May 1 KANSAS: Judge: Justice Department must decide soon over death penalty In Wichita, a federal judge has given the Department of Justice until the end of June to decide whether to seek the death penalty against the man accused of killing Greenwood County Sheriff Matt Samuels. U.S. District Judge Monti Belot on Thursday also told the defense team for Scott Cheever it has three weeks to challenge the legality of statements he made to authorities after the Jan. 19 shooting. Cheever, 23, faces two federal murder charges, both of which carry a potential death sentence. He initially was charged in state district court in Greenwood County, but because the Kansas Supreme Court ruled the state's death penalty unconstitutional in December, officials decided to send the case to federal court so a death sentence could be an option. Samuels, 42, was shot while trying to serve a search warrant at a home in the county's Hilltop area. A federal grand jury in March indicted Cheever and others on charges of making methamphetamine in the house where Samuels was killed. The indictment also accuses Cheever of killing Samuels so he wouldn't be a witness to a drug crime. Federal prosecutors can seek the death penalty under more than 40 instances, including the two charges Cheever faces. Before federal prosecutors in Wichita can pursue the death penalty, they have to get written approval from U.S. Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales. Assistant U.S. Atty. Lanny Welch told Belot that meetings have been scheduled for June 6 with the Department of Justice's capital crimes unit. Welch said prosecutors were told it routinely takes 30 to 45 days for a death sentence case to be approved. "I won't allow that," Belot said. "They'll have to have all their work done by June 30. If I don't do that, it will be the end of July or August before we hear from them." To help defense attorneys meet their deadline to challenge Cheever's arrest, questioning and law enforcement searches, Belot ordered the government to turn over documents related to search warrants on Friday. Welch said prosecutors plan to file another indictment against Cheever on Tuesday. Such "superseding indictments" can include added charges or simply make minor changes in the original document. (source: The Associated Press) IOWA: Death penalty: Should it come back to Iowa? -- Should Iowa reinstate the death penalty, even on a limited basis? Some state lawmakers believe so and introduced a proposal this past week to restore the death penalty for those who kidnap, sexually assault and murder children. The sentence would be carried out by lethal injection. Three top Senate Republicans, including Stewart Iverson Jr., Senate Republican Leader, sent a letter to the Daily Nonpareil arguing their case and blasting Democratic Senate Leader Mike Gronstal of Council Bluffs for trying to block any debate on the issue. The three senators, the other two being Larry McKibben of Marshalltown and Jeff Lamberti of Ankeny, said their proposal was "a narrowly-focused death penalty that would apply only to those who prey on Iowa's children." Their action comes in the aftermath of the murder of a 10-year-old Cedar Rapids girl, Jetseta Gage, by a convicted sex offender. The 3 Republican lawmakers said Gronstal and other Senate Democrats are avoiding a debate that most Iowans want their lawmakers to have. "When 2/3 of Iowans support the death penalty, it's flat-out wrong for Sen. Gronstal to block debate on this important issue," the 3 senators wrote. Contacted by telephone, Iverson said, "It's a very narrow bill, only aimed at protecting minors." A person would have to commit all 3 crimes - kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering a child - listed in the proposed legislation to receive the death penalty, he said. A majority of Iowans agree with the death penalty issue, Iverson said. "A poll last week in the Des Moines Register found 67 % favored the death penalty," he said. Iverson criticized those who want to block the proposal. "People expect us to have a debate," he said. "They (Senate opponents) don't want to be recorded on whether they are for or against the proposal." Iverson said he and others will continue to push the legislation for a vote this year as the Senate extends its session this week and possibly beyond. If a vote in the Senate were held, Iverson admits it could be a close one. Even if it were approved, the issue would have to be debated in the House, and if approved there, Gov. Tom Vilsack would have to agree. Iverson said Vilsack is not in favor of the death penalty. In response, Gronstal said Republicans are playing politics with the issue. "They are taking a tragic circumstance (Gage's death) and trying to score political points," he said. "They're playing politics. They know there are not enough votes in the Senate to pass it. They know there aren't enough votes in the House. They know the governor won't sign it. What else could it be besides politics?" The last time the Legislature debated the death penalty issue was in 1995 and that failed, he said. What's more, in recent years when the Republicans controlled the Senate, they made no effort to bring the issue to the floor, Gronstal said. The death penalty is perhaps an understandable, yet "misguided" approach to reduce violent crimes, he said. A much better approach is longer prison sentences and, when criminals like sex offenders get out of jail, there should be better tracking and monitoring of those individuals, Gronstal said. He is pursuing a package of legislation that calls for tougher prison terms for sex offenders and tighter supervision of those who are released. He plans to block any attempt on moving the death penalty issue forward, Gronstal said. The death penalty is also not a deterrent in his opinion. "Texas has had the 3rd or 4th highest murder rate in the nation and the highest number of executions," he said. "Meanwhile, Iowa has had the lowest or second-lowest murder rate for 25 years, at least." As far as public polls on the issue, Gronstal said he's seen support for the death penalty go up and down. Yet, when people are asked to compare the death penalty and life in prison without parole, a "plurality, not a majority" support the prison option, he said. Concerning his own personal opinion, Gronstal said, "I believe the