June 10 USA: Stacking juries toward death When 5 justices of the US Supreme Court rejected a death row inmate's challenge to his sentence last week, they acknowledged that a capital defendant has the right to trial by an impartial jury -- one that is drawn from a pool that has not been tilted in favor of the death penalty by selective challenges to would-be jurors. Having recognized that principle, though, the justices went on to eviscerate it. In an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court ruled that a Washington state judge had the discretion to grant a prosecutor's request to strike "Juror Z," who supported the death penalty but nonetheless expressed some reservations. In doing so, the Supreme Court has given prosecutors permission to try to stack juries toward death, by seeking an all but unconditional commitment to the death penalty on the part of jurors. In capital cases, prosecutors have long been able to exclude opponents of the death penalty, or at least those unwilling to set their own beliefs aside, on the grounds that they cannot impartially decide whether a defendant should be executed. Yet that was not at issue in the Washington case. During jury selection, Juror Z asserted that executions should be allowed but not frequent; that the possibility that a murderer might be released and kill again was the main reason for a death sentence; that, even so, he or she could still consider imposing a death sentence if the alternative were life in prison without parole. Yet this was too much for the prosecutor, who asked the judge to strike Juror Z. In a compelling dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens suggested that the court has misunderstood Juror Z's testimony and the relevant law. Even if death-penalty states have an interest in finding jurors who will consider that option, Stevens pointed out, "that does not and cannot mean that jurors must be willing to impose a death sentence in every situation in which a defendant is eligible." The effect of this decision will not be subtle. Prosecutors can now seek from jurors ever higher levels of commitment to executing convicts. Juries, over time, are likely to become less and less representative of the communities from which they are drawn. According to a poll conducted for the nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center before the Supreme Court ruling, most African-Americans, and nearly 1/2 of women and Catholics, think their beliefs would exclude them from capital juries. Many who oppose the death penalty -- we on this page are among them -- do so whether public support for it is narrow or broad. It does not deter crime; it is unevenly applied; above all, it is irrevocable. And now 5 justices choose to compound the potential for error. To the nation's highest court, it is now basically fine if capital juries exclude those whose views extend beyond "fry him" or "hang him high." (source: Editorial, Boston Globe) ************************** Studies say death penalty deters crime Anti-death penalty forces have gained momentum in the past few years, with a moratorium in Illinois, court disputes over lethal injection in more than a half-dozen states and progress toward outright abolishment in New Jersey. The steady drumbeat of DNA exonerations - pointing out flaws in the justice system - has weighed against capital punishment. The moral opposition is loud, too, echoed in Europe and the rest of the industrialized world, where all but a few countries banned executions years ago. What gets little notice, however, is a series of academic studies over the last half-dozen years that claim to settle a once hotly debated argument - whether the death penalty acts as a deterrent to murder. The analyses say yes. They count between three and 18 lives that would be saved by the execution of each convicted killer. The reports have horrified death penalty opponents and several scientists, who vigorously question the data and its implications. So far, the studies have had little impact on public policy. New Jersey's commission on the death penalty this year dismissed the body of knowledge on deterrence as "inconclusive." But the ferocious argument in academic circles could eventually spread to a wider audience, as it has in the past. "Science does really draw a conclusion. It did. There is no question about it," said Naci Mocan, an economics professor at the University of Colorado at Denver. "The conclusion is there is a deterrent effect." A 2003 study he co-authored, and a 2006 study that re-examined the data, found that each execution results in 5 fewer homicides, and commuting a death sentence means five more homicides. "The results are robust, they don't really go away," he said. "I oppose the death penalty. But my results show that the death penalty (deters) - what am I going to do, hide them?" Statistical studies like his are among a dozen papers since 2001 that capital punishment has deterrent effects. They all explore the same basic theory - if the cost of something (be it the purchase of an apple or the act of killing someone) becomes too high, people will change their behavior (forego apples or shy from murder). To explore the question, they look at executions and homicides, by year and by state or county, trying to tease out the impact of the death penalty on homicides by accounting for other factors, such as unemployment data and per capita income, the