[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----TEXAS, N.C., PENN., USA, CALIF., TENN.

[Rick Halperin]

Sept. 28


TEXAS:

MAN ACCUSED BY WILLIAMS DENIES MURDER INVOLVEMENT


A man accused by capital murder defendant Clifton Lamar Williams for
killing a 93-year-old Tyler woman testified Wednesday, denying any
involvement in the slaying.

Smith County jurors heard the seventh day of the state's evidence against
Williams, 22, who faces the death penalty if convicted of beating,
strangling and stabbing to death Cecelia Schneider before setting her body
on fire on July 9, 2005.

Williams told police that Jamarist "Monterrall" Paxton really killed Ms.
Schneider and forced him to go along, to cut himself to leave his DNA in
her house at 311 Callahan St., and to drive her stolen car.

Paxton, 18, said he did not kill Ms. Schneider, take anything that
belonged to her or drive her car.

He testified that he met Williams shortly after he moved to Tyler in 2004,
when Paxton was living on Callahan Street. He said he knew Ms. Schneider
lived a few houses down and would see her outside her house, but didn't
know her.

He said he didn't see Williams on July 8, 2005, but said Williams came to
his apartment, on Mike Street, early Saturday morning, at about 5 a.m. He
said Williams told him, "Man, I just messed up. I just killed somebody."

Williams told Paxton that he got into a fight and stabbed an "old" white
man in North Tyler, took his vehicle and purposely wrecked it. He said he
didn't believe Williams would do that. He said Williams showed him a cut
on hishand and he had blood on his clothes.

"I just didn't think he would do nothing like that ...," he said, adding
that he never saw Williams act violently.

Paxton said he got Williams to tell his girlfriend, Stella Barnes.
Williams slept at their apartment for a couple of hours and then left,
before returning later that day and several times that week.

Sometime before Williams was arrested, Paxton said he told Greg Winters,
his former neighbor on Callahan Street, when he asked him about it. He
said he told Winters about what "Crazy C" told him, but he didn't tell
anyone else or go to police because he didn't want to be involved. He said
police did come to talk to him and he voluntarily gave police a sample of
his DNA.

Paxton said he never owned a gun or motorcycle gloves, as Williams
claimed.

Paxton said he was selling dope in 2005, from February until he went to
jail that September. He is serving 8 years in prison for selling crack
cocaine in a drug-free zone.

Paxton said he dealt crack cocaine from his home and sold it to Williams
several times, but never saw him smoke it. Paxton said he never smoked
crack, but he did smoke marijuana every day and smoked it with Williams
often. "We were real close," he said of Williams. "He was a real good
friend of mine."

He said he was not confused about what Williams told him on the morning of
July 9, 2005, and said he had not smoked marijuana that morning. He said
there was no kind of "weed" that would make him forget that someone told
him that they murdered a man.

Paxton said Williams never asked about or showed any interest in Ms.
Schneider.

He said there came a time when he believed Williams may have been involved
in Ms. Schneider's murder, after not hearing any media reports about a
white man being stabbed and after hearing that the elderly woman had been
killed.

"The old woman didn't talk to nobody," he said. "She didn't fool with
nobody."

He and Ms. Barnes talked about it and became suspicious that Williams was
involved.

Paxton said he never burglarized any houses on Callahan Street and never
invited or forced anyone else to burglarize a house. He said he never
tried to convince anyone that Williams committed the crime. Paxton said he
had "nothing to do with" killing Ms. Schneider.

WILLIAMS TELLS OTHERS

Stella Barnes, Paxton's girlfriend, said they lived on Callahan Street
before they moved to Mike Street in February 2005. She said they met
Williams, whom she knew as "Crazy C," soon after they moved to Tyler from
Crockett in 2004 and saw him nearly every day.

She said that on Feb. 8, 2005, a Friday, she and Paxton and their children
stayed at home, and that she was awakened by Williams at her window at
about 8 a.m. Feb. 9, 2005. Williams said it was "an emergency." After the
2 men talked outside, they entered the apartment and Williams told her the
story about stabbing the white man. She said his hand was split open.

Williams told Ms. Barnes to tell his "baby" (his girlfriend Monica), that
he loved her and probably would never see her again, Ms. Barnes said.

When Ms Barnes asked Williams why he killed the man, he said he was
"fiending" and he did what he did to get money to buy crack. She said
later that week, she and Paxton began to suspect Williams of the killing
and she told Williams he was no longer welcome in her house. Ms. Barnes
said she didn't know why she didn't contact police.

Sharon Harris, Ms. Barnes' mother, testified that Williams visited her
house on Callahan Street often, at first when Ms. Barnes and Paxton lived
there, then continued to visit her niece Monica.

"He was just like a son to me, really," Ms. Harris said.

She said that on the morning of July 9, 2005, Ms. Barnes told her what
Williams had said. She said she asked Williams later if he had killed
someone and he didn't answer, but instead just shook his head. She said
that night, she became suspicious that Williams could have been involved
in her murder. She said she became scared of him but never called police
because she didn't want to get involved.

Ms. Harris said she told a next-door neighbor, Misty Winters, about what
Williams said.

Mrs. Winters' husband, Greg, ultimately called police.

Monica Porter, who said she began dating Williams nearly 3 months before
the murder, testified that she lived with her aunt, Ms. Harris, a few
houses down from Ms. Schneider at the time. She said she had been at
Williams' apartment since Thursday, July 7, 2005 by herself when Williams
called her at about 6 a.m. Saturday, July 9, 2005 and told her to get out
of the apartment right then. She walked to Ms. Harris' house, where
Williams showed up not "looking right."

Later, at Ms. Barnes' house, Ms. Barnes told Ms. Porter what Williams had
said, she said. Then Williams appeared and told her he shot a white man
after the man threatened him with a gun. Ms. Porter said she and Ms.
Barnes told Ms. Harris the story.

Ms. Porter, 32, said the last time she saw Williams was on July 15, 2005,
the night of his arrest. She said he came to her house but she didn't
answer the door because she was scared. She said she came to believe that
he killed Ms. Schneider, but it never crossed her mind to call police. She
said she loved Williams and still has feelings for him "in a way."

