Nov. 20
TEXAS:
Anti-death penalty group 'Journey of Hope tours Texas
The The Journey of Hope anti-capital punishment organization converged on
Texas over the past few weeks to deliver its message of non-violence to
the nation's leading death penalty state.
The Journey of Hope: from Violence to Healing" delivered 150 presentations
across the major geographical and urban areas of Texas Oct. 18-26. More
than 20 presentations occurred in Dallas and Fort Worth, including six at
local Catholic churches and schools.
"We've had a very successful trip through Texas by touching people's
hearts and changing their mind on the death penalty," said Journey founder
and president Bill Pelke, also chairman of the National Coalition to
Abolish the Death Penalty.
During the journey this year, Pelke suffered a minor stroke the morning of
Oct. 24 that put him in a Houston hospital for 2 days. The stroke
prevented Pelke from attending one of the major events on the Journey of
Hope, a speech by St. Joseph of Medaille Sister Helen Prejean, author of
the book "Dead Man Walking," at St. Mary's University in San Antonio.
Pelke became personally connected to the death penalty issue when his
grandmother was killed by a 15-year-old girl in 1985. The Journey of Hope
is led by people such as Pelke whose lives have been touched by the death
penalty law in the U.S., either by being family members of murder victims
or by having family on death row.
Using their personal knowledge of the death penalty process, the journey
conducts public education speaking tours that address alternatives to the
death penalty.
They were hosted by the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty,
which arranged and planned for the trip along with Amnesty International.
The trip preceded the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penaltys
conference held in Austin Oct. 28.
"I think hearing these stories moves and affects people by these examples
of healing and compassion," said Rick Halperin, head of the Texas
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty and history professor at SMU. "It's
amazing to see audiences respond to these people who have felt such loss
and then forgave afterwards. It forces people to re-evaluate their own
view."
"There is no connection between the Journey of Hope and the Catholic
church except for the message," Pelke said. "We are both about love and
compassion for humanity, and we both see forgiveness as a strength. For
that reason, the Journey of Hope often ends up giving presentations at a
lot of Catholic churches and schools."
Pelke said many Texas bishops helped the Journey this year through
generous donations, and many Catholic groups helped by arranging speaking
engagements and accommodations through the tour.
In Dallas, the Journey of Hope gave presentations at the University of
Dallas, St. Gabriel the Archangel Parish in McKinney and the Catholic
Conference Center on Madison Ave. The Journey of Hope's largest audience
in the area was about 500 students at Nolan Catholic High School in Fort
Worth.
Despite not having an official connection to any religious group, many
Journey of Hope presenters rely on Christian beliefs to justify opposition
to the death penalty.
Rev. Walt Everett, a former Methodist minister, spoke at St. Gabriel the
Archangel Parish and told a crowd of about 30 listeners the story of his
son's murder which occurred 18 years ago. Everett told the small group of
the initial pain and anger he felt, and the ultimate realization that to
ask for the killer of his son to die would not make him feel better. Pelke
also has written, "I am a Christian and Jesus said, 'Whoever has no sin,
cast the first stone.' Under that criteria, none of us can cast the stone
of death."
The Journey hopes its message of peace will be heard especially well in
Texas, a state that far surpasses any other state in the country in the
number of people executed each year.
With Texas leading the way toward the nation's 1,000th execution since the
death penalty was reinstated in 1976, Pelke feels the group is helping to
slow the number of legal deaths in Texas.
"The Journey of Hope was last in Texas in 1998, and the difference between
then and now is unbelievable," he said. "The coalition now is well
developed and they seem to have a lot of people dedicated towards ending
executions in Texas. I think a lot of that has to do with the Catholic
church here."
Pelke mentioned the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty as a
group leading the effort in Texas.
Halperin also said Texas was "the obvious place to have the National
Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty conference because of the sheer
number of people killed by the legal system in Texas."
Texas has executed 336 people since 1982 as of the end of 2004. There are
currently more than 400 people on Texas death row.
(source: Texas Catholic)
************************
Decision to pursue death penalty not taken lightly by state
I believe in the death penalty. I believe it is appropriate in an
appropriate case.
Many of my constituents hold more extreme opinions.
Probably the majority of Randall County citizens believe death penalty
prosecutions should occur more often. In fact, some of our neighbors would
support executing purse-snatchers.
However, a healthy percentage of the people of our county believe there is
never an appropriate case.
Their desire is to see the death penalty abolished as antiquated and
immoral.
Both these groups are, at times, unhappy with decisions our office makes
about whether to seek the death penalty.
Perhaps a summary of the process we use in capital murder cases will help
all of us understand that such decisions are not simple or obvious. The
process is not lengthy, but the final decisions are often difficult to
make.
I am not offering a defense of capital punishment or a response to the
arguments of death penalty opponents.
There are rational responses to offer to anti-death penalty polemics, but
that is not the subject of this column.
