March 5 USA: Time to abolish the death penalty In 1828, Patrick Fitzpatrick of Detroit was executed for the rape and murder of an innkeeper's daughter. Seven years later, his roommate confessed to the crime. As a result of this and other travesties of justice, the first official act of the new state of Michigan's Legislature was to ban the death penalty. On March 1, 1847, Michigan became the first English-speaking government in the world to outlaw executions. Now we commemorate March 1 as International Death Penalty Abolition Day. The struggle to abolish the death penalty began around the same time as the movement to abolish slavery. The first independent government in the world to ban the death penalty permanently was the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in 1786. Today, slavery is a crime everywhere on Earth, while abolition of the death penalty has proved considerably harder to achieve. The United States remains one of the few remaining bastions of democratic support for the death penalty. 129 nations, from Angola to Nepal to Venezuela, have no capital punishment. No European country executes its citizens, nor do our neighbors, Canada and Mexico. The United Nations has repeatedly endorsed an international moratorium on capital punishment. Eventually, we as a nation will learn to respect the universal human right to life. We, too, will reject execution as a form of torture. There are reasons for national optimism. In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the execution of the mentally disabled unconstitutional; the execution of juveniles was abolished in 2005. Twelve states have no capital punishment statute; Illinois and New Jersey have moratoria in effect; and the death penalty laws of Kansas and New York have been nullified. Many mainstream religious institutions in the U.S. oppose capital punishment as a violation of the right to life. Recent polls suggest that voters prefer life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty, and as we saw recently in the Michael Morales case, the medical profession finds it ethically unacceptable for a healthcare provider to participate in executions. The arguments in favor of capital punishment in the U.S. are weak. It is excruciatingly obvious that executions do not deter capital offenses, are frequently meted out to factually innocent individuals, are racially biased, and function as a macabre lottery stacked against the most destitute defendants. But the best argument against the death penalty may simply be what Jesus, the archetypal victim of the death penalty, taught: Love thy enemy. When we choose instead to wage "war on crime," to hate and seek revenge, our empathy atrophies and we neglect to provide the early-intervention alternatives to guns, drugs, unemployment and gangs that are indispensable to sustaining a just and peaceful society. A society committed to nonviolence would not be a leading purveyor of capital punishment, rivaled only by the likes of China, Vietnam and Iran. It would not be the world's leader in per-capita incarceration; nor would it have a homicide approximately every 30 minutes, as the U.S. does today. As we mark International Death Penalty Abolition Day, let's contemplate what it would be like to wage peace, instead of war, on crime. What if our guiding principles were compassion and rehabilitation instead of vengeance and punishment? What if we all considered ourselves the healthcare providers of future generations, nurturers of the sanctity of human life, citizen healers who refuse to participate in executions? (source: Opinion, Ventura County Star (David Howard, of Ojai, is co-chairman of Citizens for Peaceful Resolutions) ****************** To Cite or Not to Cite to Non-Precedential Opinions The most controversial change ever proposed to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure is scheduled to take effect later this year. If approved by the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress, Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, which authorizes citation to non-precedential federal appellate court rulings in briefs filed in all of the U.S. Courts of Appeals, will become law. At present, some federal appellate courts permit their non-precedential rulings to be cited in briefs; other federal appellate courts disfavor such citations but permit them when no onpoint precedential decision exists; while a 3rd group of federal appellate courts almost entirely prohibits the practice. Back in the early 1990s when I began practicing law, the federal appellate court before which I practice most frequently -- the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals -- was among the federal appellate courts that did not allow its non-precedential (then called "unpublished") decisions to be cited. More recently, however, the 3rd Circuit reversed course, becoming one of the federal appellate courts that freely permits citation to its non-precedential rulings. Samuel A. Alito Jr., then a 3rd Circuit judge, was a strong proponent of the change. After the 3rd Circuit allowed its non-precedential rulings to be cited, the sky did not fall, mass hysteria did not ensue, and I and my appellate practitioner colleagues within the circuit have grown to strongly favor that approach. But the opponents of Rule 32.1 are a powerful group, and