Nov. 23
IDAHO:
A Prayer for the Living, A Prayer for the Dead ---- How faith permeated the
execution of Paul Ezra Rhoades
Brent Reinke, director of the Idaho Department of Correction, is a man of
faith. On his desk at the Boise headquarters of IDOC, among the stacks of legal
briefings and operational procedures that detailed the Nov. 18 execution of
Paul Ezra Rhoades, stood a framed prayer, culled from the 1662 Book of Common
Prayer.
"Lord Jesus, for our sake you were condemned as a criminal: visit our jails and
prisons with your pity and judgment," reads the prayer. "Bring the guilty to
repentance and amendment of life according to your will, and give them hope for
their future."
In the final days leading up to Rhoades' death, Reinke was asked countless
questions about the execution chamber and chemicals to be used in the lethal
injection. But when BW asked Reinke about how he reconciled his faith with his
ultimate responsibility of putting a condemned prisoner to death, he was a bit
surprised but nonplussed.
"That's a great question," said Reinke, pausing to think for a moment. "Where I
come from--as a spiritual standpoint and a personal standpoint--I'm comfortable
with this, mainly because it's the policy of the State of Idaho."
It was policy and, more precisely, the directions from judges and juries that
decided Rhoades' fate--that he would be put to death for his crimes. Idaho's
judicial system determined that Rhoades was responsible for terrorizing Eastern
Idaho in 1987, when three people were murdered in three weeks. Rhoades was
sentenced to death for the kidnappings, tortures and murders of Stacy Baldwin
and Susan Michelbacher. He received two additional life sentences for the
murder of Nolan Haddon.
The prayer that sits on Reinke's desk was only one faith-based plea that would
be offered in the days, hours and minutes leading up to Rhoades' death. In
spite of the often-referenced separation of church and state, spiritual
guidance was continually interjected into the string of events. No less than
Pope Benedict XVI begged for a stay of execution, appealing to Gov. C.L.
"Butch" Otter's faith (following high school, Otter briefly studied for the
Catholic priesthood at St. Martin's Abbey in Lacey, Wash.).
"I reiterate the commitment of the Holy Father to uphold the sacredness and
dignity of all human life," wrote Monsignor Jean-Francois Lantheaume, charge
d'affaires on behalf of the Pope. "I hope that you will give heed to his
petition."
The Rev. Michael Driscoll, bishop of the Idaho Catholic Diocese, made a similar
plea.
"Other ways are available to punish criminals and to protect society that are
more respectful of human life," wrote Driscoll.
Otter's office received hundreds of letters, emails and posts to his official
Facebook page, most pleading for a stay of execution and many appealing to the
governor as a man of faith.
Meanwhile, Rhoades' faith was reportedly becoming more important to him as
well. Spending his final days in F Block of the Idaho Maximum Security
Institute, Rhoades met frequently with an unidentified spiritual adviser. In
fact, the adviser was one of only four individuals who met with Rhoades every
day leading up to his execution--the others being his attorney (Oliver Loewy),
his mother (Pauline Rhoades) and a sister.
"He has been doing a lot of reading of the Bible," Reinke told BW two days
before the execution. "He has been spending a lot of time with the Bible and an
additional book, which is scripture-based."
Several hours before his execution, Rhoades was allowed to keep one spiritual
item, the Bible, when the rest of his personal belongings were taken away and
inventoried.
Meanwhile outside the gates of the prison, prayer was the order of the day as
approximately 50 members of Idahoans Against the Death Penalty stood in
sub-freezing temperatures, shrouded by charcoal-black clouds with prayers for
Rhoades, his family and even his executioners.
"As citizens of this state, we are appalled that this killing is being done in
our name," said Mia Crosthwaite, a member of the group.
Crosthwaite led a string of prayers. circled by a few dozen others holding
signs, like "What Would Jesus Do?" and "Life in Prison=Justice.
Killing=Vengeance." She also offered prayers for Rhoades' victims.
"Stacy Baldwin was only 21 when she was murdered," said Crosthwaite. "Today's
execution is one more pain of so many that Stacy's family never deserved. We
remember her family, all those who loved her, and all those who will still feel
her loss."
The prayers continued right up until the minute of Rhoades' execution.
"There are about 20 employees of the Department of Correction serving on the
execution team," said Crosthwaite. "They will carry memories of what they did
today for the rest of their lives. Today the entire prison is mobilized around
this execution. Every prisoner, every guard, every prison official knows what
is happening. Some will be haunted by it."
With a precise dosage of chemicals coursing through his veins, Rhoades died at
9:15 a.m. on Nov. 18. Within 90 minutes, Otter offered a final statement of
faith.
