Dec. 17 TEXAS----new execution date Tommie Hughes has been given a March 15 execution date; it should be considered extremely serious. Texas has now set 11 execution dates between January 19 and April 25 of next year. (sources: TDCJ and Rick Halperin) ****************** Technicality deals retarded death row inmate setback ---- Judges uphold 1-year statute of limitations for filing key appeal A technicality could spell death for convicted killer Marvin Lee Wilson, a death row inmate who says his mental retardation should, under federal law, keep him from being executed. While trying to untangle Texas courtroom bureaucracy, Mr. Wilson missed a key deadline for filing an appeal based on mental retardation. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said this week that Congress created the 1-year statute of limitations to keep inmates from abusing the system and that it must be enforced, "however harsh the result may be." Mr. Wilson, who murdered a man in Beaumont 13 years ago, doesn't have an execution date yet, and his lawyers are still looking into what legal avenues he has left. His attorneys say the appellate ruling means that he could be executed even though his IQ of 61 makes him retarded, and the Supreme Court ruled 3 years ago that it's unconstitutional to execute mentally retarded convicts. It's particularly troubling, they said, because Texas law was what hindered Mr. Wilson from appealing his sentence based on that decision. "It's disturbing on a number of levels," said Jim Marcus, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, who has been advising Mr. Wilson and his attorney, James DeLee of Port Arthur. Mr. DeLee could not be reached for comment Friday. In his appeal to the 5th circuit, Mr. Wilson said he missed the deadline because he was forced to choose between the appeals he already had going in federal court and the chance that he could be spared death based on mental retardation. In his appeal, he also asked the court to throw out the statute of limitations altogether, saying that it allows states to carry out illegal executions. The opinion handed down Tuesday did not address that. The court said that Mr. Wilson appears to have shown that he's mentally retarded but that he didn't prove that missing the deadline was the state's fault. But Mr. Wilson's attorneys contend that state law hurt his chances of appealing based on the Supreme Court ban. Mr. Wilson, convicted in 1994 of kidnapping and murdering Jerry Williams in retaliation for being a police informant, already had appeals working their way through federal courts when the decision came down. Texas' "2-forum rule" prohibited defendants from litigating the same case in federal and state courts at the same time. The appeal based on mental retardation had to start in state court. That meant that Mr. Wilson would have had to abandon his other federal appeals for good - a risk he put off until the last day of the statute of limitations, hoping the conflict would be resolved. But the court dismissed the new appeal, saying it was filed improperly, and the deadline passed. Mr. Wilson's attorneys say an exception should have been made because the 2-forum rule caused the delay. The court opinion acknowledged that the 2-forum rule complicated matters, but the judges maintained that Mr. Wilson should have started the process earlier - presumably at the cost of the other appeals. (source: Dallas Morning News) ********************** Date Missed, Court Rebuffs Low-I.Q. Man Facing Death Though the Supreme Court has prohibited the execution of the mentally retarded, a Texas death row inmate who may be retarded cannot raise the issue in federal court because his lawyer missed a filing deadline, a federal appeals court ruled this week. The inmate, Marvin Lee Wilson, has "made a prima facie showing of mental retardation," a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit wrote in an unsigned decision on Tuesday, meaning the court presumed Mr. Wilson to be retarded for purposes of its ruling. But the panel said it was powerless to consider the case because Mr. Wilson's lawyer filed papers concerning his retardation in a federal trial court without first obtaining required permission from the appeals court, which he did not seek until a deadline had expired. "However harsh the result may be," the panel said, its hands are tied by deadlines established in a 1996 federal law, the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. The same law now forbids Mr. Wilson, convicted of killing a police informant, to appeal the Fifth Circuit's ruling to the Supreme Court. The Fifth Circuit court, which hears appeals from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi, has been frequently criticized by the Supreme Court for its decisions in capital cases. Still, said James W. Marcus, executive director of the Texas Defender Service, the Wilson decision surprised him. "Executing someone who is categorically exempt from the death penalty," Mr. Marcus said, "would be new ground, even for Texas." The Supreme Court ruled in 2002 that executing the mentally retarded was unconstitutional. But it gave the states little guidance about how to make that determination. In Texas, under a 2004 decision of its Court of Criminal Appeals, judges consider three things: whether defendants have "significantly subaverage" intelligence, using "an I.Q. of about 70 or below" as a benchmark; whether they lack fundamental social and practical