9 homicides have been evaluated for capital punishment prosecution in
Randall County since I took office. We have asked for the death penalty in
only 4. Why did we seek death in some cases but not in others?
The 1st question a prosecutor must ask in reference to possible capital
prosecution is: Does the offense fit the capital murder statute? Sec.
19.03 of the Texas Penal Code contains our capital murder law. It requires
murder plus some aggravating event to trigger the potential death penalty.
Some examples from the statute are murder plus:
- the victim was a police officer or firefighter acting in the line of
duty;
- the commission of some other felony such as kidnapping or robbery;
- the victim was less than 6 years of age;
- remuneration;
- the death of more than 1 person.
We have filed 35 murder cases in Randall County since 1994, but only the
aforementioned 9 fit the capital murder statute.
"(A)ny man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind . . .
Therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee .
. ."----John Donne
The 2nd hurdle is the character of the victim. John Donne wrote: "No man
is an island, entire of itself; every man is . . . part of the main. . . .
(A)ny man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and
therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
Donne's point was that every human being has value.
Every time someone dies, we all suffer a loss. But not every human being
has the same value. The death of Mother Teresa cost mankind far more than
the death of Adolf Hitler.
A prosecutor considering capital punishment has the unwelcome task of
evaluating another human being. If the prosecution expends all available
resources in a capital murder trial for "Hitler's" killer, there will be
no resources left to seek the death penalty for the murderer of "Mother
Teresa." The jury is less likely to render death in the "Hitler" trial,
but Randall County still must pay for the prosecution - not a very
efficient use of our resources.
The 3rd step is the character of the defendant. Why did he or she kill
this time? Is it likely the defendant will threaten society in the future?
The criminal history of the defendant is not the only evidence of future
dangerousness. A lengthy criminal history devoid of violent offenses may
not suggest a capital prosecution. But the defendant with no prior record
may be a dangerous, violent individual who simply has, by luck or skill,
avoided prosecution.
The prosecution must seek information from those who know the defendant
best - family, friends, enemies.
Another important source is mental health experts who have encountered the
defendant in the past and those who interact with him or her at the
direction of the court, once the case is filed.
We are very circumspect about the death penalty in Randall County. Capital
punishment should be a rare event reserved only for appropriate cases.
Almost everyone believes in the death penalty in certain cases. Most
parents or spouses, when faced with shooting a perpetrator who is about to
inflict death on their loved one, will choose the ultimate response. Most
citizens, after honest consideration, will concede that if the facts are
horrendous enough and the defendant sufficiently reprehensible, death is a
suitable punishment. Many of us accept the death penalty if we believe the
defendant will kill again.
These responses, however, are purely philosophical, not practical. Even
after following some version of the steps I have mentioned, the cost of
the prosecution must be considered. The recent trial of Josh Stocker for
the murder of Dustin Pool has cost Randall County approximately $350,000.
Had we sought the death penalty, the cost would have tripled.
To paraphrase the late U.S. Sen. Everett Dirksen: A hundred thousand here,
a hundred thousand there - pretty soon you're talking real money.
(source: Opinion, James A. Farren, a Republican, has served as criminal
district attorney for Randall County since 1995; Amarillo Globe-News)
*********************
'Houston Chronicle' Suggests Innocent Man was Executed
It is often said that while many innocent men and women have been released
from death row in recent years, there might not yet be one fully
documented case of an innocent person actually put to death by the state.
But an article in the Houston Chronicle for its Sunday edition strongly
suggests that an innocent man--or rather, a teenager--was executed, 12
years ago.
Ruben Cantu, 17, was executed in Texas in 1993, convicted of murder. He'd
had no previous convictions and claimed he was framed in this one.
Now the Chronicle investigation, it says, "suggests that Cantu, a former
special-ed student who grew up in a tough neighborhood on the south side
of San Antonio, was likely telling the truth.
"Cantu's long-silent co-defendant, David Garza, just 15 when the two boys
allegedly committed a murder-robbery together, has signed a sworn
affidavit saying he allowed his friend to be falsely accused, though Cantu
wasn't with him the night of the killing.
"And the lone eyewitness, the man who survived the shooting, has recanted.
He told the Chronicle he's sure that the person who shot him was not
Cantu, but he felt pressured by police to identify the boy as the killer."
Often when such changes of heart appear, preosecutors and police are
highly skeptical. But in this case, the newspaper says, "key players in
Cantu's death--including the judge, prosecutor, head juror and defense
attorney--now acknowledge that his conviction seems to have been built on
omissions and lies."
The forewoman of the jury says: "The bottom line is, an innocent person
was put to death." The prosecutor says that at a minimum Cantu should not
have been charged with capital murder, based on testimony of one
eyewitness.
The Chronicle found other problems with Cantu's case as well: "Police
reports have unexplained omissions and irregularities. Witnesses who could
have provided an alibi for Cantu that night were never interviewed. And no
physical evidence tied Cantu to the crime.
