Oct. 25 INDIANA: Death penalty sought in Dolton murder----Victim was working with FBI when shot to death A man accused of killing an FBI informant during a Dolton weapons sting in May could face the death penalty if convicted. A Cook County state's attorney spokeswoman said her office has filed the necessary paperwork to seek the death penalty for Jerry T. Henderson, 35, of Alsip. Henderson, charged with first-degree murder and armed robbery, faces trial in the killing of Timothy Forrest, 41, of Dolton on May 17. Forrest, who wore a surveillance wire, was shot twice in the head while meeting with a suspected arms dealer outside the Dolton Animal Hospital at 15022 Lincoln in Dolton near Sibley Boulevard. As FBI agents waited at a nearby gas station, Forrest was shot twice. FBI agents reacted when the suspect they were monitoring got out of the car and ran from the scene. When agents approached the vehicle, they saw that Forrest had been shot and $15,000 was missing. Forrest was pronounced dead a short time later. The state's attorney spokeswoman said if the jury chooses to not impose the death penalty, the state with ask for a life sentence without parole. (source: Northwest Indiana News) WISCONSIN: Death penalty reveals racial woes On Nov. 7, Wisconsin voters will go to the polls not only to determine who will control the House and Senate and not only to decide whether Wisconsin joins the loathsome company of states with amendments banning gay marriage. Voters will also be deciding on an advisory referendum on whether Wisconsin should reinstate the death penalty. I use the word reinstate because Wisconsin did, in fact, have the death penalty at one period in our history. That period ended in 1858, granting Wisconsin the honor of being the state that has been death-penalty-free longer than any other in the Union. It would be a terrible shame if we lost this honor Nov. 7. It would be an act of criminal legislation if our Legislature were to bring back a law whose abolition predated that of slavery. 2 special features of Wisconsin law make our state peculiarly ill suited for a reintroduction of the death penalty. First, we already have a lower murder rate than any state that currently imposes the death penalty. Restarting the machinery of death would do nothing to lower our crime rate. Second, and even more disturbing, we have the nation's highest black incarceration rate. This means Wisconsin imprisons a higher proportion of its black citizens than any other state. Other aspects of our criminal "justice" system bear out this disgusting trend: More blacks than whites go to prison for parole violations, and whites typically get sent to prison for violent crimes, while 67 times as many blacks as whites go to prison for drug-related crimes. The fact of the matter is that Wisconsins legal system is racist to the core. If Wisconsin were to reinstate the death penalty, the massive injustice of our own court system would be combined with the obscene racism of the death penalty. Nationally, blacks make up about 12 % of the population, but consist of 42 % of those on death row. Even though blacks and whites make up roughly even percentages of murder victims, 80 % of those on death row went for murdering a white person. In the 30 years since the death penalty was reinstated nationally, of the over 1,000 people executed, only 12 whites have been executed for murdering an African-American. Thus, the death penalty in Wisconsin would be a hideous amalgam of the racism of our own courts combined with that of the system as a whole. According to the African-American magazine The Black Commentator, Wisconsin won the rather dubious award last year of being the worst state in the country for blacks to live. Do we really want to give the racism in our state more institutional power? To those good liberals among my readership who may protest that, with the dedicated efforts of good-hearted people, the racism of the death penalty could be eliminated, I must refer you to the Supreme Court's judgment on the matter. In 1986, in a ruling upholding the death penalty, Justice Lewis Powell opined that racial discrimination in death penalty cases is "an inevitable part of our criminal justice system." More recently, Justice Harry Black wrote that, "Even under the most sophisticated death penalty statutes, race continues to play a major role in determining who shall live and who shall die." The death penaltys intrinsic racism does not stem from the fact that those who run it are racist (though many of them certainly are), but from its being part and parcel, along with the entire criminal justice system, of the machinery of white supremacy in America. The grossly disproportionate incarceration of black men has contributed massively to continuing poverty in the black community. The Black Commentator sums up this process: "Almost 1 in 3 18-year-old black males across the board is likely to catch a felony conviction A felony conviction in America is a stunningly accurate predictor of a life of insecure employment at poverty-level wages and no health care, of fragile family ties, of low educational attainment and limited or no civic participation, and a strong likelihood of re-imprisonment." This process is by no means accidental. Politicians have long stirred up racism as a tool for getting votes. Bill Clinton is probably the most disgusting example of this. To prove how tough he was on crime, Clinton flew home to Arkansas in the middle of his 1992 campaign to oversee the execution of Rickey Ray Rector, a mentally retarded black man. Rector was so mentally