they were afforded one last opportunity to derail the provision when the Judicial Conference of the United States met on Sept. 20, 2005 to give final approval to the rule before sending it on to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration. The rule then stated: "A court may not prohibit or restrict the citation of federal judicial opinions, orders, judgments, or other written dispositions that have been designated as 'unpublished,' 'not for publication,' 'non-precedential,' 'not precedent,' or the like." Regrettably, at the behest of the chief judge of one of the U.S. Courts of Appeals where the citation to non-precedential decisions is now almost entirely prohibited, the Judicial Conference agreed to insert additional language that will cause Rule 32.1 to apply only to federal court rulings issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. The Advisory Committee's note has been updated to reflect this last-minute alteration: "Rule 32.1(a) applies only to unpublished opinions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. The citation of unpublished opinions issued before Jan. 1, 2007, will continue to be governed by the local rules of the circuits." After adding that prospective-only limitation, the Judicial Conference forwarded Rule 32.1 to the U.S. Supreme Court with the recommendation that the rule be approved and promulgated to Congress by May 1. If the Supreme Court sends the rule along to Congress by that date, and if Congress thereafter takes no adverse action, Rule 32.1 will go into effect on Dec. 1 (even though, by its own terms, the rule will only apply to decisions issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007). For two reasons, the Supreme Court should eliminate the last-minute, prospective-only limitation from Rule 32.1 and return the rule to the form in which the Appellate Rules Advisory Committee approved it, making the rule applicable to all unpublished and non-precedential federal court rulings, regardless of when issued. First, the prospective-only limitation is guaranteed to sow unnecessary confusion. And second, the limitation serves no logical purpose in distinguishing between non-precedential decisions based on date of issuance. A central purpose of Rule 32.1 was to eliminate the lack of uniformity in the local rules of the U.S. Courts of Appeals governing when non-precedential rulings may be cited. Unfortunately, the Judicial Conference's prospective-only limitation all but guarantees to preserve that lack of uniformity with regard to non-precedential federal appellate court rulings that issued before January 1, 2007. At present, the federal appellate courts, either by local rule or case law, have announced whether and under what circumstances those courts' own non-precedential decisions may be cited in briefs filed in those courts. Thus, an advocate who files an appellate brief today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals knows that she risks discipline from the court if she cites a non-precedential 9th Circuit ruling as authority. As of Dec. 1, if Rule 32.1 goes into effect as planned on that date, local rules that prohibit citation to a federal appellate court's non-precedential rulings will be deprived of any effect, at least with respect to non-precedential rulings issued on or after Jan. 1, 2007. This is because the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure take precedence over conflicting local rules. So the question will be, in those many federal appellate courts that now prohibit or restrict citation to their non-precedential rulings, whether Rule 32.1 entirely abrogates those courts' local rules or allows them to survive in part to prohibit citation to non-precedential decisions issued before Jan. 1, 2007. What would make the most sense, of course, would be for all federal appellate courts, in advance of Dec. 1, to update their local rules to specify whether and under what circumstances (if any) litigants will be permitted to cite to those courts' non-precedential rulings issued before Jan. 1, 2007. But that is not guaranteed to happen, and nothing in Rule 32.1 requires it to occur. Absent such updated local rules, litigants in most circuits will lack clear guidance on whether local rules now governing the citation of non-precedential decisions will continue, following Rule 32.1's effective date, to control the circumstances under which non-precedential rulings issued before Jan. 1, 2007 can be cited. The confusion that the Judicial Conference's amendment to Rule 32.1 is guaranteed to spawn is but 1 of the 2 reasons why the Supreme Court should eliminate that amendment. The 2nd, perhaps even more persuasive reason is that there is no logical basis to draw a distinction between non precedential opinions issued before Jan. 1, 2007 and non-precedential opinions issued on or after that date. Rule 32.1 will merely allow attorneys to cite a federal appellate court's non-precedential or unpublished opinions, but the rule in no way requires a federal appellate court to treat its own non-precedential or unpublished opinions as precedent. Thus, after Jan. 1, 2007, the 9th Circuit will be prohibited from disciplining an attorney who cites one of that court's post-Jan. 1, 2007 non-precedential rulings in a brief, but the 9th Circuit itself will remain as free as ever to