She said she smoked crack and marijuana with Williams about every other
day, but that it wasn't a "habit." She said she had been smoking crack
since she was 14 but didn't think she had "a problem."

Williams denied having a girlfriend to police.

Police have testified that Williams' blood and fingerprint were found in
Ms. Schneider's car, which was wrecked on Greenbriar Road. During an
interview, Williams led police to the discarded knife they believed was
used to stab Ms. Schneider, as well as the victim's purse.

The trial is set to resume Thursday in 114th District Judge Cynthia
Stevens Kent's court. Smith County District Attorney Matt Bingham and
First Assistant DA April Sikes are prosecuting the case, while defense
attorneys Melvin Thompson and LaJuanda Lacy are representing Williams.

(source: Tyler Morning Telegraph)

****************

Motion for rehearing on yogurt shop case denied----Springsteen decision
upheld


The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals declined Wednesday to reconsider its
order throwing out the capital-murder conviction of Robert Burns
Springsteen IV, who was convicted 5 years ago in the death of 1 of the 4
teenage girls murdered at a North Austin yogurt shop in 1991.

The motion for a rehearing, requested by the Travis County district
attorney's office, was denied on a 6-3 vote. The district attorney's
office is discussing whether to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme
Court and should decide within a week, said Bryan Case, assistant district
attorney in charge of the appellate division.

In returning the Springsteen case to a Travis County court in May, the
appeals court ruled 5-4 that a 2nd suspect's confession was improperly
used against Springsteen during his trial.

(source: Austin American-Statesman)

***************

Crime lab probe tab to grow by $1.5 million


The City Council on Wednesday approved spending an additional $1.5 million
to complete an independent investigation of the police crime lab that has
already cost the city nearly $4 million.

After months of delay, during which Mayor Bill White, several council
members and a high-ranking police official questioned whether more money
should be allocated to the project, the panel approved the funding without
discussion.

White said after the meeting he is confident this will be the last time
the city puts money toward the investigation, which began in March 2005.

"I wanted to make sure that we were going to get value for what we asked
for and that this would not be perpetual," White said.

The city hired lead investigator Michael Bromwich, a former U.S. Justice
Department official, to investigate the crime lab more than 2 years after
problems there came to light. 2 men had been released from prison because
of inaccurate work on evidence from their cases.

The independent team of lawyers and scientists conducting the project have
reviewed about 2,300 cases from the Houston Police Department crime lab.

HPD's conclusions about evidence in 93 cases may be inaccurate, they say.

The project initially was expected to cost about $3.2 million. City
Council 1st allocated $2.2 million, then agreed to pay $1.6 million more.

In June, Bromwich asked for an additional $1.5 million to complete
testing. It was needed because the scope of the project expanded at the
request of council members after scientists found widespread problems, he
said.

The most recent payment brings the total cost of the probe to $5.3
million.

(source: Houston Chronicle)






NORTH CAROLINA:

Kennis to face court-martial in 1985 slayings


The Army plans to court-martial retired Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis for
the triple homicide he was found not guilty of in state court in 1989,
said a person with knowledge of the military investigation.

Col. Billy Buckner, a Fort Bragg spokesman, confirmed the Army's
investigation Wednesday afternoon but said Hennis is not charged with any
crime. He said Hennis, who retired in July 2004, is being recalled to
active duty because of the investigation. Hennis has been ordered to
report to Fort Bragg no later than Oct. 30.

The recall notice was hand-delivered to Hennis at his home Tuesday,
Buckner said. Hennis was not arrested.

"There is no statute of limitations on murder, and because the murders
occurred while he was on active duty, the military has jurisdiction over
the offenses," Buckner said.

Federal law allows military retirees to be reactivated for prosecution of
crimes committed while they were on active duty, said Mark Waple, a
Fayetteville lawyer who specializes in military law. A 1987 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling allows the military to prosecute for crimes committed against
civilians off military property, he said.

Hennis, who lives in Lakewood, Wash., outside Fort Lewis, was acquitted in
1989 in North Carolina Superior Court of the stabbing deaths of
32-year-old Kathryn Eastburn and two of her children, Kara Sue, 5, and
Erin Nicole, 3.

In May 1985, Hennis was a sergeant stationed at Fort Bragg. He had adopted
the Eastburns' dog a few days before they were killed.

Several days later, someone went into their home on Summer Hill Road near
Fort Bragg, raped Kathryn Eastburn, and stabbed her and the children to
death. A third child, 22-month-old Jana Eastburn, was not harmed.

The bodies were discovered on Mother's Day after neighbors heard Jana
crying and called authorities.

Hennis was arrested a short time later, convicted in 1986 and sent to
death row for the murders. In 1988, he was granted a second trial when the
state Supreme Court ruled that the first trial was run unfairly and the
evidence against him was weak. He was freed with his acquittal in April
1989.

Hennis' story - that of a wrongly convicted man going free after getting a
death sentence - was told extensively in the news media, in a popular book
and in a television miniseries. There's a trivia quiz on the Internet
about the case.

The Hennis case also was cited in 2003 in the mission statement of the
N.C. Actual Innocence Commission as an example of a wrongful conviction.
The group successfully lobbied the legislature this year to create the
nation's 1st agency to review the cases of prisoners with credible claims
of innocence.

Double jeopardy

Cumberland County District Attorney Ed Grannis said Sgt. Larry Trotter, a
homicide detective at the Sheriff's Office, revived the Eastburn murder
investigation last year after hearing a presentation about it.

Trotter had DNA samples from the crime scene tested by the State Bureau of
Investigation - DNA testing was unavailable in the 1980s, Grannis said -
and gave the results to the District Attorney's Office in June.

"He approaches our office. We realize we have a double jeopardy issue
which cannot be avoided. And so I contacted our friends at Fort Bragg and
asked them if they would assign people to look into this matter, which
they did," Grannis said.

"Double jeopardy" is a legal concept set out in the U.S. Constitution. It
says that if a person is found not guilty of a crime, he can't be
prosecuted again for it.