handicapped that he saved the dessert from his last supper so he could eat it after his execution. In short, the death penalty is one of the most brutal edges of white supremacy in America today. To reinstate it in Wisconsin would be a criminal expansion of racism in our state. (source: Opinion, Paul Heideman is a graduate student in the Department of African-American Studies and a member of the International Socialist Organization; The (Univ. Wis.) Badger Herald) ******************** Mike Moore: Death penalty chatter skips basic question Sometimes, debates are simpler than they appear. That's the way I see one of the referendum questions coming all cheeseheads' way in next month's election. While nobody can even agree on what they're voting for in the marriage question, the death penalty alternatives are pretty clear: to kill or not to kill. If you believe the polls, 54 to 55 percent of Wisconsin's people want to kill. This vote is only advisory, meaning a yes vote doesn't necessarily mean anything will happen. But the numbers show the support is there to back it up with the real thing. Speakers at forums around the county have made the issue sound pretty complex. I've heard activists and politicians debate lots of interesting questions: Does the idea of death being injected into their veins scare criminals? Is DNA evidence foolproof? One huge question, strangely, has been missing. It's waiting there at the door, and the response determines whether we even need to go inside to answer the rest: Do we have the right to execute anyone? If the answer were clearly yes, if this were strictly about legal rights and what murderers and other assorted scumbags really deserve, chances are I'd side with the needle. It's not like I bawled the day Timothy McVeigh got offed. Ultimately, though, it isn't about them. It's about us, and the religious response to that question has largely been no, we don't have that right. There was more to the letter the leaders making up the Wisconsin Council of Churches sent out last month strongly opposing the death penalty and this referendum. But, in my book, they could've stopped after the half-sentence they borrowed from a 1995 statement on the issue: "We believe that vengeance belongs to God alone ..." Episcopal Bishop Steven Miller, who lives in Wind Point, is the council's spokesman on this issue. I asked what he says to people who use "angry God" Bible passages to support today's executions. "One can make an argument by picking out isolated verses ... but that stands in contrast to the clear sense of Scripture," Miller said. That sense is of a God who, the council's statement continued, "is not vengeful but gracious and merciful." Seems like there are rare exceptions when killing isn't vengeful, like self-defense. When a guy's locked up permanently anyway, this isn't one of them. That Catholic, Jewish and Muslim leaders signed on for a separate, equally strong statement proves faith is deeply linked to this debate. Yet Miller veered back to real-world concerns, saying when government sets an example of violence, it "trickles down into day-to-day life." I'm not so sure. Even the council's information packet is stuffed with pages of statistics and other real-world pros and cons. Why even open that door? "Just because we approach this from a religious perspective doesn't mean we don't need to make the cogent arguments" that might persuade others, Miller said. "So then we give them the basic facts." Except facts can be steered toward where we're comfortable, a spot faith doesn't always choose. (source: Journal Times) ************** D.A. Says Death Penalty Too Costly Moral arguments aside, one prosecutor in our area says bringing the death penalty back to Wisconsin would require taxpayers to shell out a lot more money. Portage County's District Attorney says he's afraid a death penalty case here would bankrupt the county. "It's incredibly expensive to do a death penalty case. It taxes the system. They take much longer to go through the process," says D.A. Tom Eagon. He says before any offender can be sentenced to death, they would have to go through something called a death penalty phase. During the phase the defendant's history is examined by many experts and every detail of the case scrutinized. All of that costs time and money. Senator Alan Lasee of De Pere told us earlier he agrees that it's expensive. But he says if the death penalty is brought back, he would like to see the appeals process shortened for offenders to cut down on costs. (source: WSAW News) VIRGINIA: Members of anti-death penalty group share stories Tracy Spirko's husband is on death row in Ohio for a crime that she doesn't believe he committed. Along with other members of the anti-death penalty group Journey of Hope, she spoke with University of Mary Washington students yesterday. The man held up a tiny short-sleeved shirt with a 7-Eleven logo hand-stenciled across it. Once upon a time, Robert Hoelscher, 52, fit into the shirt his mother made for him. He wore it when he went to work with his father, who managed a Houston-based 7-Eleven in the early '60s. He wore it until his father was murdered by a teenager holding up the store on an April night in 1961. Hoelscher shared that story with University of Mary Washington criminology students yesterday. He is part of an anti-death penalty group called Journey of Hope. Founded in 1993, the national organization says the death penalty is bad public policy. People who have been personally touched by a murder make up the group's ranks--people who've been exonerated, activists, and family