Oct. 24 WISCONSIN: Yes: Some lives forfeit their value Every time there is a debate about the death penalty, the same tired arguments against it are brought up. Invariably, it is stated that the death penalty is not a deterrent to crime. This is silly. Even if the death penalty doesn't deter other people from committing torture or mass murder, it certainly deters the person who is executed - he or she won't be killing anyone else. The fear of executing an innocent person is always brought up. True, this is a possibility. However, with the number of appeals allowed in a capital punishment case (any one of which can stop the planned execution), the possibility of a pardon and the use of DNA evidence, the chance of this is virtually zero. I have always found it odd that anti-death penalty groups trot out wrongly convicted people from death row who ended up being cleared. These people are proof that the system does work, not the other way around. In fact, these people were freed specifically because they were on death row. It was the extreme care that the system takes to not execute an innocent person that ended up freeing them. The race card is always played during the discussion - the fact that more blacks end up on death row than whites. Of course, I will be called a racist for pointing this out, but blacks commit more violent crimes than whites based on their percentage of the population. However, it is rarely pointed out that blacks are the ones who suffer most from violence in the inner city. On the flip side, serial killers generally are middle-aged white males; few are minorities or women. These are just the facts of life in today's society. The most naive argument against the death penalty is: "We must remain morally superior." Executing a convicted murderer (or, I would argue, a repeat child molester) is being morally superior. The murderer killed innocent people; the death penalty executes a guilty person, with due process and numerous checks and balances to ensure the individual is guilty. The convicted person is neither tortured nor tormented; rarely does a crime victim get this sort of consideration. The morality argument also stems from a foolish desire to believe that we are not dealing with evil but rather with a misguided person who made a simple mistake. There is evil in the world, and there are evil people. I have no compassion for evil people; I reserve my compassion for their victims and the families of the victims. People who are truly evil need to be dealt with harshly in order to protect society from them. There are 2 groups of evil people we have to deal with: organized (terrorists, gang members, etc.) and disorganized (serial killers such as Jeffrey Dahmer, for example). No one in either of these groups should be treated like a 15-year-old boy who steals a candy bar. The shoplifter might be salvageable if he is scared straight, but the truly evil person has made his choice and will never be anything other than a threat to society and/or civilization. Those who are truly evil don't even belong in prison; they must be executed. In prison, they can continue their evil ways. It has been reported that al-Qaida recruits members in the U.S. prison system, which is fertile ground for the terrorist group to find evil people who can be converted to its twisted thinking. Even though a convicted terrorist may never take another free breath, he can still find an army of lost souls who eventually might have freedom to commit murder and terrorism. (source: Mark A. Sity of West Allis is a truck driver; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) ********************** No: Here's what we know In the past few months, I have been asked to speak several times as a lawyer and a minister about the proposal to reinstate the death penalty in Wisconsin. Here is what we know about the death penalty: We know that the death penalty is constitutional. In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court banned the death penalty as it was then administered by states. In 1976, after states implemented legislative changes, the court reinstated the death penalty. We know the death penalty is currently legal in 39 states. [my note----the death penalty is legal in 38 states] We know the death penalty is administered in a variety of ways - including lethal injection, the electric chair, the gas chamber, firing squad and hanging. We know that in 1853, Wisconsin outlawed the death penalty. We know the death penalty is ineffective in deterring crime. Studies comparing regions of the country have found that the South, in which most executions occur, has the highest murder rate. As a group, states that have the death penalty have a 42% higher murder rate than states that do not. We know the death penalty is unpredictable. It varies from state to state, county to county, judge to judge, jury to jury, black to white and