Because of double jeopardy, North Carolina couldn't pursue Hennis.

But Hennis can be prosecuted by the federal government - in this case, the
military - said Buckner, the Fort Bragg spokesman. Under the rules of
double jeopardy, the state and federal governments are considered to be
separate, sovereign governments. No matter what happens to someone in
state court, the federal government can prosecute that person for the same
acts, and vice versa.

Grannis said he wasn't surprised that the DNA points to Hennis.

"We have said from day one that we had one suspect, which was a tough
thing to say at times," Grannis said. "It wasn't Ed's position. It was the
law enforcement position in this case."

Gary Eastburn, Kathryn's husband, could not be reached Wednesday
afternoon. He lives about 15 miles from Hennis, in Puyallup, Wash. In
1985, when he was an Air Force captain, he was chief of air traffic
control operations at Pope Air Force Base. He was attending a military
school in Alabama when his wife and children were killed.

Hennis could not be reached Wednesday afternoon. Gerald Beaver, one of his
lawyers from his first 2 trials, had no comment.

(source: The Fayetteville Observer)






PENNSYLVANIA:

Young lives lost ---- For every 100,000 Black juveniles living in the
United States, more than 750 are in custody in a juvenile facility.


For many criminals the justice system has a swift, but blunt message: You
do the crime, you have to pay the time.

And instead of playing a game of basketball, figuring out what to wear for
the next school day or deciding whom to take to the school prom, many
Black youths today are finding themselves paying time behind bars at a
rate faster than any time in recent memory, numerous records show.

In Philadelphia, according to numbers provided by the Philadelphia Police
Departments Homicide Unit, 13 juveniles were arrested in connection with
murder last year.

That number is up this year; so far, 19 juveniles have been arrested and
charged with murder.

That's not counting aggravated assaults, rape, theft and non-fatal
shootings committed by young people.

According to experts, the causes are varied for these crimes: Poor
economic and educational opportunities; a dysfunctional family base and
mental and emotional illnesses are all components of the problem.

Civil rights activists have protested in Harrisburg and Washington, D.C.,
that if living conditions do not change fast for Blacks under the age of
18, the prison crisis will only get worse.

It is also one of the most disturbing aspects of Americas incarcerated
population that a disproportionately high and growing number of juvenile
criminals are African-American.

In the city, the number of male juveniles held in the Philadelphia Prison
System's House of Correction averaged 98 per day for its fiscal year,
which ends on June 30.

PPS spokesman Robert Eskind said that number was higher for fiscal year
2006, when the daily average reached 116.

For female juveniles, who are housed in the Riverside Correctional
Facility, the average daily number for last year was 4. For fiscal year
2006 the average daily number was 6.

An alarming trend

In June, 4-year-old Nashay Little was wounded by gunfire as she played
outside a relatives home on Sigel Street in South Philadelphia.

To date, South Philadelphia has seen increasing incidence of youth-related
violence, according to police reports.

Shortly after Nashay's shooting, police arrested a 15-year-old
African-American boy, charging him with attempted murder and related
offenses.

Sadly, stories such as this one have become a common occurrence in the
African-American community, where children are packing guns and using them
indiscriminately.

According to researchers at The Sentencing Project and Human Rights Watch,
young offenders are too often perceived by mainstream America as being
"super predators," a term coined by University of Pennsylvania professor
John J. Dilulio in the 1990s.

The term has been used to define youthful criminals who kill, rob and rape
without feeling guilt or a sense of conscience.

Chad Dion Lassiter, adjunct professor at the University of Pennsylvania's
School of Social Policy and Practice, said Black and Hispanic youths are
being stereotyped as violent and incorrigible.

"The popular media embellishes them with images that are provocative,
exaggerated, distorted and racially biased," he said. "Many of these Black
juveniles are being stigmatized as incorrigible, hostile and dangerous."

Other experts say the reasons the juvenile prison populations are growing
are discriminatory practices within the judicial system.

The outcome is also the result of a harsh political reality that in recent
decades has moved the courts to try some youthful criminals as adults
because of the severity of their crimes.

This disparity has led to a rise in the number of Black and Hispanic
youths in prison.

"Courts began prosecuting such cases in adult court beginning in the 1980s
as a result of the increasing number of violent crimes committed by
younger and younger offenders," said Alison Parker, acting director of
U.S. Programs for Human Rights Watch.

"There was a time in America when juvenile criminal cases would be
adjudicated in juvenile courts, where consideration for the immaturity of
the offenders was taken into consideration," she said.

"Children can commit terrible crimes, but when they do, they should be
held accountable for them, but in a manner that reflects their capacity
for rehabilitation. In the United States the punishment is all too often
no different from that given to adults."

Studies conducted by the United States Department of Justice, Human Rights
Watch and other independent research groups indicate a great disparity
between the way youths of color are treated by the justice system and the
way white youths are punished.

"We see it all too often in the justice system," Lassiter said. Black and
Hispanic youth generally get sentenced to more prison time than their
white counterparts. Far too often, youthful Black or Hispanic offenders
are being tried as adults whereas, according to researchers, cases
involving white youths are often, but not always, referred to juvenile
courts."

Some young people are certainly guilty of committing heinous crimes. But
according to a study conducted by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty
International, entitled "The Rest of Their Lives," more than half, at
least 59 %, are first-time offenders and deserve at least a chance for
rehabilitation.

The report also examined the extent to which young offenders, who more
often than not are so-called minorities, face harsher penalties than their
white counterparts.

"The public may believe that children who receive life without parole
sentences are super-predators with long records of vicious crimes," the
report stated. "In fact, an estimated 59 % received the sentence for their
first-ever criminal conviction. 16 % were between 13 and 15 years old at
the time they committed their crimes."

The report goes on to say while the vast majority of these juveniles were
convicted of murder, an estimated 26 percent were convicted of felony
murder, in which the teen participated in a robbery or burglary during
which a co-participant committed murder, without the knowledge or intent
of the teen.

According to the report, racial disparities are high. Nationwide, the
estimated rate at which Black youths receive life without parole sentences
is 10 times greater than the rate for white youths.

