Jan. 5
FLORIDA:
A spectator's call for execution of Brucia killer goes unpunished
Charges have been dropped against a spectator who called for execution at
the sentencing hearing of Joseph Smith.
In Sarasota, a spectator who yelled "Let's string him up now" during a
child killer's sentencing hearing will not be prosecuted.
The State Attorney's Office dropped a resisting arrest charge Tuesday
against Mario Vitali, saying it couldn't be proven he struggled with
bailiffs after his outburst during the Dec. 1 sentencing hearing of Joseph
Smith.
Smith's abduction and slaying of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia gained national
attention because the kidnapping was captured on a car wash surveillance
camera and the trial was being shown on a cable television network.
Hours after Vitali's outburst, the jury that had earlier convicted Smith
of murder, rape and kidnapping recommended that he be executed. Circuit
Judge Andrew Owens is scheduled to sentence Smith on Feb. 13.
Vitali, a 52-year-old circus marketing director, said Tuesday that he just
got carried away as he listened to prosecutor Debra Riva describe in her
closing argument how Smith had sexually assaulted Carlie and strangled her
from behind.
"When I got in that courtroom, I just exploded," he said. "When she went
into graphic detail about what he did to that little girl, I just lost
it."
Owens had Vitali removed from the courtroom and he spent 8 hours in jail,
but the judge never charged him with contempt of court.
Vitali said people shook his hand later. "I just said verbally what
everyone was thinking."
Adam Tebrugge, Smith's public defender, said it's unlikely the outburst
would be part of the "significant issues" that will be brought up in an
appeal of Smith's conviction.
*************
Convicted killer deemed mentally stable----State officials said tests
showed that convicted cop killer Clarence Edward Hill has a normal IQ for
his age, despite claims that he is mentally disabled.
The state disputed the contention that convicted killer Clarence Edward
Hill is mentally disabled on Wednesday, about 3 weeks before he is
scheduled to be executed.
Hill, 2 of 2 Florida convicts under active death warrants, fatally shot
Pensacola police Officer Stephen Taylor during a bank robbery in 1982.
He is scheduled for execution Jan. 24,
Hill's attorney, D. Todd Doss, submitted a written argument to the state
Supreme Court on Tuesday that it would be cruel and unusual punishment to
execute Hill, 47, because he is brain damaged and has a mental age of
under 18.
In papers filed by the state Wednesday, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Carolyn Snurkowski responded by arguing that Hill cannot raise those
issues on procedural grounds and that court records refute his claim.
"There is no question but that Hill's full-scale IQ hovers around 84 to
87," Snurkowski wrote.
His own mental health expert testified that Hill's mental age was
normal,'' she wrote.
An IQ score of about 70 or below is generally accepted for a diagnosis of
mental retardation although it can be as high as 75 to take testing errors
into account, according to the American Association on Mental Retardation.
Snurkowski noted that a trial judge already has rejected the mental
disability claim and five other issues Hill has raised.
They include an argument that the state's method of lethal injection is
cruel and unusual punishment.
That issue also has been raised in an appeal by Arthur D. Rutherford, 56,
who is set for execution Jan. 31.
His case is pending before Circuit Judge Paul Rasmussen in Milton.
Rutherford was convicted of killing Stella Salamon in 1985 after a dispute
over payment for sliding glass doors the carpenter had installed in her
Santa Rosa County home. She died of drowning or asphyxiation after being
beaten.
Salamon's body was found submerged in a bathtub.
Snurkowski argued that the Supreme Court upheld Florida's lethal injection
method in 2000 and that no credible evidence has been presented to bring
its constitutionality into question.email thisprint this
(source for both: Associated Press)
USA:
Society must rise above death penalty
In recent weeks, there have been 2 high-profile executions, one on a local
stage, and one on a national stage. Considered side by side, they present
some similarities and some distinctions.
The 2 cases are that of Bear the Newfie and Tookie the Crip. The most
obvious similarity is that they were both black. Coincidence? Absolutely.
Another similarity is that they both sound like they could be Saturday
morning cartoon characters. To someone who hasnt picked up a newspaper in
the last couple of months, Bear the Newfie and Tookie the Crip could be
mistaken as the shows that bookend "SpongeBob SquarePants." Another
coincidence.
Bear was a 120 lb. Newfoundland/Chow mix who was found guilty of attacking
a neighbors border collie. When the neighbor and his daughter tried to
intervene in the lopsided fight, Bear the Newfie repeatedly bit both of
them. Bear only backed off after having been stabbed several times with a
pocketknife and hit in the head with a shovel, a scene that could well
have aired in a Roadrunner cartoon.