probabilities of arrest and conviction, and more. Among the conclusions: - Each execution deters an average of 18 murders, according to a 2003 nationwide study by professors at Emory University. (Other studies have estimated the deterred murders per execution at 3, 5 and 14). - The Illinois moratorium on executions in 2000 led to 150 additional homicides over 4 years following, according to a 2006 study by professors at the University of Houston. - Speeding up executions would strengthen the deterrent effect. For every 2.75 years cut from time spent on death row, 1 murder would be prevented, according to a 2004 study by an Emory University professor. In 2005, there were 16,692 cases of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter nationally. There were 60 executions. The studies' conclusions drew a philosophical response from a well-known liberal law professor, University of Chicago's Cass Sunstein. A critic of the death penalty, in 2005 he co-authored a paper titled "Is capital punishment morally required?" "If it's the case that executing murderers prevents the execution of innocents by murderers, then the moral evaluation is not simple," he told The Associated Press. "Abolitionists or others, like me, who are skeptical about the death penalty haven't given adequate consideration to the possibility that innocent life is saved by the death penalty." Sunstein said that moral questions aside, the data needs more study. Critics of the findings have been vociferous. Some claim that the pro-deterrent studies made profound mistakes in their methodology, so their results are untrustworthy. Another critic argues that the studies wrongly count all homicides, rather than just those homicides where a conviction could bring the death penalty. And several argue that there are simply too few executions each year in the United States to make a judgment. "We just don't have enough data to say anything," said Justin Wolfers, an economist at the Wharton School of Business who last year co-authored a sweeping critique of several studies, and said they were "flimsy" and appeared in "2nd-tier journals." "This isn't left vs. right. This is a nerdy statistician saying it's too hard to tell," Wolfers said. "Within the advocacy community and legal scholars who are not as statistically adept, they will tell you it's still an open question. Among the small number of economists at leading universities whose bread and butter is statistical analysis, the argument is finished." Several authors of the pro-deterrent reports said they welcome criticism in the interests of science, but said their work is being attacked by opponents of capital punishment for their findings, not their flaws. "Instead of people sitting down and saying 'let's see what the data shows,' it's people sitting down and saying 'let's show this is wrong,'" said Paul Rubin, an economist and co-author of an Emory University study. "Some scientists are out seeking the truth, and some of them have a position they would like to defend." The latest arguments replay a 1970s debate that had an impact far beyond academic circles. Then, economist Isaac Ehrlich had also concluded that executions deterred future crimes. His 1975 report was the subject of mainstream news articles and public debate, and was cited in papers before the U.S. Supreme Court arguing for a reversal of the court's 1972 suspension of executions. (The court, in 1976, reinstated the death penalty.) Ultimately, a panel was set up by the National Academy of Sciences which decided that Ehrlich's conclusions were flawed. But the new pro-deterrent studies haven't gotten that kind of scrutiny. At least not yet. The academic debate, and the larger national argument about the death penalty itself - with questions about racial and economic disparities in its implementation - shows no signs of fading away. Steven Shavell, a professor of law and economics at Harvard Law School and co-editor-in-chief of the American Law and Economics Review, said in an e-mail exchange that his journal intends to publish several articles on the statistical studies on deterrence in an upcoming issue. (source: Seattle Post-Intelligencer) ********************* Majority of Americans favor death penalty: poll The majority of Americans support the death penalty but nearly 40 % think their moral beliefs would disqualify them from serving on a jury in a capital trial, a poll showed on Saturday. Conducted for the Death Penalty Information Center, a group that opposes capital punishment, the poll showed 62 % of those surveyed support executing convicted murderers. But 39 % of the 1,000 people questioned in the survey, which had a margin of error of 3.1 percent, said they thought they would be disqualified from serving in a jury in a capital murder case because of their moral beliefs. "That was higher than we had expected," the information center's director Richard Dieter said in an interview. "That says the death penalty is not as strongly embraced," he said. "I think that questions its legitimacy." The poll also showed about 87 percent believe an innocent person has been executed in the last 15 years, and 58 percent think there should be a moratorium on executions while wrongful convictions and wrongful death sentences are investigated. "This is ... a confirmation of how powerful these cases of innocence have been about using the death penalty presently and in the future. It shows