rich to poor. We know the death penalty is profoundly racist. The majority of people currently on death row are black or Hispanic. Also, in a process called "black victim discounting," people are three times more likely to be sentenced to death for killing a white person than for killing a black person. We know the death penalty is not justified by traditional legal standards. The law allows the taking of a life in self-defense or defense of another when no other option is available. Since life without parole is an option, the self-defense justification does not apply to the deliberate decision of a state to choose death over the available option of life in prison. We know the death penalty is contrary to Christian traditions. The Bible, of course, is used on both sides of this debate. But I think it is most helpful to look at God's own mercy toward three high-profile murderers: Cain (Genesis 4:8-17), Moses (Exodus 2:11-15) and David (1 Samuel 11:1-21). Also, given Jesus' love for the poor and oppressed, it is hard to believe that he would abandon those on death row. We know that the death penalty can kill innocent people. Since 1973, more than 115 innocent people in 25 states have been released from death row. In 2000, Illinois released 13 innocent inmates during the same time period in which it had executed 12 people. By one standard, during that time the chances were better than 50-50 that Illinois would execute an innocent prisoner. That is what we know about the death penalty in general. The Wisconsin referendum question does nothing to end any of these problems. The requirement of DNA evidence is not the one that has been recommended in states that have the death penalty: a full and fair trial with competent counsel and an option for life without parole. I think most people know all of this. They know that the death penalty is ineffective, racist and unpredictable and kills innocent people. But many people still support the death penalty because they think some crimes are so terrible that the people who commit them deserve to die and that we can fix the problems in the system. They believe that we are smart enough to find a system that assures we will be safer, that will be predictable, that will eliminate the current racist imbalance and that will guarantee that an innocent person will never be put to death. But there is one more thing we know. We know that for the past 30 years, we have tried and failed to find a fair way to implement the death penalty. We are left with an ineffective, racist, unpredictable system thatcan kill innocent people. What is obvious is that any fair system for killing people in the name of the State of Wisconsin is simply beyond our capacity to design. As a minister, I would not presume to tell you how to vote on this issue. I will tell you that to believe the death penalty can be used in a way that is fair and foolproof is sinful human arrogance. (source: Rev. Jerry Hancock is an attorney and director of the Prison Ministry Project at First Congregational United Church of Christ in Madison. He is former administrator in the state Department of Justice; Milwaukee Journal Sentinel) *************** Doyle: Death penalty proposal flawed ----But UW profs differ, say DNA provision is constitutional Gov. Jim Doyle says the death penalty referendum as stated on the Nov. 7 ballot would be unconstitutional if enacted by the Legislature. The advisory question on the ballot asks: "Should the death penalty be enacted in Wisconsin for cases involving a person who is convicted of first-degree intentional homicide, if the conviction is supported by DNA evidence?" "I hope people are understanding that this DNA distinction is really nonsense," Doyle said during a meeting with The Capital Times Editorial Board on Monday. The governor, who has served as the state's attorney general and as Dane County district attorney, said such decisions cannot be based on the type of evidence involved. "I think it is pretty clearly unconstitutional to say that you can get the death penalty - you can be put to death - if you have left some tiny drop of substance that can be traced to DNA, even though it is a fight and there is a question of self-defense or something, whereas a cold-blooded hit man who wears gloves and completely stays away from DNA and it's a murder for hire doesn't get it," Doyle said. "I think any legal scholar who looks at that would conclude" the same thing, he added. It turns out, however, that some do and some don't. "You can never have a violation of constitutional rights because someone was not punished for something or did not receive a certain punishment. Leniency is never a violation of constitutional rights," said Howard Schweber, an associate professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an affiliate faculty member at the UW Law School. "Here we are talking about people who are