August 28 USA: Passion and the Prisoner I once wanted to write a novel called "Bad Taste," about a female character who has incomprehensibly rotten instincts when it comes to making romantic choices. While I was toying with this idea, I was also deeply enamored of a man whose upper-middle-class presentation (which included engraved stationery of the thickest stock, on which he penned the most proper of thank-you notes) couldn't fully mask some alarming tendencies, one of which required him to report in monthly to a law-enforcement agent as to his whereabouts. This relationship had followed upon a two-year involvement with another questionable sort who ended up serving a yearlong prison sentence after we stopped going out, convicted of some white-collar malfeasance he may or may not have committed. By that low point in his life he was married to another woman, but all the same, he sent me letters from the clink describing his daily routine (which seemed to consist of working out in the gym and taking computer courses courtesy of the federal government). I always felt a faint outlaw thrill when an envelope bearing a Pennyslvania postmark and an anonymous, "Stalag 17"-like return address (Bunk #, Unit #, Division #) arrived in the mail, as if I were implicated in the whole sordid drama, a Bonnie Parker by proxy. Although my yen for bad-boy types has always had its limits, at least in real life, I was reminded of these wayward ex-boyfriends by the "Bonnie and Clyde" doings that took place outside a Tennessee courthouse on Aug. 9. These starred Jennifer Forsyth Hyatte, a 31-year-old former prison nurse who stands accused of killing a corrections officer in the attempt to spring her 34-year-old convict husband, George Hyatte, who was serving 35 years for aggravated robbery and assault, as he was leaving a hearing in handcuffs and shackles. After his wife, in response to her husband's directive, "Shoot 'em!" opened fire on the two officers escorting Hyatte, fatally injuring one, the couple set off on a 300-mile escape route. In a strangely calm conclusion to the manhunt that this murderous outburst set off, the lovebirds were arrested -- "without incident" -- a mere day and a half later in a Best Value motel along Interstate 71 in Columbus, Ohio. Jennifer Hyatte, the mother of three from a previous marriage and herself the daughter of a former sheriff's deputy, had no prior criminal record. She was married less than three months to her current husband when she sacrificed her own prospects in a wild plot to free him. Her mother characterized her as a loving wife and mother; her ex-husband seconded these claims. Jennifer had sole custody of her children and had put herself through nursing school. The questions that inevitably arise are How did she go from being a solid citizen to acting like a bandit? And why? Whatever the reasons behind Mrs. Hyatte's perplexing behavior -- a rescue fantasy, a need to nurture, the sexual excitement of being with a violent person (also known as hybristophilia), a wish for attention, a sense of low self-esteem, a grandiose us-against-them scheme -- she is far from alone in her seemingly lunatic infatuation with a man behind bars. Indeed, she is part of what has been recognized as a growing phenomemon, one common enough to have spawned Web sites like WriteaPrisoner.com and inmates.com as well as psychological studies with titles like "Women Who Love Men Who Kill." This is the phenomenon of women who are attracted to the scent of demonic males -- fatally dangerous guys like Erik and Lyle Menendez, Robert Chambers and Scott Peterson. (Both Menendez brothers married in prison; Chambers was reportedly so besieged by transfixed females vying to smuggle him contraband that he had to be transferred to another jail; and Peterson has received at least two marriage proposals). The indubitably handsome and unlamented Ted Bundy was perhaps the archetypal demonic male, one who successfully posed as the dreamboat next door time and again, with the charm and verbal facility to knock the socks off any young woman unlucky enough to meet up with him when he was out cruising for prey. But while it would make for a simpler hypothesis if we could attribute the allure of inmates to their brute physical appeal, the truth is that even a one-eyed serial killer like Henry Lee Lucas had women panting after him, while John Wayne Gacy -- no one's idea of attractive and gay to boot (he killed 33 young men during homosexual encounters) -- became involved with a woman in prison. I suppose we who believe in an unconscious life should understand by now that if it's difficult to figure out the rationale for your friends' marriages and love affairs, it's well nigh impossible to figure out why some women fall for miscreants. The apparent emotional illogic of killer cachet may make for a sweet lyric in a Waylon Jennings song -- "Ladies love outlaws like babies love stray dogs" -- but it has left cultural observers scrambling for