a distancing by the American public from the death penalty," said Dieter. "I think we'll see it used less as people are rightly more cautious." But Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, a group that generally argues in favor of the death penalty, disagreed. He said national surveys have consistently shown steady support for the death penalty as a punishment for murder despite an "onslaught" of attacks on it. Nearly 70 % of those surveyed said they did not think reforms would totally eliminate wrongful convictions and wrongful executions. Since 1973, 124 people have been released from death row after evidence of their innocence was uncovered. The survey showed a majority of people did not think a possible death sentence would deter potential murderers. The number of death sentences and actual executions in the United States has been declining, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The 38 states that have the death penalty executed 53 people in 2006, down from 98 in 1999, it says. Experts have said the drop in the number of executions to a 30-year low in 2006 was due in part to eroding support for capital punishment. The decline came as many states have struggled with problems related to wrongful convictions and claims that lethal injection causes unnecessary and severe pain. Amnesty International says China carries out the vast majority of the world's executions. The rights group says China put 1,051 people to death last year, although it believes the true figure is between 7,000 and 8,000. China and 5 other nations -- Iran, Pakistan, Iraq, Sudan and the United States -- accounted for more than 90 % of judicial executions in 2006, Amnesty said in a report earlier this year. (source: Reuters) *********************************** Death penalty doubts grow Fears that innocent people could be executed in America's prisons are increasingly convincing longtime supporters of the death penalty to change their mind, according to a new poll. After seeing hundreds of prisoners cleared of crimes, people are no longer confident that only the guilty are being killed, according to the Death Penalty Information Center Report. More than 60% of former capital punishment backers now believe innocent people have been sentenced to death. "That is absolutely the case," said Jeffrey Deskovic, 34, freed from prison last year after serving 17 years for the murder and rape of a school friend in Peekskill. The real killer was sentenced last month. "I was 16 when this happened. If I had been 18, I am certain I would have been sentenced to death. I wouldn't be here today." The report, which questioned 1,000 adults, found nearly 40% were opposed to the death sentence. Nearly 70% of African-Americans were against it, and nearly 50% of women. Exonerations of convicted criminals were the main reason for opposition. Since 1973, more than 120 people have been freed from death row. The New York-based Project Innocence, which used DNA evidence to prove Deskovic's innocence, has secured the freedom of 203 wrongly convicted prisoners since 1989. "These findings show the public's appreciation of the lessons to be learned from wrongful convictions, and from the ever-present possibility of human error," said Stephen Saloom, the project's policy director. "Exonerations have established irrefutably that the system does get it wrong sometimes. Whatever your position, you cannot ignore the fact that there have been 203 DNA exonerations, and counting. "It seems extremely possible that there has been at least one innocent person who has been executed, and it would not take an extraordinary leap to imagine there have been many more." Only 39% of those questioned expressed confidence that the justice system sentences only the guilty to death, according to the poll. Deskovic said, "I had to give up 17 years of my life. I can't get the time back, but I did get my freedom. "If I'd got the death sentence, nobody could have given me my life back." (source: New York Daily News) ************************** Survey of Americans----Support for death penalty waning Americans' confidence in the death penalty has eroded so much that 58 % approve of a moratorium and many feel they could not fairly serve on a capital crimes jury, a new public opinion poll indicates. A national survey by RT Strategies, conducted for the Death Penalty Information Center, a Washington clearinghouse for capital-punishment data, showed that 40 % of those surveyed believe they would be disqualified from serving on a jury because of their moral beliefs. The number was far higher (2/3) for blacks, women and Roman Catholics. More than 85 % said that they believe an innocent person has been executed; more than half said that changed their opinion about capital punishment. About 69 % of respondents said they support reforms to the system, but don't believe they would eliminate improper convictions and executions. The most recent Gallup Poll in May 2006 showed 65 % supported capital punishment. However, the same poll showed the number in support dropped to 47 % when the option of life without the possibility of parole was included. Support for executions lessened, in part, because of cases in which DNA evidence helped exonerate inmates who had been convicted and sentenced to death. Richard C. Dieter, executive director of the center, said people are "deeply concerned about the risk of executing the innocent, about