convicted already, so there's no issue of allowing some criminals to be punished on the basis of lesser proof, which would be a due process problem. But if the state is requiring a certain level of proof and type of proof because they thought it to be more reliable, this is the equivalent of being extra certain." UW Law Professor Frank Tuerkheimer, who specializes in evidence and works on death penalty cases on a pro bono basis, also sees no constitutional impediment to the DNA clause "when its imposition depends on assurances of great reliability and the accuracy of a jury verdict." Nevertheless, he questioned using DNA in this manner, because it might be flawed in some way, for instance with botched procedures. "It's not unconstitutional, but it may not be the wisest way to go," Tuerkheimer said. Donald Downs, a professor of political science, law and journalism at UW-Madison, said the proposal would likely be constitutional. "The U.S. Supreme Court has held that the death penalty can be used in first-degree intentional homicide," he said. "It would be unconstitutional if it were interpreted to mean that DNA evidence alone would be sufficient. You would also have to look at mitigating and aggravating evidence as required by the Supreme Court, and have a unanimous jury decision and the right of appeal." Since DNA evidence would establish a further limiting condition when applied to the death penalty - a further requirement for the state to meet - it would be constitutional, Downs said. But Andrea Lyon, associate dean for clinical programs at DePaul University College of Law in Chicago, said the provision would likely not meet constitutional standards. "There is no evidence that DNA has any connection to the crime at all," Lyon said. She pointed out, for instance, that if a man's wife is murdered in their bedroom, his DNA would be present. "There is no legal reason to differentiate between an intentional first-degree murder without DNA and one with," Lyon said. "It has to follow U.S. Supreme Court narrowing or aggravating factors. The Eighth Amendment versus cruel and unusual punishment requires heightened reliability, and also requires a narrowing function because it cannot apply to every first-degree murder. The narrowing function has to make some kind of sense. "Imagine 2 equally awful rape murders, 1 person uses a (condom) and 1 doesn't. Why would one get the death penalty and one not? The real reason for the DNA on the referendum is so people feel we would not convict innocent people. It is there for political comfort, not as a constitutional death penalty scheme." Constitutionality aside, several experts have suggested that DNA evidence is not foolproof. Others question the death penalty itself, saying that it has been applied in a discriminatory and arbitrary way. Those who support the death penalty, however, say that it deters murderers and is the only appropriate way to punish heinous crimes. The death penalty referendum also marks a clear distinction between Doyle and his Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Mark Green, who supports capital punishment. If the referendum is approved by the voters of the state, the Legislature would likely consider the death penalty issue. But if a bill passes, it could be vetoed by the governor. "It is one of those issues...where it would make a big difference who is governor," Doyle said. (source: The Capital Times) FLORIDA----new death sentences Man gets death penalty for ambushing sheriff's deputy in Florida In Taveres, a man who claimed Satan and drugs led him to ambush and kill a sheriff's deputy has been sentenced to death. Circuit Judge T. Michael Johnson ruled Monday that Jason Lee Wheeler, 31, should be executed for the February 2005 killing of Lake County Deputy Sheriff Wayne Koester. He and other deputies were responding to a domestic violence call from Wheeler's girlfriend as he allegedly waited in the woods with a sawed-off shotgun. Wheeler escaped after the attack, sparking a daylong manhunt in the Ocala National Forest. He was found in the woods 6 miles (10 kilometers) from his home in rural Lake County. He was shot during his capture and was paralyzed from the chest down. Jurors found Wheeler guilty on May 20 of using a firearm to commit 1st-degree murder of a law enforcement officer and 4 other charges, including 2 counts of attempted murder with a firearm of a law enforcement officer. The same jury recommended the death penalty. "I honestly wanted life," said Koester's 15-year-old daughter, Amber. "No child should lose their dad. No child should ever have to go through what my brother and I have had to go through losing our dad." Other family members and Koester's colleagues were glad Wheeler was sentenced to die. "He would have taken four people's lives if he could have," Koester's father, James, said. Wheeler sent a 5-page letter to Johnson