Oct. 1 NEW YORK: Homespun Injustice The idea of a village judge sounds appealing, like a Mayberry elder perhaps, or a folksy, no-nonsense justice of the peace. But a Times series by William Glaberson has revealed the appalling ways some of New Yorks hometown justices really work. These part-time judges most of whom are not lawyers have been known to jail people without a plea or a trial. They have removed people from their homes improperly or made racist or sexist comments. They have kept courtrooms closed to the public and skewed rulings for friends; one let a rape suspect out of jail as a favor. As one justice explained: "I just follow my own common sense. And the hell with the law." Even a defendant faced with a speeding ticket deserves a fair and legal proceeding no matter where. Some states, like California and Delaware, have added resources and toughened educational requirements for community courts. But New York has resisted any real reform of its 1,250 justice courts for almost a century, and for one main reason: they're golden. They provide jobs or extra income and the fines and fees bring in lots of money. So although only about 400 of New York's 2,300 justices are certified lawyers, a local justice needs only 1 week's training to start the job. There is no rule that the proceedings have to be recorded, making complaints more difficult. And there is no systematic way to tell whether that $100 traffic fine actually went into the town treasury. The best reform, already in practice on Long Island, would consolidate caseloads and use only full-time, trained judges. Until the day of that reform, New Yorks chief judge, Judith Kaye, should proceed swiftly with improvements of these grass-roots courts. Among the best would be to standardize records for court proceedings and collecting fines. Additionally, and here is where New York's next governor will come in, the Commission on Judicial Conduct desperately needs help. Over the last 30 years, the group charged with investigating judicial conduct has been whittled to a staff of 29 facing over 1,500 complaints. Even in the tiny justice courts, defendants deserve protection for their basic legal rights. (source: Editorial, New York Times) MARYLAND: Families, experts talk death penalty at the Mount Nothing about Shannon Shieber suggested her life would be anything but happy and successful. By the time she was 18 months old, Shannon could recite the entire alphabet; she was a straight-A student and National Merit Scholar finalist; she graduated from Duke University in 3 years despite a triple-major; and at only 23 years old, Shannon had entered the Ph.D. program at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania on a full scholarship. "Shannon was a gift beyond anything you could possibly believe," said her mother, Vicki Shieber. "Everything about her was not only brilliant, but beautiful." In May 1998, a serial rapist pried open the balcony door to Shannon's brownstone apartment in Philadelphia, raped her and strangled her to death. Ms. Shieber was a speaker Saturday at a conference on the death penalty at Mount St. Mary's University in Emmitsburg titled "Witness and Action: Christian Responses to the Death Penalty in Maryland." Although the mother of a murder victim, Ms. Shieber told conference attendees how her religious background, and the principles she raised Shannon on, necessitated mercy and forgiveness, not vengeance, when the killer was apprehended. Ms. Shieber said people would ask her, "Don't you love your daughter?" and "Don't you want him put to death?" when they found out she only wanted life in prison without parole. But, steadfast in her faith, Ms. Shieber said her morals prevented such desires. "(The Lord's Prayer says) forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us," she said. "It never came to life until we had to live through this." The conference, which featured exonerated death row inmates, chaplains and authors, was organized by Dr. Trudy Conway, a professor of philosophy and the faculty moderator for the student group Campaign to End the Death Penalty at Mount St. Mary's. Ms. Conway said the conference was the result of a more than 2-year conversation on campus about the moral and ethical effects of the death penalty. All opinions, from support to dissent, were welcomed in the debate, Ms. Conway said, and the overall goal was to encourage students to become active in social justice issues. "We view it as encouraging our students to develop the vocation of responsible citizenship," she said. Speakers peppered their remarks with comments on how, morally, the death penalty cannot be sanctioned by religious ethics. T-shirts on sale in the lobby of Marion Burke Knott Auditorium proclaimed "Being 'Pro-Life' also means being against executions." Dale Recinella, a Catholic lay chaplain for Florida's death row inmates and the author of "The Biblical Truth about America's Death Penalty," said the Bible is frequently misinterpreted as supporting the death penalty through oft-mentioned scripture such as "an eye for an eye." The Bible, Mr. Recinella said, shows a pattern of different responses to murderers, including exile, repentance and conversion. Some of the Bible's heroes, including David, Moses and Saul, also committed murder, Mr. Recinella said. "(The Bible's) a revelation of an entirely different response, where vengeance is for the Lord alone," he said. "The death penalty does not give anything to anybody." The entire schema of the death penalty debate has to be changed, Mr. Recinella said, by engaging its advocates to show it is an imperfect system that will result in