March 10 CALIFORNIA: What Role Should Doctors Play at Executions? A California judge delayed the execution of convicted murderer Michael Morales last month after his lawyers argued that their client could wake up during the procedure and expire inhumanely. The judge proposed what he thought would be an easy solution - he would have two anesthesiologists monitor the execution. One would monitor from inside the chamber where the sodium thiopental is injected into Morales' vein, and the other would be outside the chamber monitoring his vital signs. The doctor inside the chamber would observe the executioner and Morales during the entire procedure and not do the actual injecting. Just hours before the execution, the two doctors walked out, saying they were unwilling to administer a second dose of the barbiturate if Morales woke up unexpectedly, as they were not comfortable taking on the executioner's role. The execution was scheduled to take place on February 21 at 7:30 p.m. but has now been postponed indefinitely. The California Medical Association and the American Medical Association have both condemned the doctors' near-involvement in the execution citing violation of the physicians' code: "First, do no harm." Dr. Michael Sexton, president of the CMA, has since stated that the organization believes "physician involvement in capital punishment at any level is unethical behavior." Supporting this view, the AMA's code of ethics states that no doctor should be involved in an execution in any way, including the prescription of drugs, administration of those drugs, monitoring inmate vital signs and confirmation of death during execution proceedings. The CMA and AMA are rightfully trying to hold the profession of medicine to the highest standard. Doctors are here to protect and preserve life, not help to end life, I agree. But doctors also function to help ease suffering when death is imminent and to make the transition to death as smooth and comfortable as possible. Capital punishment is, unfortunately, a real thing in this country and, if it is to stay legal, then it makes sense that it should be done as humanely as possible. In that, we should all be in agreement. With Morales reaching the end of his life, having a doctor in the room to make sure things go smoothly should not be wrong. Neither should monitoring Morales' vital signs during the procedure. It is a doctor who knows the human body and its inner workings best and having one there during Morales' transition seems to be in his best interests. In fact, it surprises me that there haven't always been doctors present during this process since such a toxic drug is administered. I do not in any way mean to say doctors should become the executioners themselves. Administering the lethal drug would clearly kill the patient and violate the physician's code. But by playing strictly an observational role, the doctor may actually be protecting the inmate from potential harm with the executioner doing the dirty work in all situations - planned or emergent. (source: Synapse - Eric Chak is a 2nd-year medical student) (University of California, San Francisco) KANSAS: Proposed amendment to require Senate confirmation of justices shot down Despite criticism of the Kansas Supreme Court, the idea of requiring Senate confirmation before justices can join the court was shot down Thursday by senators, dealing a serious blow to those wanting to overhaul the judiciary. Senators voted 22-17 on the proposed constitutional amendment - 5 votes short of the 2/3 majority needed to send it to the House. When introduced last year, 28 senators signed on as sponsors, but 6 didn't vote for the measure. "Obviously, some senators had second thoughts. It appears this is an idea whose time hasn't come," said Senate Majority Leader Derek Schmidt, who championed the measure during Wednesday's debate. He said there's little likelihood of the Senate revisiting the issue anytime soon. "There would have to be a significant change of heart among several members and given the margin of the vote, that's not likely," said Schmidt, R-Independence. Many legislators have been upset because the court last year mandated additional funding for public schools, and because it struck down the death penalty in 2004. A subsequent order forced lawmakers to spend an additional $143 million during last summer's special session where legislators, particularly conservative Republicans, complained the court overstepped its authority. The Senate confirmation proposal was introduced a month after the court first ordered the Legislature to meet its constitutional obligation by spending more money on schools. Since 1958, justices have been selected by what's known as a merit selection system. A nominating commission considers applicants and presents the governor three finalists from which to pick one. Justices then face a statewide retention vote every 6 years. The failed proposal would have left that system intact, but added Senate confirmation. Kansas is among 23 states where merit selection is used. Of those, six also require Senate confirmation and two mandate approval by the House and Senate. Senate President Steve Morris, R-Hugoton, initially signed onto the measure. But he voted against it because "it could alter the delicate balance of power" and the confirmation process "could degenerate in a partisan fight like we see in the United States Senate." Sen. Roger Reitz said he made a mistake signing on as a sponsor without fully understanding the plan. "I want these bodies separate. The Supreme Court should be left alone to do its thing and we do our thing," said Reitz, R-Manhattan. As for distaste over the school finance ruling, Reitz said, "We are the heavies because we are the ones who were supposed to provide suitable funding. We didn't do it and the Supreme Court called our hand on it." Sen. John Vratil, R-Leawood, called support for the proposal "an overreaction to our discontent with 2 decisions." But others saw it differently. "Judicial activism is in the air and Kansans would like to say something about it," said