death penalty news May 19, 2005
INDIANA: Sometimes death penalty seems like the only option One of the greatest powers a state can possess is the ability to execute its own citizens. Capital punishment is abused regularly in authoritarian countries for political purposes, and even in our own country its implementation is highly problematic. If you are accused of a capital offense in the United States, some of the best predictors for whether you will get a death sentence upon conviction are your race, your socioeconomic status, and your place of residence. If you are poor, black, live in a "red state" and rely on a public defender, you are more likely to end up on Death Row than if you are wealthy, white, can afford a good lawyer and live on either coast. Scott Peterson is the exception, not the rule. One cannot say with a straight face that when it comes to capital punishment, we have "equal justice under the law." The United States is virtually alone among advanced democracies in allowing for the death penalty, and we are one of the few countries that officially sanction the execution of the mentally retarded. More than half of the world's countries have eliminated capital punishment, and doing so is a requirement for admittance into the European Union. On this issue, the U.S. is lumped with China, Iran and Vietnam -- the four countries that accounted for more than 95 percent of the executions worldwide in 2004. But is the right to life absolute? The position of the Catholic Church is that life is analogous to a "seamless garment." According to the Vatican's 1995 "Gospel of Life," life is sacred and must be protected from the point of conception until natural death. Thus the church opposes embryonic stem-cell research, abortion and euthanasia. But the church also opposes those acts against life that are committed by the state: capital punishment and war. The late Pope John Paul II was a vocal opponent of the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq, as well as abortion. American social conservatives who support capital punishment conveniently ignore the holistic argument about the sanctity of life and instead cherry-pick those "life" issues that fit their political agenda. President Bush, for his part, would have more credibility on respecting "life" if he didn't hold the national record for executions as governor of Texas. But while Bush may have been cavalier at times in issuing some of his 155 death warrants, I must admit that I find myself on his side of the death penalty debate. There are some crimes that are just so heinous that I believe execution by the state is justified. When I read the details of the brutal murders of Laura Hobbs and Krystal Tobias in Zion, Ill., this past Mother's Day, death is the only reasonable sentence I can think of for Jerry Hobbs, the confessed killer who was also Laura's father. The recently released felon stabbed his own 8-year-old daughter 20 times, including once in each eye, and stabbed her 9-year-old best friend 11 times -- all because Laura stole $40 from her mother's purse. If anyone deserves to die, is it not he? Most capital cases are not as clear-cut, however. That's why we need serious death penalty reforms. There should be a higher standard of guilt for death sentences -- not just "beyond a reasonable doubt," but beyond any doubt. If the state can't meet this higher standard, then it has no business imposing the ultimate sentence. DNA testing should be automatic in every capital case, as should a requirement for expert defense counsel -- and not just "competent" counsel. Overburdened public defenders should never be given death penalty cases. Perhaps one day we as a nation will be ready to abolish the death penalty. I will support that change, as long as we can guarantee that violent criminals like Jerry Hobbs will not be allowed to pile up 29 arrests and 10 convictions before they commit their first murder. Until then, we must be willing to go to extraordinary lengths to ensure that those on Death Row have equal access to the system and are absolutely guilty of their heinous crimes. [Pierre M. Atlas is assistant professor of political science and director of the Franciscan Center for Global Studies at Marian College.] (source: Opinion, indystar.com) ------------------------------ Stay Johnson?s execution It?s time to end the speculation. If Gregory Scott Johnson?s liver can save his sister?s life, Gov. Mitch Daniels should order a stay of Johnson?s execution, scheduled for May 25. There?s no need for more conjecture from doctors, ethicists and advocates for or against the death penalty. A blood test should determine whether Johnson?s liver is a match for Debra Otis. Johnson, 40, an inmate at the state prison in Michigan City, was convicted of the 1985 murder of Ruby Hutslar of Anderson. It was a particularly savage act. Johnson beat and stomped on the 82-year-old woman during a home burglary. He broke her nose and cheek. He fractured her larynx, spine and 20 ribs. Then he set her house on fire. It?s easy to understand why those who prosecuted Johnson, as well as his victim?s friends and relatives, are eager to see him dead. But if Debra Otis? life can be spared through a live adult transplant from her brother, the governor should set aside the state?s need for vengeance. No one is expecting the governor to act before Friday, the day the Indiana Parole Board will render its advisory decision on whether to grant Johnson?s request for either a commuted sentence or a temporary reprieve. But the board?s duty is to make a recommendation; the governor has the ultimate authority. Ordering the stay is a politically safe act. But more important, in this case, it?s the reasonable middle ground between execution and clemency. (source: Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette) ILLINOIS: Death penalty bill killed - Measure would have set highest standard for prosecutors A Senate committee defeated a bipartisan effort Wednesday to raise the standard of proof for sentencing a person to death in Illinois by requiring a judge or jury to determine that a defendant is guilty beyond "all doubt." The action represented a setback for supporters who had sought to create an extra safeguard against wrongful executions. But it represented a victory for the state's prosecutors who were opposed to setting what would be the nation's highest standard for