Tookie was a 250-lb. gang leader who was found guilty of murdering four
people with a shotgun. That scene could have appeared in a Bugs Bunny
episode featuring Elmer Fudd, only instead of dying, the victims would
have turned black and had their hair get all frizzy.
On a side note, Tookie falsely credited himself with co-founding The
Crips, a Los Angeles-based street gang that now boasts more chapters than
the Masons. Anyone who knows their crack from their smack knows that the
diminutive but mercurial Raymond Washington founded the Crips.
Another similarity between the two cases is that as death drew near, both
Tookie and Bear had their advocates. Advocating for Tookie the Crip was
Tony Robbins, nationally acclaimed self-help guru. Advocating for Bear the
Newfie was yours truly, Chris Elliott. Another similarity in the cases is
that both Tony Robbins and I are blowhard quasi-intellectuals whose
narcissism is outdone only by our smug rhetorical style. We differ in that
he is wildly successful while I continue to languish in borderline
poverty.
One stark contrast in the two executions was the duration of the appeals
process. Tookies execution took place more than 25 years after his
conviction. Bears gassing took about 25 hours between sentencing and
execution. My math tells me that the City of Portsmouth is 8,768 times
more bloodthirsty than the State of California.
Before you go filling my inbox with admonitions regarding the distinction
that should be drawn between humans and animals, I will cede the point.
After factoring in dog-years, the City of Portsmouth is only 1,254 times
more bloodthirsty than the State of California.
A friend of mine called the city attorneys office the morning after the
day she read of Bears death sentence, but Bear had already been executed.
She was calling to inform the city attorney that an organization called
Best Friends Animal Society in Angel Canyon, Utah, might possibly take
Bear as a boarder. The attorneys secretary said that Bear had already been
put to sleep. That turns out not to have been true, since Bear has yet to
wake up from this alleged slumber.
In both Tookies and Bears case, an appeal for clemency was issued, and in
both cases it was denied. To his credit, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
resisted the temptation to say "Hasta La Vista, baby."
In Bears case, there was hardly even time for a last meal, let alone a
tasteless quip from the mayor. The City of Portsmouth was so eager to
execute Bear that its a wonder it didnt just haul him out behind the barn
and blow his head off Old Yeller style. It is obvious to me that our town
fathers are sick of fielding complaints of this nature, and wanted to
communicate to all dog owners in the city that its lights out for Rover if
proper stewardship over their animal is not exercised.
Ive been bitten by a large dog, and let me tell you, it hurts like hell,
and in addition it triggers an instinctive vengeful response. Perhaps it
is wrapped up in a sense of identification as belonging to an
intellectually superior life form than canine, but for whatever reason,
when a dog bites you, the first reaction is a primal desire to beat the
damn thing to death.
Later, a cooler disposition tends to take over. You realize that the dog
was reacting out of either fear or territorial instinct, and that given an
identical set of circumstances, you might have done the same thing.
Likewise, individuals and society react to murder with vengeance. Life is
precious, and the notion of one individual taking everything away from
another inspires the old eye for an eye meme.
It is difficult to apply a strict risk/benefit analysis to the death
penalty, or to rise above our natural instincts, be it toward dogs or
humans, though if society is to evolve to a higher plane, I believe that
we must. In the case of Bears neighbor, who vociferously advocated Bears
execution, I dont think Bears owner will be lending him any of his power
tools.
In the case of the State of California, the states reputation for
progressive justice has been tarnished. Its understandable and certainly
forgivable, but its not in keeping with the trendsetting that has become
Californias hallmark. We will eventually eliminate the death penalty in
this country, and we will also eventually elevate our regard for animals,
but until then, it is clear that neither California nor Portsmouth will be
leading the way.
(source: Seacoast Online (New Hampshire)
********************
Eye for an eye: Death penalty without purpose
Last month, while California's governor contemplated the fate of Stanley
Tookie Williams, whom he later had executed, Gov. Jeb Bush signed 2 death
warrants for 2 men on Florida's death row. Later this month, Clarence
Hill, 47, and Arthur Rutherford, 56, are scheduled to be executed by
lethal injection.
Both men were guilty of shedding innocent blood. And both have been
imprisoned for some years: Their crimes were committed more than 20 years
ago. Yet is it any more necessary for Florida to kill these men than it
was for California to kill Williams? Does society really make a coherent
statement against killing by killing?