answers. These range from assigning blame to Western culture as a whole for adulating male violence to blaming a particular family background for creating the sort of vulnerable female who is looking to have some power in a world that has granted her none by hooking up with a man who is both dependent on her and has exhibited his dominance over others. It has been more than 25 years since Gary Gilmore was executed after issuing his succinct last words, "Let's do it." I had a crush on him from the moment he appeared on the scene for any number of reasons: his good looks; his soulful letters to his pretty girlfriend, Nicole; the wounded aura of defiance he carried with him. Even after reading everything ever written about him, from Norman Mailer's "Executioner's Song," which glamorized him, to his brother Mikal's "Shot in the Heart," which cut him down to pitiful and thuggish size, I think I'd still pick his photo out of a lineup of eligible men. What's a lady to do? Such is the unreasonable pull of pheromones, such are the crooked ways of love. (source: Daphne Merkin, a critic and novelist, is a frequent contributor to the magazine; New York Times Magazine) ***************************** Let's talk...death penalty >From its beginnings, America has been divided by partisan politics. Some periods have been less divisive than others, but generally partisan politics has always been the American way. Today, partisan politics is as serious a problem as ever. Republicans and Democrats constantly argue in Congress. Our country focuses on issues that split us, such as war, taxes and Social Security. However, I believe we can find common ground, and if so, we can accomplish much more. I consider myself to be very conservative, but there are issues upon which I can agree with people on the other side of the political spectrum. One is capital punishment. I believe capital punishment is not an effective deterrent, nor is it a proper punishment. However, life in prison is. I have always felt that we should work to preserve human life. It is very important for Republicans and Democrats to work together. Rather than focusing on differences and personalities, parties should try to find areas of agreement. Compromise will, of course, still be needed to get things done. Rather than putting all of their effort into their own agendas, Democrats and Republicans in Congress should work toward what is best for Americans. (source: Letter to the Editor, Rochester (NY) Democrat and Chronicle; David Albright, a member of the Democrat and Chronicle Teen Council, is entering 11th grade at Lima Christian School) *************************** The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment" The Cultural Lives of Capital Punishment, a new book edited by professor Austin Sarat of Amherst College and lecturer Christian Boulanger of the Free University in Berlin, examines the complicated dynamics of the death penalty in eleven nations to determine what role capital punishment plays in defining a country's political and cultural identity. The editors note that a nation's values and cultural history influence its relationship with capital punishment. The book includes examinations of the death penalty in Mexico, the United States, Poland, Kyrgyzstan, India, Israel, Palestine, Japan, China, Singapore, and South Korea. The editors conclude: "What is clear is that the death penalty lives many different lives and dies many different deaths. Like globalization in general, the globalization of the discourses on state killing should not blind us to the very local nature of punishment. There might be universal reasons against capital punishment. . .but the struggle against the penalty of death must be fought again and again in each different culture in ways that acknowledge and respect capital punishment's distinctive cultural lives." (Stanford University Press, 2005) See International Death Penalty and Books. (source: Death Penalty Information Center) TENNESSEE: Drowota feels Tennesseans may misjudge courts Chief Justice Frank Drowota III will retire next Friday after 25 years on the Tennessee Supreme Court and 35 years as a judge. He recently sat down with Sandra Roberts, The Tennessean's managing editor/Opinion, to reflect on his career on the bench and the future of the judiciary. What are the public's biggest misperceptions about the judicial system? I don't think the public understands the court system. They don't understand that the Supreme Court doesn't have juries and doesn't have live witnesses. Most schools don't teach the judicial branch of government in the same detail they teach the legislative and executive branches. People think that a judge is a judge is a judge. They don't see the difference between a federal judge and a state judge. When most people encounter a traffic judge or a General Sessions judge, they form an impression of the entire judicial system. So we hope that any encounter a person has with the court system is favorable. In your 