June 23 IDAHO: State Files Intent to Seek Death Penalty for Alofa Time In Caldwell, state prosecuters have filed an intent to seek the death penalty for Alofa Time. Time, 51 was formally arraigned Friday morning in Canyon County Court. Now that the State's intentions for seeking the death penalty are known, Third Judicial District Administrative Judge Gregory M. Culet is allowing Time more time to make up his mind about how he will plea. Judge Culet scheduled a hearing on Friday, June 30th for Time to answer to charges of 1st Degree Murder. He is accused of killing his estranged wife at their Nampa home on Wednesday, June 14th and then transporting her severed head in the back of his pick-up truck. Time also faces two Second Degree Murder charges in Ada County for allegedly intentionally causing a car crash which killed a Boise woman and her four-year old daughter. According to court records, a 6 to 8 page suicide note was found at the scene of the crash detailing Time's motive for allegedly killing his wife. (source: Fox 12 News) KANSAS: Death row inmate pleads guilty of Granite City rape A man on death row in Kansas pleaded guilty Thursday of raping a Granite City woman nearly 14 years ago. The plea, and the 20-year sentence given to Douglas Belt, are meant to give closure to the victim, said Stephanee Smith, a spokeswoman for the Madison County State's Attorney's Office. Belt broke into the victim's Granite City mobile home on Nov. 22, 1992, while she and her 2 children were sleeping. He raped the woman, then 21, at knifepoint. She could not give a detailed description of her attacker and no fingerprints were found. Belt was an over-the-road trucker and never lived in this area. The crime went unsolved for 10 years. Police in Wichita, Kan., learned of Belt's link to the Granite City crime when they ran his DNA information through an FBI database. His DNA matched DNA in semen from the Granite City rape, Smith said. Belt was sentenced to death in Kansas in November 2004 for the decapitation murder of housekeeper Lucille Gallegos in Kansas' Sedgwick County. The status of the death penalty verdict against Belt, 44, is in dispute because the Kansas Supreme Court struck down the death penalty in December 2004. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to review that decision. (source: St. Louis Post-Dispatch) CALIFORNIA: Prosecutors seek death penalty for man charged in woman's slaying Prosecutors said Thursday they would seek the death penalty for a man accused of stabbing a woman dozens of times at her San Diego County home. The decision was announced during a hearing for Derlyn Ray Threats, 25, who is charged with murdering 24-year-old Carolyn Neville of Vista in September. District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said she chose to seek the death penalty after meeting with the victim's family. Threats' lawyer, Sloan Ostbye, said she was disappointed by the move. "There are a lot of mitigating aspects to my client's childhood that I wished (Dumanis) to consider," Ostbye said. Vista is 30 miles northwest of downtown San Diego. (source: Associated Press) USA: Doctors See Way to Cut Suffering in Executions A flood of lawsuits challenging lethal injection as cruel and unusual has stalled executions in some states and may prompt others to abandon them. And a Supreme Court ruling last week made it easier for death-row prisoners to file such suits. But medical experts say the current method of lethal injection could easily be changed to make suffering less likely. Even the doctor who devised the technique 30 years ago says that if he had it to do over again, he would recommend a different method. Switching to an injection method with less potential to cause pain could undercut many of the lawsuits. But so far, in this chapter of the nation's long and tangled history with the death penalty, no state has moved to alter its lethal injection protocol. At the core of the issue is a debate about which matters more, the comfort of prisoners or that of the people who watch them die. A major obstacle to change is that alternative methods of lethal injection, though they might be easier on inmates, would almost certainly be harder on witnesses and executioners. With a different approach, death would take longer and might involve jerking movements that the prisoner would not feel but that would be unpleasant for others to watch. "Policy makers have historically considered the needs of witnesses in devising protocols" for execution, said Dr. Mark Dershwitz, a professor of anesthesiology at the University of Massachusetts who has testified about the drugs used in lethal injection. "There's an innumerably long list of medications that can be given to cause someone to die," Dr. Dershwitz said. But, he added, the emphasis on ensuring a speedy death may have prevented states from considering all the options. Deborah W. Denno, a Fordham University law professor who is an expert on execution methods, said speculation about whether any states would change their procedures was "the question of the moment." Professor Denno said some states might tinker with their procedures just enough to avoid court cases. And Dr. Jay Chapman, a forensic pathologist who created the nation's 1st lethal injection protocol, in Oklahoma in 1977, said that were he to do it once more, he would not recommend the 3-drug concoction now in widespread use. Instead, Dr. Chapman said, an overdose of one drug, a barbiturate - the method veterinarians use to end the lives of sick animals - would painlessly cause prisoners to lose consciousness, stop breathing and die. "Hindsight is always 20/20," he said. Even some opponents of the death penalty favor such a change in lethal injection technique, reasoning that if execution cannot be banned, it should at least be made more humane. Dr. Chapman's