Feb. 15 SOUTH CAROLINA: Morgan-Major death penalty case rescheduled for June 19 The sentencing hearing for a Burton woman who pleaded guilty to the 2004 murder of a physically disabled man is scheduled to begin June 19, 14th Circuit Court Solicitor Duffie Stone said Monday. The hearing to decide whether Samantha Morgan-Major receives the death penalty was scheduled to begin Monday, but the defense filed a motion for a continuance Friday, and Circuit Court Judge Roger Young officially granted it Monday at the Beaufort County Courthouse, Stone said. Morgan-Major pleaded guilty in January to the beating death of Brett Kinney. John Dykeman Jr. also faces charges of murder, armed robbery and kidnapping in the case. (source: Beaufort Gazette) ************** Prosecutors pass on death penalty after family objects Prosecutors have decided not to seek the death penalty against a man charged with killing his brother and father with a shotgun after the suspect's grandfather told them he didn't want his grandson to die for the crime. James Randolph Frady, 42, is scheduled to stand trial on 2 murder charges starting March 20 in Oconee County. Frady is accused of killing his father, 63-year-old James Cleveland Frady Jr., and his brother, 36-year-old Barry Patrick Frady, in September 2004, authorities said. Family members found the bodies of the men in their home and James Frady was arrested a short time later. James Frady faces 30 years to life in prison if convicted, but prosecutor Chrissy Adams decided not to seek the death penalty. "I have met with the family, and the grandfather is adamantly opposed to a death-penalty trial," Adams said. The victims had signed warrants against James Frady three months before the shooting because of threats, Oconee County sheriff's investigator Greg Reed said. James Frady was tried for a 1986 shooting death in Oconee County, but a jury found he acted in self-defense. The Frady family has been a Walhalla mainstay for several generations, operating service stations and a moving company. (source: Associated Press) USA: Support Life, Say 'No' to the Death Penalty With only about 25 countries still using the death penalty, and countries such as Israel abandoning the practice as primitive, why is the United States still using it? We do not rape rapists or burn down arsonists' houses, so why is homicide different? We are taught that it is an eye for an eye, but if we truly believed this, the world would be blind. We cannot take a life for a life, for taking away a life will not ease the pain of a death and will not remove evil from the world. I believe the death penalty is unnecessary and ineffective, and that any arguments for the death penalty can be refuted. Religious passages, such as Genesis 9:6 which says, "whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed," are used to justify execution, but other passages go against the practice. After Cain, the son of Adam and Eve, kills his brother, Abel, God says in Genesis 4:11-15, "And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand...a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth. And the Lord said unto him, therefore whosever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." God demanded that Cain, a murderer, live. Though there are passages that support the death penalty, many religious leaders choose to follow those that refute it. The late Pope John Paul II frequently called for an end to it. In a prayer at the Papal Mass at Regina Coli Prison in Rome, on July 9, 2000, he said, "May the death penalty, an unworthy punishment still used in some countries, be abolished through the world." John Paul believed that, "A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil," which he expressed in a homily at the Papal Mass in the Trans World Dome, St. Louis, Mo., Jan 27, 1999. Leaders of Judaism are also against the death penalty. During the Talmudic period, rabbis decided the death penalty should be abolished, shown by their discussion 1,800 years ago: One rabbi said that a court that executes a criminal once every seven years is called a 'court of murderers.' Rabbi Eliezer ben Azariah disagreed. He said that a court that executes a man every 70 years is a 'court of murderers.' Rabbi Tarphon and Rabbi Akiva went further to say that if they had been members of the court, "no man would ever be executed," according to www.bethhatikvah.org. Proponents of the death penalty say it is a form of justice for the families of the victims, but according to www.murdervictimsfamilies.org, family members of the victims are not comforted or given closure through the execution of the accused. Instead, they are re-victimized over and over by mandatory appeals and overwhelming media attention surrounding the offender. And, according to Amanda and Nick Wilcox, whose daughter, Laura, was murdered along with 3 others, when a mentally ill client of a health clinic went on a shooting rampage, the death penalty is not a form of justice, because true justice is something they can never have -- they can never get their daughter back. To the Wilcoxes, the lengthy process of trials, appeals and anticipated execution only impedes coming to terms with their loss. If closure means healing, that healing must come from within, not from the fate of a murderer. Supporters of the death penalty advocate that it deters criminals from killing, but studies do not show this. According to www.amnesty.org, recent crime figures from abolitionist countries fail to show that abolition has harmful effects. An example is Canada. In 1975, the year before the abolition of the death penalty, the homicide rate per 100,000 population was at 3.09; in 1980 it was 2.41 and in 2003, 27 years after abolition, the homicide rate was 1.73 per 100,000 population, the lowest in three decades. It is argued that our tax dollars should not have to go to sustain a murderer in jail for the rest of his or her life. In a perfect world, they wouldn't have to, but execution is not the answer. According to www.religioustolerance.org, the cost to a state to fund appeals by a convicted murderer would more than pay for their permanent incarceration. Indeed, the expenses related to the conviction and execution of Timothy McVeigh amounted to over $13 million, yet the victims of the families of the Oklahoma City bombing received only $250,000 to divide among themselves for the funeral services. The money a state spends on appeals could also be put into programs to counsel and give assistance to the families of the victims. With the execution of Stanley Tookie Williams in December 2005, the death penalty re-entered the spotlight. Should it be used? If it was a deterrent for crime or helped families cope with their loss, I might say yes, but it does neither. It's time to fall into line with the rest of the industrial world and stop the use of the death penalty. (source: Opinion; Julianna Malogolowkin is a senior at Flintridge Sacred Heart Academy, where she is co-editor of the school paper, The Veritas Shield----La Canada Valley Sun)