25 years on the Tennessee Supreme Court, you've had the opportunity to see how other states select their Supreme Court justices. How does Tennessee's system compare? I really think Tennessee has the best system possible. The Tennessee plan is a merit-selection, merit-retention system. Other states, including Ohio, have studied Tennessee's system and tried to implement it. But from time to time, citizens, including some Tennessee lawmakers, call for the popular election of Supreme Court justices. Critics of the system claim that people don't have a vote for the Supreme Court justices, but they do. A justice candidate running for retention has to get more than 50% of the votes. The first justice who had to stand for retention election was Penny White, and she was defeated in 1996. The Tennessee plan also has an intensive evaluation process. Any lawyer who appeared before any judge is mailed an evaluation form. Clerks and other judges also get evaluation forms. Penny White was one of the strongest judges I've ever served with. She was always current, easy to work with, very bright. We didn't see eye to eye on criminal law. But I had great respect for her, and I believe she respected me. Why voters would vote no on a judge due to one case - out of hundreds of opinions a judge considers - I think is evidence that the public doesn't understand the courts. The problems with contested judicial races are that millions of dollars are spent in the judicial campaigns, and most of the money comes from out of state. So justices running for election have to raise money for the campaign. And when justices are out campaigning, they're not available to do the work of the court. At the trial level, most judges in Tennessee are elected on partisan ballots, having to identify themselves as Democrats or Republicans. Is that a good idea? I really wish all of those races were nonpartisan. In Memphis, judicial races are nonpartisan. I think that's a better system. Does the partisan label mean anything at the state Supreme Court level? It means nothing. In my 25 years on the court, partisanship has never, ever raised its head. I can't even think of any issues that break along partisan lines. The Supreme Court selects the attorney general, and many attorneys believe that partisanship plays a role in that process. It absolutely does not. There might be a misperception that politics is in the judiciary; politics is anything but in the judiciary. Unfortunately, the only way one can get to the court is through a political process. The court is responsible for many things other than rendering decisions, including the regulation of lawyers, continuing education and a lawyer assistance program. Are there other programs you would like to see the Supreme Court instigate in the years ahead? Tennessee is on the cutting edge of certain things. That's one of the beauties of the court. Having a 5-member court, every justice brings different interests to the attention of the other justices. For example, Janice Holder was very involved with the Memphis-Shelby County substance abuse program for lawyers. When she came on the court in 1996, she said there ought to be a statewide assistance program. Until she said that, the court's light bulb didn't go off. My light bulb went off in 1989 with the client-protection program. If a client is abused by a lawyer and funds are misappropriated, this fund will pay the client up to $50,000. I'm not sure the public is aware that the program exists, but the Board of Professional Responsibility directs people to the fund. So a lot of our programs are intended not only to help lawyers but to help the public. One example is continuing legal education requirements. Many of the lawyers in Tennessee would rather not spend 15 hours on CLE, but we believe that requirement helps the public. Another program that helps the public is pro bono. We don't require lawyers to do pro bono work; no state has done that. But Tennessee is really pushing to encourage lawyers to do pro bono work. My hope is that Tennessee will have mandatory reporting so that lawyers have to report whether they've done any pro bono work or not. I think a reporting requirement would convince some lawyers to get involved with pro bono. What is your proudest professional accomplishment? The opinion that we worked the hardest on that made the biggest change was a 1992 decision that changed the state's system of contributory negligence to comparative fault. I had been a civil defense lawyer before becoming a judge, and I saw some injustices. If there was a trial that stems from a wreck, strategy that we defense lawyers were supposed to use was convince the jury that the complainant was just 2% negligent, and they would get zero. I had seen cases where my client rear-ended someone and came away with a defendant's verdict because we were able to attach just a little bit of blame on the plaintiff. When I got in the Supreme Court in 1980, three justices were flatly opposed to