Nov. 14
TEXAS----impending execution
Killer in Houston crack house shooting set to die Tuesday
Robert Dale Rowell already had a slaying under his belt, a fatal stabbing
committed while in prison on a robbery conviction, when a Harris County
jury decided he deserved to die for shooting 3 people at a Houston crack
house, killing 2 of them and leaving a 3rd paralyzed.
Rowell, 50, faced lethal injection Tuesday evening for the 1993 shooting
spree that left Raymond Mata, 38, and Irvin Wright, 52, dead. Mata's wife,
Angie Perez, was seriously wounded.
He would be the 18th Texas prisoner executed this year and the 1st of 2 on
consecutive nights this week. Condemned inmate Shannon Thomas was to
follow him to the death chamber Wednesday night for a triple slaying in
Baytown on Christmas Eve in 1993.
The U.S. Supreme Court last month refused to review Rowell's case.
Rowell has spent much of his adult life in prison, and prosecutors used
his extensive criminal history to convince jurors to send him to death
row.
Evidence showed Rowell arrived at Wright's north Houston house on Red
Ripple Road about 4 a.m. May 10, 1993, as a dissatisfied customer
complaining he'd paid too much for some crack cocaine. Mata and Perez, who
answered the door, also were living there. Court records show Rowell,
armed with a pistol, warned the couple he would shoot them if they tried
to flee.
"He knew the guy was a dope dealer, and he was thinking either he was
going to get a little dope or get some cash," Kelly Siegler, the Harris
County assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, recalled. "And
then things went crazy."
Perez later would say she heard a thumping sound and screams from Wright's
room. Wright, investigators determined, had been badly beaten with a claw
hammer and was led into the couple's room. All three were herded into a
bathroom where they were shot in a bathtub. Rowell then took a shower.
He was arrested a short time later at an auto repair shop where he worked.
Police found a .22-caliber revolver with six spent cartridge casings and a
bank bag belonging to Wright.
Rowell declined to speak with reporters in the weeks before his scheduled
punishment. His attorney, Edward Mallett, did not return calls seeking
comment.
Witnesses at his trial described him as depressed, introverted,
psychopathic and a chronic drug user who turned violent while under the
influence of drugs.
Rowell first went to prison in 1974 at age 18 with 10- and 12-year
concurrent sentences for armed robbery. He was paroled 4 1/2 years later.
He was involved in a 1980 robbery spree that included a shootout with a
Houston police officer at a restaurant that ended with his arrest while he
hid under a car in a parking lot. That got him a 30-year sentence for
robbery.
In September 1982, prison records show he used a shank to fatally stab a
fellow inmate at the Ramsey I prison in Brazoria County, earning him a
manslaughter conviction and another 8-year prison term. In June 1991,
however, Rowell was released under mandatory supervision.
2 years later, he was arrested for the slayings that earned him a cell on
death row.
"I think the jury was pretty appalled by it," Siegler said of his release
from prison on the earlier sentences.
After Thomas, set to die Wednesday, one other 2005 execution is scheduled
in Texas for December. If carried out, the 20 lethal injections would be 3
less than a year ago and the fewest for a year in Texas since 17 inmates
were put to death in 2001. A record 40 were executed in 2000.
*****************
Man held in Dallas police officer's slaying
A man accused of fatally shooting a police officer had threatened to kill
his ex-girlfriend and said if police became involved, he would "take them
down," the woman's neighbor said.
Juan Lizcano, 28, was charged with capital murder and aggravated assault
and held on $1 million bail.
He was accused of fatally shooting Officer Brian Jackson, a Rhode Island
native, during a foot chase through alleys and between houses. Jackson, a
five-year veteran, was hit once under his right arm, near his protective
vest, according to police.
"He was proud to be a cop," Police Chief David Kunkle said. "He did his
job with a lot of emotions and passion."
Jackson, 28, was a graduate of Portsmouth (R.I.) High School and of the
University of Rhode Island. His parents live in Middletown, R.I. The
family said in a statement he will be remembered for his good humor, his
sense of duty, and his love for his family.
"He was killed in the line of duty, doing the job he loved, helping secure
the safety of the citizens of Dallas," the statement said.
Lizcano had been threatening his ex-girlfriend, neighbor David Huerta
said, and Huerta threatened to call police if he continued. Huerta said
Lizcano replied: "Go ahead and call the damn cops. I'll take them down
too."
The ex-girlfriend, Marta Cruz, called police early Sunday, saying Lizcano
had come to her house, brandished a gun and shot into the air. Before
fleeing, he told her "next time, it will be you," she said.