Sen. Tim Huelskamp, R-Fowler. Sen. Jim Barnett, who failed Wednesday to dump merit selection and replace it with gubernatorial appointment and Senate confirmation, voiced his discontent. "There is going to be a backlash on this court. In addition, I predict there will be a backlash on those elected representatives who stand on the sidelines and allow this court to usurp their authority," said Barnett, R-Emporia. At the start of the 2006 session, several proposals were offered to change the court, but the confirmation plan was the only one to reach either chamber for debate. This year, lawmakers are trying to come up with a way to meet the court mandate for more money for schools without raising taxes or cutting state services. The Senate wants to phase in $660 million over 3 years; the House wants to do the same thing with $500 million. Confirmation resolution: SCR 1606. On the Net: Kansas Legislature: http://www.kslegislature.org (source: Associated Press) NEW YORK: Impressions: Death penalty opponent was thoughtful J. Newcomb Nash, a member of the Board of Contributors, Teen Council or Sounding Board reflects on a meeting with a guest of the Editorial Board I met David Kaczynski, executive director of New Yorkers Against the Death Penalty, this week at an Editorial Board meeting. He visited to state his group's opposition to Gov. Pataki's push to reactivate the death penalty in New York state. Other attendees at the meeting included members of the Editorial Board and newspaper staff, Board of Contributors member Jimmy Haynes and Teen Council member Nadine Morsch. "No way I'd miss this meeting, even though I'm missing school!" said Morsch, before the meeting started, as we shared our enthusiasm for this topic and guest. Democrat and Chronicle staffers, on the other hand, exhibited the cool cucumber-ness of years of experience. Kaczynski was concerned that Pataki's call to renew the death penalty was, at heart, a political exploitation of tragic situations, including the recent death of state Trooper Andrew Sperr in the line of duty. Kaczynski explained the financial, social and emotional costs of the death penalty, all of which are excessive, even for victims' families. He said the state Senate had ignored problems with the death penalty - including the possibility of wrongful conviction and its uneven application - that the Assembly had addressed. We talked of politics intermingled with morality. Pataki rode the death penalty ticket to the gubernatorial mansion. Is he trying to ride police officer killings to the White House? We talked about death penalty opinion surveys, how the outcomes depend on how the questions are phrased and whether the option of life without parole is included on the survey. It was toward the end of the meeting, when Haynes raised the question of the reasonableness of using the death penalty in cases of mental illness, that I realized that Kaczynski is the brother of Ted Kaczynski, the "Unabomber." Afterward, I spoke with Kaczynski to share the understanding and grief that we both have experienced as a result of having an immediate family member with schizophrenia. He said he finds it helpful to talk openly about mental illness and to tell people that family members are beloved, regardless of their illness. (source: Rochester Democrat & Chronicle) PENNSYLVANIA: THE DEFENSE RESTS----Fellow inmate testifies alleged eyewitness Russin said he lied 2 hours and 12 witnesses were all attorney Demetrius Fannick required to defend his client, Hugo Selenski, against 2 charges of 1st-degree murder. By comparison, the prosecution called 38 witnesses over the 1st 6 days of the trial. "I felt it's all I needed," Fannick said of his brief defense. "I don't think you could look at a criminal case as one side starts and then the other side starts. I think your defense starts with (the cross examination of) the 1st Commonwealth witness." Fannick rested his case Thursday morning. He and Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Jim McMonagle will begin closing arguments Monday at 8 a.m. Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. will then give the jury instructions before sending them to deliberate Selenski's fate. If convicted on both counts of first-degree murder, jurors must then decide whether Selenski deserves the death penalty. As he left the courthouse on Thursday, Selenski was asked if he felt confident. "I'm pumped," he replied. Defense witness Joseph Simpson, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Retreat in Newport Township, showed up for court wearing a blue prison uniform and dark sunglasses. Simpson said the prosecution's alleged eyewitness to the murders, Patrick Russin, told fellow inmates he lied to investigators about Selenski's guilt. Simpson also said inmates gave Russin the nickname "Pat the rat." "(Russin) said he's pulling the wool over everybody's eyes," Simpson told the jury. He said Russin told inmates he made up the story about Selenski killing 2 men so Russin and a "nerd" could escape federal weapons charges. Simpson also testified that Russin received special treatment at SCI-Retreat, including having a television in his cell and receiving extra personal visits. Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Sam Sanguedolce challenged Simpson's testimony about special treatment. Russin was in a restrictive housing unit, but unlike inmates housed in the unit, was on administrative custody and entitled to different amenities, Sanguedolce said. The prosecutor told Simpson to read prison policies to reaffirm the point. Sanguedolce asked Simpson if he told anyone about the statements he says Russin made in 2004. "I contacted Mr. Fannick, I went to him," Simpson said pointing to the back of the courtroom. Fannick raised his hand to acknowledge Simpson was telling the truth. Other witnesses called by Fannick on Thursday morning included Ben and Nancy Hufford, Selenskis neighbors when he lived on Mount Olivet Road in 2003. Both said they do not recall hearing gunshots at the time prosecutors allege Selenski killed his victims. The Huffords also said they do not remember seeing a large fire on May 14, 2003, the day Selenski is alleged to have burned the 2 bodies. Under cross examination, Ben and Nancy Hufford said it is not unusual to hear gunshots in their rural, wooded neighborhood. They also said it was common to see people burning trash and other debris on Selenski's property. (source: The Citizens Voice ) FLORIDA: EVIDENCE TESTING----DNA bill is a life-and-death race; The Florida Innocence Initiative, which works to reverse wrongful convictions, pins its hopes on a bill before the Legislature that would extend DNA evidence testing. The letters keep coming. Two dozen a week -- sometimes more. They arrive in sunshine yellow envelopes with flowered borders and a mother's cursive writing. Manila envelopes arrive with an inmate's deliberate block-letter printing. "Please," writes a young female soldier, "help my cousin. He has been convicted but he is innocent." Letter after letter begs the Florida Innocence Initiative to help someone the writer believes could be exonerated by DNA testing of evidence in their case. "It's fairly sophisticated triage we perform here," Jenny Greenberg, director of the Tallahassee-based initiative, said as she looked at a box of 31 letters received during 1 week in February. More than half are still sealed, waiting for someone to find the time to read and prioritize them. The clock could soon run out. There is a July deadline for inmates convicted before 2001 to file a petition with the court to have DNA evidence in their cases tested. A bill before the Florida Legislature this month would permanently lift the deadline, but its passage is less than certain. "I could sleep again at night instead of worrying about that deadline hanging over us if it passes," Greenberg said. She believes she's running a life-and-death race for many who write asking for help. Since 2003, when the Florida offshoot of the New York-based national Innocence Project opened, Greenberg has seen 3 men exonerated by DNA evidence after they spent decades in prison. 2 others in Florida were exonerated earlier, in 2000 and 2001. PRIDE IN WINS Greenberg takes great joy in the victories. Photos of two of the exonerated men, Al Crotzer, 45, of Tampa and Luis Diaz, 67, of Miami, hang in Greenberg's office. Legal papers clearing 44-year-old Wilton Dedge's record of his wrongful rape conviction are tacked to the wall. But Greenberg recalled one man she couldn't help before he died and others whose cases the initiative won't get to before the deadline. "There was a 73-year-old man who I was absolutely certain was absolutely innocent," Greenberg said. "He died of congestive heart failure after 21 years in prison before we could get the DNA tested. Because resources are so tight, we don't have the luxury of clearing his name for his family. We've got people who are alive and still in prison -- some facing the death penalty -- to worry about." The legislation would eliminate the July deadline for post-conviction DNA testing in older cases and allow inmates who entered guilty pleas as part of plea bargains to petition for a test, something that has been prohibited in Florida. 7 EXONERATED Nationally, 7 inmates who pleaded guilty in their cases have been exonerated by DNA testing. Some say they took the plea because of a lawyer's warning that it was the only sure way to avoid the death penalty. Overall, 175 people across the country have been exonerated by DNA testing, according to the Innocence Project. The Florida bill's Republican sponsors -- Sen. Alex Villalobos of Miami and Rep. Ellyn Bogdanoff of Fort Lauderdale -- say the timing might be right this year to permanently lift the deadline. The bill is expected to have an easier journey through the Senate than the House. And debate is taking place just after the fifth Florida inmate, Crotzer, was exonerated in January. Crotzer had been convicted in 1982 of raping a 12-year-old girl and her mother. "I'm cautiously optimistic," Bogdanoff said. The bill has broad support -- including Gov. Jeb Bush, prosecutors, public defenders and the Florida Supreme Court. There has been very little public opposition, but there are detractors behind the scenes, said Bogdanoff and Villalobos. Some lawmakers, whom they won't name, oppose parts of the bill because they don't want to appear soft on crime. Detractors also worry that continued testing would rob victims and their families of closure. Florida's post-conviction DNA testing law passed in 2001 after the high-profile exonerations of Frank Lee Smith and Jerry Frank Townsend, 2 Broward County men convicted in unrelated murder cases. Under the law, anyone convicted of a crime has two years after a sentence becomes final to ask a judge to review DNA testing of physical evidence. Those convicted before the law went into effect had until Oct. 1, 2003, to file their petitions. The Legislature extended that deadline until last October. Then the Florida Supreme Court intervened and extended it until July so that lawmakers could take up the matter. CASE BACKLOG Greenberg and Michelle Fontaine, the initiative's only other full-time employee, have a backlog of 800 pre-2001 cases that have yet to be screened. If the deadline passes without action by the Legislature, those cases that haven't been processed will lose their eligibility to be considered for testing. More requests come in each day. The operation gets some help from volunteer law students who pitch in between studying and writing papers. More than 1,000 cases have been investigated by the Florida office since 2003, and of those, 53 have been placed with outside lawyers working for free. The initiative receives no state money and exists solely on grants and donations. Greenberg has a hard time fathoming why anyone would want to block the bill, which doesn't ask for any money to fund her operation. "Right now our main focus is extending the deadline, and we were afraid if we asked for funds, it would kill the bill," she said. "What we need more than anything right now is the time to do our work." (source: Miami Herald)