death penalty is morally wrong." Iowa's two U.S. senators have different opinions on the matter. "If I were a member of the Legislature, I would vote to reinstitute capital punishment," U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley told reporters this week. This view is different than when he was a member of the Legislature back in the mid-1960s. "I argued for and voted for eliminating capital punishment. I think I made a mistake," Grassley said. "We were part of the movement in the country to be soft on crime and that being soft on crime encouraged crime." In the decades since, the federal government and many states have become tougher on crime, a shift that included reinstatement of capital punishment. "It's working; it's reducing the crime rate tremendously," Grassley said. Sen. Tom Harkin, however, said, "I've always been against the death penalty." He said Iowa's murder rate is much lower than states that allow capital punishment. "The death penalty is not a deterrent," Harkin said. "Life without parole is more effective. The days of the gallows are gone." There's also been many cases when someone was put to death and later on, through DNA testing or other means, was found to be innocent, he said. Advances in scientific testing that could prove someone's innocence after an execution is one reason why a local political leader opposes the death penalty. "With the death penalty, there's no going back," said Council Bluffs City Councilman Matt Walsh. It's also very expensive, he said. "It can cost $300,000 to $350,000 in court expense time in the appeal process in death penalty cases," Walsh said. "I'm not in favor of the death penalty." Iowa Judicial Magistrate Clarence Meldrum added, "I am not satisfied that the death penalty acts as a deterrent." Texas has the death penalty, yet also has one of the highest murder rates, he said, whereas life in prison without parole in Iowa means exactly what it says. Meldrum said he could live with the death penalty if it was fairly imposed, but it's not. It's applied more to the poor and racial minorities, he said. There's also less money spent on prosecuting a life sentence than a death penalty. "I don't think much of the proposal," Meldrum said. "I don't see any merit in it. I don't think it's a deterrent." JETSETA'S BILL U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, this past week introduced legislation, known as Jetseta's Bill, that would enhance criminal penalties and mandatory minimum sentence for child sex predators prosecuted in federal courts. The bill is named after Jetseta Gage, a young Iowa girl who was abducted, raped and murdered by a repeat sex offender. "These crimes are some of the worst offenses possible and there are far too many," Grassley said. "It's time for Congress to take aggressive action to keep our children and grandchildren safe from child predators." The bill would guarantee punishment for criminals who commit violent crimes against children by establishing stiff mandatory minimums. The bill establishes the following mandatory minimums for violent crimes against children: - If the crime of violence results in the death of a child who is under the age of 15 - death or life in prison. - If the crime of violence is kidnapping, sexual assault or maiming or results in serious bodily injury - 30 years to life. - If the crime of violence results in bodily injury of a child under the age of 12 - 15 years to life. - If a dangerous weapon is used in the crime - 10 years to life. - In any other case - 2 years to life. The bill also increases penalties for the following federal crimes: aggravated sexual abuse of children, abusive sexual contact with children, sexual abuse of children resulting in death, sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of children, activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography, using misleading domain names to direct children to harmful materials on the internet, production of sexually explicit depictions of children and conduct relating to child prostitution. (source: Daily Nonpareil) MASSACHUSETTS: No-risk death penalty? There is no such thing In April, a rape case defendant in Georgia overpowered a court deputy, took her gun and killed a judge and 2 other people, according to police reports. Georgia has the death penalty, but that did not deter him. In fact, the death penalty is not a deterrent. States with the death penalty have higher murder rates than states that do not have the death penalty. When lawmakers on Beacon Hill begin debate on Gov. W. Mitt Romney's proposal to reinstate the death penalty in Massachusetts, they will cite this information as a reason to defeat the governor's bill. There's more. The death penalty does little to deter violent crime; it unfairly targets blacks and other minorities, and it relies on a judicial system that, while among the best in the world, is not perfect. Romney believes he has crafted a death penalty bill that virtually guarantees no innocent person will ever be executed - the "gold standard" for capital punishment, as he called it. This is fool's gold. No death penalty is foolproof, even with multiple safeguards in place. Even the governor acknowledged that the safeguards in his bill would not completely rule out wrongful convictions. As an example, there is Illinois which, in 2003, emptied its death row after several convicted murderers were found to be innocent. The governor at the time, George Ryan, concluded that "no system, given human nature and frailties, could ever be devised or constructed that would work perfectly and guarantee absolutely that no innocent person is ever again sentenced to death." Romney's bill calls for verifiable scientific evidence such as DNA analysis before someone can be sentenced to death, yet he vetoed funds approved by the Legislature 2 years ago to create a Department of Forensic Sciences. The state's crime laboratory and medical examiner's office currently are not sufficiently funded to provide the "gold standard" for capital punishment that Romney promises in his bill. At a time when the state can barely fund schools, it is difficult to argue that the state should spend money so the governor can make Massachusetts a "model for the nation" on capital punishment. Lawmakers should reject the governor's proposal. (source: Editorial, The Republican)