Jackson responded to her home. About 45 minutes later, a second call came
in reporting the man had returned. Police saw a man with a gun run into
the backyard and chased him. After Johnson was struck, Lizcano
surrendered.
Jackson was pronounced dead at Baylor University Medical Center. He
married his wife, JoAnn DeMello Jackson, on the University of Rhode Island
campus in August, and the couple had just returned from a delayed
honeymoon trip to Hawaii, according to his family.
Jackson and Ryan Duffy, a Newport, R.I., police patrolman, earned their
emergency medical technician certificates while students at URI and
volunteered on the university's ambulance, The Providence Journal
reported.
"He died doing exactly what he wanted to do," said Duffy, a close friend.
"That's probably the best comfort we have."
Charlestown Police Sgt. Patrick J. McMahon worked with Jackson and his
wife. He said he spoke with JoAnn DeMello Jackson on Sunday.
"She's just lost," McMahon said.
(source for both: The Associated Press)
******************
Prosecutors argue for death sentence
Tarrant County prosecutors Monday morning began their attempt to prove
that Edward Busby Jr. should die for killing retired TCU professor Laura
Lee Crane, calling to the stand 2 witnesses who accused him of a violent
home invasion robbery in 2000.
Darwin Willis said Busby came to his Arlington apartment about 2 a.m. on
June 22, 2000, demanding money. He went away after Darwin game him some
cash, but returned at 5 a.m. armed with a box cutter, Willis said.
"I met him in the hallway," said Willis. "He kicked in the front door, I
believe. He said all he wanted was my money and I said 'Bull,' and the
fight was on."
Busby, 33, was convicted of capital murder Friday in Cranes Jan. 30, 2004
death. He and his co-defendant, Kathleen Latimer, were accused of
kidnapping Crane, 77, from the parking lot of a Tom Thumb grocery store on
South Hulen Street.
Prosecutors say the 2 forced Crane into the trunk of her 1999 Nissan
Sentra, later duct-taping her head so that she suffocated. They also used
her credit cards and a blank check to rob her of more than $775,
prosecutors say.
The two were found driving her car in Oklahoma City on Feb. 1., 2004. The
next day, Busby led police to Cranes body in a wooded area of Interstate
35 in Davis, Okla.
Latimer is to be tried separately on a capital murder charge.
Prosecutors Joe Shannon and Greg Miller want Busby to be executed. Busbys
attorneys, Jack Strickland and Steve Gordon, will ask the jury to sentence
him to life in prison.
During cross-examination Monday, Gordon questioned Willis about a woman
who was at his house when Busby arrived. Willis admitted the woman was a
prostitute but denied that Busby took his truck and some CDs because of an
unpaid debt.
Also on Monday morning, prosecutors called to the stand a clerk from the
U.S. Factory Outlet store located off I-35 near Denton. The woman
testified that Busby and a woman stopped there on the afternoon of Jan.
30, 2004.
While there, Busby bought some imitation Obsession cologne, a shirt,
pants, boxer shorts and socks, the clerk told the jury.
Spectators at the trial arrived Monday morning to find added security. A
Tarrant County Sheriffs deputy searched the bags of those entering the
courtroom and ran a hand-held metal detector over them.
It was unclear whether any specific incident caused the extra security.
(source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram)
NORTH CAROLINA:
House Committee Reviews NC Death Penalty Eyewitness News
North Carolina's death row population is among the highest in the country,
pushing lawmakers to place the entire system under review.
With one death row inmate killed last week, and another inmate scheduled
to die by lethal injection this Friday, lawmakers want to take a closer
look at the death penalty in our state.
Elias Syriani, 67, was convicted of murdering his wife by stabbing her 28
times with a screwdriver as his son, John, watched. He was sentenced to
death 15-years ago, but today his children want to see him live.
Syriani's daughter, Rose Syriani, says she's forgiven her father. "She was
a very loving and forgiving person and we just want to be able to remember
those memories of the past that we shared with both our mother and father
and move on."
Syriani's 4 children met with Governor Mike Easley last week to plea for
clemency for their father. While they wait for an answer, others will be
watching closely as the death penalty goes under close review by
lawmakers.
A House study committee will look at prosecutorial misconduct, the
adequacy of defense teams, and race.
This comes after 2 North Carolina death row inmates were cleared of all
charges last year.
