May 4
TEXAS: Expert Fallibility: In death-penalty cases, justice must do better Today's expert testimony can be tomorrow's junk science. It's been shown before. Organized death-penalty opponents are publicizing a new case in which they contend now-outmoded arson forensics helped send a Corsicana man to the death chamber 2 years ago. They doggedly ask that troubling question again: Was an innocent man put to death? The answer may well be no; authorities insist the case isn't a simple matter of a nice guy mistaken for a cold-blooded arsonist responsible for the deaths of his three young children. But attorneys from the Innocence Project do the state a favor by casting light on the danger of building a case on experts, their latest technology and forensic training. That danger could be fatal in capital cases, an outcome everyone wants to avoid regardless of stance on the death penalty. Consider the refuted expert testimony over the years: Michael Blair's conviction was overturned in the heinous murder of Plano's 7-year-old Ashley Estell because of outmoded DNA and fiber tests. One of three overturned convictions of infamous murder suspect Kerry Max Cook of Tyler was based on a cop's testimony that a crucial fingerprint was fresh - a finding FBI experts later said was impossible. Then there's the matter of experts' opinions. Federal courts set aside the death sentence for Plano kidnapper-killer Victor Saldano because a psychologist testified his Hispanic ethnicity contributed to "future dangerousness" - a controversial formula to satisfy before imposing a death sentence. Finally, there's the question of competence. Exhibit A is the Houston police lab. Preliminary findings this year showed 40 percent of DNA cases and 22.5 % of blood-test cases examined between 1987 and 2002 had major errors. (We won't even get into new research on the fallibility of eyewitness testimony.) One aspect of the Innocence Project's latest case - the execution of Cameron Todd Willingham - is particularly vexing: New national standards on arson forensics came out after his conviction but years before his execution. That points up the wisdom of state Sen. Rodney Ellis' proposal for a state-funded innocence project. Such an agency might catch errors before it's too late. (source: Editorial, Dallas Morning News) TENNESSEE----impending execution Judge Clears Way for Execution of Tenn. Corporal At this point, there is nothing stopping the state from killing a man accused of kidnapping, raping and murdering a woman in 1985. Sedley Alley was convicted of murdering a 19-year-old female corporal on a military base in Memphis. Although Alley challenged the constitutionality of lethal injection, a judge ruled Tuesday there will be no stay in the execution, and it will go as planned on May 17. His attorneys however plan on arguing a case in circuit court asking for DNA testing to prove his innocence. (source: NewsChannel 15) MISSOURI: State court upholds death sentence The conviction and death sentence of a man who fatally beat a 63-year-old woman with a hammer were upheld yesterday by a divided Missouri Supreme Court. In a 4-3 opinion, the states high court again affirmed Paul Goodwins murder conviction and sentence. The court initially affirmed his conviction and sentence about 5 years ago. Goodwin was convicted in the 1998 killing of Joan Crotts in north St. Louis County. Goodwin, a former neighbor of Crotts, acknowledged striking her with the hammer. In the appeal, Goodwin claimed he was mentally retarded and hence cannot be executed. The Supreme Court found that experts determined Goodwin was not retarded but rather had borderline intelligence. Evidence showed that eight intelligence tests conducted more than 20 years indicated he was not retarded, according to the opinion written by Judge William Ray Price Jr. (source: Associated Press) PENNSYLVANIA: Pa. Supreme Court upholds death sentence in 2nd Spotz killing In Harrisburg, the state Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected an appeal by death-row inmate Mark Spotz of 1 of his 3 death sentences for killing 4 people during a 1995 rampage. The court sided with a Schuylkill County court's 2001 decision denying post-conviction relief for Spotz in the 2nd slaying, in which he shot a woman after kidnapping her and stealing her car. Spotz cited several factors as grounds for his appeal, including the failure of his trial lawyer to completely present mitigating evidence during the death penalty phase. Two of the six justices who ruled on the appeal disagreed with a portion of the ruling that denied Spotz a new penalty hearing. Justices Thomas G. Saylor and Cynthia Baldwin said Spotz should have a new hearing, citing ineffective counsel. Spotz, who is on death row at Graterford state prison in Montgomery County, fatally shot his brother at their Clearfield County home on Jan. 31, 1995, and then fled, killing 3 women in Schuylkill, York and Cumberland counties on successive days before surrendering to police in a Carlisle motel room. He was convicted of voluntary manslaughter in his brother's slaying and sentenced to death for murdering the 3 women. Death warrants signed by then-Governors Tom Ridge and Mark Schweiker were stayed by appellate courts. In 2003, the Vatican asked Gov. Ed Rendell to commute Spotz's death sentence, saying Spotz has earned degrees in Christian counseling in prison and worked to help young people avoid lives of violent crime. Rendell declined the request. (source: Associated Press) USA: Verdict Doesn't End the Anger----Some relatives of 9/11 victims greet the news with acceptance; others are disappointed. 