Another report published by The Sentencing Project, a nonprofit
organization that advocates reform in prison sentencing protocols, stated
thousands of child offenders cases are being automatically transferred
into adult courts without judicial review.

"Fear of juvenile crime has reversed the long-accepted practice of
treating young offenders in special juvenile courts," said the reports
authors, Patricia Allard and Malcolm Young. "Thousands of children
annually are now being transferred automatically and without judicial
review, from juvenile court jurisdiction to adult criminal court and into
adult corrections. The imposition of adult punishments, far from deterring
crime, actually seems to produce an increase in criminal activity in
comparison to the results obtained for children retained in the juvenile
system."

Young and Allard go on to state that reliance on the criminal courts and
punishment ignores evidence that more effective responses to the problems
of crime and violence exist outside the criminal justice system in
therapeutic programs.

"The phrase 'adult time for adult crime' is catchy, but it reflects a poor
understanding of criminal justice principles," Parker said. "If the
punishment is to fit the crime, we need to take in consideration both the
nature of the offense and the moral culpability of the offender. As the
U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized, the blameworthiness of
children cannot be equated with that of adults, even when they commit the
same crime. Their brains are different from adults."

Parker cited a 2005 Supreme Court case, Roper v. Simmons, in which the
court ruled that the execution of child offenders was unconstitutional,
because juveniles are "categorically less culpable" than adult criminals.

"Children are susceptible to immature and often irresponsible behavior,"
Parker said. "And they are vulnerable to negative pressures and
influences.

We're not advocating that they should not be punished if theyve committed
a crime and held accountable. But we need to remember that they are
children. We're not excusing their behavior, but the point is, how can we
as a society say that our children are beyond rehabilitation?

"Our report showed that for murder, an African-American youth is 11 times
more likely to be sentenced to life in prison than a white youth who is
convicted of the same crime," Parker said. "Most of these young people
will die in prison, it's a very sad story for African-American youth."

The case of Stacey Torrance

In Philadelphia the story of Stacey Torrance illustrates the case of a
child who was influenced by someone older and engaged in a criminal act
without fully grasping the consequences.

It is also a textbook case of a childs vulnerability to negative pressure.

The crime was a robbery that ended with the murder of the victim. Torrance
is 33 now and has spent more time in prison than being a free man. He
doesnt deny his part in the robbery, but under Pennsylvania law he faces
the prospect of spending the rest of his life in prison.

Torrance's case is not an unusual in the United States, where since the
1980s the number of juveniles tried as adults has been steadily rising.

As with the number of African-American men and women being sentenced to
prison, the number of Black juveniles being sentenced is also on the rise.

Torrance was 14 in 1988 when he committed his crime. He was arrested for
the murder of Alexander Porter, a young man who was his girlfriend's
brother. He was about to enter the tenth grade at a Philadelphia high
school under a magnet program for students who excelled academically.

He lived at home with his mother, a single parent.

Torrance was convicted of 2nd-degree murder (felony murder in
Pennsylvania) and sentenced to life without parole.

He had no juvenile record, and this was his 1st offense. He was charged
directly in adult court and never had a juvenile transfer hearing.

According to court documents and police investigative reports, Torrance
agreed to participate in a robbery with 2 adults, Henry Daniels, who was
his cousin, and Kevin Pelzer. The victim was Alexander Porter.

They reportedly believed Porter had a lot of money because it was
allegedly common knowledge that his family was involved in drug-dealing.
The plan involved coercing Porter to give over the keys to his apartment
so that Daniels and Pelzer could rob it.

Prosecutors established that the three set up a drug transaction with
Porter, in order to lure him to a meeting. When they met, Porter was bound
and gagged.

They confiscated his keys, and stuffed him in the trunk of his car.
Torrance allowed himself to be tied up in front of Porter but was released
after Porter was locked in the trunk, then taken home so that the victim
would later believe that Torrance had been murdered. Daniels and Pelzer
drove Porter's car, with him in the trunk, to a garage and parked it.

According to reports, Daniels and Pelzer pretended to murder Torrance to
coerce Porter to give over the keys or face the same fate.

In Pelzers appeal, the court described what Pelzer and Daniels did in the
24 hours after Torrance left the scene: "Twice during the next 24 hours
while Porter was kept in the car trunk, the kidnappers used Porter's car
on excursions.

"First, they used the vehicle to get to Porter's parents apartment to
commit burglaries," the court stated. "Pelzer and Daniels went home, slept
for a few hours, then took Porter to a park. He was shot four times in the
neck and back with a .25-caliber handgun, and left by the roadside, where
his body was discovered the following day. While Porter was being bound,
Torrance was led outside, supposedly to be punished, but actually to be
released."

Pelzer told the court: "Me and Daniels got into the boys car, the black
shiny one, to drive Stacey home. I drove the car. We dropped Stacey off
and returned to my house."

In short, while Torrance agreed to participate in a robbery scheme, he was
not present at Porters fatal shooting, nor was there evidence presented at
trial that suggested he knew Daniels and Pelzer were going to murder
Porter.

Investigations led police to believe that the murder itself was never
planned. Torrance was convicted of 2nd-degree murder and has been behind
bars ever since.

In a published report Torrance wrote: "Convinced that I could make some
money, I agreed with my cousin to rob this guy of his keys so that my
cousin and his friend could rob the guys and his fathers apartment. But I
had no idea that this guy would end up dead. Yes, I made a mistake. I
associated with the wrong crowd. I engaged in committing a crime with
them.

"However, is it fair that I spend the rest of my life in prison for a
crime that was committed by someone else without my knowledge or without
me being present?" he asked. "I feel sorry for the life that was lost in
my case. I feel a deep sense of empathy for his family and what they must
continue to endure in terms of pain. But this tragedy was never supposed
to happen. I dont absolve myself of all guilt. Out of naivet, out of
influence, out of the ignorance of knowing the consequences, I agreed to
do a crime, a robbery."

A national trend

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have discovered there are
currently at least 2,225 people incarcerated in the United States who have
been sentenced to spend the rest of their lives in prison for crimes they
committed as children.