the fairness of the process, and about the inability of capital punishment to accomplish its basic purposes." In Ohio and nationally, death sentences have declined dramatically in recent years, while life without the possibility of parole has become an often-used option. RT Strategies conducted the national telephone poll of 1,000 adults on March 8-11. The margin of sampling error was 3.1 %. (source: Columbus Dispatch) INDIANA: Police officer's death 17 years ago devastated 2 families Kyle and Brock Winters don't remember their father. David Lambert expects to say goodbye to his on Wednesday. The lives of the 3 young men have been intertwined for 17 years, since a drunken Michael Lambert fired 5 shots into the back of Muncie police Officer Gregg Winters' head and neck, fatally injuring Winters and sending Lambert to Indiana's death row. Lambert is scheduled to be executed at the Indiana State Prison early Friday for killing Winters. But for the sons left behind, that moment will bring little solace. "It has been difficult for us not having our dad," Kyle Winters, now 19, told the Indiana Parole Board during Lambert's clemency hearing in 2005. Winters' sons were just 10 months old and 3 when the officer pulled over Michael Lambert for public intoxication on Dec. 28, 1990. Lambert says he got drunk because he was overwhelmed by the prospect of becoming a single father at age 20. He was about to gain custody of David, who had been taken from his mother and placed in a foster home because of neglect. "I wanted it to happen. But at the same time, I was a single father who didn't have a clue," he said. Lambert was arrested for public intoxication. An officer who patted him down didn't find a gun and put him in Winters' cruiser. Moments later, Winters lay critically wounded. He died 11 days later. The years since have been filled with milestones the boys' fathers never saw. They missed their sons' first days of kindergarten, junior high and high school. They weren't there to teach them to drive, or to celebrate birthdays and Father's Day. Molly Winters remembers the day her youngest son, Brock, came home from grade school in tears. He hadn't been invited to a friend's birthday party because his father was dead. "This kid's mom told him that Brock wasn't invited to the party because Brock didn't have a daddy, and if (the friend) and his daddy started taking pictures together or started playing, Brock might get sad and start crying and make the other kids sad, and birthday parties are supposed to be happy," said Winters, who remarried in 2001. Today, Brock, 17, is preparing to start his senior year of high school and hopes to attend college to study business or physical therapy. Kyle just finished his freshman year at Indiana University, where he hopes to major in exercise science. David, 17, will be a high school junior next fall. He isn't sure what he wants to do. "He's back and forth - a wavering teen," his father told The Associated Press during an interview at the Indiana State Prison. Lambert sees David 3 or 4 times a year and describes their relationship as being more like brothers than father and son. David is being raised by Lambert's mother, Sue, and Lambert's stepfather. "He hasn't had the benefit of having a father there," Lambert said of David. Lambert says his son is resentful that his father is on death row. "I don't know how much of that is directed at me. But I hope some of it. Because if anyone should bear that burden, it should be me," he said. Two years ago, David submitted a letter to the Indiana Parole Board considering Lambert's clemency request. In it, he told Molly Winters he was sorry for her loss. "I am very lucky because I have two dads and I know that your sons lost their dad," he wrote. "I love Mike very much and he has taught me to always be happy with myself and not let other people influence me to do wrong." He ended the letter with: "If you can keep Mike alive, would you try please?" Molly Winters, who hugged Lambert's mother at that clemency hearing, acknowledged the pain the Lambert family, especially his mother, has experienced. "Her heart is breaking for us because she knows we've had this horrible loss. My heart will be breaking for her because I know what she is going through," Winters said. Winters and her sons will be at the prison for the execution, but none of them will watch. Gregg Winters' brother, Terry, deputy chief of the Muncie Police Department, will witness Lambert's death. Lambert's mother and son will stay home. Winters said her initial anger toward Lambert has given way to numbness. But she still thinks he should be put to death. < "I have realized that me hanging on to anger will keep me stuck in that grieving process and won't allow me to move forward with my life," she said. "When Michael Lambert is executed, he won't stand before Molly Winters to be judged. He will stand before God to be judged, and God is who he needs forgiveness from." Lambert isn't dwelling on what he will say to his son when he sees him for the last time. Any important message will be done in writing. "We get limited time together, and I don't want him feeling pressured by, 'You have to deal with this or deal with that,'" Lambert said. Winters said she has tried to teach her children to make the best of whatever happens. "What happened to us was, yes, an absolute horrible tragedy. And I feel that we've been treated unfairly not