skills; and whether they can demonstrate that both conditions existed before age 18. Other states look to similar factors, though some use an I.Q. of 75 as a rough cutoff. At a hearing in state court in 2004, Mr. Wilson's lawyers presented evidence from a psychologist, Donald Trahan, who said Mr. Wilson's I.Q. had most recently been measured at 61. A 1971 test had measured it at 73. In 1987, it was 75. Dr. Trahan said Mr. Wilson read at a first- or second-grade level, did not understand how bank accounts worked and had trouble with simple financial tasks like making change. A childhood friend, Walter Kelly, said Mr. Wilson had had difficulty with basic skills as a child. "He would put on his belt so tight that it would almost cut off his circulation," Mr. Kelly said. "He couldn't even play with simple toys like marbles or tops." Prosecutors presented no evidence of their own at that hearing. In court papers, they said the nature of Mr. Wilson's crime itself proved that he was not retarded. The Supreme Court's 2002 decision, they wrote, "was never intended to protect capital murderers who commit execution-style killings." Mr. Wilson, now 47, was convicted in 1998 of kidnapping and killing the police informant, Jerry Williams, in 1992. Information from Mr. Williams had led to Mr. Wilson's arrest for cocaine possession. In August 2004, Judge Larry Gist of the state district court in Beaumont, Tex., ruled that Mr. Wilson had failed to prove that he was mentally retarded. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed in a 3-paragraph decision three months later. Mr. Wilson's lawyer, Jim Delee, then sought review in the federal courts but became tangled in the procedures and deadlines set out in the 1996 law. The judges who ruled against his client this week were Jacques L. Wiener Jr. and Emilio M. Garza, both appointed to the appeals court by the 1st President Bush, and W. Eugene Davis, by President Ronald Reagan. This year the Supreme Court banned the execution of people who were under 18 at the time of their crimes. Mr. Marcus, of the Texas Defender Service, said it would be inconceivable to execute a juvenile offender even if his lawyer failed to raise the issue of his age at the proper time. "If Mr. Wilson had been 14 years old at the time of the crime but, in the eyes of the court, the issue was raised late, would it be O.K. for Texas to kill him?" Mr. Marcus said. "The question in this case is no different." (source; New York Times) ********************* 5th Circuit rejects a late appeal by inmate with low IQ Attorneys for Texas man facing execution had missed deadline by 40 days A Texas death row inmate whose lawyers say is mentally retarded lost an appeal this week before a federal court because he missed a filing deadline. Although the U.S. Supreme Court banned the execution of mentally retarded convicts three years ago, the state contends Marvin Lee Wilson of Beaumont isn't mentally retarded, and he lost a mental retardation claim in state courts. His lawyers had taken his appeal to federal court, where the door was shut on Tuesday by a panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals because Wilson's application to file for a writ of habeas corpus was submitted after a deadline set under a 1996 federal law governing habeas proceedings. "However harsh the result may be - particularly in a death penalty case involving a petitioner who has made a ... showing of mental retardation - Congress acted deliberately in enacting a strict limitations period," the panel wrote. The 3 judges - W. Eugene Davis, Jacques Wiener Jr. and Emilio Garza - said that Wilson had "failed to demonstrate that rare and exceptional circumstances prevented his timely filing" and refused to expand the filing period. No execution date has been set for Wilson, 47. He was sentenced to die for the 1992 kidnapping and shooting death of Jerry Robert Williams, 21, a police informant in a drug possession case against him. "People have been executed in Texas because of missed deadlines," said Jim Marcus of the Texas Defender Service. "What's different about this particular situation is whether Mr. Wilson is categorically exempt from the death penalty because he has mental retardation." How deadline was missed Marcus said defense lawyers were weighing their options, which include the filing of a new writ of habeas corpus directly with the U.S. Supreme Court. He said such writs are rarely granted. "The question now is whether the Supreme Court will get involved or not," he said. Marcus said an expert witness testified in a state court hearing that Wilson had an IQ in the low 60s. But the state contested the claim of mental retardation, and the claim was denied by a state district judge and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in 2004. According to the 5th Circuit panel, Wilson's lawyers filed successive applications for habeas corpus in both federal district court and state court on June 20, 2003, the last day he could file under a 1-year period allowed by federal law. The period began with the Supreme Court's June 20, 2002, decision banning the execution of mentally retarded inmates. The 5th Circuit dismissed the federal application to allow Wilson's state application to run its course through Texas courts. That time wasn't counted against his deadline, but the clock began ticking again when the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals issued its final judgment denying Wilson's state application on Nov. 10, 2004. That left Wilson with one business day to refile his application in federal court. The new deadline was Nov. 12, since Nov. 11 was a federal holiday. The 5th Circuit panel noted that Wilson attempted to refile his application in federal district court on Nov. 12 but said his lawyers failed to get the appellate court's prior approval, as required by federal law. "Not until Dec. 22, 2004, a full 40 days after his filing deadline, did Wilson properly file his new motion for authorization (from the 5th Circuit)," the panel wrote. 