According to AI and HRW figures, in 1997, 7,400 offenders under age of 18
were admitted to state prisons, more than double the 3,400 admitted in
1985.

In 1999, more than 8,500 juveniles were held in adult jails, either tried
or awaiting trial as adults. They are at risk. Children incarcerated in
adult facilities are 7.7 times more likely to commit suicide, 5 times more
likely to be sexually assaulted, twice as likely to be beaten by staff
members and 50 %more likely to be attacked with a weapon than children
incarcerated in juvenile institutions.

For Black youths the statistics are dismal.

According to another report from The Sentencing Project entitled "Reducing
Racial Disparity," the effects of racial disparities are clearly seen in
the juvenile justice system. While Black youths represent 15 % of their
age group within the general population, they represent 26 % of juvenile
arrests, 31 % of referrals to juvenile court, 46 % of waivers to adult
court and 58 percent of juveniles sentenced to adult prison.

"The racial disparity challenges the basic values upon which the criminal
justice system rests," Parker said.

Bad influences

When a child commits a crime, especially a violent crime, the question
invariably asked is, why did they do it?

There are reasons why they ended up on the streets with a gun in their
hands and a body at their feet.

And far too often these children are Black.

There are reasons why the numbers of African-American and Hispanic
juveniles are swelling the prisons from coast to coast as prison reform
advocates, law enforcement officials and social experts confirm.

Anti-violence activists and social and judicial reformers suggest these
youthful criminals are the byproducts of failed social programs,
dysfunctional parents, a disinterested political will and a popular media
that glorifies the violence, which energizes the subculture of the
streets.

It is in the streets, with their own twisted rules of conduct, that these
juveniles find role models who have been to prison themselves.

"Young Black males in particular are significantly over- represented in
the juvenile justice system," Lassiter said. "They're involved in the
selling of drugs, active in street gangs and exhibiting behaviors that
violate traditional Black values."

Former Philadelphia Mayor W. Wilson Goode Sr., director of Amachi, a
program that mentors the children of incarcerated parents, said one of the
factors he sees that drives juveniles into prison is that children emulate
what they see.

Many have parents or other relatives either in prison or on probation, and
Goode said these children see no other future for themselves.

"I've seen entire families in prison, three and sometimes four
generations." he said. "Kids emulate their parents and often they come
from the same environment. If children grow up in an environment where
they see fighting, drug-selling, drug-using and criminal activity, they
grow up doing what they see. I was in Oklahoma and I was speaking with a
6-year-old boy whose father was in prison. I asked him what he wanted to
do when he grew up and do you know what he said? He said he wanted to go
to prison, like his father."

The former mayor also spoke of cases where a father and son meet each
other for the first time in prison and often either share the same cell or
cell block. He said he has personally spoken to mothers who share a cell
with their daughters.

In his book, "Race to Incarcerate," Mark Mauer, executive director of The
Sentencing Project, wrote of the terrible impact on the Black community of
having so many of its men, especially young men, in prison.

The Sentencing Project is a nonprofit agency that seeks to reform
sentencing policies in the nation.

"What does it mean to a community to know that three out of ten boys
growing up will spend time in prison? Mauer asked. "What does it do to the
fabric of the family and community to have such a substantial proportion
of its young men enmeshed in the criminal justice system? What images and
values are communicated to young people who see the prisoner as the most
prominent, pervasive role model in the community? What is the effect on a
community's political influence when one quarter of the Black men in some
states cannot vote as a result of a felony conviction?

Chad D. Lassiter, a social worker and behavioral interventionist attached
to the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, said the overrepresentation of
Black juveniles in the justice system could be attributed to several
social issues.

But he was also emphatic about the influencing role the popular media play
in the trend.

"I firmly believe that the challenges facing Black juveniles today are
multiple, deeply rooted and exceedingly complex," Lassiter said. "These
challenges are major obstacles, which are dramatically disrupting the
normal socialization of Black males and females and causing a
disproportionate number of them to face a future that is indisputably
bleak."

Reversing the trend

It is by no means too late to effect change within the Black community and
deter juveniles from crime.

In Philadelphia, programs such as Amachi, the Youth Violence Reduction
Partnership and its companion program Adolescent Violence Reduction
Partnership are seeing increasing rates of success among at-risk youths.

Amachi provides mentors for children whose parents are incarcerated.

Another group, Men United for a Better Philadelphia, is an organization
that goes into distressed neighborhoods to dialogue with young Black and
Hispanic youths.

Lassiter said what many local legislators, concerned law enforcement
officials and anti-violence activists have been saying for several years:
in order to turn things around its going to take a concerted and
collective effort within the Black community to do so.

"We have to engage in what I like to call CPR, Cultural Pride
Reinforcement," he said. "We have to reinforce traditional values within
our community and impart a sense of pride within them. We're still dealing
with the vestiges of slavery, but we can break that curse. Our children
need to know they're not meant to be behind bars; they're meant for
something greater."

To counteract the dismal forecast of Black juveniles, the Black community
must collectively assume the primary responsibility for the welfare,
protection and spiritual development of our youth, according to Lassiter.

"There have to be after-school enrichment programs, and mentoring is
essential," he said. "There are a lot of churches involved in this, but we
have to get them all on board, largely the church has been sort of absent
from the youth violence."

Lassiter outlined several aspects of social issues that have to be
addressed to deter youths from engaging in criminal behavior. His aspects
include: pulling families out of poverty; getting families prenatal and
health care; and expanding access to and use of early childhood education
programs, just to name a few.

Lassiter noted in his experience, children who have witnessed a shooting
or murder have been traumatized. Within the Black community there are
growing numbers of these children, who need a higher level of mental
health care because of such trauma.

"There also has to be a moral imperative in the home that says certain
kinds of behavior is not going to be tolerated," Lassiter said. "We have
to reach these kids before they get into trouble. We have to lead our
children out of that violent mentality."

Goode said the problem is not impossible to resolve.