to have Gregg here," Winters said. "But at the same time, society doesn't owe us anything. Nobody owes us anything. We'll make it. We'll go through our ups and downs, but we will be there together." (source: Associated Press) VIRGINIA----impending execution Appeal before governor in death-row case-----Defense points to trial errors as man's execution date nears Christopher Scott Emmett is set to die by injection Wednesday night for beating a man to death with a brass lamp during a robbery in a Danville motel room. Emmett, 35, was sentenced to death for the April 27, 2001, capital murder of John F. Langley, a roofing crew co-worker. His execution is scheduled for 9 p.m. in the death chamber of the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt. He has an appeal pending in the U.S. Supreme Court and a clemency petition before Gov. Timothy M. Kaine. If carried out, it would be the 1st execution in the state this year and the 99th since Virginia resumed capital punishment in 1982. Emmett confessed to striking Langley in the head 5 or 6 times with the lamp and taking his wallet after Langley refused to loan him money to buy cocaine. The 2 shared a motel room while working on a roofing job. Emmett had lived in Roanoke Rapids, N.C., where Langley lived at the time of his death. Emmett's plea to the U.S. Supreme Court reiterates complaints about Emmett's trial lawyer who, Emmett alleges, failed to adequately defend him by fully informing the jury a full picture of his abusive, impoverished childhood and other problems. The clemency petition includes affidavits from 2 jurors shown a summary of Emmett's social history -- information they were not given during the trial. "It was a waste of our tax dollars and a waste of my time to have listened to such a one-sided case. Mr. Emmett's lawyer should have done so much more for him," said one juror. She added, "if I had been presented with the evidence [of Emmett's background], I would not have voted for the death penalty." Another juror said that if the information was true and the jury heard it, "I might have voted for a life sentence without parole instead of the death penalty." "If Mr. Emmett's lawyer had access to this information and did not use it, someone ought to hang him," said the juror. The lawyer, Lawrence Gott, then a public defender in Danville, said Wednesday that he could not comment because the case is still in litigation. Matthew Engle, one of Emmett's current lawyers, said the jurors asked that their names not be publicly released. Kaine, however, knows their identities. Engle said only one juror need have opposed the death penalty for Emmett to have been given life without parole. David E. Clemenston, a spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell, said in an e-mail that the presentation of 2 anonymous, recently obtained juror affidavits "should be viewed with caution." "The documents purporting to be from two jurors, years after the case, reflect that each was approached separately and that they were given a single version of events that has been rejected by every court that has reviewed Emmett's case," he wrote. Clemenston said contacting jurors was "troubling." Engle countered that the juror who urges Kaine to grant clemency has agreed to speak with Kaine or his counsel if they have any questions. He also said that no court has rejected the information about Emmett's childhood. It is based upon juvenile probation and social service records and corroborated by interviews with his juvenile probation officer, a social worker and family members. According to Emmett, Gott failed to interview relatives on his father's side of the family, obtain family social-service records or interview state probation officers and social workers who dealt with Emmett's family. Three years ago, the Virginia Supreme Court found that Gott failed to provide Emmett constitutionally acceptable representation by failing to make sure the jury got appropriate verdict forms. However, the justices ruled that the error could not have changed the outcome -- a death sentence. In upholding the death sentence, courts have noted that Gott interviewed Emmett's mother, stepfather and a half sister, and not only did they did not tell him about the abusive childhood, neither did Emmett himself. In a dissent earlier this year, Judge Roger Gregory of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said he believes Gott's performance was so poor that it compromised Emmett's defense. It is one thing to make a strategic decision not to use a witness, wrote Gregory, but it is another to make such a decision based on an inadequate investigation. (source: Richmond Times-Dispatch) ******************************* Action Alert----June 9, 2007 Chris Scott Emmett to be Executed June 13th Contact Governor Tim Kaine Vigil in Protest The 99th Virginia execution is now set for Wednesday, June 13, 2007. At 9:00 pm Christopher Scott Emmett is scheduled to be lethally injected in the Death Chamber at the Greensville Correctional Center in Jarratt, VA. Once again we need to ask for your help to urge Governor Kaine to commute Chris Emmett's death sentence to life-in-prison-without-parole. Remember the victim but not with more killing! We join those who mourn the loss of John Langley and are determined to eliminate the violence that brought about his senseless murder. But execution is neither a solution to violence nor a comfort to