members of both death-row inmates and murder victims. They've traveled across the state for the past two weeks and made similar journeys to eight other death-penalty states in the past decade. Not all the speakers have dealt with a death-penalty case. Hoelscher's father's murderer is serving a life sentence. Hoelscher maintains, however, that violence breeds violence and pain and that forgiveness is key. "My mom made a phone call to the parents of the young man two days after my father's murder," he said. "She said, 'I understand and I forgive. Hatred will not bring my husband back. I have sons, too.' "The death penalty does not bring healing, justice and closure." Hoelscher was joined by Tracy Spirko, whose husband, John, has been on death row in Ohio for 24 years. She believes he was wrongly convicted of the murder of a postal worker in 1982. "My husband's past is what got him convicted. He was no angel," Spirko said of the man who'd served jail time and mounted escape attempts. But he maintains he did not commit the murder. Over the past two years, 5 execution dates have been set for Spirko's husband, and 5 times, Ohio's governor had halted the execution. The next execution date is April 17, 2007. Spirko is hoping DNA evidence being analyzed will clear him. Yesterday, Spirko circulated a petition in support of a moratorium on the death penalty. Sixteen of 23 students signed it. Senior Michelle Matthews, 43, asked Spirko and Hoelscher if they felt there was any instance in which the death penalty would be appropriate. Both shook their heads "no." Senior Kyle Coppinger, 21, said he is against the death penalty but wondered what could replace it. "We see life in prison as death by incarceration," Hoelscher said, "but what we're really about is enriching the conversation [about the issue]. What you see is a knee-jerk reaction to a visceral thing and that doesn't really wrestle with the real-life experience of those who have really been impacted by a murder." (source: The Free Lance-Star) UTAH: Death penalty possible----Orem man arraigned in slaying of girlfriend in front of children A man who fatally shot his girlfriend in front of her two children faces one count of aggravated murder, a charge that can be punishable with life in prison or the death penalty. Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsKeith Morton, center, and Randy Kester, his temporary attorney, listen Tuesday to Utah County prosecutor Donna Kelly in Provo's 4th District Court. Keith Morton, 50, appeared before 4th District Judge Anthony Schofield Tuesday morning in a yellow jumpsuit and handcuffs to hear the charge against him. Attorney Randy Kester appeared with Morton, who is accused of killing Tonja Nash last Monday, to help him ask the court for a defense attorney. Morton said he is financially unable to pay for his own legal counsel. Morton answered the judge with short one-word responses, except when he said, "yes, I understand," to the judge reading the charge and possible consequences. Police say the couple had been fighting outside their Orem home at 1183 W. 680 South around 7:50 p.m. on Oct. 16. Nash was trying to leave when Morton shot her twice in the back, then walked up to her body and kicked her, Orem Police Lt. Doug Edwards said. Neighbors said her two children screamed as they saw their mother fall face down on the sidewalk and lay there, unmoving, in a pool of blood. One of the children ran up the street to a neighbor's house to call police. Morton walked back into the home and locked himself inside for 20 minutes until police were able to talk him out over the phone and take him into custody. Keith Johnson, Deseret Morning NewsTonja Marie Nash The charge carries the possibility of the death penalty if prosecutors can prove any one of three additional elements, said Utah County prosecutor Donna Kelly. A jury would have to find that Morton put someone else at great risk, committed the crime as part of a criminal episode in which child abuse was involved, or disfigured the victim's body before or after death. Kelly said the evidence, including 911 tapes and videotaped interviews with the children, is quite voluminous and she is working to put it together quickly for the attorney who will be appointed to defend Morton. During the hearing, Morton's family and friends sat quietly on the first row and left the courtroom saying they had no comment. Nash's 2 children, ages 8 and 11, are safe with their biological father, Daniel Nash, and his wife in Arizona. In an e-mail to the Deseret Morning News, Nash said the family is still shocked by what happened. "Daily life has not yet returned to normal, and I expect it will not for some time," Daniel Nash wrote. In the note he thanked the Orem police officers and neighbors who watched over the children after the shooting until he could drive to Utah from Arizona. Tonja Nash had recently returned to Orem from Arizona, after meeting Morton on the Internet. The couple had previously lived in Orem in 2005 at a home near 30 East and 700 North. Last Thanksgiving, police say Morton tried to strangle Tonja Nash after a fight over the turkey dinner and was cited with class B misdemeanors of assault and interruption of a communication device. Alcohol was a factor in the Thanksgiving episode and thought to be a factor in the shooting, Edwards said. (source: Deseret News) NEW JERSEY: Death Penalty in N.J.: Court says accused killers must prove mental retardation----Decision spurred by boy's 2001 murder in Morristown The day laborer accused of murdering and trying to rape a 10-year-old Morristown boy