immorality -- namely, the sacrifice of innocent lives in the service of an unattainable ideal of poorly identified justice. "We need for faith and reason to be brought to this so the people can make morally reasonable choices," he said. "It's a system that is human You can't have the American death penalty without killing some innocent people." (source: Frederick News-Post) WISCONSIN: Bring back the death penalty? ---- Yes: It's an option for heinous crimes As the conservative law enforcement professional running for attorney general, I was approached to write this piece regarding the upcoming death penalty referendum that will also be on the ballot this November. I believe we should give prosecutors the option of seeking the death penalty in cases where there is DNA evidence to prove guilt. However, before I speak to the issue of the death penalty, it's important I make the following point. The office of attorney general is not that of a lawmaker. I am seeking this post to enforce the laws of Wisconsin, not to change them. My opponent, having never prosecuted a criminal before, may have different ideas regarding the scope and limits of attorney general. However, I would suggest if she wishes to be an advocate for or against changes in current law, she should have run for governor, as she did 4 years ago. The contest this fall for attorney general does not pit a liberal activist against a conservative activist. It pits a conservative law enforcement professional who has front-line experience dealing with criminals and their victims against a liberal politician and social activist. I'm not much of a social activist. But I don't shy away from my belief that prosecutors in Wisconsin should be given the option to pursue the death penalty, and I am willing to explain why. I have long believed that the death penalty should be an option before Wisconsin juries who find individuals guilty of the most heinous crimes. As a former federal prosecutor, I know that this option is not something to be taken lightly. Some crimes are so brutal and inhumane that the only punishment that truly fits the crime is a death sentence. As a prosecutor who has dealt with violent criminals on the local and federal level, I have seen and heard firsthand from families who had loved ones killed by heartless, vicious murderers. How can these families receive justice? I have little pity for those who commit heinous, murderous acts. While it is true that we all face the ultimate judge after our demise, during our time on this Earth, it is up to society to mete out justice. The death penalty is the ultimate form of justice for the most heinous murders. Personally, I am not sure that the death penalty is a deterrent. But if we put a murderer to death and there is no deterrent effect, we have still put one murderer to death. Regardless of whether there is a deterrent affect, I do believe it is the ultimate in retribution, which undeniably is a key component of justice. This year, thanks to the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 5, there is an advisory referendum on the question of enacting the death penalty in this state, as the Legislature may prescribe by law for cases involving a person who is convicted of multiple of first-degree intentional homicides, if the homicides are vicious and the convictions are supported by DNA evidence. If the referendum passes, Wisconsin would not be alone. Capital punishment is legal in 38 states and is an option for federal prosecutors as well. I believe the sentence should only be applied when there is DNA evidence to corroborate the verdict. I believe when DNA evidence supports a jury's verdict and when the crime involves murder of law enforcement, multiple homicides, or sexual assault and torture, the death penalty should be an option. While I support the death penalty, I am aware that it is not without controversy. Society can and indeed does make the distinction between the value of the lives of the innocent and guilty. But beyond that moral question, the death penalty would bring practical changes to the criminal justice system here. I do not anticipate the option will be exercised a great deal; therefore, I do not anticipate an increased burden on the appellate courts. However, there would be a need for specialized personnel in our correctional system to deal with death row inmates, for example. I believe we should allow the citizens in this state to have a voice on this issue, and the only way is a statewide referendum. The vote on Nov. 7 empowers the citizens to voice their opinion on this matter. I don't fear giving citizens the right to speak out. Despite the modest additional costs associated with having the death penalty, I will be voting "yes" at the ballot box. Again, I'm not an activist, I'm not a crusader. I am a law enforcement professional. I am a prosecutor. As such, it is my fellow prosecutors who would benefit from having the option of pursuing the death penalty. (source: J.B. Van Hollen is the Republican candidate for Wisconsin attorney general; The Milawaukee Journal Sentinel) ******************** Bring back the death penalty? ---- No: It's troublesome and doesn't work This November, when voters go to the polls, they will be faced with many tough decisions. Local, state and federal races fill the ballot, but voters will also be asked to tell the state Legislature to consider reversing a 155-year-old ban on the death penalty. Being raised in Milwaukee, I was taught from a young age that taking another human life is not moral. And over the course of my life, I studied this issue carefully. First, the death penalty does