in July that said Satan was on a mission to destroy him. "I was so caught up in drugs and sin, I didn't see it that way. I thought it was just a streak of bad luck," he wrote. "I look back now and say to myself, I would give anything to go back and change that day. Well, once again, I would be wrong because that day wasn't what needed changing." Wheeler's attorney, Assistant Public Defender William Grossenbacher, had argued that sending Wheeler to prison for life in a wheelchair was punishment enough. The case will automatically be appealed. (source: Associated Press) ****************** Jury recommends death penalty for Ecuadorean man convicted of 4 slayings In Bartow, a jury recommended the death penalty Tuesday for an Ecuadorean businessman convicted of the 1997 slayings of 4 people. A jury came back after less than 2 hours of deliberating with a 9-3 majority recommending that Nelson Ivan Serrano, 68, get the death penalty for all 4 counts of 1st-degree murder. He had previously been found guilty in the shooting deaths of a former business partner and 3 bystanders at a Bartow garment conveyor factory. Frank Dosso, 35; his sister and brother-in-law, Diane Patisso, 28 and George Patisso, Jr., 26; and his father's business partner, George Gonsalves, 69; were all shot to death on Dec. 3, 1997, at the factory. It was the worst mass slaying in Polk County history. "We have been sitting here for 12 weeks. Mr. Serrano had a decision on December 1997 to walk away," said George Patisso Sr., whose son and daughter-in-law were killed in the shootings. "Now he will pay." Serrano denied involvement in the killings, telling investigators he was in Atlanta on business at the time. Defense attorneys said there was absolutely no physical evidence connecting Serrano to the slayings and no proof he was even in Polk County on the night of the slayings. Prosecutors told jurors rage over being ousted drove Serrano to mastermind an elaborate plot to kill Gonsalves and leave himself with an alibi almost 500 miles (800 kilometers) away. Dosso and the Patissos were killed because they got in the way, prosecutors said. Wallace said that Serrano's actions were cold, calculated and premeditated and deserving of the ultimate punishment. During closing arguments, Wallace reminded the jury of the 4 victims, including Diane Patisso, a Polk County prosecutor. "She did not know her brother and husband were dead. She was only picking them up because they did not have a ride that afternoon," Wallace said. "She is the only person that stood between him and freedom. She saw his face." (source: Associated Press) VIRGINIA: A round of second-guessing is due Virginians in jails or prisons cannot obtain public documents available to others. Whether in a Virginia supermax prison or sleepy county jail, cell doors protect society from criminals. Yet reports of egregious prison conditions, of innocent inmates wasting away on death row and other penal injustices show the reverse isn't always true. Who protects criminals, real and alleged, from the inevitable failings that occur when society locks them away? One tool for inmates to use to protect themselves has been taken away. A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging a troubling Virginia law that prevents inmates from using the state's Freedom of Information Act to obtain public documents. The judge refused to second-guess legislators who passed the 1997 law. A round of second-guessing is due. Although any other Virginian can get copies of most public records, the statute denies such rights "to any person incarcerated in a state, local or federal correctional facility." Legislators apparently believed the law would stop inmates from "clogging the system with frivolous FOIA requests designed to annoy state workers and burden the system with paperwork." Of course, FOIA filings by tenacious reporters and ordinary citizens also frequently annoy state workers and cause paperwork burdens. Tough. State agencies can require filers to pay copying costs, a reality sure to discourage often penniless prisoners. Who decides, anyway, whether a request is frivolous? State inmate Joseph Giarratano has hepatitis C, a potentially deadly disease often spread in prison populations. In 2005, he requested, unsuccessfully, copies of prison hepatitis C treatment protocols. Later, his FOIA request for the protocols was denied based on the 1997 law. U.S. District Court Judge James Jones' ruling last week dismissed complaints that the law violated Giarratano's constitutional rights. The American Civil Liberties Union plans to appeal Jones' decision. Jones said state legislators face no obligation to prove inmates file frivolous FOIA requests. Legislators are due deference in such matters, he ruled. With due deference, then, legislators should craft a less prohibitive law -- one that might simply limit the number of FOIAs each