"If we can mentor these children for one hour a week, every week for a
year, we'll see a drop in crime," he said. "We can make a huge difference
in the lives of these children. It's a real problem, no question about it,
but it is a problem than can be solved."

(source: Philadelphia Tribune)






USA:

Even Timothy McVeigh Was Afforded Constitutional Rights----The Flaws in
the Military Commissions Act


Let me be clear: I welcome efforts to bring terrorists to justice. It is
about time. This Administration has too long been distracted by the war in
Iraq from the fight against al Qaeda. We need a renewed focus on the
terrorist networks that present the greatest threat to this country.

But we wouldn't be where we are today, five years after September 11 with
not a single Guantanamo Bay detainee having been brought to trial, if the
President had come to Congress in the first place, rather than
unilaterally creating military commissions that didn't comply with the
law. The President wanted to act on his own, and he dared the Supreme
Court to stop him. And he lost. The Hamdan decision was an historic rebuke
to an Administration that has acted for years as if it were above the law.

Finally, only because he was essentially ordered to do so by the Supreme
Court, the President has agreed to consult with Congress. I would have
hoped that we would take this opportunity to pass legislation that allows
us to proceed in accordance with our laws and our values. That is what
separates America from our enemies. These trials, conducted appropriately,
have the potential to demonstrate to the world that our democratic,
constitutional system of government is our greatest strength in fighting
those who attacked us.

And that is why I am saddened that I must oppose this legislation. Because
the trials conducted under this legislation will send a very different
signal to the world, one that I fear will put our own troops and personnel
in jeopardy both now and in future conflicts. To take just a few examples,
this legislation would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis
of coerced testimony and hearsay, would not allow full judicial review of
the conviction, and yet would allow someone convicted under these rules to
be put to death. That is simply unacceptable. We would not stand for
another country to try our citizens under those rules, and we should not
stand for our own government to do so, either.

Not only that, this legislation would deny detainees at Guantanamo Bay and
elsewhere-people who have been held for years but have not been tried or
even charged with any crime-the ability to challenge their detention in
court. Among its many flaws, this is the most troubling-that the
legislation seeks to suspend the Great Writ of habeas corpus.

The legislation before us is better than that originally proposed by the
President, which would have largely codified the procedures the Supreme
Court has already rejected. And that is thanks to the efforts of some of
my Republican colleagues for whom I have great respect and admiration.

But this bill remains deeply flawed, and I cannot support it.

One of the most disturbing provisions of this bill eliminates the right of
habeas corpus for those detained as enemy combatants. I support an
amendment by Senator Specter to strike that provision from the bill. I ask
unanimous consent that my separate statement on that amendment be put in
the record at the appropriate point.

Habeas corpus is a fundamental recognition that in America, the government
does not have the power to detain people indefinitely and arbitrarily. And
that in America, the courts must have the power to review the legality of
executive detention decisions.

Habeas corpus is a longstanding vital part of our American tradition, and
is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

As a group of retired judges wrote to Congress, habeas corpus "safeguards
the most hallowed judicial role in our constitutional democracy--ensuring
that no man is imprisoned unlawfully."

This bill would fundamentally alter that historical equation. Faced with
an executive branch that has detained hundreds of people without trial for
years now, it would eliminate the right of habeas corpus.

Under this legislation, some individuals, at the designation of the
executive branch alone, could be picked up, even in the United States, and
held indefinitely without trial and without any access whatsoever to the
courts. They would not be able to call upon the laws of our great nation
to challenge their detention because they would have been put outside the
reach of the law.

That is unacceptable, and it almost surely violates our Constitution. But
that determination will take years of protracted litigation.

Why would we turn our back on hundreds of years of history and our
nation's commitment to liberty -- particularly when there is no good
reason to do so?

We should be working to provide a lawful system of military commissions so
that those who have committed war crimes can be brought to justice. We can
do that quite well without denying one of the most basic rights guaranteed
by the Constitution to those held in custody by our government.

Some have suggested that terrorists who take up arms against this country
should not be allowed to challenge their detention in court. But that
argument is circular--the writ of habeas allows those who might be
mistakenly detained to challenge their detention in court, before a
neutral decision-maker. The alternative is to allow people to be detained
indefinitely with no ability to argue that they are not, in fact, enemy
combatants. Unless any of my colleagues can say with absolute certainty
that everyone detained as an enemy combatant was correctly detained--and
there is ample evidence to suggest that is not the case--then we should
make sure that people can't simply be locked up forever, without court
review, based on someone slapping a "terrorist" label on them.

There is another reason why we must not deprive detainees of habeas
corpus, and that is the fact that the American system of government is
supposed to set an example for the world, as a beacon of democracy. And
this provision will only serve to harm others' perception of our system of
government.

A group of retired diplomats sent a very moving letter explaining their
concerns about this habeas-stripping provision. Here is what they said:
"To proclaim democratic government to the rest of the world as the supreme
form of government at the very moment we eliminate the most important
avenue of relief from arbitrary governmental detention will not serve our
interests in the larger world."

Many, many dedicated patriotic Americans share these grave reservations
about this particular provision of the bill.

They have reservations not because they sympathize with suspected
terrorists. Not because they are soft on national security. Not because
they don't understand the threat we face. No. They, and we in the Senate
who support the Specter amendment, are concerned about this provision
because we care about the Constitution, because we care about the image
that American presents to the world as we fight the terrorists. Because we
know that the writ of habeas corpus provides one of the most significant
protections of human freedom against arbitrary government action ever
created. If we sacrifice it here, we will head down a road that history
will judge harshly and our descendants will regret.

We must not imperil our proud history. We must not abandon the Great Writ.
We must not jeopardize our nation's proud traditions and principles by
suspending the writ of habeas corpus, and permitting our government to
pick people up off the street, even in U.S. cities, and detain them
indefinitely without court review. That is not what America is about.

Unfortunately, the suspension of the Great Writ is not the only problem
with this legislation, nor is it the only instance where the legislation
goes beyond establishing military commissions to include unnecessary
provisions with deeply troubling results.