(source: ABC TV news)
CALIFORNIA:
Avoiding ultimate mistake in applying ultimate punishment
San Quentin's execution chamber is gearing up for primetime. Barring any
gubernatorial pardons or last-minute reprieves, lethal injections could
begin as early as Dec. 13. That's the date chosen for the execution of
51-year-old Stanley "Tookie" Williams, founder of the Crips street gang
and Nobel Peace Prize nominee for his redemptive efforts to steer kids
away from violence. He maintains his innocence in four 1979 gun deaths.
Next on the list is Clarence Ray Allen, a 75-year-old Fresno man convicted
in 1982 of masterminding a triple murder. His appointment with the
execution chamber is set for Jan. 17.
And Michael Morales, 45, convicted of raping and killing a teenager in
1981, is likely to get his date with death some time in February.
The question of whether the death penalty is appropriate punishment for
the crimes committed by these men or others will not be resolved anytime
soon. At issue now is whether California should be carrying out executions
while the legislatively mandated California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice examines flaws in our death-penalty system.
As chair of the California Assembly's Public Safety Committee, I will soon
preside over hearings on a bill that would put executions on hold while
the commission does its work. The California Moratorium on Executions Act
(AB1121) calls for a temporary suspension of state executions to give the
commission time to study the system and the Legislature a chance to review
their findings.
Executions would resume on Jan. 1, 2009. The bill would not preclude
prosecutors from seeking death sentences, nor would it prevent juries or
judges from imposing death sentences. It would simply allow for a thorough
investigation to prevent the death of innocents.
Consider the growing evidence that the system is plagued with flaws and
disparities: Since 1976, when the U.S. Supreme Court lifted its
prohibition on the death penalty, 121 men and women have been freed from
death rows around the nation after being found innocent. By the end of
November, the number of executions for the same time period may reach
1,000. That means for every 9 people executed in this country, 1 person
from death row is exonerated. This is an unconscionable rate of error.
In California, 6 death row inmates have been set free since the state
reinstituted capital punishment. The state of Georgia recently apologized
for an execution it called "a grievous mistake." And in 2000, Illinois
Gov. George Ryan imposed a moratorium on executions after 13 men on death
row in that state were ultimately found to be not guilty.
A frequent reason for reversal in death-penalty cases is ineffective
assistance of counsel. A Columbia University study found that nationwide,
68 percent of all death-penalty cases were reversed on appeal. Minimum
standards for defense counsel only took effect last year in California.
Most inmates now on death row were tried at a time when attorneys did not
qualify under these standards and were not trained in death-penalty
defense. Judges frequently gave juries the wrong instructions and
prosecutors liberally used snitches as witnesses, giving them lighter
sentences in exchange for their testimony. Is it any wonder that the
appeals have taken so long?
Race and geography also determine who gets the death penalty in
California. Researchers from Northeastern University and the University of
Colorado, examining 1990s data from the FBI, the California Office of
Vital Statistics and other sources, found that perpetrators who kill
Caucasians are 3 times more likely to be sentenced to die than those who
kill African Americans, and 4 times more likely than those who kill
Latinos. Also, a person convicted of 1st-degree murder in a rural,
predominately white county is 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death
than a person convicted of a similar crime in a diverse, urban community.
It's fair to ask whether the death penalty helps at all, given the growing
evidence that it is applied unfairly and fails to deter crime. In fact,
states without the death penalty have a lower rate of homicide than states
with capital punishment, according to a New York Times survey from 2002.
Additionally, capital cases cost millions more than keeping a killer in
prison for life without the possibility of parole. So for now, let's hold
off on executions and let the California Commission on the Fair
Administration of Justice do its work. If we don't, California could be
the next state apologizing for making the ultimate mistake.
(source: San Francisco Chronicle (Assemblyman Mark Leno represents the
eastern half of San Francisco in the California Legislature.)
USA:
Conscience versus duty
TIMOTHY M. KAINE was elected Democratic governor of Virginia last week
because, apparently, some Americans think a radical dichotomy between
private and public morality is a good thing. "My faith teaches life is
sacred," Kaine, a Roman Catholic, told voters. "That's why I personally
oppose the death penalty. But I take my oath of office seriously." One
hears the beat of silence. "And I'll enforce the death penalty."
Kaine's statement was a sharp affirmation of distinct ethical spheres -- a
person's ultimate obligation to conscience, and that same person's equal,
if sometimes opposite, duty to impose a sanction that conscience abhors.
The New York Times reported that "focus groups and Internet surveys showed
that voters respected Mr. Kaine's position, even if they did not agree
with it." They respected Kaine's readiness to execute the condemned, even
though he thinks it wrong to do so.