'Brinksmanship' alleged "The actions of his counsel - particularly in waiting until the very last day of the limitations period to file his (1st) application - appear to us to be more indicative of brinksmanship than of careful diligence," the judges added. James Delee, a Port Arthur attorney who also represents Wilson, had told the 5th Circuit that defense lawyers had "presented ample evidence to support a claim of mental retardation." "Strong, objective evidence showed that Mr. Wilson has low intelligence, significant adaptive deficits and onset before age 18 that is characteristic of the mentally retarded," he wrote. But the Texas attorney general's office argued that the state court's determination that Wilson wasn't mentally retarded "precludes him from making the prima facie showing (in federal court) that he is mentally retarded." (source : Houston Chronicle) ****************** Suspect in Nava shooting indicted With unusual swiftness, a Tarrant County grand jury has indicted the suspect in the fatal shooting of Fort Worth police officer Henry "Hank" Nava. Stephen Lance Heard, 39, remained in the Tarrant County Jail on Thursday on $2 million bail. He is now awaiting trial on a capital murder charge in the death of Nava, who was gunned down Nov. 29 inside a northwest Fort Worth mobile home. The grand jury also indicted Heard on a charge of aggravated kidnapping, stemming from accusations that he held a 26-year-old woman hostage for about 3 hours. Prosecutors said they presented the case to the grand jury quickly because they had sufficient evidence to go to trial. The move came 2 days after defense attorneys filed a motion to have a pre-indictment hearing. That hearing, called an examining trial, would have allowed both sides "the right to question, review and cross-examine every aspect of the case," defense attorney Mark Daniel said in a written statement. "The district attorney returning indictments in these cases legally terminates that right," Daniel's statement read. Prosecutor Betty Arvin, who is handling the case with Alan Levy, said that police have been working non-stop on the case and, while there is still work to be done, the case was ready to be presented to the grand jury. "When a grand jury returns an indictment, there is no need for an examining trial," Arvin said. Arvin said the investigation is ongoing and additional charges may be filed against Heard at a later date. She said a final decision has not been made on whether prosecutors will seek the death penalty. The Capital Murder Review Committee, a group of chief prosecutors who review all capital murder cases, is expected to make a decision as early as January. "We try and gather as much information as we can before making that decision," Arvin said. "We are working on that now." Police have said that Nava and 2 other officers had gone to a northwest Fort Worth mobile home on Nov. 29, searching for Heard, who was wanted on a parole violation warrant. After officers were given permission to search the home by a female occupant, officer Nava opened a bedroom door and told officers that Heard was inside. The affidavits state that Heard opened fire and a gunbattle ensued. Police have said that Heard fled to a nearby home, where he held a woman hostage. After a 3-hour standoff, police said, Heard surrendered. Nava, who was shot above the left eyebrow, died 2 days later. Heard told reporters in a subsequent interview that he fired the gun because he thought Nava was a robber. (source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram) OHIO: Climate in Ohio calls for an end to death penalty In principle, I favor the death penalty. Cold-blooded killers such as Stanley "Tookie" Williams, whose guilt wasn't really in question, merit no sympathy or consideration simply because they are more articulate or media-friendly than their victims. The problem with the death penalty is that, so long as we have prosecutors who convict innocent people on less-than-ultimate proof, and when faced with proof of innocence continue to insist on maintaining the conviction, we can never be sure when imposing the death penalty. Thank God, Clarence Elkins was not sentenced to death [and has been set free], but the prosecutors in his case are the poster children for abolishing the death penalty. Being tough on crime in Summit County appears to mean jailing innocent relatives of the victim so that the guilty can go free to rape and kill again. While the death penalty is appropriate for killers, thanks to people like the prosecutors in Summit County, it is no longer a viable option in Ohio. The legislature should abolish it. George Macdonald----Cleveland (source: Letter to the Editor, Cleveland Plain Dealer) ******************** Parole board games ---- Mishandling of hearings hurts prisoners, crime victims and judge The Ohio Parole Board has misled the public to believe that