implementation of the death penalty. In arguing against the change, one prosecutor drew a parallel to the slayings of two girls in Zion earlier this month. The father of one of the girls has been charged with murder. The prosecutor contended that under the proposed standard it would take just one juror to have "lingering doubts" about an alleged killer's sanity to spare him from the death penalty if he were found guilty. A similar measure had already passed the House but ran into trouble in the Democratic-controlled Senate Executive Committee, which heard testimony from prosecutors who said the new standard would render it nearly impossible to impose the death penalty. The defeat prompted a spokesman for House Republican leader Tom Cross (R-Oswego), a sponsor of the measure, to say it was unlikely that another effort would be made to pass the legislation before the General Assembly's scheduled adjournment this month. The proposal would have held prosecutors in Illinois to the highest standard in the nation before a criminal could be sent to Death Row. It was designed to ease many concerns about injustices in applying the death penalty. "Only one juror needs to say, `Look, I know he did it ... but I know he's crazy,'" said Peoria County State's Atty. Kevin Lyons. "So they have this lingering doubt." The bill would have required that before jurors could impose the death penalty, they'd first have to agree that they had absolutely no doubt about the guilt of the defendant. After weeks of hearing prosecutors portray the measure as an effective repeal of the death penalty, the committee defeated the proposal 9-3. The legislation would not have changed the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard of proof long required to win a criminal conviction. The beyond "all doubt" standard would have only been applied once a guilty verdict had been rendered and a jury or judge was weighing whether to invoke the death penalty. Lyons, a strong death penalty supporter, described what he called an "unthinkable" scenario like the Zion killings, allegedly committed by Jerry Branton Hobbs III, an ex-convict. Hobbs, 34, confessed to fatally stabbing his daughter, Laura Hobbs, 8, and her friend Krystal Tobias, 9, in a Mother's Day attack that was apparently triggered when his daughter refused to come home from a park, authorities said. "Maybe, just maybe, someday a father will murder his 9-year-old daughter," Lyons said. "And maybe, just maybe, the killer will confess on videotape. And maybe, just maybe, the killer will say a little girl pulled a potato knife--whatever that is--on me and even though she was little she nearly stabbed me, and all of a sudden I lost it and went out of control." He maintained that a juror could simply wonder whether Hobbs suffered from post-traumatic stress syndrome from his time in prison. Looking toward the fall veto session, Cross pledged to fight again. "It's a little discouraging," Cross said. "But you can't sit here and, as a state, put 13 innocent people on Death Row and not continue to do what you can and make sure the system is working." In other action, the Senate agreed to a compromise bill that would spell out that any baby born alive in Illinois is to be considered an "individual" and given any needed health care upon delivery, regardless of the circumstances of birth. For those who oppose abortion rights, the proposal is important because it would guarantee that a baby who survived an abortion would be given treatment. Abortion-rights groups don't object to that idea, largely because the bill clearly spells out that women still have a right to a safe and legal abortion. Abortion-rights advocates contend that very few abortions are performed after there is even a remote chance of fetal survival and that in other instances there is often a serious medical problem with the fetus that led to the abortion. (source: Chicago Tribune) USA: Americans' Views of Death Penalty More Positive This Year - Nearly three in four favor it as a penalty for convicted murderers Gallup's annual Moral Values and Beliefs poll finds that Americans are more positive in their orientation toward the death penalty than they have been in the past several years. Across a wide range of questions on the topic, Americans show a slight but noticeable increase in death penalty support. Compared with a year ago, more Americans say they support the death penalty as punishment for murder, more choose it over life imprisonment as the preferred punishment for murder, and more Americans believe the death penalty is applied fairly in this country. Additionally, a majority of Americans now say the death penalty is not imposed often enough. There has also been a significant decline since 2003 in the percentage who believe that innocent people have been executed under the death penalty in the past five years. The increase in support for the death penalty is apparent across most societal subgroups. (source: Gallup News Service) VERMONT --- federal death penalty trial: Emotions high over death penalty Opposing views on the death penalty were aired Wednesday both in the fifth-floor courtroom of U.S. District Court in Burlington and outside the building on a sidewalk below. During a noon recess in the jury selection process for the upcoming death penalty trial of accused killer Donald Fell, about two dozen capital punishment opponents took to the sidewalk in front of the federal building on Elmwood Avenue. The death penalty trial is the first in nearly 50 years in Vermont. Fell, 25, faces execution for allegedly carjacking Tressa King, 53, of North Clarendon on Nov. 27, 2000, in Rutland and then beating her to death in New York state. Holding signs reading "Keep the Death Penalty Out of Vermont," and "No Death Penalty Anywhere," capital punishment opponents, ranging in age from early 20s to mid-80s, gathered at noon and gave media interviews explaining their position. A short ways down the sidewalk, King's family answered questions from the press about their support for executing Fell. Death penalty opponents outside the federal building said they plan to hold similar protests each Wednesday through the jury selection process and then during Fell's trial. "There is no death penalty in Vermont and I think we should keep it that way," said David Buckingham, 22, a Burlington resident and University of Vermont student studying philosophy. He