"Worse, some think Cantu's arrest was instigated by police officers
because Cantu shot and wounded an off-duty officer during an unrelated bar
fight. That case against Cantu was dropped in part because officers
overreacted and apparently tainted the evidence, according to records and
interviews."
(source: Editor & Publisher)
********************
Texas may have executed innocent man
When Texas executed Ruben Cantu in 1993, the state likely put an innocent
man to death, the Houston Chronicle reported.
Cantu was executed for the 1984 murder of Pedro Gomez. Cantu was 17 when
he was tried, with no previous convictions, but a prosecutor portrayed him
as a violent gang member who shot Gomez and then shot the only eyewitness
who survived and identified Cantu.
The newspaper reports the judge, prosecutor, jury foreman and defense
attorney in the case now acknowledge the conviction seems to have been
built on omissions and lies.
Cantu's co-defendant recently signed a sworn affidavit saying he allowed
Cantu to be accused falsely. The man who survived the shooting recanted,
telling the Chronicle he felt pressure from police to identify Cantu.
Sam Millsap Jr., the prosecutor, now says he should not have sought the
death penalty in a case based on testimony from a witness who identified
Cantu only after police showed him Cantu's photo 3 times.
"It's so questionable," said Millsap. "There are so many places where it
could break down."
No physical evidence tied Cantu to the crime and investigators never
interviewed witnesses who could have provided an alibi for Cantu.
(source: United Press International)
ILLINOIS:
Sorry remark in Porter case begs an apology
The City of Chicago doesn't owe Anthony Porter any money. But it owes him
a big apology.
A Cook County jury last week ruled against Porter at a civil trial in
which he contended that police conspired to frame him for a 1982 double
murder.
Porter spent 16 years on death row for that crime and was 50 hours and 22
minutes away from a lethal injection before he was granted a reprieve
based on a long-shot claim of mental incompetency.
The reprieve ignited a volunteer investigation into his case that led to
Porter's release from prison in 1999.
Yet Tuesday, shortly after the jury's verdict was announced, Walter Jones,
the attorney representing the city, pointed to the table in the courtroom
where Porter sat during the trial and told Tribune reporter Charles
Sheehan: "The killer has been sitting in that room right there all day."
It was a stunning, graceless and infamous accusation.
Anthony Porter was innocent.
We know this because the first people to go to the South Side park and
re-enact the crime--a group of student sleuths from Northwestern
University--proved that the witness who fingered Porter couldn't have seen
what he said he did from where he said he was standing.
We know this because the Northwestern team found an alternative suspect,
Alstory Simon of Milwaukee, and Simon gave a detailed, 10-minute
confession on videotape when private investigator Paul Ciolino went to his
house and confronted him with evidence against him.
We know this because Simon's estranged wife signed an affidavit saying she
witnessed Simon shoot the victims during a dispute over drug money, just
as Simon said to Ciolino.
We know this because Simon pleaded guilty to the murders (though he later
tried and failed to have the courts let him withdraw those pleas on the
grounds that he was tricked into falsely confessing by the wily
Northwestern team).
And we know this because in May 2000, the Illinois Court of Claims awarded
Porter $145,875 in restitution for 16 years of "unjust imprisonment."
We know, in short, that Porter's case was a flagrant and frightening
miscarriage of justice--one that then-Gov. George Ryan alluded to less
than a year after Porter's release when he announced the start of a
moratorium on the death penalty in Illinois that is still in effect.
"I cannot support a system which, in its administration, has proven so
fraught with errors and has come so close to the ultimate nightmare, the
state's taking of an innocent life," Ryan said. "How do you prevent
another Anthony Porter--another innocent man or woman from paying the
ultimate penalty for a crime he or she did not commit?"
A jury that listened to all the evidence in the civil trial did not agree
with Porter's claim that police acted in bad faith when investigating the
murders. But that finding was in no way tantamount to an informal guilty
verdict for Porter.
Still, Walter Jones said: "The killer has been sitting in that room right
there all day."
Corporation Counsel Mara Georges' office, which hired Jones' law firm of
Pugh, Jones, Johnson & Quandt to defend the case, does not agree with
Jones.
"Our position is that the charges were dismissed against Porter in a
manner indicative of innocence," said Law Department spokeswoman Jennifer
Hoyle.
Jones did not return numerous messages left for him at his law firm asking
him to elaborate on his statement.
Hoyle dismissed what Jones said as "just his personal opinion," and added:
"We aren't planning on issuing an apology."
They should. And so should city aldermen, since Jones was representing
them that day.
And they all should hope that Porter doesn't file a defamation suit, an
action his attorney, James Montgomery Jr., said is "something to consider"
under the circumstances.
Perhaps the opening sentence of this column ought to read: The City of
Chicago doesn't owe Anthony Porter any money yet.