prison inmates convicted of aggravated murder and rape might go free because of a ruling made by Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David E. Cain. Cain is unfairly taking the blame for the board's mistake piled upon mistake. A spokesman for the parole board chalked up the agency's actions to simple confusion over which inmates are affected by Cain's 2004 ruling in Ankrom vs. Hageman. Let's hope that's true, because it looks suspiciously like disgruntled state officials playing politics. Cain ruled in Ankrom that the board's method for determining the parole eligibility of inmates convicted before 1996 was flawed. As a result, some inmates were serving much longer sentences than they should, he said. Cain wrote that those inmates deserve parole hearings in which their circumstances are given meaningful consideration, and if the board chooses not to release an inmate, it has to give a reason. The Ankrom decision applies only to inmates who plea-bargained for lesser charges. In all but a few scenarios, the ruling wouldn't apply to people convicted of rape and aggravated murder. But for reasons that are unclear, the parole board has done everything in its power to give the public the impression that Cain wants Ohio's worst criminals out of prison. Since the board began to comply with the ruling in June, it has labeled every parole hearing an "Ankrom hearing," even if the Ankrom decision doesn't apply. The board also has been sending letters to victims and their families to notify them that an "Ankrom hearing" soon will be held for a particular inmate. Cain is conspicuously named in the 1st sentence and last paragraph. Angry crime victims and their loved ones have been contacting Cain, wondering why he'd be such a monster as to suggest that those who've committed heinous crimes should go free. Worse than that, now that Cain has chastised the parole board for its misinterpretation of the ruling, the board has delayed hearings it promised for people convicted of aggravated murder while it reconsiders their eligibility. The ire coming from inmates over this development isn't directed at the parole board; it's directed at Cain. But he didn't make the mistake. Every time an inmate hears he's getting a long-awaited hearing, the board raises his hopes and then dashes them when that hearing is canceled. Every time the parole board sends out a letter to a victim saying that the inmate who raped her is getting a hearing, the news rips her apart - needless suffering if the inmate isn't actually eligible. Through its actions, the board has harmed much more than a judge's reputation. Whether board officials truly are confused by the Ankrom ruling or the maneuvering stems from spite, the mistakes and blame game should stop. (source: Editorial, Columbus Dispatch) VIRGINIA: Court denies murderer's attempt to overturn death sentence A federal appeals court ruled this week that a man sentenced to death received a fair trial although his two Portsmouth defense attorneys were embroiled in a race discrimination lawsuit against one another. Dexter Lee Vinson, convicted of killing his ex-girlfriend, argued that his attorneys had a conflict of interest because one was suing the other, claiming she was bypassed for promotion because of her race while employed in the Portsmouth Public Defenders Office. Vinson, now 42, was convicted in 1998 of the murder and sexual mutilation of his ex-girlfriend, Angela Felton, a 25-year-old mother of 3. Felton's body was found in a vacant house in the Academy Park section of Portsmouth. She had suffered massive cuts to her limbs, buttocks and genital area and was bludgeoned about the head and face. Vinson denied any role in the slaying. "Nobody really knows what happened," he told the jury at his trial. Vinson was represented at trial by Portsmouth Public Defender John H. Underwood III. A judge appointed private attorney Tanya Lomax as co-counsel. Lomax, who is black, had been employed as an assistant defender in Underwood's office from about 1991 to 1997 and in that period had filed a race discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claiming that 3 white women were promoted over her. Later, she filed a federal lawsuit. A jury found in Underwood's favor after hearing testimony that Lomax was difficult to work with and had poor relationships with other staff members. Underwood, reached Friday at his office, declined to comment. Lomax could not be reached. Vinson, seeking to overturn his death sentence, argued before the appeals court that he should get a court hearing so a judge could decide whether his trial counsel "labored under a conflict of interest." But the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Thursday that Vinson was made aware of the civil action between Lomax and Underwood and chose not to obtain alternate counsel. He also signed a waiver stating he understood the potential conflict but wished to continue with the 2 attorneys. The appeals court wrote that Vinson did not "establish constitutional error by clear and convincing evidence." Vinsons attorneys did not respond to questions Friday. He has been on death row since 1999. No execution date has been set. (source: The Virginian-Pilot) CALIFORNIA----upcoming execution Oldest Death Row Inmate Is Denied a Delay----Judge rejects Clarence Ray Allen's assertion he is too ill to assist in clemency efforts. Allen, 75, arranged a triple slaying from prison. A federal judge in San