prisoner can file per year, or allow FOIAs inquiring about medical treatment or other vital issues. If inmates review the documents and respond with lawsuits, so be it. They have that right. Prison bars protect us from them. A just society will ensure prisoners have some ability to protect themselves from injustice behind those bars. (source: Editorial, Roanoke Times) OHIO----new execution date Top court sets execution date for woman's killer In Columbus, the Ohio Supreme Court on Monday set a December execution date for a man convicted of raping and killing a Cincinnati woman more than 20 years ago. Jerome Henderson is scheduled to die Dec. 5 for the 1985 slaying of Mary Acoff, 26. Henderson, 45, was convicted of aggravated murder, burglary and attempted rape in the attack on Acoff. Acoff had fought with her attacker and was beaten and repeatedly stabbed. Her body was found in her apartment. In July 2003, U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel set Henderson's death sentence aside based on an appeal of his conviction because of faulty instructions to the jury. In June, a 3-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati overturned that ruling. Earlier this month the appeals court denied Henderson's request for a hearing by the full court. Lawyers had also previously challenged Henderson's conviction on the basis that 2003 DNA testing found no evidence of semen in Acoff's body. (source: Associated Press) NEW JERSEY: NJ court axes new death penalty rules New Jersey prosecutors no longer have to prove a defendant is mentally fit to be executed, the state Supreme Court ruled Tuesday. The decision shifts the burden of proving mental retardation to defendants trying to avoid death penalty, putting New Jersey in line with most other states. The ruling likely won't affect any of the state's nine death row inmates anytime soon. New Jersey reinstated the death penalty in 1982 but has a moratorium on executions while a legislative panel evaluates capital cases. Its last execution was in 1963. Tuesday's decision stemmed from the case of Porfirio Jimenez, a Honduran day laborer in prison on charges he sexually assaulted a 10-year-old boy before murdering him in 2001. Jimenez's lawyers claimed he was mentally retarded, with an IQ of 68. A 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling declared executing mentally retarded criminals to be a violation of the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment, but it left it to states to decide whether the burden of proof about a defendant's mental status lies with the prosecution or defense. In its ruling Tuesday, the New Jersey high court's majority likened a claim of mental retardation to a claim of insanity, which is considered an "affirmative defense" and has to be proved by the defendant. Justices Barry T. Albin and Virginia Long dissented, arguing that placing the burden of proof on the defendant to show mental retardation would increase the chance of wrongly executing a mentally retarded person. Every other state that has addressed the issue has determined a defendant should bear the burden of proof to prove mental retardation. Twelve states do not have death penalties. Susan Remis Silver, one of Jimenez's public defenders, said the decision was disappointing. "Our client's life hangs in the balance and this decision widens the margin of error that a mentally retarded defendant will be executed in New Jersey," she said. (source: Associated Press) ***************** Death-penalty study begs the real question A study commissioned by the state Supreme Court has found that a large number of Central Jersey counties, including Middlesex, are more likely to pursue the death penalty than counties in either the north or south. The study found that these mid-state counties seek the death penalty in half of all eligible cases, a number far higher than in either Essex or Camden counties, the counties with the highest number of eligible capital cases. The Supreme Court commissioned the study because it is trying to determine whether the job of deciding to pursue the death penalty ought to be given to the state Attorney General's Office rather than individual county prosecutors. The unevenness with which the death penalty is applied is one of the primary arguments against using it. Ironically, no one who argued in front of the justices in light of the study even the Attorney General's Office itself thought that handing the decision to the state was the answer to the problem. Neither does this page. The study seems to point to the ongoing problems with the death penalty, rather than to elucidate a solution. Individual prosecutors certainly are an instrument of unevenness; but while a centralized authority erases individual idiosyncrasies, it cannot guarantee objectivity. State officers also are human and therefore subject to the same passions, prejudices