was one of the first protesters to arrive. "I think that trying to go forward with the death penalty in the court here in Burlington is part of an attempt to legalize the death penalty in states that don't have it and I think that's wrong," Buckingham said. Many protesters opposed the federal government taking jurisdiction in the case. Vermont is one of about a dozen states without a death penalty. However, King's death involved crossing state lines, and prosecutors moved forward with federal prosecutions and applied the federal penalty statute. Many protesters Wednesday argued that seeking the death penalty in Fell case is an attempt by the Bush administration to impose the death penalty on states that do not have capital punishment. Several protesters also objected to a move in 2002 by John Ashcroft, U.S. attorney general at the time, rejecting a plea deal that would have spared Fell's life. The deal would have required Fell to plead guilty to charges of kidnapping with death resulting, in exchange for a lifetime jail sentence with no chance for parole. "We think that if the state has out-lawed the death penalty, the federal government should respect that," Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said outside the courthouse Wednesday. "This is about the death penalty. It's not about Donald Fell. We think killing is barbaric, whether it's done by an individual or the state," Gilbert added. "We think that the federal government is making a show out of the fact that Vermont is an abolishment state, abolitionist in the sense that the state does not have the death penalty." Nancy Welch, 42, of Burlington, another protester, agreed. "This is George Bush's attempt to impose the death penalty in a state that doesn't support it," she said. "He was the Texa-cutioner. He would very much like to start that up here and we say, 'No.'" While the protesters were gathered at one end of the sidewalk, about a half-dozen of King's family members stood about 20 yards away on the sidewalk, united in their support for the death penalty for Fell. "It's OK for them to stand there, that is their right," Lori Hibbard of Rutland, King's daughter, said of the protesters, her voice cracking with emotion. "But (Fell) had plenty of opportunity to let my mother go and he decided not to. He decided my mother mother's fate so I think a jury should decide his." King's family has attended every court hearing in Burlington in the case over the past nearly five years. They spoke of the range of emotions they feel in the courtroom and the thoughts they have when looking at Fell as he sits at the defendant's table. "I play over and over and over again in my head, him stomping my mother to death and throwing rocks on her," Hibbard said. "It's a tremendously stressful thing." Barbara Tuttle of North Clarendon, King's sister, said the protest has not caused her to waver in support of executing Fell. "The death penalty is an option for people that murder a perfectly innocent victim with no reason and no excuse," Tuttle told reporters. "It wasn't self-defense. He brutally murdered her while she prayed for her life. If this is not a case for the death penalty, then you tell me one that is." Tuttle later added that years ago, when she spoke to her sister about cases involving violent crimes, King spoke in support of the death penalty for those who committed such offenses. "She was a very kindhearted person and it really bothered her a lot when she saw tragedies like that," Tuttle said of her late sister. "She felt that people who did that were monsters and should be punished." Fell and the late Robert Lee, reportedly high on crack cocaine, allegedly kidnapped King as she was parking her car early in the morning and getting ready to go to work at the Price Chopper grocery store in downtown Rutland. According to police, hours earlier the two men had already killed two other people in Rutland, including Fell's mother. They took King and her car and drove to New York state, where police said the two men beat King to death. The two men were arrested three days later in Arkansas. Fell has been jailed since his arrest. Lee killed himself in prison in 2001. Family members Wednesday also cleared up a bit of confusion over King's name. Her first name has been spelled "Teresca" in official court records since her death as a result of a misspelling on her car registration, which police recovered when they arrested Fell and Lee in Arkansas. However, King's birth certificate listed her first name as "Tressa" and she was known to family and friends as Terry. Jury selection in the case began May 4. Fell sat Wednesday in court between his attorneys at the defense table, thumbing through papers in front of him as the potential jurors answered questions. By the end of the morning proceedings Wednesday, 38 potential jurors had made it past the first round of jury selection. They will be called back into court in a few weeks as attorneys continue to try to seat a 12-member panel and additional alternates. The trial will take place once the jury is seated. The attorneys are seeking to obtain a pool of 70 potential jurors qualified to serve on a jury, which will hear the death penalty case. A total of eight potential jurors were questioned individually Wednesday morning, with only one invited back for the next round. Some of those excused were released from jury duty because they too strongly favor the death penalty and others because they said they could never impose a death sentence. "If you murdered someone, your life should be terminated also," said one woman excused from jury duty. The woman added that she believed prisons were already too full with offenders serving lengthy sentences for violent crimes and the death penalty might be a way to reduce that overcrowding. Another woman offered another view on the death penalty. "I just don't think it's up to us to decide," said the woman who was excused from the jury for her opposition to the death penalty. "I don't have strong religious affiliations or views, I just don't feel that it is something I am entitled to do, any of us are entitled to do." One woman Wednesday morning did make it to the next round of jury selection. "I believe in the death penalty," the woman said. "I don't believe every single murder case warrants the death penalty. It depends on the facts and circumstances." (source: Rutland Herald)