the notion of comparative fault. It was a non-issue. But in 1990, the court changed and Lyle Reed, Sissy Daughtrey and Riley Anderson all said that Tennessee should have some system of comparative fault. Justice Charlie O'Brien was still opposed. So we granted a case and heard oral arguments, but when we started discussing it, it became apparent that we would have three opinions as to what the comparative fault system would look like. We decided that the four justices who wanted comparative fault couldn't agree on what the system should look like; we would invite confusion. So that was one case that required much debate, and numerous drafts of opinions before we reached one that four people could sign off on. Then during the process of the discussions, Justice O'Brien became convinced. So we ended up with a 5-0 decision. It totally changed the way lawsuits are tried in Tennessee. It's also an example of how having a collegial court can make for a stronger opinion. Justice O'Brien changed his mind over that issue. Have there been any issues where you've changed your mind? I've changed my mind plenty during the debate over a case but never after an opinion was written. Looking back over 25 years, what were the cases that made you lose sleep? There've been many of them. One of my faults is that I can't leave things at the office. I've lost sleep over a lot of cases, particularly death penalty cases. I think those affect every member of the court. Given the changes that you've seen in the court system in the last 25 years, what kinds of changes do you anticipate in the future? More technology. When I got on the court, the justices were mailing letters to each other. And the justices who lived in other parts of the state were on the road a lot to Nashville. Now with e-mail and video-conferencing, it doesn't matter where you live. I can send out a draft opinion in the morning and get comments back from my fellow judges that afternoon. It used to take weeks. But one potential problem area I see is in the access to the court due to the expense of litigation. That's one reason the Supreme Court has been pushing for attorneys to do more pro bono work. To what extent have COURT TV, and the high profile national trials such as the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials skewed the public's perception of the justice system? When we meet with students, we tell them "What you're hearing today are real people with real problems." The O.J. Simpson trial and Michael Jackson trial might be good TV, but they weren't the real world. What advice would you give to your successor? I know both Connie Clark and Bill Koch very well. They've both worked closely with the court. My advice to my successor is to take advantage of the court's good fortune in having such a good staff. Gloria Dale, as just one example, is our senior staff attorney; she's been with the court 24 years. And she was Joe Henry's law clerk in the mid-1970s. It's great for the court to have that kind of institutional memory. And my successor will be moving into a great situation that we have a very collegial court. In my 25 years, it's the most collegial court we've had. We've got a court that is now working on all cylinders, and either Bill or Connie will fit right in and hit the ground running. (source: The Tennessean) INDIANA: State-hired expert: Condemned man psychotic -- Parole Board voted against clemency after psychologist's report called killer delusional. A psychologist hired by the Indiana Parole Board to examine death row inmate Arthur P. Baird II this month told the panel Baird appears to be psychotic -- unable to distinguish real events from imagined ones, according to a confidential report obtained Saturday by The Indianapolis Star. Baird's lawyers have argued he is mentally ill and, as a result, should not be put to death, a claim they are pursuing in an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court and a plea for clemency before Gov. Mitch Daniels. After a 3-1 vote last week in which the Parole Board recommended against clemency, the Indiana Supreme Court voted 3-2 to let the execution proceed. Barring a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to block his execution or a decision by Daniels to step in, Baird, 59, would become the 5th person executed in Indiana this year, the most in one year since the death penalty was reinstituted in 1977. In a 4-page evaluation, psychologist James H. Lowery told the Parole Board that Baird can distinguish right from wrong. But Lowery found Baird does not believe he is responsible for killing his wife and parents in 1985. Baird has said repeatedly his actions were controlled by someone else, and mental health experts don't believe he's making that up. "It's a delusion that doesn't go away," Lowery said by phone Saturday. Lowery's report made no recommendation on whether Baird is fit to be executed Wednesday. Under state law, the execution of people who are mentally retarded is prohibited. But it says nothing about whether the lives of severely mentally ill killers should be spared. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court has not directly addressed the question of whether killing the mentally ill constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. To the casual observer, Baird, a Vietnam War veteran, could come across as normal, Lowery said in his report. But from the time he was 11, Baird believed he had "good" and "evil" personalities that were in constant turmoil. The psychologist was told by Baird, formerly of Montgomery County, that he felt he had conquered his "bad thoughts" by 1983. The next year, however, Baird lost his job, and his mental health deteriorated. Baird started to believe his plan to eliminate the federal debt would be rewarded by God with a large amount of cash. When the reward didn't come, he began feeling as if he could not control his actions, Baird said. That's when the killings occurred. Baird is to be executed in the State Prison at Michigan City for the Sept. 6, 1985, stabbing deaths of his parents, Kathryn and Arthur Baird. He also was sentenced to 60 years in prison for strangling his pregnant wife, Nadine, and 8 more years for killing his unborn child the day before his parents' slayings. Lowery told the Parole Board that Baird harbors long-standing delusions about how and why he committed the murders. Baird, who had never before been in legal trouble, has maintained that a "big, burly man" controlled his actions during the slayings. Lowery's diagnoses of Baird, including a finding that Baird harbors grandiose delusions, were not made public despite repeated requests to the Parole Board and prison officials by one of Baird's lawyers. As a result, the findings were not presented to the Indiana Supreme Court, which last week denied Baird's request for a hearing to determine whether he's legally sane. Lowery said he believed the governor has received a copy of his evaluation. Daniels' chief counsel, Steve Schultz, did not return a phone message asking him whether Daniels would review Lowery's report along with other mental health evidence. Raymond Rizzo, the Parole Board's chairman, said Saturday the decision on Baird's fate was Daniels' to make, terming such judgments "the greatest responsibility a human being can undertake." But Rizzo made clear he believed Baird is faking mental illness and knew what he was doing when he committed the murders. "The man strangled his wife, who was 7 months pregnant, and killed his mother and his father and perfected a plan to get away," Rizzo said. "Why did he do it? I have no way of knowing. . . . Each time he tells the story of what happened on that day, it's embellished." But mental health experts say Baird's story has been remarkably consistent. During psychological testing, they say, Baird tries hard to appear normal, even though he's not. "If he were faking, he would try to appear mentally ill," said Dr. Philip M. Coons, a forensic psychiatrist and professor emeritus at the Indiana University School of Medicine who recently examined Baird at the request of his lawyers. Coons produced a report on Baird, which was submitted to the Indiana Supreme Court and Parole Board last week. He found Baird to be "grossly psychotic and delusional" and mentally unfit to be executed. Baird does not comprehend the nature of the murders he committed well enough to face execution, Coons concluded. Baird has not received medicine or treatment for his delusions, court records show. After reviewing a copy of Lowery's similar findings, provided by The Star, Coons said Saturday he was surprised that all but one member of the Parole Board had ignored testimony from three experts, including one it hired, that Baird is seriously mentally ill. Coons testified before the board. "I imagine the Parole Board sees a lot of con games," he said. "This isn't one of them." Baird's lawyers hope Daniels will call off the execution before Baird eats his final meal Monday. Unable to decide on a last meal because he fretted that prison officials wouldn't let him finish, Baird reluctantly put in an order for fried fish or shrimp and cheesecake, but only after one of his lawyers intervened. His lawyers also have had difficulty getting him to focus on the execution because he's worried about getting overcharged for his subscription to a Montgomery County newspaper, court records show. "He still thinks God is going to turn back the time, and he won't be executed," said one of his lawyers, Sarah L. Nagy. What's next Monday could be a pivotal day in the effort to halt Arthur P. Baird II's execution, scheduled for early Wednesday. - The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to temporarily halt the execution so it can hear oral arguments this fall about whether it's constitutional to execute mentally ill killers. - Gov. Mitch Daniels has been asked to halt Baird's execution before the inmate eats his last meal Monday. (source: Indianapolis Star)