continue to ignore its own non-precedential rulings. Another possibility is that the prospective-only limitation in Rule 32.1 will allow those circuits that now strictly prohibit citation to their non-precedential rulings either to improve the quality of such rulings after Jan. 1, 2007 or ensure that such rulings will thereafter be entirely bereft of any citable content. But if that is the rationale for the rule's temporal limitation, the amendment overlooks that attorneys realize both that non-precedential rulings should only be cited in the absence of any comparable precedential authority and that federal appellate courts will remain entirely free to disregard their own non-precedential decisions as neither binding nor authoritative. My hope that the Supreme Court will remove the last-minute, prospective-only limitation from Rule 32.1 is bolstered by the fact that both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. served on the U.S. Courts Appellate Rules Advisory Committee, from which Rule 32.1 originated, and both are on record as opposed to any prospective-only limitation in the rule. Because the Judicial Conference's temporal limitation in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 is guaranteed to spawn confusion and is based on the illogical proposition that non-precedential rulings issued before the new rule's effective date ought to be treated differently than non-precedential rulings issued after the new rule's effective date, the Supreme Court should eliminate the prospective-only limitation from the text of Rule 32.1 before forwarding the rule to Congress on May 1. (source: Law.com - Howard J. Bashman operates his own appellate litigation boutique in Willow Grove, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia) ********************** How Grieving Becomes Healing Instead of seeking vengeance after their son was murdered, Derrel Myers and Naomi White are trying to create a world in which no parent has to bury a child killed by gun violence. On the evening of Jan. 19, 1996, Jo Jo White, 23, a teacher, ball player and community organizer pulled his car over on a quiet street in San Francisco so one of his friends could relieve himself. Suddenly, an agitated young stranger approached the car and asked if anyone was trying to "mess with him." Jo Jo said no. "Peace, brother. One love," said Jo Jo. The man responded by shooting him through the heart. Nearly a decade later, on December 13, 2005, Jo Jo's father, Derrel Myers, stood outside in the cold shadow of San Quentin prison to protest the imminent execution of reformed gang leader, Stanley "Tookie" Williams. Derrel held a large sign with a picture of him and Jo Jo. The sign read: "My son was a murder victim. He opposed the death penalty, and so do I!" There were hundreds of mourners at Jo Jo's memorial; a mix of young and old, white, black, Latino and Asian; developmentally disabled and at-risk-youth; kids Jo Jo grew up with, some of whom had attended his mother's day care center; and colleagues from his several jobs. He had obviously touched many people. In the crowd and performing onstage were Jo Jo's buddies, members of the hip-hop group Board Stiff. I was with some co-workers from Global Exchange, a human rights group that had organized many educational trips to Cuba, one of which had a big impact on Jo Jo's life. We cried and we laughed, we sang and mourned. That day was also the birth of a new relationship between Jo Jo's family and many of his friends. Derrel Myers and Jo Jo's mother, Naomi White, opened their homes and their hearts to their son's friends and community. They channeled their pain and anger into empowerment and personal growth. With Global Exchange, Derrel and Naomi organized a trip to Cuba in Jo Jo's memory. They had heard many stories from Jo Jo's friends about his trip to Cuba in 1993. One of the things that inspired him most was how much love and how little violence he saw there. Jo Jo's family and friends spent many Sundays over the next several months getting to know each other, planning, meeting, figuring out trip logistics and fundraising so that everyone who wanted to go could go, regardless of their ability to pay. In July 1996, dozens of Jo Jo's friends and family members went to Cuba. For many, it was the 1st time they had ever traveled outside of San Francisco. I will never forget the connections we made with our Cuban brothers and sisters. One evening Jo Jo's friends and some Cuban rappers performed together onstage. Although the two groups couldn't speak each other's language, the communication was loud and clear. Jo Jo's killer has never been found. For Derrel and Naomi he will always be another victim in this tragedy. What was his life like? Why was he so angry? They believe that society bears some responsibility for their son's murder, and for the tragic life his murderer has led. They do not believe that putting to death the man who killed their son would bring them closure or fill the absence in their hearts. In a letter Derrel and Naomi published in the San Francisco Bay Guardian after their son's death they asked the question: "Who Killed Jo Jo?" "Who, then, besides the gunman, is responsible for this outrageous crime? Jo Jo was killed by the same social system he was trying to change; a system that takes food, music, health and recreation