mourners. It is part of the problem and increases the cycle of violence. Inadequate Representation The issue here is not guilt or innocence but the specter, once again of inadequate representation by his court appointed public defender and the fact that capital punishment as practiced in Virginia is not reserved for the "worst of the worst" crimes. Emmett is guilty of murder. Should he be executed for that murder is the question? Jurors Were Not Told the Truth About Scott Emmett Jurors asked to determine whether execution was the appropriate sentence for Emmett were not told the truth about his childhood history. This is unfair, not only to Emmett but to those expected to make life and death decisions in our names. Lethal Injection Also at issue is Virginia's continuing use of a lethal injection protocol which is banned by the American Veterinary Medical Association for use on cats and dogs as being "cruel and inhumane." This same protocol has lead to the present halting of executions in at least 10 other death penalty states from Maryland to California. A recent study on lethal injection cited Virginia for using the smallest doses of any lethal injection state of thiopental as an anesthetic. Questions also need to be raised due to recent revelations that the execution team leader in Virginia has had no certifiable medical training. Commute this sentence to Life without Parole Please write to Governor Tim Kaine asking him to stop this execution, to address the questions of Virginia's lethal injection protocol, and commute Christopher Scott Emmett's sentence to life in prison without parole. Messages requesting clemency for Mr. Emmett should be addressed to: The Honorable Timothy M. Kaine Office of the Governor Patrick Henry Building, 3rd Floor 1111 East Broad Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Phone: (804) 786-2211 Fax: (804) 371-6351 (source: VADP) *********************************** Pittsylvania County Woman Loses Death Row Appeal The only woman on Virginia's death row failed to convince the state's highest court that her trial lawyer violated her constitutional rights by failing to present evidence that could have spared her the death penalty. The Virginia Supreme Court on Friday unanimously rejected Teresa Lewis' petition challenging her confinement at Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women. Lewis pleaded guilty to hiring 2 men to kill her husband and stepson in Pittsylvania County in 2002. She was sentenced to death, becoming the 1st woman on Virginia's death row since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976. No woman has been executed in Virginia since 1912. According to authorities, Lewis plotted the murders of Julian Clifton Lewis Jr. and his son, Charles J. Lewis, to collect life insurance money. Lewis claimed in her petition that her lawyer should have presented mitigating evidence during the penalty phase of her trial. Jurors should have been told that her low mental functioning, prescription drug addiction and dependent personality disorder made her incapable of masterminding the scheme, Lewis contended. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that experts differed on the scope of Lewis' mental problems and drug addiction. The justices also said there was substantial evidence that Lewis, motivated by greed, meticulously planned the slayings. "Any psychological, cognitive, and physical difficulties Lewis may have had could not explain or even mitigate the carefully calculated conduct that Lewis exhibited in carrying out these crimes," Justice Barbara Milano Keenan wrote. The lawyer who handled Lewis' appeal, James E. Rocap III, did not immediately return a phone message seeking comment. The 2 men Lewis hired to commit the murders are serving life sentences. Her daughter, who was 16 at the time of the slayings, was sentenced to 5 years in prison for conspiracy and accessory to murder because she knew about the plot but did not tell authorities. (source: Associated Press, June 8) MISSOURI: Vengeance, not justice, at heart of death penalty resurrection Go ahead and call us bleeding hearts. As Missouri officials stumble over themselves in almost ghoulish fashion to get the state's death penalty machine up and running again, our hearts bleed. Our eyes shed tears and our souls ache. Not for the truly vicious killers and rapists who might face the ultimate punishment. In that regard, we're just as human as so many others who want to see an eye for an eye. But that's vengeance, not justice. And if we know one thing about the death penalty and how it's been applied in this country, it's that it is not just. In the past 3 decades, more than 120 people have walked away from death rows in various states, cleared of the crimes that would have led to their deaths. It's only because of the hard work of groups such as the Innocence Project, and the dedication of certain law enforcement officials, defense attorneys and prosecutors, that some of those 120 people didn't die at the state's hand for crimes they didn't commit. Worse yet, some people have been killed and only later, when it was too late, did evidence appear that put their guilt into question. One such case was Larry Griffin, a Missouri man put to death by the state in 1995. After Griffin's death, a police officer came forward to say that the primary informant in the case, a lifelong criminal, was lying. That's why we're so opposed