(source: Chicago Tribune)
USA:
A penalty of death
Some days it seems as though the world has turned completely upside down;
nothing makes sense. I just experienced a couple of those days and it has
left me nearly - but not totally - speechless.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops just finished their
annual meeting in Washington, D.C. I am certain a large number of topics
were discussed, but the big news coming out of the meetings is that the
bishops approved an 11 page statement entitled A Culture of Life and the
Penalty of Death. According to one news report, 237 bishops voted for it
while four did not.
The bishops are quoted as saying that the country we live in cannot "teach
that killing is wrong by killing those who kill."
Wait a minute, let me think about this. The country we live in does not
teach that killing innocent human beings is wrong; the country we live in
sanctions the direct murder of more than 3,500 innocent human beings
daily. The country we live in imposes the most unjust of sentences on the
most vulnerable people in our midst. The country we live in sanctions a
culture of death.
Yet the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has nearly
unanimously agreed that their focus on the death penalty is needed. And
during the days leading up to the meeting, a case was already being made
for this focus.
In fact just 2 days prior to the bishops' annual meeting his eminence,
Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the archbishop of Washington, D.C., was
commenting to the media about the need for the bishops to deal with the
death penalty. The reporter stated that Cardinal McCarrick cited a number
of factors upon which his view was based, including the fact that the use
of DNA evidence has freed wrongly convicted inmates.
DNA, of course, is a miniscule part of the molecular thread, as the late
Professor Jerome LeJeune often said, that identifies who a human being is.
LeJeune used to captivate audiences by explaining that this thread of DNA
included a thousand times more information than could be contained in the
largest computer in existence - at least in 1990 when he made that
comparison.
But the most interesting piece of information about DNA is that when a
human being's life begins as a single cell organism, a zygote, his or her
DNA is present. This means that his or her identity is encoded for the
rest of his life right there in that single cell. And yes, if at some
later point in life he is wrongly convicted of a crime, as Cardinal
McCarrick so accurately pointed out, it is that very same DNA that could
be used to prove his innocence.
But - and this is an enormous but - the bishops did not, nor have they
ever, used the scientific evidence relating to the DNA molecule to press
for protection of every single innocent human being from his beginning as
a single-celled organism. It seems to me that if DNA can be cited to shore
up the argument that the bishops needs to launch a national campaign to
oppose the use of the death penalty, then surely that same molecular
evidence should be used to press for an end to abortion.
Not only that, but every bishop (and every ordained priest, for that
matter) could use this very same evidence to educate all those wayward
Catholic public figures who promote and advocate the direct murder of the
innocent.
So while some will applaud the bishops' new document, I am stunned into
disbelief. My astonishment stems from the realization that their unanimous
support for the imposition of the Catholic Church's canon law, which would
result in the denial of Holy Communion to any public figure who claims to
be Catholic while supporting the aborting of the innocent, remains
illusory.
In fact, the day after their announced agreement on A Culture of Life and
the Penalty of Death, we learned that Cardinal McCarrick's special task
force on the problem of dealing with public figures who claim to be
Catholic while supporting abortion was going to schedule meetings. The
meetings will involve off-the-record discussions with Democratic and
Republican lawmakers. The purpose of the meetings will be to take counsel
from the politicians, according to press reports, on precisely how the
bishops should deal with the thorny problem of canon law and its
enforcement (specifically, it is Canon 915 which states that those "who
obstinately persist in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to
communion").
While this piece of news made my perplexing day down right vexing, it does
expose for one and all to see the problem and the seriousness of the
situation. Let me be blunt.
Opposing the death penalty gets applause in every political corner of the
room because it's the popular thing to do these days.
On the other hand, making it quite clear that nobody in public life can be
Catholic and pro-abortion is not popular these days. In fact it's
downright disgusting to a vast majority of Catholics; especially to
elected officials who want use their Catholic identity go gain political
power and influence.
So the bishops need advice from elected officials? Say what?
The role of an ordained priest is never, ever to be popular at the expense
of foregoing his mission as a priest. Every priest is called to teach and
preach the truth because his goal is to make sure he does all he can to
help souls get to heaven. This is not my personal opinion, mind you. It is
a valuable lesson I learned from one of the most remarkable priests I've
had the privilege to know: Cardinal John O'Connor. Cardinal O'Connor loved
his priests, and told me that one of the lessons he tried to instill in
them came from the late French Cardinal Emmanuel-Celestin Suhard, who
wrote, "Like Christ, the priest brings mankind a priceless good, that of
worrying it. He must be the minister of restlessness, the dispenser of a
new thirst and a new hunger. Like God, he calls a 'famine upon the land.'
The unrest which the priest must spread is the fear of God."
The priest who spreads this fear of God is doing good, is saving souls, is
protecting Christ from abuse, and is standing on 2,000 years of Catholic
teaching and the word of God.
I have to ask myself, what will it take for all of the bishops who are
actively involved in the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops to
agree that Canon 915 provides them with the teaching tool they need to
make it clear that protecting Christ from sacrilege is the most important
message they can give to pro-abortion public figures who claim to be
Catholic?