'I feel very much let down by this country,' one says. Lee Ielpi didn't hide his disappointment Wednesday after the federal jury verdict that put Zacarias Moussaoui in prison for life for his role in the Sept. 11 attacks. "I felt all along he should get the death penalty, but if it's life in prison with no possibility of parole, then he'll rot in prison where he belongs," said Ielpi, whose firefighter son, Jonathan Ielpi, 29, died in the south tower of the World Trade Center. "Because he's not getting the death penalty, he may not be as big a martyr as he wanted to be," said Ielpi, a retired firefighter who is vice president of the September 11th Families' Assn. "But there are people who will use him as a martyr anyway." Jonathan Ielpi's mother, Anne, said she wanted prison authorities to make Moussaoui's days miserable. When "he's allowed out of his cell, I want them to put him in the regular cellblock with all the other prisoners and let them take care of him," she said. Not every survivor of those who died in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks thought the jury was wrong to reject the death penalty. "Life in prison is the verdict I would have preferred. I don't believe in capital punishment. I'm not a vengeful person," said Karen Tartaro of Bridgewater, N.J., whose husband, Ronald, 39, died on the 93rd floor of the north tower. "I don't think we should make him into a martyr. Doing that would not make the world a better place. Probably, under the circumstances, this is the best." Debra Burlingame, whose brother Charles "Chick" Burlingame III, 51, of Virginia was the pilot on the flight that hit the Pentagon, said she was disappointed. "But I accept the verdict as a fair one reasonably arrived at," she said. She was concerned, however, when she learned that at least three of the jurors thought that Moussaoui should not be executed because he knew little about the attacks. She said most of the hijackers had limited advance knowledge, adding that the little Moussaoui knew would have been enough, had he told authorities, to prevent the attacks. Lee Ielpi said he was satisfied that the justice system worked, despite the verdict. "We've sent the message that we're going to find these people and put them through the process, and we're going to eliminate terrorism," he said. "We're a very tough nation. We will persevere and we will prevail." During the trial, Abraham Scott, whose wife, Janice, died in the Pentagon, thought Moussaoui deserved to die. But when the verdict came, he told the Associated Press that the jury "made the right decision." "I didn't change my mind," he said. "I still support the death penalty, but on the other hand I wholeheartedly support the decision of the jury." Alexander Santora's position shifted the other way. His son Christopher was a firefighter who died in the New York attacks. Santora said he had wanted Moussaoui sentenced to life imprisonment, but changed his mind when the Al Qaeda conspirator showed no remorse in court. Santora said Moussaoui was guilty. "A bullet in his brain would have been a just reward." Patricia Reilly lost her sister, Lorraine Lee, when the planes were flown into the World Trade Center. She was angered by the jury's decision to spare Moussaoui. "I feel very much let down by this country," Reilly said. "I guess in this country you can kill 3,000 people and not pay with your life. I believe he's going to go to jail and start converting other people to his distorted view of Islam." Christie Coombs of Abington, Mass., said she did not think a death sentence would have changed anything. Her husband, Jeff, died on American Airlines Flight 11 in New York. "It wasn't going to bring my husband back," Coombs said. "It wasn't going to make any of these people that died walk through their doors and make their families happy." (source: Newsday) ************************** Attorney general says respects Moussaoui verdict U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said on Thursday that he respected the decision of a U.S. jury to sentence Zacarias Moussaoui to life in prison and not to death as the prosecution had demanded. Gonzales said Washington would decide "case by case" whether to proceed with further trials of September 11 suspects, some of whom are being held by the United States at undisclosed sites. Moussaoui, the only person convicted in a U.S. court in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks, should spend his life in prison instead of being executed for his role in the hijacked airliner assaults, the jury decided on Wednesday. "We certainly respect that decision," Gonzales said of the verdict. "I