not deter heinous crimes. Studies have shown the death penalty simply does not prevent crime. Second, it is an extremely expensive process involving endless amounts of litigation and appeals. In this time of scant resources, we need to spend our dollars getting dangerous people off the streets and putting them behind bars, not on lawyers and appeals. Additionally, reports indicate that the death penalty disproportionately affects people of color - more than 40% of those sentenced to die are African-Americans, while African-Americans account for only 12% of the population. Fourth, even with DNA evidence, mistakes happen and innocent people die. Studies show that nearly a dozen people were executed in one state alone due to contaminated DNA evidence. And a Republican governor in Illinois put a moratorium on the death penalty due to concerns over the system, the cost and innocent lives. I was an assistant attorney general for 14 years. I know the Department of Justice, and I don't want the lawyers using all of their time doing endless amounts of death penalty appeals. I want them spending their time working on more important things, like getting dangerous criminals off our streets. These important facts weigh heavily on my decision. Given this information, I do not support creating a death penalty in Wisconsin. Rather, as your attorney general, I will focus my time, efforts and resources to reducing crime through measures that actually work - and that put criminals behind bars, where they belong. 122 murders in Milwaukee - a city I was born in and love - is simply unacceptable. Gang members are younger, more violent; more and more of them are girls, and they are funded by drugs. As attorney general, I will use currently untapped laws, such as the Wisconsin Organized Crime Control Act, to prosecute gang members and put them behind bars. Gangs are a form of organized crime, and it is about time we started treating them as such. The organized crime statute provides stiffer and stronger penalties for gang members who commit crimes. As attorney general, I will use this law to crack down on the violent crime that is terrorizing our neighborhoods - preventing mayhem before it occurs instead of waiting for tragedy. As attorney general, I pledge to be right here in Milwaukee one day a week, working side by side with law enforcement officials, prosecutors, local and community leaders, parents and teachers. We can do better. Yet there is more. As some neighborhoods right here in Milwaukee have seen, there are too many criminals on the streets because of the delay at the crime lab. I will reprioritize resources in the Department of Justice, just as I have done as Dane County executive - to fix the backlog at the crime lab. Our law enforcement officers and prosecutors need these test results so they can charge and convict criminals, and seek justice for victims and their families. I have the experience and the record of reprioritizing resources to create efficiencies and meet our most pressing needs. These are real solutions to real problems. And I can offer these solutions because I have spent my life and my career fighting on behalf of Wisconsin citizens. The Nov. 7 ballot includes an advisory referendum: "Should the death penalty be enacted in the State of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?" Crossroads asked the major-party candidates for attorney general to comment. (source: Kathleen Falk is the Democratic candidate for Wisconsin attorney general. The Nov. 7 ballot will include an advisory referendum: "Should the death penalty be enacted in the State of Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of 1st-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?" Crossroads asked the 2 candidates for attorney general to share their perspectives----The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) INDIANA: Judge rules convicted killer immune from death penalty A man accused of killing 6 women is mentally retarded and cannot be sentenced to the death penalty, a judge has ruled. Eugene Victor Britt already is serving a sentence of life in prison without parole in the murder of 8-year-old Sarah Paulsen of Portage. Friday's ruling by Lake Criminal Court Judge Salvador Vasquez could open the door for Britt to appeal that sentence. "If he wants to make trouble on that old case, he could say his attorney was defective in not pursuing the mental-retardation issue or by allowing him to plead guilty," said Merrillville attorney Thomas Vanes, who is not involved in the case. Britt, 49, of Gary, is scheduled to go to trial Oct. 10 in the June 1995 murder of 14-year-old Nakita Moore. He has pleaded not guilty. However, during a hearing in November 1995 in Porter Superior Court, Britt confessed to killing Moore and others. Vasquez ruled in July that Britt's confession was admissible. On Friday, Vasquez ruled that Britt was mentally retarded and could not be sentenced to death or life without parole under Indiana law. Despite the judge's ruling, Lake County Prosecutor Bernard Carter insisted Friday that Britt is not mentally retarded. "Britt is not retarded. You can ask anybody in the jail," he said. Carter said he was considering whether to appeal Vasquez's ruling. Britt has been examined by mental health experts repeatedly with conflicting results. Most recently, one psychologist said Britt was mentally retarded while another said he believed Britt was faking. (source: Associated Press)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----N.Y., MD., WIS., IND.
Rick Halperin Sun, 1 Oct 2006 14:51:16 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