and blindness as their county counterparts. The problem with the death penalty is that the severity and finality of the sentence demands perfection; as humans, we are unable to guarantee that level of certainty. (source: Home News Tribune) KENTUCKY: Family, police ask parole board to keep deputy's killer in prison A prosecutor, police officers and the parents of murdered Fayette County deputy sheriff Joseph Angelucci asked the state's parole board today to keep Angelucci's killer locked up for the next 102 years. Witnesses praised Angelucci as a hard-working lawman and a devoted son who was protecting the community when he was gunned down 18 years ago. They portrayed the murderer, William Bennett, as a threat to society. Joyce Angelucci said her son "gave his all, gave his life ... . And a part of me also died." The thought that Bennett can seek early release "has haunted me night and day for 18 years," she said. "It seems so unfair that a convicted killer is permitted to leave a jail cell and go before a parole board such as you and ask to be released early, for whatever reason, before he has served the sentence that was imposed on him by the court. The innocent person that he murdered can never leave the cemetery. He cannot go before any board and ask for early release from his grave. He is there forever." Several Fayette County deputies, in uniform, stood along the back wall while Angelucci spoke, their badges draped in black. During the 50-minute hearing, board members sat attentively while Fayette County Sheriff Kathy Witt, Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Larson and others urged them to keep Bennett behind bars. Board members expressed sympathy for the Angeluccis but had no questions about the case. Deputy Angelucci was attempting to take Bennett, a mildly retarded and delusional paranoid schizophrenic, to a mental institution on Nov. 4, 1988, when the shooting occurred. Bennett, who already had been committed three times, didn't want to be locked up again. So he struggled with Angelucci, took away the deputy's gun and shot him one time, witnesses said. The 24-year-old deputy was taken to Good Samaritan Hospital, where he clung to life for nearly three weeks. He died Nov. 23, the night before Thanksgiving. Hundreds of Lexingtonians donated blood or sent get-well cards or helped keep vigil at the hospital. Nearly 400 law enforcement officers attended Angelucci's funeral. Prosecutors sought the death penalty. A jury found Bennett guilty, but mentally ill, of wanton murder. They sentenced him to an indeterminate sentence of up to 120 years in prison. Today's hearing in Frankfort was limited to Angelucci's friends, family and colleagues. On Thursday, Bennett will have the opportunity to testify in La Grange during a videoconference hearing. In an interview with the Herald-Leader on Friday, Bennett claimed to be Howard Hughes and Col. Sanders, a bank owner, a restaurateur and the founder of the 1st mental hospital in France. Bennett also said he does not want to be paroled, believing that the board should simply release him from prison. On Friday, Bennett said he did not intend to meet the board. However, if he changes his mind, he will have the opportunity to speak on his own behalf, board officials said. 2 board members, M. Douglas Gibson of Elizabethtown and Verman Ray Winburn of Simpsonville, will decide Bennett's fate. If they disagree with each other, the matter will be decided by the full 7-member board. The board rejected parole for Bennett when it met 6 years ago. It has the power to release him, to defer a decision or to order him to serve the complete sentence. Today, a board member said Bennett apparently is not represented by an attorney. In a recent interview, Joyce Angelucci, 80, vowed to speak out against Bennett's release for as long as she lives. But she worried what would happen after she and her husband, former Fayette Circuit Judge Armand Angelucci, 86, die. She said she hopes the board will rule out the possibility of parole for Bennett, so she and her husband can have closure. Witt, the Fayette County sheriff, says opposition to Bennett's release won't end any time soon. "We'll be back. We'll be back as long as we're living and breathing and able to come," she said. (source: Herald-Leader) *************** Public defenders in state stretched thin despite hirings Just a few years ago, the more than 30 defendants who needed public defenders on a recent day in Bullitt County courtrooms would have been a huge problem for attorney Rebecca Murrell. Until 2003, she made up the county's entire public defender's office. "4 years ago, I would have covered every single case on the docket by myself," said Murrell, who opened about 900 cases in 2002, more than double the national caseload standards for public advocates. But since then, the state has opened a full-time office in