American voters are familiar with this kind of ethical reasoning, if it
can be called that. For more than three decades, on another subject,
politicians of various stripes have routinely pronounced themselves
"personally opposed" to abortion, but ready to protect legal access to it.
The usual rationale for this position is that, in our system with its
separation of church and state, it would be wrong for a politician to
impose a "private" religious conviction on a public that does not share
it.
This refusal seems to be a personalizing of the nonimposition clause of
the Constitution ("make no law respecting an establishment of religion"),
with the officeholder acting to uphold the freedom of conscience of each
citizen, even if at the expense of the officeholder's own conscience. This
dichotomy not only defines the nation, but must define the inner life of
every one hoping to serve the nation as a leader.
There are clear benefits to this approach. It is, for one thing, an
antidote to the poison of state-imposed religion, in reaction to which the
founders of the United States sought and found an ingenious constitutional
solution. The importance of this ''wall of separation" tradition is newly
evident as some proselytizing Christians in the US Air Force, for example,
implicitly put the power of rank and office at the service of conversion.
Alarms should sound when certain kinds of beliefs are deemed necessary for
the ''unit cohesion" on which the military depends. President Bush's
selection of a candidate for the US Supreme Court based mostly on her
"faith commitment" was another instance of a troubling embrace of a
religious test for an office that must be kept resolutely apart from
religion. Similarly, the plethora of "faith-based" initiatives coming from
Washington rightly raises hackles. The public sphere must be protected
from religious preference of every kind.
But another result of this dualism has been a deadly impoverishment of
both private and public moral thinking, from the start. As I learned from
Wendell Berry, the church-state divide let the first generation of
Americans, like Thomas Jefferson, abhor the institution of slavery in
private ("Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is
just.") while doing nothing to oppose it in public -- a refusal to impose
a "private" morality on a slave-owning public. An objection that was
"merely" ethical carried no weight when it came to law or policy -- or to
the meaning of "all men are created equal." Was it only incidental that it
served Jefferson's own political purpose to keep his ''private" objection
private?
Contemporary politicians who declare themselves ''personally opposed" to
abortion, but ready to enable it, may be sincere at some level, but at a
deeper level their opposition rings hollow. Judging not by what they say,
but by what they do, one must disbelieve them. Perhaps their real
"private" secret is the conclusion that, in some circumstances (following
the principle of the lesser evil, for example), abortion is the right
thing to do, and that the government, therefore, must protect it as an
option. Convoluted public-private rhetoric about the death penalty can be
similar.
In American politics, it is easier to fudge such moral questions in the
blurred borderland of "separation" than it is to mount a direct challenge
to an ecclesiastical establishment or powerful interest group. As litmus
tests, abortion and the death penalty can seem to sit in opposite dishes,
but the moral conundrums raised by each are similar. In both cases, and in
others, what we need are politicians who reach moral conclusions in the
privacy of conscience (whether religiously or not), and then dare to
claim, explain, and defend their private positions in public.
(source: Boston Globe)
********************
Death Penalty IV
I have written three articles before this on the subject of the death
penalty, saying why I support it. 90 % of our population agree, but the 10
% minority are like the ruling animals in George Orwells Animal Farm. The
latter must be more equal, because our political leaders (red and blue)
have persistently ignored the voices of the vast majority of our
population.
A small, vocal, wealthy and influential group of people in the First World
countries have imposed their will on the majority of their citizens, who
have never been consulted, and abolished the death penalty. This is what
some call "enlightened world opinion." Having done so in the First World
countries, based on studies we have never seen, they declare that the
death penalty is not a deterrent to murder because most homicides are
crimes of passion. Perhaps this is so in First World countries. It is not
so in Belize. Then they declare that capital punishment is against human
rights principles. And now, finally, it is wrong to execute murderers
because the act is irreversible.
The leaders of the First World countries who decided, undemocratically, to
abolish the death penalty in their own countries, are so sure that it is
the right thing to do that they wish to impose their will on those they
consider unable to decide the matter for themselves, and bring great
pressure to bear on these countries, through their foreign policy
initiatives and through powerful international organization like the Human
Rights Commission.
Let me deal once again with the arguments for the abolition of the death
penalty. I cannot say what happens in England, France, Germany, Italy or
in the United States of America. It may be that in these places most
homicides are the result of uncontrollable emotion, where the killer does
not reflect on the consequences of his action. This is not the case in
Belize, where people are killed for trivial things, like an ideal or a
dollar chicken, or for no reason at all except that the killer believes
that he has the power of life and death. How else can you explain the
action of a man who is successful in taking away a grocers earnings, and
shoots him anyway?