programs from school children so that the wealthy corporate executives and stockholders can pay fewer taxes. It's a system that closes factories in California so that stockholders can earn greater profits from the labor of children in Mexico and other parts of the Third World. It's a system that denies social services to the homeless and working poor to feed the hogs at the Pentagon feeding trough. It's a system that, in the name of peace, wages endless war at home and abroad, militarizing our society and promoting more violence in the form of the death penalty and war on drugs. It is criminalizing poverty, youth and dissent, making justice even less accessible to the poor." Derrel and Naomi will never completely heal from the loss of their only child. But they can teach us all something about grieving and healing, about creating a world in which no parent has to bury a child killed by gun violence. I have seen the impact they have on the people in our community. They have decided that the best way to honor Jo Jo is to strive for a world that respects all children, and for a society that offers equal opportunity, liberty and justice for all. They are showing us how to grieve in a way that helps heal everyone. (source: AlterNet; Tony Newman is communications director for the Drug Policy Alliance) ****************** A Capital Idea----To observe the Supreme Court is to witness history Every profession has its rock stars. For techies, Bill Gates and Steve Jobs fire up the neurons. For architects, Frank Lloyd Wright draws out the creative spirit. For lawyers, it[s a crew of characters fondly known as the Supremes - as in Justices Roberts, Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, Ginsberg, Breyer and Alito. If you want to see the cream of the legal crop perform their spirited and intense battle of wit and wisdom with talented advocates for the rich and poor, the famous and unknown, head to the United States Supreme Court on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday between the first Monday in October and late April. These 7 months (excluding frequent recesses) are the only time the court hears oral arguments in which lawyers present their sides of a case to the court and answer questions posed by the justices. Court TV, it is not. It is oh so much better. I arrived at the Supreme Court building, at East Capitol and First streets near the Capitol, on an unseasonably warm but drizzly Wednesday in mid-January. CNN photographers were out front filming a pep rally complete with large red and white posters held by fans of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. I climbed the marble steps and joined a line of people who were hoping to hear oral arguments. People visit the court for various reasons. I came out of curiosity and a desire to see firsthand individuals who had reached the pinnacle of the legal profession and whose opinions I had read and mulled over many times during my tenure as a Washington employment lawyer. I particularly wanted to see the 1st female Supreme Court justice, Sandra Day OConnor, before her retirement. The gentleman in front of me, another employment lawyer from Memphis, had come to get a lay of the land in preparation for his own argument before the court. The young woman behind me had clerked for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and wanted to hear arguments on a death penalty case. Take your seat The court's public information staff recommends a 7:30 a.m. arrival to have the best chance of obtaining one of the 50 seats guaranteed to the public on any given day for the 2-hour morning session. Even an early arrival does not ensure a seat, though, especially if the ubiquitous tour bus drops off a crowd during the wee hours of the morning or the court happens to be hearing a hot case. For controversial cases individuals have been known to camp outside the court building overnight or even several days in advance. I picked a rainy day, hoping the weather would keep many people away, and arrived at 9:05 a.m. I was the second to last person to be admitted. (For individuals who want just a glimpse of the court, a 2nd line is available. Visitors in this line can remain in the courtroom for only 3 or 4 minutes.) So what happens after you've won the Supreme Court seating lottery? As with most government buildings in Washington, you have to proceed through an initial metal detector. A security officer instructs everyone to check their cell phones, other electronic equipment and virtually every carry-in object. Although pocketbooks are allowed, the courts preference is that you take nothing into the courtroom. A small room contains coin-operated (quarters only) lockers. Then it's upstairs to a 2nd security checkpoint. Straight ahead are beautiful, highly polished wooden doors leading into the courtroom. Stepping through the doors is like stepping onto a page in history. A genuine solemnity and sense of respect hangs in the air. Part of this feeling derives from the knowledge that you are a public witness to the highest court in the land whose ultimate responsibility is to guard and interpret the Constitution. The historic feel is enhanced by the richness of the dcor, including heavy maroon drapes with gold braiding, a large-faced antique brass clock suspended from the ceiling, churchlike pews with maroon