The argument has been made that the application of the death penalty
represents the legitimate self-defense of society from an unjust
aggressor, i.e. the murderer. And, historically, the Catholic Church has
conceded the point that the state can rightly apply capital punishment
when absolutely necessary, i.e., when otherwise impossible to defend
society. There is, in church teaching, no moral equivalence between the
execution of the guilty after due process of law and the willful
destruction of innocent life that happens with abortion or euthanasia.
However, Pope John Paul II pointed out in Evangelium Vitae (no. 56): Given
the organization of today's penal system and the option of imposing life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole, such an "absolute
necessity" is "practically nonexistent."
Also, it is difficult to defend the "necessity" of executing someone when
often his accomplice, in exchange for information or testimony, is given
through plea bargaining a lesser sentence. And while some loved ones seek
"closure," it is hard to see how capital punishment as "social
retribution" or "institutional vengeance" really serves the purpose of
punishment, which should be designed to redress the disorder caused by the
offense. The death penalty cannot bring the victims back to life.
Even from a purely pragmatic or utilitarian point of view, the death
penalty cannot be defended. It is not an effective deterrent to crime.
Texas has executed more criminals than any other state, yet it still has
one of the highest murder rates in the nation. And the death penalty is
not cost-effective. It costs the state less to imprison someone for the
remainder of his natural life than to execute him. Given that the death
penalty is irreversible, society has rightly provided that it be applied
only after lengthy and expensive legal appeals. And, despite this, there
are more than 400 documented cases of wrongly convicted persons executed
in the U.S. during the last century.
Willful murder is a heinous crime; it cries to God for justice. Yet God
did not require Cain's life for having spilled Abel's blood. While God
certainly punished history's first murderer, he nevertheless put a mark on
him to protect Cain from those wishing to kill him to avenge Abel's murder
(Genesis 4:15). Like Cain, the condemned prisoner on death row -- for all
the evil of his crimes -- remains a person. Human dignity -- that of the
convicted as well as our own -- is best served by not resorting to this
extreme and unnecessary punishment. Modern society has the means to
protect itself without the death penalty.
The commutation to life imprisonment would serve the common good of all by
helping break our society's spiral of violence for the "eye for an eye"
mentality will just end up making us all blind.
(source: Opinion; Thomas Wenski is the bishop of the Diocese of Orlando,
Orlando Sentinel)
*************
Think of victims, not murderers, in death penalty debate
I have observed the executions of Stanley "Tookie" Williams ("Execution
fails to end debate over Crips founder," Dec. 14) and John Nixon
("Condemned killer John B. Nixon Sr. executed," Dec. 15) with absolute
dismay. It's execution as theater with the convicted killer cast as star
and victim.
All the famous came out in droves for "Tookie." Nixon had a smaller
turnout with no national celebrities. If I were only slightly more
cynical, I might wonder if this had anything to do with much more limited
media coverage.
Apparently, some have been able to completely suspend skepticism when
evaluating the statements of killers. I believe the fact that we as people
can change is a great gift. I also believe our great tragedy is that we
rarely do. I do not believe convicted murderers are an exception to this
phenomenon.
I can remember clearly that when convicted serial killer Derrick Lee was
arrested for the murders of 7 women he was leading a Bible study in an
Atlanta motel. He claimed innocence - in spite of his DNA in and on the
bodies of 8 women from three parishes.
Opponents of the death penalty seem to me to take a dismissive "well that
was then; this is now" approach in evaluating convicted predators. This
attitude belies the value of the murdered and the impact of the tragic
loss of their presence on Earth. I have experienced how easily the dead
and those who loved them are disregarded in the death penalty debate -
while convicted killers are lifted to sanctified victimhood.
I also wonder if the folks who hold these execution vigils care so much
about life, where are the vigils and candles when they learn someone has
been murdered?
Where are the candles then?
Ann Pace--Jackson
(source: Letter to the Editor, Jackson Clarion-Ledger)
VIRGINIA:
Dead man walking in death penalty case
Roger Keith Coleman was executed on May 20, 1992, despite serious doubts
about his conviction for the rape and murder of his sister-in-law 10 years
earlier in the coal-mining town of Grundy, Va.
Coleman's supporters questioned the strength of the state's case and cast
doubt on the evidence.
Douglas Wilder, then the governor of Virginia and a proponent of the death
penalty, received more than 5,000 letters asking him to stay the
execution. Pope John Paul II asked Wilder to block the execution.