What will it take for every bishop to agree that worrying Catholic people,
challenging the status quo and defending the truly innocent are more
critical than anything else they could possibly do?
I've had a very exasperating week. But I wonder if perhaps the bishops
have also had a rather frustrating week. Even more than that, I pray that
they are going to begin examining the basic concept of restoring the
culture of life by lifting the penalty of death from all preborn babies.
Enforcing the Church's canon law would be an excellent place to start.
(source: Renew America----Judie Brown is president and co-founder of
American Life League, the nation's largest grassroots pro-life educational
organization. She is currently serving her 2nd 5-year term as a member of
the Pontifical Academy for Life in Rome. Daily Catholic cited her as one
of the top 100 Catholics of the 20th century)
********************
Death penalty support falls as toll nears 1,000
Robin Lovitt used scissors to stab Clayton Dicks to death when the pool
hall attendant blundered onto the scene of an after-hours till robbery.
Daryl Mack strangled Betty May in her home in Reno.
Neither case would merit much attention in a country that has more than
16,000 violent deaths a year. But one of these two is likely to become the
thousandth convicted killer executed since the US reintroduced the death
penalty in 1976. The US is fourth in the world league for executions,
behind China, Iran and Vietnam, although last year's tally of 120 men and
five women sentenced to death is the lowest yet.
The murder rate was also the lowest for 40 years. Michael Rushford,
president of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said that this was
because "we have been giving this problem the right medicine."
But public support for the death penalty has slipped from 80 % in 1994 to
64 %, according to Gallup, and 2005 is likely to be the 4th year in a row
that the number of executions has fallen.
Richard Dieter, executive director of the Death Penalty Information
Centre, said: "Juries are more hesitant to give the death penalty . . . in
1995 there were 327 people sentenced to death and last year there were
125, a 60 % difference."
The reluctance of juries may have something to do with the fact that 122
people have been released from death row after new evidence or a retrial.
Mr Dieter believes that another significant factor was the option of a
sentence of life without parole. He said: "Juries prefer that option if
there is a lingering doubt about the crime."
Even in Texas, where 352 prisoners have been put to death, the pace has
slowed markedly, with 20 executions likely this year compared with a high
of 40 in 2000.
It may decline further when the state becomes one of the last to adopt the
sentence of life without parole in September.
But the pro-death penalty lobby remains vocal. Steven Stewart, prosecuting
attorney in Clark County, Indiana, argues that life without parole could
be a get-out-of-jail card once states start picking up the bill for caring
for geriatric murderers.
He also said that life without parole did not eliminate the risk that the
prisoner would murder a guard, a visitor or another inmate and "we should
not be compelled to take that risk. It is also not unheard of for inmates
to escape."
He added that those sentenced to life imprisonment served, on average,
less than 8 years in prison and "it is a good bet that life without parole
will not have the meaning intended as years go by."
Pressure against executions has also increased from some churches. The US
Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a strong statement this week calling
for them to end.
Almost all US executions are by lethal injection after the phasing out of
the firing squad, gas chamber and electric chair, unless specifically
requested.
Lovitt's lethal injection is scheduled for November 30 in Virginia and
Daryl Mack's the next day in Nevada.
(source: The London Times)
****************************
It Could Happen To You: Wrongful Convictions and the Innocence Project
Perhaps the most chilling thought put forth last Thursday night following
the screening of "After Innocence," a gripping documentary about 7
exonerated men freed with help from DNA evidence and the national
Innocence Project, was from Anthony Hicks when he stated bluntly; "It
could happen to you." And it very much seems that it could. Hicks, wrongly
convicted by a Dane County court in 1992 for the rape of a woman who had
pointed him out in a police line-up, was part of a four person panel that
took questions after the film's screening at the Wisconsin Historical
Society on the UW campus.
The panel was moderated by Lawrence C. Marshall of the Northwestern
University Center on Wrongful Convictions who is now a professor at
Stanford University. The panel was comprised of Chris Ochoa and Evan
Zimmerman, who have been assisted by the Wisconsin Innocence Project in
their exonorations, and Wisconsin State Senator Mark Miller who has been
active in creating reforms in the Wisconsin legal system, including
Assembly Bill 648, which looks into how the justice system generates
wrongful convictions, how to expedite DNA testing of questionable
convictions, and the recording of juvenile interrogations, among other
subjects.
Only 2 states currently have an Innocence Commission (IC), North
Carolina's being the model, which looks at the effects of wrongful
convictions on the individual and the larger impact on society. Senator
Miller stated that Wisconsin did not currently have an Innocence
Commission but that it would be very helpful and that IC's across the
nation could learn from each other in how to prevent wrongful convictions.
Effectively supporting the exonerated once they are out of prison is a
challenge. What does society owe them? How can the loss of decades of
one's life be compensated for? How can public perception be changed once a
person gets out of prison? These are difficult issues that most "upright
citizens" never have had to think of.