cushions, bronze lattice-work doors lining either side of the room, an ornate ceiling with brightly colored rosettes and 4 marble friezes encircling the room at the edge of the ceiling. Life, death and humor Although the setting is stunning, it is the interplay between the justices and the lawyers that truly grabs your attention. TV legal dramas might lead you to believe that all attorneys are smooth and debonair and deliver their highly compelling arguments with little or no preparation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Lawyers who appear before the court typically have lived and breathed their cases for years. They know every inch of hundreds of legal documents and have conducted moot courts or practice rounds, fielding every question that anyone in their firm or organization can think of that the justices might ask. Even then, the adrenaline flows because the stakes are so high. This is the last stop on the legal road. Once a decision has been made here, the rest of the courts in our country are compelled to follow it. If you are representing a person on death row, the stakes really are life or death. As it happened, the second case on the day of my visit was a death penalty case, House v. Bell, which had been featured on "60 Minutes" and National Public Radio. Paul House had been convicted of murdering a Tennessee woman 20 years ago before the availability of DNA testing. The justices were being called on to decide not whether House was guilty but how strong a case for innocence must be presented before a previously convicted murderer could win a new hearing at the district court level. In 2004 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit had decided that House's evidence did not satisfy his burden for obtaining a new trial. The exchanges between the justices and the lawyers were very intense and sometimes heated. Little time lapsed between the lawyers' opening words and the justices' barrage of questions. True to form, Justice Clarence Thomas remained a silent observer, but various other justices peppered both lawyers with questions about blood stains, conflicts between the experts' testimony and purported inconsistencies in the recollections of the victim's daughter. At one point Justice Stephen Breyer stepped in to aid a lawyer who got tongue-tied while stating the legal standard under review. Another poignant moment came at the end of the first argument in which the court for the 1st time since Hurricane Katrina had attorneys from New Orleans before it. Justice John Paul Stevens said: "May I ask you if the practice of law has returned to normal in New Orleans?" Counsel Jeffrey Schwartz responded: "No. It's a struggle. The state court in particular, because it only covers Orleans Parish, is really struggling with pulling in jurors - I'm actually still living in Atlanta." There were also moments of humor. Justice Antonin Scalia made a comment clearly favorable to one attorneys position, and the attorney responded that he agreed with the justice. Scalia shot back: "I knew you would." At another point, Justice Stevens waved his hand and said, "I'm over here" when one attorney momentarily lost track of which justice was asking the question. It was riveting drama that not only showed our legal system at work but also the justices' human side. History, tradition, verbal swordplay and even humor make a trip to the Supreme Court an enlightening and entertaining way to participate in the processes - even if it's just as a public witness. VISITING THE SUPREME COURT Getting there The Supreme Court Building is at the corner of East Capitol and First streets, N.E., behind the U.S. Capitol and beside the Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress. Getting in The Supreme Court building is open year-round from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. weekdays. It is closed weekends and holidays. Oral arguments are heard Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays in two-week intervals (with longer breaks in December and February) between the first Monday in October and April. If you want to hear oral arguments, check the Courts Web site calendar at www.supremecourtus.gov . (Click the Oral Arguments tab, and then the Argument Calendar link). Alternatively, you can call the public information office at (202) 479-3211. Lectures/films A 20-minute lecture in the courtroom begins every hour between 9:30 and 3:30 when the court is not sitting. The lecture provides a brief overview of the history and function of the court and highlights some of the outstanding courtroom architectural details. On the ground floor, a 24-minute film about the court describes the process that the justices go through in rendering a decision. Exhibits For those interested in architecture, popping into the building just to view the "Spiral Staircase," a rare, self-supporting, elliptical spiral staircase designed by architect Cass Gilbert, is worth the trip alone. Also noteworthy: A wonderful sculpture by Philip Ratman titled "The Warren Court in 1962" and the courtrooms sculpted marble panels, which represent legal themes and lawgivers. Parking For security reasons, parking is not allowed along the perimeter of the Supreme Court building. The best way to get to the court is by Metro (subway), bus or taxi. If you drive, parking garages are