Francisco has declined to delay the Jan. 17 execution of the oldest man on California's death row, who says he is so ill that he has been unable to assist his attorneys in preparing a clemency petition. Clarence Ray Allen, 75, was sentenced to death in 1982 for commissioning the murder of three people in Fresno. If the sentence is carried out as scheduled, Allen would become the oldest person executed in California since the death penalty was reinstated in 1978. Allen is legally blind, has heart ailments and diabetes, and uses a wheelchair. His attorneys assert that top officials in the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and at San Quentin State Prison have provided inadequate medical care to Allen. They also say that the state violated Allen's rights to counsel, to due process and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. The California attorney general's office vigorously opposed delaying the execution, saying that Allen has had sufficient opportunity to meet with his attorneys regarding a clemency petition. In an order released Friday, U.S. District Judge Jeffrey S. White agreed. White said Allen had not met the legal standard to obtain a temporary restraining order in two important respects. The judge said Allen had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. In addition, White said that under a 1998 U.S. Supreme Court decision, "only minimal due process protections apply to clemency proceedings" and that Allen had failed to demonstrate that the state had violated that standard. White said that although Allen's attorneys cited several incidents of "alleged disregard for his medical needs," they had presented no specific allegations regarding the effect those actions had had on Allen's ability to help them with a clemency petition. As for Allen's assertions that his repeated movements from one facility to another prevented him from being examined by medical experts and meeting with his lawyers, White noted that the inmate has met with his legal team nine times since his heart attack in September. Allen also has been examined 8 times since returning to his cell on Oct. 6 after surgery, White wrote. Allen also said state officials denied him laser eye surgery, which would have improved his vision and permitted him to be tested for organic brain damage. His attorneys say finding signs of such brain damage would provide mitigating evidence relevant to Allen's clemency petition. But White said there is nothing in the law that requires the state to help Allen prepare his clemency petition. Moreover, White said that on Tuesday Allen's attorneys had "filed a lengthy and thorough clemency petition," which the judge said belies Allen's assertion that state officials interfered with his clemency rights. The judge said Allen's attorneys have made Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger aware of his medical condition in their clemency petition. Schwarzenegger could grant the petition, deny it or issue a reprieve. No California governor has granted clemency in a capital case since 1967. Schwarzenegger has denied clemency to all 3 death row inmates who have requested it, including Stanley Tookie Williams, who was executed Tuesday. The California attorney general's office, which considers Allen's crimes particularly egregious, will oppose clemency and is expected to file a formal response with the governor. In 1977, Allen was convicted of arranging the 1974 murder of his son's girlfriend, Mary Sue Kitts, who was a potential witness against him in a market burglary case. While serving a life sentence at Folsom State Prison for contracting Kitts' murder, he offered another inmate, Billy Ray Hamilton, $25,000 to kill 8 people who had testified against him in the Kitts case. After being released from prison, Hamilton in 1980 killed one of the witnesses, Bryon Schletewitz, son of the store owner, and two young market employees, Josephine Rocha and Douglas White. Allen was convicted of the three murders, and of conspiracy to murder the 8 witnesses. Hamilton also received a death sentence, and 2 other individuals involved in the triple homicide received sentences of life without parole. *************** Service for Williams Is Scheduled for Tuesday----The killer was executed at San Quentin this week. His ashes are to be spread in South Africa. A memorial service for Stanley Tookie Williams, a co-founder of the Crips gang who was executed at San Quentin this week, will be held at a South Los Angeles church Tuesday, organizers said. The service is scheduled for noon at Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church and will be officiated by Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam, said supporter Jasmyne Cannick. Other participants will include the Rev. Jesse Jackson, recording artist Snoop Dogg and NAACP President Bruce S. Gordon, she said. Williams, 51, was convicted of murdering four people 26 years ago. He was executed by lethal injection Tuesday, hours after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger denied his clemency petition. His case drew international media attention, in part because Williams had become an anti-gang activist and had been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. He requested that his ashes be spread in South Africa. Cannick said his request would be honored. She said the funeral was a chance for Williams to be remembered as a man who made contributions to the community. "This is