In recent years Belize's murder rate per capita of population has become
one of the highest in the world, and the attitude of the killers seems to
be that human life has no value. Their mission seems to be - "Have gun,
will kill."
If you examine the historical evidence you will note that when the death
penalty was in effect, there were very few murders. It has not been in
effect in the last 20 years, and the murder rate has been climbing
steadily. Based on our own experience in Belize, therefore, the argument
that the death penalty does not deter will not hold.
I have seen documentary evidence which shows that the murder rates in the
states of Texas and Delaware are the lowest in America. These two states
have retained the death penalty. The lowest murder rate in the world
belongs to Singapore. This country also has the lowest overall crime rate.
Singapore has the death penalty.
What has happened to many Third World countries like Belize, which has the
death penalty as the punishment for murder, is that First World countries
pressure has forced them to suspend executing murderers. Then, it can be
used as proof that the death penalty, does not deter. It cannot deter
because, for all intents and purposes, it does not really exist.
The latest and weakest argument against capital punishment is that it is
irreversible. It is somehow a terrible thing that the state, in seeking to
give justice to those aggrieved by the murder of a victim who is near and
dear to them and to deter other would-be murderers, has decided that death
is the appropriate punishment for murder. This argument is based on the
possibility that despite all the efforts of the judicial system to ensure
that an innocent man is not convicted; despite the fact that these efforts
have succeeded in allowing many murderers to go free; despite the fact
that the scales of justice are tilted heavily in favour of the accused;
despite the fact that defence attorneys are far better paid than
prosecutors, consequently the quality of the defence is expected to be
superior to the prosecution; despite all this, the possibility still
exists, however remote, that an innocent may be convicted. And, because
this is so, murderers should not be executed because death is
irreversible.
To sum up: The death penalty is wrong because it is irreversible and,
therefore, it does not matter whether or not it is the appropriate
punishment for murder.
I respond thus: The idea that a murderer should suffer death comes from
our innermost being. It comes from the very nature of man and was put
there by the Almighty. The desire to put to death the killer of someone we
love, is within the heart and soul of every normal human being. This
desire is tempered by our religious beliefs and controlled by the fact
that we live in a civilized society and are subject to a government and
its decrees. The desire to take justice into our own hands is controlled
also, because of our confidence that the state will see to it that justice
is done.
The way it works, is that the state interposes itself between the persons
aggrieved by a murder and says to them: Have confidence in us that we will
ensure that the person responsible for your pain and suffering will be
punished as befits his crime. And this has not been the case in the past
twenty years.
I believe that the foundation of a penal system begins with the most
severe penalty for the most reprehensible crime, which is murder. Next to
murder in heinousness is rape. In certain particularly terrible cases of
rape, life imprisonment or a lesser term with corporal punishment, might
be the appropriate punishment. But if life imprisonment is the appropriate
punishment for a terrible rape, how can that be the appropriate punishment
for murder? I think that the appropriate punishment for murder is death,
whether or not it deters, and ninety percent of our population agree.
Is the death penalty a panacea? No, but it will make a big difference to
the culture of crime which seems to prevail in Belize. The fact that it is
irreversible is as it should be. Once a murderer is executed, no one else
can be his victim. If he is imprisoned for life, what assurance do we have
that he will not kill again?
I have to ask the question which has never been answered. If life
imprisonment is the appropriate punishment for murder, what is the
punishment for a murderer who kills again while serving a sentence of life
imprisonment? Unless there is a sensible answer to this question, it must
be accepted that life imprisonment is not the appropriate penalty for this
crime. And, the question cannot be answered by saying that the imprisoned
murderer MUST be prevented from killing again. This cannot be assured.
We have to deal effectively with what we call capital punishment, if we
hope to have a penal system which strikes fear into the hearts of
criminals. Fear is a healthy emotion when it serves the purpose of our law
abiding and God fearing citizens. If we do these things, then we can begin
to deal effectively with suppressing lesser crimes in the order of
heinousness. We can reduce the incidence of rape, and so on downwards.
The great American president, Abraham Lincoln, described democracy as
government of, for and by the people. I understand this to mean that the
government whose members come from the people, elected to represent and
serve the people, govern in accordance with the wish of the majority of
the people when that wish can be determined. It is suggested, therefore,
that the simple question, "ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?" asking
for a negative or affirmative response, be put on the ballot paper in the
upcoming City Council and Town Board elections. Then, the government
should act accordingly.