The film "After Innocence" was directed by Jessica Sanders and produced by
Sanders and Marc Simon. The prestigious Sundance Film Festival awarded the
film a Special Jury Prize at its 2005 ceremonies and will debut nationally
in February of 2006 and then be show on the Showtime network, who helped
finance the picture, in Autumn 2006.
The growing "Innocence Movement" in the United States belies serious
faults with the judicial system and, as Illinois Governor George Ryan
realized, is a serious wake-up call for Capital Punishment proponents. The
film shows the speech made by Ryan when he introduced to the state of
Illinois the first (and only) moratorium on Capital Punishment in the
United States.
There are several things one can do to find out more about this ongoing
battle. The Life After Exoneration Program (LAEP) is the nations only
direct service and support organization dedicated to helping the
exonerated rebuild their lives. Donating money or other advocacy for this
group of people who are, once exonerated, often not even issued an apology
by the prosecutors, much less the system that put the evil shadow of
misplaced guilt upon them, is an excellent way to help rebuild the lives
that this system, our system, has torn apart and in some cases, left for
dead.
(source: dane101.com)
***************************
Alito and the Death Penalty----The Supreme Court nominee was overruled on
capital punishment in an appeal that some say tipped his hand on the
subject.
With no fanfare, the Supreme Court this summer granted a last-minute
reprieve to a man who had spent the last 17 years on death row in
Pennsylvania. Convicted of stabbing a tavern owner to death and setting
him on fire, Ronald Rompilla had run out of appeals when the high court
stepped in.
By the narrowest of margins - 5 to 4 - the court vacated the death penalty
and returned the case for resentencing. It marked the 3rd time since 2000
that a loose coalition of liberal and swing-vote justices has struck down
death-penalty cases because of poor work by defense lawyers.
Of broader importance, the court in the Rompilla case overturned a lower
ruling written by U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Samuel A. Alito
Jr. - the same man who appears likely to replace one of those swing voters
on the Supreme Court early next year.
The Rompilla case, many observers say, is clear evidence that Alito -
nominated to succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor - would help to
reverse the court's recent trend toward leniency in death-penalty cases.
For conservatives, the big question about Alito is whether he will live up
to their hopes - or disappoint them, as happened with O'Connor and Justice
David H. Souter. It was Souter who wrote the opinion reprieving Rompilla,
and it was O'Connor who provided the crucial fifth vote to see it done.
"It would be a real move backward to the court to retreat in this area,"
said Terri L. Mascherin, chairwoman of the American Bar Assn.'s Death
Penalty Representation Project.
But supporters of the death penalty, including Kent Scheidegger, legal
director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, said Alito would be
just the ticket to turn the court to the right.
"The Rompilla case gives us a few clues about the change we can expect,"
he said. "We will probably have a more consistent jurisprudence, sticking
more closely to principles of law."
There never was much question about Rompilla's guilt.
Now 57, he spent much of a night in January 1998 drinking at the Cozy
Corner Cafe in Allentown, Pa. After closing time, he sneaked back in
through a bathroom window and attacked owner James Scanlon, beating and
stabbing him repeatedly and burning him as he died.
The victim's son, Timothy, discovered his father's body in a pool of
blood. Rompilla was found with loot from the owner's wallet and the bar's
cash register. He was arrested, tried and convicted of capital murder.
At the sentencing phase of his trial, prosecutors presented evidence that
Rompilla had struck before.
They told the jury how he had been convicted of burglarizing another bar,
where he assaulted the owner with a knife and raped her. They said he
never should have been "put out on the street" without help and
rehabilitation.
His defense lawyers called only a small knot of family members to the
stand to beg for mercy. Their testimony, when later transcribed, was 20
pages long. Darlene, his wife, wept, saying: "We want Ron alive even if
it's in jail; we want him alive." Their 14-year-old son, Aaron, said it
would not be right for his father to die. Asked if he wanted to say more,
the boy simply cried.
The jury sentenced Rompilla to death. But there was one bit of evidence
that they never heard - and thereupon hung the appeals.
His 2 defense lawyers, working in the local public defender's office,
never pulled the records from the earlier conviction. Had they done so,
they would have learned that their client was mentally ill, had been
severely abused and neglected as a child, and had long misunderstood right
from wrong.
He grew up the 6th of 9 children in a home with an often absent and
alcoholic mother. The house was filthy and smelled of urine. His father
drank too, and his parents fought. Sometimes his father locked him in a
small wire mesh dog pen filled with excrement. Other times he was made to
sleep in the attic with no heat.
He went to school in rags, and it was determined that as an adult he had
not progressed beyond the third-grade level in math and spelling. He left
school after the 9th grade. He led a "nomadic existence" before his first
arrests.