an opportunity for people who knew Mr. Williams, who were friends with Mr. Williams, who respected his work to be able to pay their final respects," Cannick said. A Los Angeles Police Department spokesman said officers would be in the area but would not intrude on the service. "We will monitor it like we would any other large event like this," said Lt. Paul Vernon. "We don't anticipate any problems." The church, at 7900 S. Western Ave., holds about 1,500 people, organizers said. They said they planned to show the service on screens outside for any overflow crowd. ***************** Inmate's Bid for a Hearing Upheld A federal appeals court on Friday paved the way for Ricky Lee Earp, who has been on death row since 1992, to get a hearing on his claims that a Los Angeles County prosecutor intimidated a witness whose testimony could have aided him in avoiding a conviction and death sentence for the rape and murder of his goddaughter. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed a decision it rendered in early September saying that Earp was entitled to a hearing on two claims: prosecutorial misconduct and constitutionally ineffective representation by his trial lawyer. Earp, who is now 45, was convicted in 1991 of raping and murdering his 18-month-old goddaughter, Amanda Doshier. Earp's girlfriend had left Amanda with him when she went to work one day in August 1988. Hours later, Earp called paramedics for help, saying Amanda had fallen. She died in a hospital two days later. Earp later said another man, Dennis Morgan, had come to the house in Palmdale and killed the girl. But Morgan testified that he had never been to the house. In one of his appellate court claims, Earp alleged that the trial prosecutor from the county district attorney's office had committed prejudicial misconduct by dissuading Michael Taylor, who had been a jail mate of Morgan's, from testifying. Taylor had submitted a declaration stating that he had overheard Morgan say he had visited the house where Earp was watching the child on the day of the murder. Taylor said the prosecutor verbally abused him until he retracted his statement. Earp's appellate attorneys also alleged that his trial lawyer failed to investigate leads that could have yielded mitigating evidence in the trial's penalty phase about his childhood emotional and neurological problems. The lawyers, Dean R. Gitts of the federal public defender's office and Robert S. Gerstein of Santa Monica, cited a history of alcoholism, depression and suicide in Earp's family and "evaluations that would have evinced organic brain damage resulting from head trauma sustained in childhood." The state attorney general's office sought a rehearing but did not get the required majority vote of the 9th Circuit. (source for all: Los Angeles Times) ******************** 'The state should not administer death' -- The rate of executions in California is speeding up, but opinion is beginning to turn against the death penalty, says Dan Glaister Forget "Hasta la vista, baby" and "I'll be back". The phrase by which the California governor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, might best be remembered is "Stop me before I kill again". Those words were scrawled over a picture of him in all his Terminator pomp held aloft by a protester outside the gates of San Quentin prison on Monday night. The protests came as Stanley "Tookie" Williams became the 12th person to be executed since California brought back the death penalty in 1977. At 647 people, the state's death row is the largest in the US, giving Californians the luxury of expressing support for the death penalty in ballots and opinion polls while not having to witness the fruits of that support - the judicial killing of prisoners. But that situation is about to change. Many of the death penalties imposed in the state date from the early 80s, shortly after the ending of a moratorium. Like Williams, many death row inmates have spent more than 20 years taking their cases to various appeals courts. And like Williams, many of them are now approaching the end of that particular road. The antiquated execution chamber at San Quentin is about to see a lot more use. And California, to its shame, is about to become the new Texas, which has the highest number of executions of any US state since 1976. Meanwhile, the US has its own place in the top 10 for executions in the world, lying fourth behind China, Iran and Vietnam. Judicial killings in California will resume early in the new year, with 75-year-old Clarence Ray Allen set to be executed on January 17. He is likely to be followed, in February, by Michael Morales. 