The Administration has spoken about the need for this legislation to bring
clarity to the War Crimes Act, which makes it a crime to violate
CommonArticle 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It has proposed that we
specifically list the actions that would be considered crimes under that
law. On the face of it, that certainly sounds sensible. But when you look
at this legislation, you realize that the modification it makes only
muddies the waters. Not only that, it does so retroactively.

The key problem is in the definition of "cruel or inhuman" treatment. This
is a critical definition because it is the provision that determines which
coercive interrogation techniques amount to crimes under U.S. law. But
because of the complex structure of this section, it is very difficult to
understand what the new definition would criminalize, and I am concerned
that any ambiguity may be interpreted too narrowly by some. The definition
incorporates several terms that in turn have their own separate
definitions, and it even has one new definition that doesn't go into
effect until the date of enactment, even though the rest of the amendments
to the War Crimes Act are made retroactive to 1997. Frankly, the new
prohibition is extremely unclear. And we have already heard different
interpretations of it from Senators and Administration officials who
negotiated the language. If our goal is to give unambiguous guidance to
our personnel, and the courts, this does not do it.

The way the provision is drafted, it even seems designed to grant immunity
to senior officials who authorized coercive interrogation techniques.

We should just follow the approach originally endorsed by the Senate Armed
Services Committee, which would have applied the language of the McCain
amendment.

I am also very concerned about the definition of unlawful enemy combatant
that is included in this legislation, and about the corresponding issue of
the jurisdiction of the military commissions.

This legislation has been justified as necessary to allow our government
to prosecute Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other dangerous men recently
transferred to Guantanamo Bay. Yet if you look at the fine print of this
legislation, it becomes clear that it is much, much broader than that. It
would permit trial by military commission not just for those accused of
serious terrorist crimes, but also individuals, including legal permanent
residents of this country, who are alleged to have "purposefully and
materially supported hostilities" against the United States or its allies.

This is extremely broad, and key terms go undefined. And by including
hostilities not only against the United States but also against its
allies, the bill allows the U.S. to hold and try by military commission
individuals who have never engaged, directly or indirectly, in any action
against the United States.

Not only that, but the bill would also define as an unlawful enemy
combatant subject to trial by military commission, anyone who "has been
determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review
Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of
the President or the Secretary of Defense." This essentially grants a
blank check to the executive branch to decide entirely on its own who can
be tried by military commission.

If we are going to establish military commissions outside of our
traditional military and civilian justice systems, at a minimum we should
explicitly limit their application to the worst of the worst, those who
pose a serious threat to our country. We shouldn't leave it up to just one
branch of government to make these incredibly important decisions.

The bulk of this legislation concerns the structure and process of
military commissions. Although we heard from many witnesses at
congressional hearings this summer that we should hew as closely as
possible to the long-established military system of justice, this bill
instead essentially starts from scratch and creates a whole new structure.
It does so despite Justice Kennedy's wise advice in his concurrence in
Hamdan, where he said: "The Constitution is best preserved by reliance on
standards tested over time and insulated from the pressures of the
moment."

For example, this legislation creates a presumption for the admissibility
of hearsay evidence. Now, it is true that because of the exigencies of war
and active combat situations, hearsay rules may need to be structured
differently than they are in our criminal courts, but the rules laid out
in the UCMJ are drafted to handle these same exigencies. While there may
need to be some adjustments to the UCMJ hearsay rules, we need not discard
them altogether.

The presumption against hearsay is a fundamental protection built into our
existing legal structures to ensure that proceedings yield a just and fair
result. Yet in this provision and elsewhere, the legislation erodes such
protections-going far beyond what is allowed in the military system-and
without justification.

Even more disturbing is that the bill appears to permit individuals to be
convicted, and even sentenced to death, on the basis of coerced testimony.
According to the legislation, statements obtained through cruel, inhuman,
or degrading treatment, as long as it was obtained prior to December 2005
when the McCain amendment become law, would apparently be admissible in
many instances in these military commissions.

Now, it is true that the bill would require the commission to find these
statements have sufficient reliability and probative value. But why would
we go down this road of trying to convict people based on statements
obtained through cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation techniques?
Either we are a nation that stands against this type of cruelty and for
the rule of law, or we are not. We can't have it both ways.

The idea that coerced statements can be used as long as they were obtained
long enough ago is appalling. It seems to assume that there was a lack of
clarity in the law prior to December 2005. In fact, there was great
clarity, until this Administration decided to invent a narrow definition
of torture that had never been used or accepted anywhere in the civilized
world. The McCain amendment was needed to get this Administration to
return to the law. It was a repudiation of the legal theories of the
infamous Bybee memo, which the Administration even said it was withdrawing
once it was publicly revealed. Its enactment should not now be used as a
dividing point before which evidence obtained through cruel and inhuman
treatment can be used in court.

At times of great adversity, the strength of a nation's convictions is
tested and its true character revealed. If we sacrifice or qualify our
principles in the face of the tremendous challenge we face from terrorists
who want to destroy America, we will be making a terrible mistake. If we
cloak cruel or degrading interrogations done in the name of American
safety with euphemisms like "alternative techniques," if we create
arbitrary dates for when differing degrees of morality will apply, we will
have betrayed our principles and ourselves.

Statements obtained through such techniques should not be admissible, even
against the most vicious killers in the world, in proceedings held by the
government of the United States of America. Period.

In sum, this legislation is very troubling and in many respects legally
suspect. I fear the end result of this legislation will only be more
delay. It will surely be subject to further legal challenge, and may
squander another 4 or 5 years while cases work their way through the
courts again. We can and must fight terrorism aggressively without
compromising fundamental American values. We must remember what the Army
Judge Advocate General told me at a Judiciary Committee hearing this
summer: that the United States should set an example for the world, and
that we must carefully consider the effect on the way our own soldiers
will be treated.

In closing let me do something I don't do very often--and that is quote
John Ashcroft. According to the New York Times, at a private meeting of
high-level officials in 2003 about the military commission structure,
then-Attorney General Ashcroft said: "Timothy McVeigh was one of the worst
killers in U.S. history. But at least we had fair procedures for him." How
sad that this Congress would seek to pass legislation about which the same
cannot be said.