Prison mental health exams showed signs that Rompilla suffered from
"schizophrenia, paranoia and neurosis." He was an alcoholic. And he had
tendencies that, obvious in hindsight, were "very violent."
The state appellate courts affirmed the death sentence. The case next was
appealed to a federal district judge who, citing poor defense work,
ordered Rompilla released unless local prosecutors would agree to a life
sentence or hold a new sentencing hearing.
Then the case came to Alito and 2 other judges on a panel of the U.S. 3rd
Circuit Court of Appeals.
In January 2004, they voted 2-1 to overturn the district judge and keep
the death sentence intact. Alito, a former Justice Department official in
the Reagan administration and federal prosecutor in Newark, N.J., wrote
the majority opinion.
Alito took note of the fact that the jury had not been told of Rompilla's
upbringing and mental deficiencies, which Rompilla's new appellate lawyers
argued might have moved the jurors to vote for life over death.
But Alito said the 6th Amendment right to legal representation did not
afford everyone "the most resourceful defense attorneys with bountiful
investigative support."
"The 6th Amendment is satisfied when [defense] counsel's conduct falls
within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance, thereby
ensuring that criminal defendants receive a fair trial," he said.
Alito reversed the lower court's ruling and reinstated the death penalty.
On June 20 this year, the Supreme Court weighed in. Souter wrote for the
majority and reversed Alito, ordering the death sentence stricken and
telling local prosecutors to either agree to a life term for Rompilla or
reconvene a new sentencing hearing where a new jury could decide death or
life.
At the heart of the Supreme Court's ruling was the defense team's
oversight in not reviewing the file in Rompilla's earlier case, which was
housed in the clerk's office just down the hall in the Allentown
courthouse.
"If the defense lawyers had looked in the file on Rompilla's prior
conviction," Souter ruled, "it is uncontested they would have found a
range of mitigation leads that no other source had opened up."
In 2 previous cases since 2000, the Supreme Court overturned death
sentences in nearly identical circumstances: the failure of defense
lawyers to present all the evidence that would argue against the death
penalty.
James B. Martin, the Lehigh County district attorney in Allentown, has
vowed not to agree to a life sentence. Instead, he will prepare for
another sentencing hearing, mindful that this time defense lawyers will
surely bring up the new evidence to help Rompilla.
Martin believes that in all the rounds of appeals, Alito's order affirming
the death sentence was the proper ruling. Asked whether he thought Alito
would change the course of the court on the death penalty, Martin said:
"I would hope so . I liked his opinion in the Rompilla case. It was
well-reasoned and well-written, and he validated our very strong case."
(source: Los Angeles Times)
********************
Statement of Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights and The Journey of
Hope...From Violence to Healing on the 1000th Execution
Victims' Families Call for End to Executions
"As our country approaches the 1000th execution since 1977, we think about
the losses represented by that number. We think of the loss of the life
of the murder victim, and the loss to that victim's family and community.
We are people who have experienced that loss directly. The question, 'How
would you feel if someone in your family were murdered?' is not a
hypothetical question for us; it is the reality we must live with every
day. But we do not believe that the death penalty will bring us closure,
healing, or justice. Another killing does not bring back our family
member and it does not make us feel safer. We would like to live in a
society that demonstrates its concern for victims by devoting resources to
preventing violence and to addressing the real needs of victims in the
aftermath of violence. We think, too, about all the families who have been
left behind in the aftermath of 1000 executions: the families of the
person who was executed. After 1000 executions, how many parents,
siblings, children, and other relatives are left isolated in their grief
and lacking the support offered to others who suffer the loss of a family
member? It is time to consider the social costs of the death penalty: how
many people are affected by a single execution? In particular, how many
children? As families of murder victims and families of people who have
been executed, we stand together and declare that it is time to abolish
the death penalty." (source: MVFHR and The Journey of Hope....From
Violence to Healing)
****************
A rush to executions
China has a brutally efficient system of capital punishment. Sentences can
be carried out within months of conviction, sometimes in mobile
lethal-injection vans. The cost is low - $87 per execution. Appeals are
limited and stacked in favor of the prosecution. And although the
government does not issue statistics, estimates of the number of
executions in China range upward from 3,000 a year.
Most Americans would be appalled at China's system, which was described by
The Times' Mark Magnier in an article published in September. Yet
efficiency is one of the main arguments for proposed federal legislation,
sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), to limit death penalty appeals in the
United States. No one argues that the proposed curbs on access to federal
courts would make the U.S. system as unjust as China's. And both
executions and capital convictions are dropping sharply in the U.S. as
doubts about the death penalty rise.
So why are some members of Congress pushing so hard to make executions
easier? It's certainly a distraction from more pressing issues, such as
the war in Iraq and the budget deficit. Maybe that's the point.