think justice has been served here. Mr Moussaoui will spend the rest of his life in prison," Gonzales told a news conference in Vienna. The jury found the actions of the 37-year-old French citizen of Moroccan origin had not resulted in the deaths of about 3,000 people on September 11 -- a central part of the government's demand for the death penalty. Asked whether the U.S. government had any intention or possibility to challenge the verdict, Gonzales repeated that he believed justice had been served. "As to future cases, we obviously evaluate those on a case by case basis," Gonzales said. The United States is believed to be detaining in undisclosed locations Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged operational mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and Ramzi bin al-Shaibah, a member of the Hamburg cell that led them. It is also believed to be holding Abu Zubaydah, a suspected senior al Qaeda operational planner. Campaigning group Human Rights Watch lists the three men, captured in Pakistan, as "ghost prisoners" believed to be in U.S. custody but without legal rights or access to lawyers. Any future trial of senior al Qaeda figures would be complicated by several factors, including the extent to which Washington is prepared to disclose sensitive intelligence material as evidence. Defense lawyers would also be likely to argue that their clients had suffered torture in U.S. custody, particularly following widespread reports that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known as KSM, had been subjected to a practice known as "waterboarding", designed to simulate drowning. "There are challenges that exist with respect to prosecuting terrorism cases in our criminal justice system," Gonzales said. He said no decision had been made on the KSM case. "The decision by the United States will be made after careful evaluation of the circumstances of this particular case in terms of defining what is the best way to achieve justice," Gonzales said. "To the extent that justice is best achieved or served by prosecuting terrorists in our criminal justice system, we obviously will pursue (trials) as a valuable tool in dealing with terrorism," he added. (source: Reuters) ******************************* The morality of capital punishment One complication is that capital punishment may make a murderer fight harder to avoid being captured, which could lead to more deaths... I believe the resistance of murderers to being captured, possibly at the expense of their own lives, is indirect evidence that criminals do fear capital punishment European governments are adamantly opposed to capital punishment - the European Union bans it outright - and some Europeans consider its use in the United States barbaric. Indeed, many European intellectuals argue that not just capital punishment, but punishment in general, does not deter criminals. But, whereas Europeans, with crime rates well below American rates for the past half-century, could long afford to be relatively "soft" on most crimes, they have seen their crime rates increase sharply during the past 20 years. By contrast, American rates have fallen, in part because of greater use of punishment. This includes capital punishment. I support executing some people convicted of murder because - and only because - believe that it deters other murders. If I did not believe that, I would oppose capital punishment, because revenge and other possible motives should not be a basis for public policy. Serious empirical research on capital punishment in the US began with a pioneering study by Isaac Ehrlich, published in 1975 in the American Economic Review. Some subsequent studies have sometimes found a much weaker deterrent effect, while others have found a much stronger effect. The available data are quite limited, however, so one should not base any conclusions solely on the econometric evidence. Of course, public policy on any punishment cannot wait until the evidence is perfect. But, even with the limited quantitative evidence available, there are good reasons to believe that capital punishment deters. Most people, and murderers in particular, fear death, especially when it follows swiftly and with considerable certainty following the commission of a murder. As David Hume put it in discussing suicide, "no man ever threw away life, while it was worth living. For such is our natural horror of death...". Likewise, Schopenhauer believed that "as soon as the terrors of life reach a point at which they outweigh the terrors of death, a man will put an end to his life. But the terrors of death offer considerable resistance..." Opponents of capital punishment frequently proclaim that the state has no moral right to take anyones life, including that of the most reprehensible murderer. Yet that is absolutely the wrong conclusion for anyone who believes that capital punishment deters. To see why, suppose that for each murderer executed (instead of, say, receiving life imprisonment), the number of murders is reduced by three, which is a much lower number than Ehrlich's and some other estimates of the deterrent effect. This implies