in 2001 must prove to a jury, if convicted, that he is mentally retarded if he wants to avoid the potential of being executed, the state Supreme Court ruled 5-2 on Tuesday. The landmark decision set statewide guidelines on how mental retardation claims by capital murder suspects must be handled by trial courts, and settled the last outstanding issue in the drawn-out, pretrial prosecution of Porfirio S. Jimenez, 41, of Morristown. The state's highest court said that defendants who assert mental retardation bear the burden of proving to a jury, by a preponderance of the evidence, that they are retarded in order to avoid having their cases advance to the death penalty phase. The majority decision follows rationale adopted in 28 other states since the U.S. Supreme Court -- in a case known as "Atkins v. Virginia"-- in 2002 outlawed execution of mentally retarded killers as unconstitutional. The federal court left it up to states to set parameters, either by statute or case law, for how mental retardation claims by murder suspects would be handled by trial courts. Tuesday's decision most significantly overturns an August 2005 ruling by a 3-judge state appeals court panel that said it was up to prosecutors to disprove mental retardation beyond a reasonable doubt before death penalty proceedings could occur. Now, in the case of Jimenez -- who is charged with stabbing and trying to sexually assault Walter Contreras Valenzuela on May 20, 2001 --he would first be tried for the crimes, most likely early next year. If convicted, he would have to prove to jurors that it is "more likely than not" that he is retarded. If his proof is accepted, the prosecution would end and he could expect to be sentenced to life in prison. If jurors reject his evidence of a low IQ and being "a mentally limited, infantile individual" as defense lawyers contend, a death penalty phase would start. But Jimenez could still argue mental retardation as a mitigating factor on why his life should be spared during the death penalty stage. The Supreme Court compared the burden of proving mental retardation to the burden of persuasion that already is on defendants in New Jersey who invoke insanity defenses. "A claim of mental retardation is also in many respects akin to a claim of insanity. Insanity is an affirmative defense which a defendant must prove," the court wrote. A spokesman for the state Public Defender's Office, which is handling Jimenez's defense, said the office was disappointed that death penalty candidates bear the burden of proving mental retardation, but is pleased that a jury rather than a judge will decide that specific issue. "We're afraid (the shifting of the burden) will increase the risk of a mentally retarded person being wrongly executed,"said Thomas Rosenthal, spokesman for the state public defender. His sentiment was echoed by Jeffrey S. Mandel, the attorney who represents the Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers of New Jersey, and two Supreme Court justices who wrote in a dissenting opinion that the burden-shifting is unconstitutional for the accused. Morris County Prosecutor Michael M. Rubbinaccio and Assistant Prosecutor John McNamara Jr., who will try the Jimenez case, said they are anxious for a trial to begin now that the last outstanding issue has been settled. It was the prosecutor's position that Jimenez had the burden of proving mental retardation rather than being the onus of the prosecutor to disprove. "The time has come for this matter to proceed to trial so that a jury may determine all of the issues in a principled and just fashion," McNamara said. Jimenez has a wife and children in Honduras and was living with his brother's family in Morristown at the time of his arrest in June 2001 for the Valenzuela slaying. He is accused of luring the third-grader on May 20, 2001, from a playground to a secluded spot on Cory Road by a riverbed on the pretext of feeding ducks. There, he allegedly tried to sexually assault the boy and then beat and stabbed him to death with a garden tool so the child would not tell on him. The boy's body was discovered on May 22, 2001. Jimenez, along with other potential suspects, was asked to give police a DNA sample and his matched semen found on the boy's underpants, authorities said. Defense lawyers later contended he is mentally retarded, with an IQ of 68 and "significant deficits in a number of areas of adaptive behavior." A prosecution expert set Jimenez's IQ at 69 after testing, or one point below the 70 score at which a person could be diagnosed as mentally retarded. But the state's expert said that Jimenez was not retarded, in part based upon adaptive and life skills he has acquired. The two justices who disagreed with the majority said in a dissenting opinion that it is the state's obligation to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a killer is not retarded once he or she brings forth evidence to raise the issue. "In a capital case, the stakes are considerably higher than in the typical criminal case. Life itself hangs in the balance,"Justice Barry T. Albin wrote. "This court should take every reasonable precaution to minimize the potential of wrongly executing a mentally retarded defendant. The majority's approach today is not in keeping with the rigorous procedural protections that should apply in capital cases," Albin wrote. (source: Daily Record)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news---IND., WIS., VA., UTAH, N.J.
Rick Halperin Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:46:18 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