The Senate version of the bill (blandly called the Streamlined Procedures
Act) is heading for a vote in the Judiciary Committee. Its most offensive
provision would curtail the use of writs of habeas corpus, which allow
plaintiffs to move death penalty cases into federal courts on
constitutional grounds after state appeals are exhausted. Faced with the
opposition of 49 of 50 state chief justices, along with the American Bar
Assn. and numerous law enforcement and human rights organizations,
supporters have already softened the Senate proposal, and compromise could
further alleviate its effects.
Softer or not, however, the measure would still result in people whose
guilt (or degree of guilt) is in doubt being put to death or left to rot
in prison. States' protections vary widely, and many are far weaker than
California's. In federal court, it is not uncommon to see cases in which
prosecutors or police are suspected of hiding evidence, witness testimony
is questionable, racial bias in jury selection is at issue or DNA evidence
may yet be obtained.
The current issue of Law Enforcement News, for instance, details problems
with the collection, storage and analysis of DNA evidence. Other recent
studies have quantified the unreliability of eyewitness testimony,
especially across racial lines. And in an Alabama appeals court, an inmate
who has spent 19 years on death row is now presenting evidence that the
gun the state says he used in his crime was too rusty and dilapidated to
fire. What's more, FBI experts say the bullets from the crime scene don't
match the gun. If the Alabama courts were to reject these arguments, and
the bill now being considered in the Senate becomes law, the inmate could
be barred from pursuing his case in federal court.
Meanwhile, provisions in the renewal of the Patriot Act would make it
easier for prosecutors to win the death penalty in federal trials. They
could even get a 2nd chance if a jury deadlocked on the penalty.
Science and history are making it increasingly clear that there is no way
to reconcile speedy justice and the death penalty. While Congress is
trying to make executions easier, many states and the Supreme Court are
working to make the system more fair - and the death penalty more rare.
Even in politics, opposition to the death penalty is no longer as toxic as
it was a decade ago. The new governors-elect of Virginia and New Jersey
were elected despite their opposition to the penalty. California's death
row holds more than 600 inmates, yet each execution raises a storm of
argument, as the scheduled Dec. 13 execution of former Crips gang leader
Stanley "Tookie" Williams illustrates.
A civilized society does not risk a mistake that would take a life.
Restricting the appeals process in death penalty cases simply turns back
the clock to a time of greater injustice. But Americans would be just as
safe, and increasingly just as satisfied, with an ultimate sentence of
life in prison.
(source: Editorial, Los Angeles Times)
******************
Denying due process
The benignly named Streamlined Procedures Act isn't very benign.
Its supporters argue the legislation, making its way through Congress, is
needed to stop delays in federal appeals of death penalty cases that harm
victims and their families. What the act actually does is pave the way to
killing an innocent Death Row inmate. The act would strip federal courts
of the ability to hear many constitutional claims brought by the
convicted, denying those inmates their due process rights.
It's no wonder that opposition runs the gamut from the American Bar
Association, to the Judicial Conference of the United States (the chief
policymaking body for administering federal courts, presided over by the
U.S. Supreme Court chief justice), to state conferences of chief justices
and court administrators.
"I understand the concern about lengthy appeals in cases where prisoners
bring federal habeas claims," said U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., at a
Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday. "But more than 120 people
sentenced to die have been exonerated and released from death row,
sometimes years after their convictions. ... Often, evidence of innocence
does not come out until years after a conviction, and habeas is the only
legal avenue that inmates have left to them."
Consider Exhibit A, in a bit of perfect timing that should give Congress
pause: Just the day before the Senate hearing, a Pennsylvania man who had
been convicted of a triple murder in 1989 became the nation's 122nd death
row inmate exonerated, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
A jury acquitted Harold Wilson in a retrial after new DNA evidence
revealed blood from the crime scene that did not come from Wilson or any
of the victims.
In another bit of opportune timing, last week the U.S. Conference of
Catholic Bishops voted overwhelmingly to update its 25-year-old stance
against the death penalty with a new statement: "A Culture of Life and the
Penalty of Death."
"This statement is a call to reject the tragic illusion that we can
demonstrate respect for life by taking life, that we can teach that
killing is wrong by killing those who kill others," said Brooklyn Bishop
Nicholas DiMarzio, who led the effort for a new bishops' statement.
For those who value all life, even flawed life, as does this newspaper's
editorial board, the death penalty is repugnant. But the biggest
abomination of all is for a state to kill someone who is innocent.
In writing about the Streamlined Procedures Act last week, the Los Angeles
Times cited the case of Thomas Goldstein, who spent 24 years in prison for
the murder of a Long Beach man but was freed in 2004 when five federal
judges ruled Goldstein had been wrongly convicted. If the act had been in
effect earlier, Goldstein would not have been able to establish that his
constitutional rights had been violated because of prosecutorial
misconduct.
That Congress would actually consider legislation which increases the
chances of an innocent person being executed is just shameful. There are
ways to move capital cases more quickly through federal court, but the
Streamlined Procedures Act isn't one of them. Congress should streamline
this ill-conceived act into oblivion.
(source: Opinion, Birmingham News)