available within four to six blocks but they are pricey ($18 after 2 hours). Street parking is difficult to find and available for only limited periods. Food 2 public restaurants are on the premises. The Grille offers light fare such as pizza, sandwiches and burgers. The Supreme Court Caf offers cafeteria-style food, including pastas and a carving table. There are also numerous restaurants in the Capitol Hill neighborhood near the Court. Kid-friendly rating This is not a trip for the little ones. (source: Alison Gray, Kansas City Star) WYOMING: Trial follows flurry of motions, rulings The prelude to the murder trial of Andrew Yellowbear Jr. has been, at the very least, unusual. Yellowbear, 31, is charged with 1st-degree felony murder in connection with the July 2004 death in Riverton of his daughter, Marcella Hope Yellowbear. Fremont County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty. Macalia Blackburn, the girl's 24-year-old mother, accepted a plea deal in March. She has admitted to being an accessory to 2nd-degree murder and has agreed to testify at Yellowbear's trial. That trial is scheduled to begin Monday. Yellowbear's case has been marked by changing accounts, appointments of new judges and changes of venue and defense attorneys. Yellowbear has filed numerous legal motions on his own behalf while mounting what could be described as a publicity campaign from at least 2 different jails. He sent the Star-Tribune a document that would have sought the exhumation of Marcella's body. The document, however, was never filed. He informed the newspaper about court dates and the removal of 1 attorney from his defense team, consistently maintaining his innocence. He sent a letter in which his attorney, Diane Lozano, outlines a possible agreement, where he would plead guilty to being an accessory to 2nd-degree murder. Yellowbear rejected that proposal, according to the letter. Judges in Yellowbear's case were changed at both the circuit and district court levels. Judge David Park, who generally presides in the Wyoming judicial district covering Natrona County, will administer the trial when it opens Monday. The trial was moved from Lander to Thermopolis. At a February hearing, Park rejected a last request to move the trial. At that hearing, Lozano argued there are indications in questionnaires submitted by potential jurors in Hot Springs County that some have formed opinions about the trial and others have "problems with ethnicity." Deputy Fremont County Attorney Tim Gist argued that Yellowbear has invited much of the publicity himself, and he suggested a gag order could be imposed if publicity was deemed a problem. No one formally proposed such an order, however, and Yellowbear's calls continued after the hearing. Yellowbear has fought the state's jurisdiction to charge him in Marcella's death, arguing by himself and with the assistance of his attorneys that Riverton is within the boundaries of the Wind River Indian Reservation. As such, he has argued, the federal government should have jurisdiction over American Indians accused of committing crimes there against other Indians. Park rejected that argument, and the Wyoming Supreme Court declined to review that decision based on a petition Yellowbear filed on his own. (source: Casper Star Tribune) CALIFORNIA: Pros, Cons of Death Penalty Debated On the very day San Quentin's most recent execution was put on hold, the League of Women Voters Eden Area (LWVEA) held a lunch-time forum on the pros and cons of the death penalty. The presentation was made at the San Lorenzo Village Homes Association building on Feb. 21. LWVEA president Nancy Van Huffel said the forum was a precursor to the Leagues national convention in June, where delegates will again be debating the issue. San Lorenzo businessman Wulf Bieschke spoke in favor of capital punishment, and Castro Valley attorney Steve Dimick gave arguments against it. Each made a short presentation and then the audience was invited to comment and ask questions. Bieschke says he believes in deterrence and that the death penalty is a deterrent. However, he says it is the appropriate consequence "only for the most heinous crimes." Beischke says that we are losing the notion that we are responsible for our own actions, and too quick to redirect responsibility elsewhere for criminals' violent behavior. Bieschke says that the death penalty is used so rarely it is less a deterrent than it could be. As seen in the recent San Quentin case, the appeal process may last decades. "When 25 years has elapsed, you cant determine deterrence," says Bieschke, who felt that the confusion at San Quentin over anesthesiologist participation was "a set-up." He says we need to focus on the acts of the criminals, adding that the current prison system is only "an inconvenience" for some inmates, because they can still mastermind crimes and murders while incarcerated. Bieschke says he knows this subject all too well, because a member of his family - a 4-year-old girl - was brutally murdered. A photo of the little girl, which is displayed in his home, serves as a constant reminder of the victim. "Imagine how you'd feel if it happened to you," says Bieschke. Steve Dimick began his presentation with gruesome descriptions of early forms of execution, which became popular spectator events in France and