"My thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their loved ones, the mother of
Paul Ezra Rhoades and everyone who has been impacted by these crimes," wrote
Otter. "The State of Idaho has done its best to fulfill this most solemn
responsibility with respect, professionalism and most of all dignity for
everyone involved."
(source: Boise Weekly)
OREGON:
Gov. Kitzhaber halts Haugen execution, death penalty in Ore.
Oregon Governor John Kitzhaber effectively outlawed the state's death penalty
Tuesday ahead of Oregon's 1st execution in 14 years.
Calling the death penalty "morally wrong," Kitzhaber said there would be no
executions while he was governor.
On Monday, a court decision removed the final legal hurdle for twice-convicted
murderer Gary Haugen's request to waive his appeals earlier this month. A
Marion County judge has ordered that Haugen be executed by lethal injection on
Dec. 6.
The Democratic governor said he has no sympathy or compassion for murderers.
But he says Oregon's death penalty system is broken and applied unevenly. Since
voters reinstated capital punishment in 1984, 2 people have been executed and
both voluntarily waived their appeals.
"They were among the most agonizing and difficult decisions I have made as
governor (in the 1990s) and I have revisited and questioned them over and over
again during the past 14 years," Kitzhaber wrote in a prepared statement.
"The death penalty as practiced in Oregon is neither fair nor just; and it is
not swift or certain. It is not equally applied to all," he said.
Kitzhaber noted in 49 years, the only 2 to have been put to death in the state
volunteered and waived appeals. He noted of the 37 people on death row, some
have been there for 20 years, all still with many years left of appeals.
"The reality is that Oregon's death row is an extremely expensive life prison
term," he said. "
Kitzhaber said while he did not intend to go against the will of the voters, he
did not think the voters intended a system in which the actual sentence was
never carried out.
He said he hoped Oregonians would reevaluate the current policy on capital
punishment.
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled on Haugen earlier this month against a request
by death penalty opponents.
(source: KGW News)
*************
With regret for allowing past executions, Oregon governor bans death penalty
for rest of term
Haunted by regret for allowing two men to be executed more than a decade ago,
Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber now says it’ll never happen again on his watch.
Calling Oregon’s death penalty scheme “compromised and inequitable,” the
Democratic governor said Tuesday he’ll issue a reprieve to a twice-convicted
murderer who was scheduled to die by lethal injection in two weeks. He said
he’d do the same for any other condemned inmates facing execution during his
tenure in office.
“I simply cannot participate once again in something that I believe to be
morally wrong,” the governor said in uncharacteristically emotional remarks
during a news conference in his office.
“It is time for this state to consider a different approach,” he said.
Death penalty proponents quickly criticized the decision, saying the governor
is usurping the will of voters who have supported capital punishment.
Kitzhaber’s decision halts the execution of 49-year-old Gary Haugen, who had
disregarded advice from his lawyers and asked to waive his remaining appeals in
protest of a justice system he views as unjust and vindictive. Haugen, who was
scheduled to be executed by lethal injection on Dec. 6, is one of 37 inmates on
Oregon’s death row.
Haugen was serving a life sentence for fatally bludgeoning his former
girlfriend’s mother, Mary Archer, when he was sentenced to death for the 2003
killing of fellow inmate David Polin, who had 84 stab wounds and a crushed
skull.
Oregon has executed 2 men since voters reinstated the death penalty in 1984.
Both inmates, like Haugen, had abandoned appeals, but in those cases Kitzhaber
didn’t intervene, saying his oath of office required him to let the executions
proceed.
Kitzhaber’s 1st 2 terms as governor began in 1995. The next year, Douglas
Wright was executed, Harry Moore the year after that. After eight years out of
office, the Democratic governor was elected to a 3rd term last year and, his
voice shaking, said Tuesday he has long regretted those decisions.
He said he has come to believe that Oregon voters did not intend to create a
death penalty scheme in which the only inmates who are put to death are those
who volunteer.
“The reality is that, in Oregon, our death sentence is essentially an extremely
expensive life prison term,” Kitzhaber said. “Far more expensive than the terms
of others who are sentenced to life in prison without parole, rather than to
death row.”
Kitzhaber fought tears as he said he spoke to relatives of Haugen’s victims,
saying they were difficult discussions and his “heart goes out to them.” He
declined to discuss them further, calling them “private conversations.”
“We’ve been dealing with this since 1981,” Ard Pratt, Archer’s 1st husband,
told The Associated Press. “It was almost over. And then he changes it because
he’s a coward and doesn’t want to do it.”