Shepherdsville, which Murrell runs, and recently hired its 6th and 7th public defenders to cover Bullitt, Spencer and Nelson counties. So Murrell now can share the load, creating what she describes as "a night and day difference" in the time she can spend with each defendant. The same difference is being seen throughout Kentucky, where the hiring of public defenders has resulted in the average number of cases handled by each attorney dropping for the third straight year, according to statistics compiled and recently released by the state Department of Public Advocacy. Last year Kentucky legislators allocated money to hire 21 attorneys for the state public defender's office. This year the legislature approved $6.2 million over the next two fiscal years for another 36 lawyers. (The starting salary is $37,522 a year.) Those 36 attorneys -- along with six others funded through a federal drug grant out of the University of Kentucky -- started last month and are spreading out across the state's 30 field offices, bringing the total number of public defenders to more than 350. "I think we've made significant progress," said Ernie Lewis, head of the Department of Public Advocacy. "We're trending in the right direction." Even so, the overall number of cases handled by the department rose in the last fiscal year, for the seventh consecutive time -- a jump of more than 40,000 cases since 2000. As a result, Kentucky still exceeds the national standards recommended by the National Legal Aid and Defender Association -- to open no more than 400 misdemeanor cases a year, or no more than 150 felony or 200 juvenile cases per year. Lewis said each public defender in Kentucky opens an average of 468 cases a year, a mix of misdemeanors, felonies and juvenile cases. The goal is to get below 400 cases. 'They saved my life' The state's latest report has attorneys in Murrell's office handling more than 530 cases a year, largely because the caseload there in the last year has grown more than 22 %-- 2nd in the state only to Pike County. "We are still a work in progress," Murrell said, citing the booming population in Spencer, increased focus on drug arrests and rising number of indictments in Bullitt as reason for the growth. Besides that office, 5 other regional field offices averaged more than 500 cases per attorney: Jefferson, Boone, Hopkinsville, Murray and Bell counties. "You simply can't be an effective public defender if your caseloads are too high," Lewis said. That was Torre Wilson's fear in 2004 when he was assigned a public defender to represent him on a charge of rape. "I was worried I'd just get left behind," said Wilson, a 26-year-old Louisville resident who could not afford a private attorney. But Wilson said public defender Ann Bailey Smith's work the last two years was "excellent" and led to his jury acquittal on Oct.13. "I was looking at 25 to life," Wilson said of his potential sentence. "They saved my life." The current budget has allowed the state department to add three new social workers for pilot projects -- in Covington, Owensboro and Morehead -- that are designed to find alternatives for incarceration, such as drug treatment. Renae Tuck, directing attorney of the Bowling Green office, said the goal is to get social workers in every office. "Most of our clients have drug problems," said Tuck, whose office has a social-work intern. "Social workers can look for treatment and do things that attorneys don't have time to do. If our clients had other alternatives or knew where to go, we might not see them again." A vital role in courts In all, public defenders represent about 80 % to 90 % of the people indicted in Kentucky, including all death-row inmates, Lewis said. "We couldn't operate without them," said Jefferson Circuit Court Judge Geoffrey Morris. "Even given their caseload, they are as good if not better than 90 % of criminal defense lawyers." The only problem, Morris said, is that often "they have so many cases they don't have the time to work them as well as a private attorney." With more than 32,000 cases, the public defender's office in Louisville had by far the most defendants in the state -- an increase of about 6 % over last year, according to recently released statistics. They also had the most cases per attorney -- more than 600. But the office also is an example of the improvements being made. The office received nine new attorneys this fall, giving it more than 60 total, so the caseload for each public defender should go down, said Dan Goyette, executive director of the office. "This no doubt helps and will make a significant impact, but it's a continuing problem," Goyette said. (source: Courier-Journal)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----WIS., FLA., VA., OHIO, N.J., KY.
Rick Halperin Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:14:45 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