original approach, still the policy in the federal prison system and in most of the 37 death-penalty states that use lethal injection, calls for an overdose of a barbiturate, sodium thiopental, which causes unconsciousness and in sufficient doses can also halt breathing. The sodium thiopental is followed by two other drugs: pancuronium bromide, or Pavulon, which causes paralysis and halts breathing as well, and potassium chloride, which stops the heart within seconds. But opponents of lethal injection say that in some cases, the 2nd and 3rd drugs may cause severe suffering. They argue that the drugs may be mishandled because most doctors and nurses refuse to participate in executions, leaving the responsibility to people with less training. If the sodium thiopental did not work because the dose was too low, for example, or if the drugs were given in the wrong order, an inmate could still be conscious when the paralyzing drug and the potassium were injected. In that case, the paralyzing agent would cause a feeling of suffocation. And the potassium chloride would cause a burning sensation, muscle cramping and chest pain like that of a heart attack. The pain from the potassium would not last long: once the drug stopped the heart, the person would lose consciousness in 10 to 15 seconds, Dr. Dershwitz said. But while the pain lasted, the inmate would be paralyzed and unable to complain, and would appear serene to witnesses. Pavulon "gives a false sense of peacefulness," said Dr. David A. Lubarsky, chairman of anesthesiology at the University of Miami. Indeed, because drugs like Pavulon can mask suffering, many states outlaw them for animal euthanasia. Execution by barbiturate alone would take longer than the current method, Dr. Dershwitz said. Although prisoners would quickly lose consciousness and stop breathing, they could not be pronounced dead until electrical activity in the heart had stopped. That could take as long as 45 minutes. In addition, Dr. Dershwitz said, barbiturates could cause "significant involuntary jerking" that would be disturbing to witnesses even though an unconscious prisoner would not feel it. Intravenous barbiturates are not the only option, Dr. Dershwitz said. Drugs could also be injected into a muscle instead of a vein, to avoid another source of lawsuits: pain among inmates whose veins are hard to find. But injection into a muscle would take much longer to work than the intravenous method. Another possibility might be an oral dose of barbiturates, like those doctors in Oregon can prescribe to assist suicide of some terminally patients. But prisoners would have to swallow the pills, and Professor Denno said there had never been a procedure in which prisoners had been required to participate in their own executions, essentially agreeing to commit suicide. Dr. Chapman said that when he first proposed the three-drug technique, he imagined that it would be carried out by people with enough medical training to start intravenous lines, mix and measure the drugs, and give them in the right order. He was then Oklahoma's chief medical examiner, and came up with the formula at the request of a legislator who was looking for a humane alternative to the electric chair. His idea became law in Oklahoma and was also adopted by 36 other states. Once the lethal injection laws were passed, professional groups like the American Medical Association, state medical societies and associations for anesthesiologists and nurses quickly distanced themselves, saying it would be unethical for members to participate. That creates a Catch-22 in which the medical establishment refuses to perform lethal injections and yet says no one else is qualified to do so. Although some doctors and nurses do help in executions, lethal injection in many states is carried out by paramedics, technicians or other prison employees who do not have special training in anesthesia. Dr. Chapman said that his original protocol had called for enough barbiturate to cause death by itself and that he had added the Pavulon just as a backup, and the potassium chloride to speed the process by stopping the heart quickly. "I think the whole concept of execution is that it's carried out rapidly," he said. Whether inmates have actually felt pain or suffocation from lethal injection is not known with certainty. "I don't think any human has had a giant bolus of potassium chloride injected and then come back to chat about it," Dr. Lubarsky said. But in February a federal judge in California said execution records showed that some prisoners might have suffered. He gave the state 2 options: either a doctor had to be present to make sure a condemned inmate was unconscious before the 2nd and 3rd drugs were injected, or the execution had to be performed with sodium thiopental alone. California found 2 anesthesiologists who agreed to attend its next scheduled execution, of Michael Morales, a murderer. But both doctors later withdrew, and the state said it could not find other medical experts to help carry out the sentence. The execution has been postponed at least until September, when the court will examine the state's lethal injection protocol. In challenging the protocol, Mr. Morales's lawyer, the onetime Whitewater prosecutor Kenneth W. Starr, cited an article published last year in The Lancet, a British medical journal. The main author was Dr. Lubarsky. The researchers obtained toxicology reports on blood taken after death from 49 executed prisoners in four states, and found that 43 % had levels of sodium thiopental so low that they might have suffered during execution. "The data suggest that some people are awake," Dr. Lubarsky said. But other anesthesiology experts, even some who oppose the death penalty, have challenged the findings, saying many of the blood samples were taken too long after death