(source: C.B. Hyde, Amamdala Online)
PENNSYLVANIA/USA:
1,000 executions - will capital punishment end?
As the United States Supreme Court ruled the death penalty
unconstitutional in 1972 in Furman v. Georgia, Justice Thurgood Marshall
commented, "The American people are largely unaware of the information
critical to a judgment on the morality of the death penalty . . . if they
were better informed they would consider it shocking, unjust, and
unacceptable."
Justice Marshall obviously held a belief about the people of this country
that if they only knew, if they just had the information in hand, they
would discard capital punishment for good. 33 years later, and 29 years
after the court reinstated the death penalty in Gregg v. Georgia, either
the American people still dont know or they just dont care, for sometime
in late November or December this country will execute someone for the
1000th time since 1976.
And yet one could argue that Justice Marshall's message is getting
through, albeit one step at a time. Although we are approaching a sordid
milestone, death sentences have actually dropped nationally by more than
50 % since the late 1990s. Here in Pennsylvania, death sentences have
declined for 5 straight years and have dropped more than 80 % in 10 years.
In 1994, the commonwealth handed out 21 capital convictions but just 4 in
2004. Death sentences are trending downward because the American public is
awakening to the problems with capital punishment and are becoming
suspicious of the power of life-and-death in the hands of government.
Moratoria in Illinois and Maryland, court-ordered shutdowns of the death
chamber in New York, New Jersey, Kansas and Florida, the end of the
execution of the mentally retarded and children, and the continuously
revolving door of innocent people walking off of death row, have our odd
institution of capital punishment crumbling under its own burdensome
weight.
But what exactly was Justice Marshall talking about in 1972? What is "the
information critical to a judgment on the morality of the death penalty"?
What is so "shocking, unjust and unacceptable"? Regrettably, many of the
problems that the court examined in 1972 still exist today.
As the nation nears its 1,000th execution, it is instructive to look at
who gets executed in this country. Race matters. Pennsylvanias death row
has the 2nd-highest minority rate in the country at 69 %, giving the
commonwealth the feel of apartheid-era South Africa. Gov. Ed Rendell and
some prosecutors have said that this is the case because it is minorities
who are committing first degree murder in this state. What they fail to
tell us is that juries determine if it is 1st, 2nd or 3rd degree murder,
and only death penalty supporters can serve on a capital jury. These
juries are made up of people who, like all of us, carry their own
imperfections and biases.
To make matters worse, some prosecutors deliberately remove minorities
from the jury pool during jury selection. The Philadelphia District
Attorneys office was recently exposed for training its prosecutors on how
to remove minorities from juries and still get around the Supreme Courts
1986 ruling in Baston v. Kentucky, which declared it unconstitutional to
remove potential jurors simply on the basis of race. The Philly DAs office
even produced a training video on the issue.
Yet the race of the victim plays an even greater role in deciding life or
death. Of the nearly 1,000 executed, more than 80 % were cases that
involved white victims, despite the fact that nationally only 50 % of
murder victims are white. How do we explain this disparity?
Money matters, too. Nationally and in Pennsylvania, nine of every 10 death
row inmates were too poor to afford their own attorney at trial. Many
court-appointed attorneys and public defenders are honest, hard-working
people who are simply overworked, underpaid and lacking in the resources
necessary for a quality defense. In addition, the commonwealth provides no
funding for post-conviction appeals. Only the brilliant, pro-bono capital
appeals work of the Federal Defenders Association in Philadelphia, with
contributions from various private attorneys around the state, has kept
Pennsylvania from becoming the Texas of the North.
Racial bias, ineffective counsel for the poor, and police/prosecutorial
misconduct are the seeds that sow the wrongful convictions of the
innocent. Since 1986, twice as many innocent men have been discovered on
the states death row than have been executed. One cannot help but wonder
how many more innocents sit on the row today.
Lastly, while America marks its gruesome achievement, there is one
statistic to consider. In the time that the United States has been killing
1,000 people, 69 countries have abolished the death penalty. Many of these
nations are sometimes referred to as "Third World" or "developing," but
when it comes to state-sanctioned murder, "fully evolved" would probably
be the operative term.
Justice Marshall's optimism about the people of this great country is
inspiring. With "the information critical to a judgment on the morality of
the death penalty," the American people will ultimately end capital
punishment.
(source: York Daily Record - Andy Hoover is the president of Central
Pennsylvanians to Abolish the Death Penalty)