that for each murderer not executed, three innocent victims would die. In fact, the government would indirectly be "taking" many lives if it did not use capital punishment. Saving 3 innocent lives for every person executed seems like a very attractive trade-off, and even two lives saved per execution seems like a persuasive benefit-cost ratio for capital punishment. Admittedly, however, the argument in favour of capital punishment becomes less clear-cut as the number of lives saved per execution falls. But, even if only one life were saved per execution, the trade-off might still be desirable if the life saved is much better than the life taken, which would usually be the case. Many people object to comparing the quality of the life spared and the life taken. Yet I do not see how to avoid such a comparison. Consider a career criminal who robs and kills a victim who led a decent life and left several children and a spouse behind. Suppose it would be possible to save the life of an innocent victim by executing such a criminal. To me it is obvious that saving such a victims life must count for more than taking the criminal's life. Obviously, not all cases are so unambiguous, but a comparison of the qualities of individual lives must be part of any reasonable social policy. This helps explain why capital punishment should be used only for murder, and not for lesser crimes. When the trade-off is between taking lives and, say, reducing property theft, the case for milder punishments is far stronger. Although severe assaults, including some gruesome rapes, may approach some murders in severity, and might conceivably call for capital punishment, I do not support its use in these cases. A powerful argument for reserving capital punishment for murders is "marginal deterrence." If assault were punished with execution, perpetrators would have an incentive to kill their victims to avoid discovery (which is a major reason why the severity of punishments more generally should be matched to the severity of crimes). One complication is that capital punishment may make a murderer fight harder to avoid being captured, which could lead to more deaths. But, while marginal deterrence is important, I believe the resistance of murderers to being captured, possibly at the expense of their own lives, is really indirect evidence that criminals do fear capital punishment. Of course, I worry about the risk of executing the innocent. My support for capital punishment would weaken greatly if the rate of killing innocent people were as large as that claimed by many. However, I believe that the appeal process in the US offers enormous protection, not so much against wrongful conviction as against wrongful execution, so that there are very few, if any, documented cases of innocent people being killed. And this process has been strengthened enormously with the development of DNA identification. Again, the debate about capital punishment is essentially a debate about deterrence (which may be reduced by lengthy appeals). I can understand that some people are sceptical about the evidence, although I believe they are wrong about both that and the common sense of the issue. It is very disturbing to take someones life, even a murderer's life, but sometimes highly unpleasant actions are necessary to prevent even worse behaviour that takes the lives of innocent victims. (source: Daily Times--Gary S Becker is Nobel laureate in economics and professor of economics and sociology at the University of Chicago) ********************** Death penalty: Federal exceptions Given the seriousness of the 9/11 attacks and America's reputation for capital punishment, Zacarias Moussaoui's life sentence may come as a surprise. But had he been executed he would have been only the fourth federal prisoner to be punished thus by the US since the death penalty was reinstated in 1976 - the most famous of the other three being Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber. Moussaoui would also have been the 1st federal prisoner in that period, and one of only a handful in US history, to be executed for a crime other than directly committing murder. Many more convicts are executed by states and by far the biggest number are executed by one, Texas, which has killed 362 prisoners since 1976. In total, 38 out of 50 states permit the death penalty, though three have not used it since its reintroduction. The death penalty was suspended voluntarily by states and the federal government in 1967 while the question was tackled by the supreme court, which made the suspension compulsory in 1972 by ruling that 40 death penalty statutes were unconstitutional. But it did not declare the death penalty unconstitutional, leaving the way open for states to rewrite their laws, which they duly did. The number of people executed nationally has stayed fairly steady since 2001 at 60-70 a year. A death sentence for Moussaoui would have been vulnerable to appeal because, in recent rulings, the supreme court seemed to come close to declaring it unconstitutional for prisoners to be executed when they did not directly commit murder. (source: The Guardian)