to the death penalty. There's no turning back. That's what's so disappointing about Gov. Matt Blunt's reaction to the decision last week of a federal appeals court to reinstate the death penalty in Missouri. We respect the fact that Blunt, and Attorney General Jay Nixon, and many other Missouri politicians, probably a majority of them, are in favor of the death penalty. It's the ultimate "tough on crime" position, and there are legitimate reasons to argue in its favor. But Blunt chose the one argument in favor of the death penalty that we believe is its weakest defense. "Capital punishment is a vital deterrent to the most serious of crimes," Blunt said in joining Nixon in practically cheering the court's ruling. How ironically sad that the 1 issue these 2 rivals agree on is the rush to kill. How equally unfortunate that Blunt believes the death penalty is a deterrent to crime. We believe the evidence fails to make that case: - An analysis by the Death Penalty Information Center indicates that the average murder rates in states with the death penalty were much higher, at 5.3 per 100,000, in 2005, than in states without the death penalty, which averaged a rate of 2.8. While there are many demographic reasons why that might be the case, a New York Times study in 2000 took demographics into account, and in like states, the murder rates were still generally lower in non-death-penalty states. - A 1995 study of police chiefs showed that the death penalty was the tool they ranked dead last as an effective tool to combat violent crime. Perhaps that's because the chiefs have seen the statistics from the FBI Uniform Crime Report that indicate that police officers are killed in much higher proportions in states with the death penalty. We're sure the governor takes his role in implementing the death penalty very seriously. Ultimately, it's one of the most powerful, unique and human aspects of a governor's job. He and only he, in the privacy of his own thoughts, makes the ultimate decision on whether a criminal dies. We wish in those private moments, the governor and all governors of death-penalty states would come to the realization that we have, that the possibility of taking an innocent life should supersede the symbolic effort of repaying murder with more death. That's all the death penalty is, really a symbolic act and that's why we wish Missouri would join the many states that have abolished its use. It's a symbol of the state's vengeance. It's not a deterrent. And it's not justice. So, yes, our hearts bleed as Missouri marches again toward implementing the death penalty. We're guilty. But can we say that with conviction about every man or woman on Missouri's death row? (source: Opinion, The News-Leader) US MILITARY: Death Penalty Could Be Ordered For Retired Solider A retired soldier should face a court-martial where the death penalty could be ordered for a 1985 triple murder, according to an Army investigating officer's recommendation released late Saturday. Army Master Sgt. Timothy B. Hennis was acquitted in a civilian court nearly 2 decades ago for the rape and murder of an Air Force captains wife and the murders of 2 of their daughters. Hennis was recalled to active duty last year so the Army could pursue new charges. Hennis, of Lakewood, Wash., faces charges including murder and premeditated murder. The report recommending the court-martial was issued Monday by Col. William L. Deneke, the investigating officer, according to a statement issued Saturday by Fort Bragg. Brig. Gen. Philip Volpe, 44th Medical Command commander, will make a recommendation and forward the case to Lt. Gen. Lloyd J. Austin III, commander of the 18th Airborne Corps, who will make the final ruling on how the case will proceed. Hennis was arrested shortly after Kathryn Eastburn, 31, and 2 of her daughtersKara Sue, 5, and Erin Nicole, 3 -- were found fatally stabbed in their home near Fort Bragg in May 1985. A3ird child, 22-month-old Jana Eastburn, was found unharmed in her crib. Eastburns husband, Air Force Capt. Gary Eastburn, was in Alabama at squadron officers training school at the time. Hennis had adopted the family's dog several days before the murders. Hennis was convicted and sentenced to death for the crimes in 1986, but the state Supreme Court awarded him a new trial after finding his 1st trial was run unfairly and with weak evidence. A second jury acquitted Hennis in April 1989. During a cold case review last year, investigators used technology that wasn't available at the time of the slayings to test DNA evidence collected from the original crime scene. Local prosecutors said the results warranted reopening the case, but civilian authorities couldn't charge Hennis because of the constitutional protection against double jeopardy. The military can pursue charges because its court system is a different jurisdiction. "I specifically find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the totality of the aggravating factors and circumstances which exist in this case substantially outweigh any extenuating or mitigating circumstances, including the passage of 22 years since the crimes were committed and Master Sgt. Hennis' outstanding service record from 1989-2004," Deneke said in his report. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----USA, IND., VA., MO., US MIL.
Rick Halperin Sun, 10 Jun 2007 17:34:42 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
