Oct. 13 NEVADA----impending execution The execution is on The execution is on for 34 year-old William Castillo. He was convicted of killing a woman in Las Vegas in 1995, but recent developments involving the Supreme Court had some asking for the execution to be canceled, or at least postponed. Castillo will be executed by lethal injection. It was just a few weeks ago when the high court made plans to determine if death by lethal injection fits under cruel and unusual punishment. Members of the American Civil Liberties Union submitted a letter to Governor Gibbons asking him to work with the pardon's board in postponing the execution. The proposal was declined. If the execution happens, Castillo will be the 13th person executed in Nevada since 1976. (source: KREN News) ARKANSAS: Governor To Appeal Execution Stay Gov. Beebe halted preparations Friday for a scheduled execution next week of a death-row inmate, saying a federal court stay would stop any action in "the immediate future." However, a spokesman for Beebe said the state attorney general would appeal the stay issued for Jack Harold Jones Jr. by the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. A spokesman for the attorney general's office said the high court would not grant a quick hearing before Jones' scheduled execution Tuesday because of Beebe's action. Federal judges granted a stay Thursday to an Arkansas death-row inmate scheduled to die next week by lethal injection, a method the U.S. Supreme Court will examine in a coming case. A split panel of 3 judges from the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis granted the stay to death-row inmate Jack Harold Jones Junior. Jones appealed the court last month, arguing his scheduled Oct. 16 execution should be delayed as the Supreme Court hears the case of 2 Kentucky inmates over lethal injection. A filing by state assistant attorney general Joseph Cordi Junior argued Jones should be put to death, saying the inmate "did nothing" legally for the years to stop his coming execution. The 43-year-old recently acknowledged to the state Parole Board that he did "own" the 1995 rape and slaying of Bald Knob bookkeeper Mary Phillips and an attack on her 11-year-old daughter. (source: KHTV News) USA: The people speak: Americans favor death penalty, say the polls It is most unfortunate that the Phoenix relied on false anti-death penalty claims to make their decision to call for ending the death penalty in Oklahoma. Possibly, there might be solid evidence that 25 innocents had been sent to death row since 1973. All of them have been released. That is 0.3 % of those sentenced. It is unlikely there is a more accurate sanction based upon the 99.7 % accuracy rate in actual guilty findings, with 100 percent of the actually innocent being released. The Phoenix relied on claims of 124 possible innocents. Since 2001, 12 studies found for death penalty deterrence. They have been rigorously defended. Not surprising. All prospects for a negative outcome deter some. There are no exceptions. The Phoenix relied on little research or fact checking when it presumed the death penalty didnt deter. The Phoenix relied upon polls cited in this months The Economist show that a plurality of Americans (48 to 47 %) prefer life without parole over the death penalty. The magazine also cites a study that only 2/3 of Americans support the death penalty today, compared to 4/5 13 years ago. The Phoenix may have misunderstood the poll. Lets say that a plurality of Americans (48 to 47 %) prefer vanilla ice cream over chocolate ice cream. That could mean that 95 % like both chocolate and vanilla, but some prefer one over another. Recent polling has consistently found 65-75 % for general death penalty support. That support goes to 80 % and more when a specific crime is referenced, such as terrorism or serial murderers. Both research and fact checking should be imporant in public policy discussions and in editorial room decisions. (source: Opinion, Muskogee (Okla.) Phoenix) PENNSYLVANIA: Death penalty's own fatal flaws must be corrected Most folks rightly are outraged by the sorts of crimes by which killers find their way to death row. So there is scant sympathy for the 228 inmates on the state's death row as of Oct. 1. But the issue that makes the death penalty such a dicey proposition for the society is not whether some criminals deserve that fate. It's that the death penalty system is inherently inconsistent and cannot be administered equitably across a broad range of jurisdictions. A 5-member team working under the American Bar Association's Death Penalty Implementation Project just spent 30 months studying Pennsylvania's death penalty system. It found a wide array of inconsistencies in the handling and outcomes of death penalty cases. In practice, factors such as the jurisdiction in which a crime is committed, the race of the defendant, affluence and other socio-economic factors, along with the competence of local police, prosecutors and defense lawyers, make consistent application of the law highly unlikely. This is not some technical or arcane legal concern. Since the state's death penalty was reinstated in 1978, 5 people who had been convicted and sentenced to death have been exonerated. They didn't do it, yet had a date with the executioner. As of today, the state cannot guarantee that it will not execute an innocent person. A member of the study team, Anne Bowen Poulin, of the Villanova University School of Law, said that Pennsylvania fully complies with only 7 of 93 protocols established by the ABA to ensure the fair application of the death penalty across multiple jurisdictions. The team said the state fails to provide adequate legal counsel in many cases, does not give defense lawyers adequate access to experts and other resources, and allows the issuance of jury instructions that are confusing. Unlike ABA analysis teams in other states, the Pennsylvania group did not recommend a moratorium on the state's death penalty. Rather, it issued recommendations to make its application fairer. For example, it recommended that the state government, rather than counties, pay for lawyers to represent indigent defendants in capital cases. That would help eliminate the wide disparities in outcomes among counties. The problem in a capital case is that everybody in the legal system only gets one chance to get it right. It's crucial that the system be equally fair in every one of the state's 67 courthouses. The Legislature should undertake the reforms recommended by the ABA team. (source: Daily and Sunday Review)
[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----NEV., ARK., USA, PENN.
Rick Halperin Sat, 13 Oct 2007 10:56:46 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