Time magazine published a photograph of Coleman on its cover with the
headline, "This man might be innocent. This man is due to die."
An appeal was denied because his lawyers missed the filing deadline by a
day.
Moments before his execution, Coleman continued to proclaim his innocence,
"An innocent man is going to be murdered tonight. When my innocence is
proven, I hope America will realize the injustice of the death penalty as
all other civilized countries have."
More than a decade later, we may learn if Coleman was right.
Gov. Mark R. Warner is preparing to order new DNA testing to determine
whether Virginia executed the wrong man in 1992.
The testing could confirm Coleman's guilt. He was previously convicted of
the attempted rape of a teacher, and he failed a lie detector test just
hours before his execution.
However, if the new tests prove his innocence, it will be the first time
in the United States that science has proven that the wrong man was
executed.
It would not be the 1st time that an innocent man was executed.
Ruben Cantu was executed by the state of Texas shortly after midnight on
Aug. 24, 1993, for shooting to death a man in an attempted robbery. Last
month, the prosecution's only witness in the case said that police
pressured him into identifying Cantu. Later, the forewoman of the jury
that convicted Cantu said the jury made a mistake. "The bottom line is an
innocent person was put to death," she said.
The Coleman and Cantu cases demonstrate again that the death penalty is
unreliable and barbaric.
As long as the nation depends on a form of punishment that it is
irreversible, it cannot call itself a land of justice.
(source: Editorial, The Republican)
*********************
Justice in Norfolk?
In his last weeks in office, Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner has done
commendable work to improve the integrity of the state's criminal justice
system. Before he turns the reins over to Timothy M. Kaine this month,
however, he ought to look carefully at the clemency petitions of four
young men convicted of a 1997 rape and murder in Norfolk. All four were
sailors, serving their country. All four confessed -- two even pleaded
guilty -- but have since recanted. And the one man certain to have played
a role in the killing backs up their claims of innocence, as he did when
he initially confessed.
The case is difficult because little of the evidence is new; almost all of
it was available at the time Joseph Dick Jr., Derek Tice, Danial Williams
and Eric Wilson were accused of the rape and murder of Michelle
Moore-Bosko. Still, the clemency petition on their behalf makes a powerful
case for their innocence. The only evidence against them was their
confessions, which took place after lengthy interrogations in which each
was threatened with the death penalty. The crime scene suggested only a
single assailant. None of the physical evidence implicated any of the four
men, nor three other sailors who were charged but later dropped from the
case.
In fact, the physical evidence points to a single attacker: Omar Ballard,
whose DNA was a clear match for evidence found at the scene. And Mr.
Ballard takes full responsibility for killing Ms. Bosko. Even as police
and prosecutors were focused on the sailors, he wrote a letter to a friend
saying of the killing, "Guess who did that Me. HA HA." When police
approached him about the letter, he said he acted alone, saying that "them
4 people that opened their mouths is stupid." Later, Mr. Ballard -- he now
says under pressure from authorities -- backed up the gang-rape story; he,
too, pleaded guilty and was spared the death penalty. Yet in an affidavit
this year, he stated, "None of the other individuals who were charged with
raping or killing Michelle were there or involved in any way."
State authorities stand by the convictions, and the victim's family
believes justice was done. Jury verdicts and guilty pleas generally
warrant deference in the absence of significant new evidence. But the
petition makes a strong case that Mr. Warner cannot ignore. For technical
reasons, the courts are not open to some of these men, 3 of whom are
serving life sentences. (Mr. Wilson, convicted only of the rape, has been
released.) Mr. Warner may not have time to resolve the case, but he does
have time to initiate a thorough, independent and expeditious
reinvestigation. If Virginia has unjustly locked up 4 Navy men, this
miscarriage of justice should be set right.
(source: Editorial, The Washington Post)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Mothers who kill
When Jennifer Marie McKaveney's body was found by children in a
Monroeville park, her throat slashed, police said they zeroed in on one
suspect almost immediately: her mother.
Kimberly McKaveney, 40, appeared in court yesterday for her preliminary
hearing and was held for trial on a single charge of criminal homicide for
her daughter's death. Investigators have not identified a motive in the
Sept. 16 killing.
Jennifer McKaveney, 20, may be the latest victim of maternal filicide --
when a mother kills her child.
Pennsylvania has seen several harrowing versions of this most disturbing
crime.