to give a reliable measure of what the drug's level was during execution. Dr. Lubarsky acknowledged that the findings were being disputed and said he and his colleagues were doing additional research. "We may find that we're wrong," he said. "We'll continue to search for a better understanding of what's going on, one that will hopefully help inform and guide the discussion taking place around this issue." (source: The New York Times) ********************* Groups to Highlight Failures of the Death Penalty on 30th Anniversary of Gregg Decision News Advisory: -- Groups to Highlight Failures of the Death Penalty on 30th Anniversary of Gregg Decision -- United Methodist Church Marks 50th Anniversary of its Call to End Executions -- As part of Starvin' For Justice 2006; The 13th Annual Fast And Vigil To Abolish The Death Penalty At The U.S. Supreme Court WHO: United Methodist Church Bishop Ray Chamberlain, Amnesty International USA Executive Director Larry Cox, Death Row Survivors Gary Beeman, Kirk Bloodsworth, Shujaa Graham, Ron Keine, and Ray Krone, Murder Victim Family Members Bill Pelke and George White, and other leaders of various anti-death penalty organizations. WHAT: Press Conference WHEN: 10:30 a.m. Friday, June 30 WHERE: On the sidewalk in front of the United States Supreme Court in Washington, DC WHY: July 2, 2006 marks the 30th anniversary of the Gregg V. Georgia decision in which the United States Supreme Court upheld laws written to reinstate the death penalty after all death penalty laws were struck down by the Furman decision in 1972. Leaders of the anti-death penalty movement will speak out about recent developments regarding the issue, noting how the death penalty continues to fail as a public policy in the United States. Also, the United Methodist Church is this year marking the 50th anniversary of becoming the first major Christian denomination to call for the abolition of the death penalty in the United States. This press conference is part of the Annual Fast & Vigil to Abolish the Death Penalty at the US Supreme Court, wherein anti- death penalty activists will converge on Washington, D.C. from Thursday, June 29 through Sunday, July 2 for four days of activities commemorating the historic 1972 and 1976 Supreme Court rulings that suspended the death penalty in the United States and later allowed executions to resume. This is the 13th year in a row that the Abolitionist Action Committee has held its annual Fast and Vigil between the dates of these 2 landmark decisions. Activists, many of whom are fasting the entire 4 days, are travelling to Washington D.C. from across the United States and beyond. Highlights of this highly visual and interactive annual event include live music and evening teach-ins by death row survivors, murder victim family members, and noted activists and scholars. Please see details at http://www.abolition.org/starvin13.html The Abolitionist Action Committee is an ad-hoc group of individuals committed to highly visible and effective public education for alternatives to the death penalty through nonviolent direct action. Contact the AAC at: 800-973-6548, aac at abolition.org or Web: http://www.abolition.org Contact: Abe Bonowitz of the Abolitionist Action Committee, 561-371-5204 (cell), abe at abolition.org or David Elliot of the National Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty, 202-543-9577 ext. 16, 202-607-7036 (cell), delliot at ncadp.org or Bill Mefford, United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society, 202-488-5657 (source : U.S. Newswire) ******************************** Capital juries and legal-speak One of the premises of this column is that language is a source of delight, but a serious business, too. There are, after all, places where language is a matter of life and death. The deliberation room where a jury considers sentencing options in a capital case is one of them. I was reminded of this a few weeks ago while reporting on a national conference on the death penalty. One of the presenters remarked en passant that jurors passing sentence on a defendant found guilty of a capital crime are instructed to consider "mitigating" or "aggravating" factors. Quite often, he said, jurors don't really know what either of those words means. Hmm, I thought. I feel some research coming on. In 1972, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the death penalty, as then administered, was imposed so arbitrarily as to constitute "cruel and unusual punishment." As jurisprudence has evolved since, it's become clear that for a state to be "successful," if that's the word, in administering capital punishment, it must follow a very narrow path between arbitrariness on one side and inflexibility on the other hand. And jury instructions - which tell the citizens in the deliberation room how to consider "mitigating" and "aggravating" factors - have emerged as critically important. But they can be utterly baffling to jurors, researchers have found. This, for instance, is from a court in Illinois: "If you do not unanimously find from your consideration of all the evidence there are no mitigating factors sufficient to preclude imposition of a death sentence, then you should sign the verdict requiring the court to impose a sentence other than death." In lay terms: "To impose the death penalty, all jurors must agree that the defendant did something much worse than just plain murder." Actually, nationally known jury expert William Bowers told me the other day, jury instructions are written in language that is meant to be accessible - to other lawyers, that is. Judges are trying to "insulate themselves against legal challenges," as he put it - to avoid having verdicts overturned in higher courts. Thus they rely on instructions that follow closely the language of statutes themselves and the case law that