3 other death row inmates - Mitchell Carlton Sims, William Payton and Kevin Cooper - are thought likely to be given execution dates next year. Some observers think there will be more. The rate is speeding up. This year, there have been two executions in the state (the previous one, in January, was of Donald Beardslee). In 2003 and 2004, there were none. But now the enthusiasm of prosecutors and politicians for the death penalty in the days after it was reinstated is bearing its strange fruit. Campaigners against the penalty are pinning their hopes on a proposed moratorium, due to be voted on by the state legislature in early January. The moratorium has been proposed by Democrats who want the state's execution schedule to be put on hold for three years pending the results of a special committee's investigations into wrongful convictions. The possibility of error and the influence of politics and any number of other factors have moved a man who was central to the return of the death penalty in California to change his mind. Don Heller wrote the legislation to bring it back - a measure put before voters and approved in a special ballot. "On its face it is fair and neutral," he says, "but in reality it's not fairly applied. "Too many human variables enter into the decision-making process governing human death. It's clear that, in applying the death penalty, there is discrimination against the poor and minorities," he adds, with that claim backed by a study published in September by the Santa Clara Law Review. "If you're rich and have the funds, the probability is that you're not going to end up on death row." But Heller says that even if the system were perfect, he would not now support the death penalty. "The state should not be in the position of administering death," he says. The committee - the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice - was set up last year, and its members hold a wide range of views on the death penalty. It will complete its work against a rapidly changing and contradictory landscape. In the first years after its reintroduction, the death penalty was handed down "widely and wildly", in the words of Lance Lindsey, the executive director of Death Penalty Focus. "It was a political tool, and politicians - including elected prosecutors and judges - were moving defendants into the death process faster than the courts could keep up." But the pace slackened over recent years. Until the end of the 90s, between 30 and 40 death penalties were handed down in California each year. Last year, only 9 were issued. This year, the figure is even lower. Similarly, public opinion in the state has evolved. In 1983, support for the death penalty in opinion polls registered at 83%. By last year, it had dropped to 68% in one poll and 57% in another. As every pollster knows, it all depends on the question. Those approval ratings are in response to whether a person supports the death penalty. However, when respondents were asked whether they would support life without parole or the death penalty for 1st-degree murderers, only 38% chose the death penalty. "It's a very odd time for us," Mr Lindsey says of the challenges facing anti-death penalty campaigners. "It will be very bipolar because we have this momentum with the commission and public support in the polls for the death penalty falling, and then we have a Texas-style execution process." Like many campaigners, he has come to believe that the death penalty is a function of politics. His initial idealism, he says, has given way to pragmatism. "There has to be a political solution," he says, "which means we have to take the political approach, which means an incremental approach." The committee is due to begin considering the proposal for a moratorium on January 10. Clarence Ray Allen is scheduled to die by lethal injection on January 17. Let's hope the increments come quickly. (source: The (UK) Guardian) ******************* PERSPECTIVES ON EXECUTION OF STANLEY 'TOOKIE' WILLIAMS Stanley "Tookie" Williams has been executed 27 years after our justice system decided he was guilty. If we decide our justice system isn't good, let's change it. Otherwise, let's respect it and abide by its decisions. It may be that one out of every 10 persons we put to death after a fair trial is not guilty. Thinking about my children and grandchildren, I'd much rather take the risk of my being taken unjustly for a guilty person and put to death when I was not guilty than having nine killers running free (after completing their sentences, their seeing the light or whatever excuse they may contrive) and putting my descendants in harm's way. If Williams was not guilty, sorry, but that's the way it has to be unless we change our system. We have been feeding, rooming and taking care of Williams for 27 years, at a rate of $40,000 per year, which means we have spent more than $1 million on him that could have been assigned to the education and welfare of a few children. DAVID FLOR SR., Miami *** The state should stop murderers like Stanley Williams from doing further violent harm. The state could execute murderers like Williams if doing so will stop others from following their path. But the killing of Williams was not necessary to protect society. Life in a maximum-security prison without chance of parole is a hell-hole as effective as any death sentence in removing murderers from society. No criminologists cling to the argument that executions stop others from violence. So truly, the only reason to kill Williams was the desire to take from him what he took from others. Such feelings flow naturally from the families of his victims. Of course, they want him dead. But must society stand in the shoes of the victim? Do we not strive for a for a more-rational, less emotion-driven response? Was Gov. Schwarzenegger's opinion of Williams' "remorsefulness" relevant to the goal of protecting society? People and societies kill. It is an act that is accepted, even celebrated, when it is driven by necessity. But killing Williams did nothing to protect society from present or future harm. The world is neither safer nor more dangerous. All we are left with is the fleeting taste of revenge. ELISE LINDER and GLENN SHELDON, Coral Gables (source: Letter to the Editor, Miami Herald)
