age 2 and a family still grieving 5 years later."People should think about what the families go through," Nazario, 50, of Flushing, said. "I want the death penalty back on the books." Kevin Wright, the Putnam County district attorney and president of the state District Attorneys Association, said the Legislature's responsibility is to mend a law that was already on the books, not use the court's ruling as a chance to do away with the death penalty. "It's incumbent upon the legislature to fix the laws in accordance with the court's guidance," Wright said. The Death Penalty Landscape New York's death penalty law was invalidated by the state Court of Appeals in 2004. Lawmakers now are wondering if there is the political will to reinstate it. Currently, more than 2/3 of states have active death-penalty legislation on the books; a dozen plus Washington D.C. do not. STATES WITH DEATH PENALTY (36) STATES WHOSE DEATH PENALTY STATUTES HAVE BEEN DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL (2) STATES WITHOUT THE DEATH PENALTY (12 plus District of Columbia) THE MOST EXECUTIONS . . . More than 900 inmates have been executed since the Supreme Court permitted states to resume the death penalty in 1976, more than one-third of them in Texas. Below are the states that have executed the most inmates since 1976. Texas 339 Virginia 94 Oklahoma 75 ---- [my note- correct number is 76] Missouri 61 ---- [my note- correct number is 62] Florida 59 Georgia 38 North Carolina 34 ---- [my note-correct number is 35] South Carolina 32 Alabama 30 Louisiana 27 NEW YORK 0 . . . AND THE FEWEST 6 states and the United States military, meanwhile, have not executed an inmate since the Supreme Court's 1976 decision. Below are the dates of the most recent executions in those states. Connecticut May 17, 1960 Kansas June 22, 1965 New Hampshire July 14, 1939 New Jersey Jan. 22, 1963 New York June 15, 1963 South Dakota April 8, 1947 Military April 13, 1961 HOW NEW YORKERS FEEL According to a recent poll, a minority of state residents believe New York ought to bring back the death penalty. Less than 1/3 favor the death penalty when an alternative is offered. Question: Do you think New York should reinstitute the death penalty? Yes 42% No 46% Don't know/no opinion 12% Question: What do you think is the more appropriate penalty for 1st-degree murderers? Death penalty 29% Life without parole 56% Other 8% Don't know/no opinion 8% NOTES: Siena College telephone survey conducted Feb. 28-March 4 of 600 New York State registered voters. Margin of error of 4 points. Numbers may not add up to 100 % due to rounding. (source: Newsday)