grows out of them. But jurors don't know legal-speak, says Richard Wiener, a professor at the University of Nebraska who has studied juries. Perhaps worse, juries may think they know what given words mean when they don't. "Aggravation," for instance, is widely used to mean "irritation" or "annoyance." My dictionary tags this usage as "informal," though, and in the courtroom, "aggravate" is used in the stricter sense, "to make more serious." But jurors, considering "aggravating factors" in a capital case, are likely to think they're being asked whether they feel the victim did anything to annoy or provoke the defendant, Mr. Wiener reports. Similarly, legal experts say "mitigating" (lessening the gravity or culpability, or guilt, of an action) is often misinterpreted as referring to a factor that makes a crime worse. Here's how one of Wiener's research subjects defined "mitigating": "Psychologically thought through, like premeditated. Where you think about it beforehand and have it planned out - it's conceived." Wiener's recommendation: Lose the multiple negatives, cut the extra adjectives, and use flowcharts to show jurors where the case is in the legal process, and what options are available at each step. The actual language of a set of instructions can go back 50 or 100 years, Wiener notes, and customary usage changes over time. " 'Wantonly vile crime' - who talks like that?" Wiener asks rhetorically. "Maybe a hundred years ago people did, but no one does now." This weekly column appears with links at http://weblogs.csmonitor.com/verbal_energy. (source: The Christian Science Monitor) ********************************** Death penalty is outmoded response to violent crime The "Right to Life" is a term often associated with the abortion dilemma. Sadly, for many, that is its only association. Taken in its full meaning, "the right to life" is a statement recognizing that all life comes from God, and ultimately returns to God as God determines. We are responsible for the quality of the journey, not the beginning or end of it. This applies to the whole discussion currently taking place in our state centering on reinstituting the death penalty. I share with you my views, the majority view in the Catholic Church and the view held in several other religious communities. The death penalty is an outmoded response to violent crime. It is beneath us as persons, and as a society, to resort to killing the killer. It debases us and demeans our society, because it is our society taking part in the very behavior we abhor in others. Why is that the case? The answer to the why is best found in another question: "What kind of a world do you want to live in?" Do you want a world where violence leads to violence; where our best response to aggression is to strike back at the aggressor? Or do you want to live in a world where we not only teach our children to live with others; but we actually show them how to do it? It is our choice. Rejecting the death penalty is a way to reject violence as our personal and societal response to the violent. So much of our willingness to abandon the death penalty depends on what we view to be the purpose of our criminal justice system. Is it there to punish or rehabilitate? This is another debate that goes on forever and is argued on both sides, by any number of people of good will. However you come down on that question, the death penalty is neither punishment nor rehabilitation. Death does not rehabilitate. It is often the escape from the consequences of violent behavior, not the punishment of the behavior. Zacarias Moussaoui pleaded guilty to the 911 plot. Once he was sentenced to life in prison, he immediately wanted to reverse his plea. Osama bin Laden chimed in recently to announce that Moussaoui had no association with him. Of course, he did this only after Moussaouis commercial value to bin Laden was lost. There is no glory in being in prison for the rest of your life. The real deterrent and punishment is a life spent in a cell behind bars. Death is a release. What do we do in place of the death penalty? Life in prison, not 13 years, or 20 years, or 50 years or even 100 years. Life! Let me share an experience I had a few years ago, as a chaplain at All Saints. I was asked to see an 85 year old man. No other information about him was given to me. As I entered his room, the first thing I noticed was that he was chained to the bed and a guard was sitting next to him. I had seen that many times in younger people; but this man was 85 years old. Imagine being 85, sick and in the hospital, and not allowed to go to the bathroom alone. You are not allowed to move about at all. Your family cannot be notified that you are in the hospital, and so the only person who can visit you is the chaplain. Life in prison is a punishment, that I choose not to imagine, yet one that is so very appropriate for the very violent criminal and for our society. What about the cost of imprisoning someone for life? We are short of money in every aspect of our national life. We do not have enough resources to provide decent healthcare for our citizens, education goes begging and social programs are always being cut. Spend more money on people held in prison for life? Yes. Look at all we spend on violence and the terrible cost to us of this expenditure. We could take a small portion of that money and spend it on teaching the result of violence life without family, friends or future life spent in prison. (source: Commentary; Rev. William J. Dietzler is pastor of St. Paul the Apostle parish in Racine. Parson to Person is written by community religious leaders and coordinated by the Racine Clergy Association)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----IDAHO, KAN., CALIF., USA
Rick Halperin Fri, 23 Jun 2006 14:25:52 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)