There's Michelle Sue Tharp, who sits on Pennsylvania's death row,
convicted of intentionally starving her 7-year-old daughter. Tausha Lee
Lanham weighed less than 12 pounds when her body was discovered dumped
along a rural road in 1998. Tharp was convicted of 1st-degree murder in
2000.
And there's Janet Lynne Crawford, who admitted to starving her 4-year-old
daughter, Kristen Tatar, to death. The child's emaciated body was found
stuffed in a picnic cooler in 2003 in Parks Township, Armstrong County.
Crawford was sentenced to life without parole in 2004. Tatar's father,
James Tatar, was convicted of 1st-degree murder and also sentenced to life
in prison.
Kimberly McKaveney maintains her innocence and told detectives hat a man
ran out of the woods and slashed her 20-year-old daughter as the 2 walked
their dog. A witness testified she saw the mother in the park at the time
of the murder, wearing a white T-shirt with "slash marks and blood on it,"
and police said they found bloodstains on the steering wheel and a seat
belt in her car. McKaveney's formal arraignment is scheduled for Feb. 9.
Monroeville native Susan Hatters-Friedman co-authored a study on child
murder by mothers that was published in September in the American Journal
of Psychiatry.
"There are so many different reasons behind maternal filicides that it's
hard to find predictors," said Hatters-Friedman, a psychiatry professor at
Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.
More often, killer mommies victimize young children, Hatters-Friedman
said, which makes the McKaveney case different than others that have made
headlines.
Hatters-Friedman said there are many justifications mothers give for
killing their kids. Some kill for altruistic reasons -- mom believes she
is helping the child or ending the child's suffering. "In some cases, a
child may be suffering from a fatal disease, and the parent wants to spare
them that suffering," she said.
Andrea Yates, who believed she was saving her children from going to hell,
fits into a 2nd category of murdering moms: acute psychotics,
Hatters-Friedman said.
The two infamous Pennsylvania cases fall under a 3rd category: fatal
maltreatment or abuse.
The rarest reason parents kill their own children is spousal revenge and
is more often committed by fathers, Hatters-Friedman said. And, she added,
dads who kill their kids, especially when trying to get back at the
mother, are more likely to commit suicide immediately afterward.
Often, there is little explanation for why a mother would kill her child,
especially for the victim's family.
"The thing that's never been answered for me, is why?" said Rhonda Lanham,
Tausha's aunt. "(Michelle Sue Tharp) was always mean to Tausha. You could
tell she didn't love her as much as her other kids, but I couldn't tell
you why."
Lanham clearly is still anguished over her niece's death. Her voice choked
with emotion as she talked about her own children and her memories of
little Tausha.
"I carry her with me every day, and I have to live with this every day of
my life," she said. "I think, if I would've done this or done that, she
might still be alive."
--
Notorious cases
Darlie Routier, of Rowlett, Texas, was convicted in 1997 of stabbing to
death her 2 sons, Devon, 6, and Damon, 5, in June 1996. She was sentenced
to death and continues to maintain her innocence on death row. Her appeals
for a new trial, based on what she argues is evidence that an intruder
killed her children, have thus far been denied.
Susan Smith was convicted of drowning her two children, Michael, 3, and
Alex, 1, in Union, S.C., in 1994. Smith initially told police she was
carjacked but later confessed to rolling her car into a lake while her
children slept in the back seat. She said she was depressed that her beau
at the time did not want the responsibility of children. Smith was
sentenced to 30 years in prison.
Andrea Yates was convicted of drowning her 5 children, Noah, John, Luke,
Paul and Mary, in the bathtub of her Houston home June 20, 1994. The
children ranged in age from 6 months to 7 years old. Yates' attorney
argued that she suffered from postpartum psychosis. Yates was sentenced to
life in a psychiatric prison.
Diane Downs of Springfield, Oregon, was convicted in 1984 of shooting and
killing her daughter, Cheryl Ann Downs, 7, in May 1983. She shot her two
other children, Christie, 8, and Danny, 3, but both survived. Christie
testified against Downs at her trial. Downs was sentenced to life in
prison plus 50 years, and her case was the subject of the movie "Small
Sacrifices."
Child homicide
The United States has the highest rate of child homicide of any developed
country.
Homicide is the 4th leading cause of death for preschool children and the
3rd leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5 and 14.
Of children younger than 5 murdered in the U.S. in the last quarter of the
20th century, 61 % were killed by a parent, with 30 % of them murdered by
their mothers.
(Study published in American Journal of Psychiatry by Susan
Hatters-Friedman.)
(source: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)