elsewhere. The Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in the late 1700s, prohibits "cruel and unusual punishments." Though the days of public executions are over, the discussion of what constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" goes on. Over time execution by hanging and electrocution gave way to the gas chamber. This gave way to lethal injection, which Dimick doubts is painless. While allowing that a majority of the U.S. public is in favor of capital punishment, a much smaller percentage actually think it is a deterrent, says Dimick. He says that there is no statistical evidence of a deterrent effect, and that societies without death penalties have lower murder rates than the U.S. "It shows that what we want is revenge," says Dimick, adding that we are the only country in the Western world to still allow capital punishment. Dimick also says that approximately 1 person out of 8 who received the death penalty in the U.S. has later been found either factually innocent or not guilty. "Some may think that's a fair trade-off for society. I don't think so," said Dimick. He says death penalty cases are also very expensive, with costs for lawyers and appeals going on indefinitely. There is also discrimination based not only on race, but on economic factors such as ability to pay for expensive defense teams. "A black person is 5 times more likely to receive the death penalty than a white person, and rich people can also get off," says Dimick. Still, Dimick says that Michael Morales, the man currently on Death Row for the rape and murder of a young Lodi girl 25 years ago, deserves no sympathy. Nor does he think the death penalty would have deterred Morales. He says that killing in the name of justice just makes society inured to the idea of killing. "If it's wrong for me to kill someone, it's wrong for the government to kill someone," he says. Bieschke countered that he does not condone the barbaric executions of the past, and perhaps Europe is atoning for that brutal past by outlawing executions today. "But I don't believe that putting someone to sleep is brutal," he says. Bieschke also disagreed that application of the death penalty is discriminatory. He says that according to Department of Justice statistics, 59 men and 1 woman were executed in 2005. 41 of them were white, and 19 were black. "I don't think revenge is a bad thing," says Bieschke. "If someone can't abide by society's rules, they should be incarcerated." As capital punishment is debated across the country, the deeper problem of violence in our society still remains. Nancy Van Huffel summed it up with a rhetorical question: "If not this, then what is a deterrent?" (source: San Leandro Times) ************* Morales case has readers thinking about death penalty Morales execution What is the problem? In 30 years, I have had to put two German shepherds down, one age 14 and one 15. When the needle was inserted and the plunger pushed, it was almost immediate. What is the problem at San Quentin? As for new evidence, Michael Morales confessed! What new evidence? Barbara Sealy----Richmond ** Call abortionist If you want to execute someone in California, it is easy to find a doctor who has no regard for the Hippocratic oath. Call an abortionist. Steve Campi----Walnut Creek ** Takes too long Prior to murdering Terri Winchell, Michael Morales was convicted of burglary on Oct. 4, 1979 and sentenced to prison. On Jan. 10, 1981, Morales was arrested at his residence. According to the background information from Bill Lockyer's office (People v. Michael Angelo Morales), the police found Morales' broken belt, containing Terri's blood, hidden under a mattress. The police also found 3 knives, the hammer bearing traces of blood hidden in the refrigerator, and blood-stained floor mats from Rick Ortega's car in the trash. Ortega's blood-spattered car was impounded. Morales had used $11 from Terri's purse to buy beer, wine and cigarettes the night of the murder. On April 25, 1983, after a penalty trial, the jury returned a verdict of death for Morales. On June 26, 1989, Ventura County Superior Court set Morales' execution for Sept. 22, 1989. On Dec. 18, 1990, the court set a 2nd execution date for February 15, 1991. On Jan. 18, 2006, the court set a 3rd execution date for Feb. 21, 2006. Then Feb. 22, 2006, 7:30 p.m., Morales was scheduled for execution. Again, it didn't happen. Why does it take so long to finish what the jury decided? Rene Maher----Pleasant Hill ** Doesn't apply Since the founding of this country, the existence of capital punishment has been around. Many forms of execution have been used such as firing squad, gas, lethal injection, electric chair and hanging (my personal favorite). Yes, our Constitution states that there shall be no cruel or unusual punishment. That dictum was freshly evident from day one, more than 230 years ago, yet it was never regarded at all when it came to executions. It was meant to be a guide for imprisoned persons serving time. The ultimate demise of the condemned was not of any concern because after all, they were meant to die. It is obvious that we today have taken this whole cruel and unusual thing way too far by extending it to capital punishment. It was never intended to be there in the first place. It's not a picnic. It's an execution. Mike Scott----Walnut Creek ** Self-honesty needed You polled your readers on whether lethal injection should be considered cruel and unusual punishment. The question suggests comparing methods of execution rather than considering the execution. Most people are taught it is a less painful method than hanging or electrocution so you get obvious results from your readers. Publish some articles about what is really going on in the one being put to death and you will change your own poll results. Let me ask the question whether killing the mother of a child is cruel to the child? Is killing the son of a father cruel to the father? If killing a person is not a cruel act, why do we punish anyone for killing a person? Don't torture me, that would be cruel, but go ahead and kill me. That's OK? Our Founding Fathers found slavery to be acceptable. When are we collectively going to realize that our society is defined by us? It would be more honest to state simply that we support cruelty, considering our policy of execution, torture and bombing neighborhoods in other countries. As for "unusual," I suppose that is a notion of how desensitized you are to killing. Nathan James----Pleasant Hill (source: Letters to the Editor, Contra Costa Times) VIRGINIA: Penalty phase starts this week for Moussaoui----Prosecutors seek execution, arguing though he wasn't there, he failed to stop 9/11 plot '20TH HIJACKER' - The moniker: Some government officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, suggested that Moussaoui might have been the 20th hijacker, referring to the fact that the plane that crashed in a field in Pennsylvania had only 4 hijackers aboard. The other 3 planes had 5 hijackers each. - The agreement: Moussaoui signed his plea agreement as the "20th hijacker," though he often called himself that in handwritten motions filed from jail, usually in a mocking tone. But prosecutors have vehemently pointed out that they never called Moussaoui the 20th hijacker in any court proceeding. - Media creation?: "Instead, the '20th hijacker' theory appears to be a creation of the media coverage and the isolated statements of certain government officials," prosecutors wrote in an appellate court brief filed in 2003. ** Zacarias Moussaoui was sitting in jail when the hijacked planes crashed into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and in a field in Pennsylvania. Now, the government wants him executed for that day of terror because he did nothing to stop it. After the jury is selected Monday, prosecutors will argue that even though Moussaoui wasn't there, he should be held accountable for the murders of nearly 3,000 people on Sept. 11, 2001. Their task, on its face, is formidable: Federal law says people can be executed only for killing someone or participating in a violent act that directly caused a death. Yet legal experts say prosecutors stand a reasonable chance of securing a death sentence for the only person convicted in the United States on charges stemming from Sept. 11. The reason: Moussaoui's own words. When he pleaded guilty, he acknowledged that he had lied to the FBI when he was arrested a month before Sept. 11 "to allow his al-Qaida brothers to go forward." Relying on that admission, prosecutors will argue that Moussaoui might as well have pulled the trigger - because if he had confessed his knowledge of the plot, the hijackings could have been stopped. "I think they have a good case, given his own statements," said Andrew McBride, a former federal prosecutor who has tried numerous death penalty cases. "He admits that he lied to further the conspiracy. Legally, that probably makes it." Prosecutors declined to comment but have indicated in court documents that they do not feel they need to prove that Moussaoui had a specific task on Sept. 11. "I think no one will ever know," McBride said. "The only people who have an idea are Osama bin Laden and some of his lieutenants." Moussaoui, 37, pleaded guilty in April to charges that include conspiracy to commit aircraft piracy. But his precise role in the deadliest terrorist strike in U.S. history remains unknown. If he had not been arrested, investigators have theorized, he could have been anything from the "20th hijacker" to a replacement to the pilot of a 5th plane intended to strike the White House. Plans to testify Whatever Moussaoui's intentions were, the trial in U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va., promises to combine weighty matters of national security with elements of the absurd. The trial is expected to last 1 to 3 months. The anonymous 18-member jury, including 6 alternates, will watch the Justice Department lay out for the 1st time in a public courtroom its view of how the Sept. 11 attacks were planned and executed. A death sentence would do much to support the Bush administration's strategy of keeping the case in the criminal justice system - instead of before a military court - to show that the system can handle complex terrorism matters and punish the guilty. Defense lawyers are fighting a highly unusual opponent: their own client. In what legal observers call a first for the U.S. justice system, Moussaoui - an avowed al-Qaida member - is being given a public forum. He has said he plans to testify, and sources familiar with the case say his attorneys have no idea what he might say. (source: Houston Chronicle)