(source: CounterPunch ----Senator Russ Feingold, from remarks on the
Senate floor)





CALIFORNIA:

Allegations of deep flaws in executions----Anesthesiologist testifies in
death penalty hearings


California's executioners are woefully unprepared to perform lethal
injections, a noted anesthesiologist testified in federal court Wednesday
in a hearing prompted by a condemned Stockton man challenging the state's
method of execution.

"It will forever be an unknown in California's history if they've ever
conducted a humane execution," said Dr. Mark Heath, the anesthesiologist
whom attorneys for Stockton's condemned Michael Angelo Morales called to
testify. Morales was not present.

Heath was the sole witness to take the stand Wednesday in 4 days of
hearings this week before U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel. Fogel ordered
the hearing to explore details of lethal injection after the delay to
Morales' Feb. 21 execution.

Morales, 46, was sentenced to death for the 1981 slaying of 17-year-old
Stockton girl Terri Lynn Winchell. Morales' attorneys challenged the
state's lethal injection procedure, claiming it causes excruciating pain
in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Citing allegedly deep flaws, Heath said that key staffers on the execution
team cannot even name the lethal drugs used and never read the state's
execution manual. Heath blamed a dysfunctional prison system for which
they work and not the team members.

San Quentin State Prison staffers lose track of lethal drugs used to
perform executions, which can be intoxicating and addictive if taken in
small amounts, Heath said under questioning by Morales' attorneys. One
executioner was suspended for bringing illegal drugs into the prison,
Heath said.

Aside from poorly trained prison staffers, state officials at the highest
levels made no improvements to the protocol to revise the 3-drug cocktail
when they hastily met in March in the wake of Morales' derailed execution,
Heath said.

"They were looking to cross a legal finish line, not an ethical finish
line," he said.

Heath, who testifies in court hearings challenging lethal injection across
the country, said he believes California's procedure falls within the
bottom 25 % of the nation's protocols, far short of clinical setting under
which anesthesiologists participate in surgeries.

Under cross-examination by Dane Gillette, the state's lead capital
punishment attorney, Heath said he had never witnessed an execution. He
testified that despite ethical barriers, California officials could find
doctor's willing to participate if they did a diligent search.

Gillette maintains that the state's method is constitutional and does not
need to be conducted by medical personnel.

Gillette asked Heath why it was important all execution team members be
familiar with the lethal drugs. Heath said they should know to avoid
handing off the incorrect syringe or to spot any number of problems.

"The fact you asked that question proves you shouldn'tbe involved in
designing the protocol," Heath told Gillette.

Natasha Minsker, death penalty policy director for the American Civil
Liberties Union of Northern California, said outside of court that the
hearings were rich with details portraying deep-seated problems with the
state's capital punishment method.

"It raises questions from the day-to-day management up to what the
priorities are at higher levels and how decisions are made," she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on any state's method of execution,
but California and a number of other states grappling with the highly
contentious issue could change that, Minsker said.

"I've heard people say the Supreme Court has to weigh in," she said. "You
never know."

The hearing in Fogel's courtroom is expected to continue through Friday.

(source: Stockton Record)






TENNESSEE:

Residents divided on Jordan's sentence----Some speak out for, against
Jordan's sentence; others withhold judgment


Lambuth student Nick Jared believes jurors acted properly when they issued
3 death sentences to convicted killer David Lynn Jordan on Monday.

Jurors unanimously issued the sentences against Jordan, 42, for the
killing of his estranged wife, Donna Renee Jordan, Jerry Hopper and David
Gordon at the Tennessee Department of Transportation garage in Jackson in
January 2005.

The death sentences prompted a wide range of opinions from Jackson
residents interviewed by The Jackson Sun.

"I think in a situation like this, I am for the death penalty," said
Jared, a 19-year-old theater/English major. "In the case of a person like
this, who not only went in and killed one person, but many, he is
obviously a cause of danger to many people."

Sitting on the front porch of Lambuth's Sigma Phi Epsilon house, Kimberly
Campbell, also 19, agreed with Jared.

"I believe the death penalty is a bad thing if you have no hard evidence
and you have to try and prove it," she said, "but a lot of people saw him
do it."

Several witnesses identified Jordan as the shooter at his murder trail in
Madison County Circuit Court, including survivors James Goff and Larry
Taylor, who were wounded in the January 2005 shooting.

About 2 miles south of Lambuth, however, outside the Shell Express station
on Hollywood Drive, Tonya Chapman disagreed.

A former undercover Fulton County police officer in Atlanta, Chapman said
she believes in rehabilitation.

"I've counseled a lot of prisoners," said Chapman, 31. "When you know some
of their backgrounds, and talking to these people, it changes your mind."

Chapman has held firm to her belief, even after her cousin was "gunned
down" in St. Louis in 1995.

"He was shot 16 times," she said.

Jordan's shooting rampage, his conviction and death sentences have many
Jackson residents discussing the jury's decisions.

"Me and my husband were talking about this last night," said 49-year-old
Cassandra Smith, who opposes the death penalty.

"I feel like if someone kills, they should be locked up for life," she
said. "It is not our place to get revenge."

Back at Lambuth, however, 20-year-old James Dozier remained undecided
about the use of lethal injection.

"The death penalty brings a lot of closure to the family," he said, "but
sometimes people should remember that there are a lot of things worse than
dying."

Katherine Cumpton of Wichita Falls, Texas, however, said there is no gray
area when considering someone's life.

"I am very much against the death penalty. I don't think it solves
anything," said Cumpton, 18, and also a Lambuth theater major. "A crime of
passion like this obviously deserves a severe penalty, but not the death
penalty. He clearly had emotional problems."

Some city residents, however, like 41-year-old John Burse, don't think
emotional problems should protect a person from obvious guilt.

"I don't know if he had a psychological problem," Burse said. "but if he
out-and-out, cold-blooded did it ..."

But at the Shell Express, 78-year-old Monroe Dotson said these types of
decisions are better left to God.

"I ain't even going to try and judge that," he said. "I'll just let the
good Lord judge him."

(source: Jackson Sun)