Kitzhaber is a former emergency room doctor who still retains an active
physician license with the Oregon Medical Board, and his opposition to the
death penalty has been well-known. In a news conference explaining his
decision, he cited his oath as a physician to “do no harm.” Kitzhaber was
elected last year to an unprecedented 3rd term as governor after eight years
away from public office.
Oregon has a complex history with capital punishment. Voters have outlawed it
twice and legalized it twice, and the state Supreme Court struck it down once.
Voters most-recently legalized the death penalty on a 56-44 vote in 1984.
“It is arrogant and presumptuous for an elected official, up to and including
the governor, to say, ‘I don’t care with the voters say, I don’t care what the
courts say,’” and impose his own opinion, said Josh Marquis, a death penalty
proponent and the Clatsop County district attorney. Marquis has prosecuted
several capital cases and written about capital punishment.
Kitzhaber said he has no sympathy or compassion for murderers, but Oregon’s
death penalty scheme is “an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet
basic standards of justice.”
His moratorium means Oregon joins, at least temporarily, four other states that
have halted executions, according to the Death Penalty Information Center,
which opposes capital punishment. Illinois this year outlawed the death penalty
after the discovery of wrongful convictions. New Mexico voters abolished it in
2009, 2 years after New Jersey’s Legislature and governor did the same. A New
York appeals court struck down a portion of the death penalty statute.
Politicians are often hesitant to discuss abolishing the death penalty for fear
it will anger voters, said Richard Dieter, director of the Death Penalty
Information Center. Kitzhaber’s decision might give confidence to leaders in
other states, he said.
Death penalty opponents in California are trying for a ballot measure next year
to outlaw capital punishment there. Legislators in Maryland and Connecticut
could do the same, Dieter said.
One of Haugen’s lawyers, Steve Gorham, said Haugen was still committed to being
executed on Tuesday morning. Gorham said he hadn’t spoken with the inmate since
learning of the governor’s decision.
“I’m sure he’s not very happy right now. He was committed to exercising what he
thought were his rights,” Gorham said, noting that he was personally pleased
with the governor’s decision and calling it “courageous.”
Prosecutors have long complained that death penalty cases take decades to make
their way through the courts, but efforts to change the law have been stymied
in the Legislature. Eight condemned inmates have been on death row since the
1980s.
Oregon’s constitution gives Kitzhaber authority to commute the sentences of all
death row inmates, but he said he will not do so because the policy on capital
punishment is a matter for voters to decide.
Kitzhaber’s reprieve will last until he leaves office. His term ends in January
2015, and he has not said whether he’ll run for re-election.
Kitzhaber said he hopes his decision will prompt a public re-evaluation of the
death penalty in Oregon and said he will advocate for a ballot measure that
would make it illegal. The governor said he prefers murderers be given a life
sentence without the possibility of parole.
(source: Associated Press)
CONNECTICUT:
Connecticut Supreme Court Upholds Constitutionality of Death Penalty
On Monday the legality of the death penalty law of the state of Connecticut was
upheld by the state’s highest court.
In its ruling, the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the imposition of the
death penalty on a defendant convicted of having murdered a 13-year-old boy by
bludgeoning him with a sledgehammer.
The Associated Press related the following details of the horrendous crime
committed by Todd Rizzo:
Rizzo confessed that he struck up a conversation with Stanley Edwards IV as the
boy rode his bicycle by Rizzo's house in Waterbury on Sept. 30, 1997. Rizzo was
an 18-year-old former Marine at the time. The seventh-grader knew and trusted
Rizzo through Rizzo's job at a video store, and he followed Rizzo into Rizzo's
backyard under the guise of hunting snakes, prosecutors said.
Rizzo told police that he then straddled Stanley "like a horse" and hit him 13
times with the 3-pound sledgehammer as the boy begged him to stop. Rizzo later
told authorities that he was interested in serial killers and wanted to know
what it felt like to kill somebody. He dumped the boy's body nearby.
The decisions (to uphold the death penalty and to allow the death of Rizzo)
terminated the appeals of both issues filed by the convicted murderer. Legal
counsel for Rizzo cited several challenges to their client’s sentence to death
row, including the constitutionality of state-sponsored killing of those
convicted of capital crimes.
By a margin of 6-1, the Supreme Court of the Constitution State rejected the
claims made by Rizzo.
Rizzo’s public defenders listed nine grounds for appeal including the abuse
their client reportedly suffered as a child. The 86-page decision written by
Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers found in favor of the state on every one of the
relevant issues.
The dissenting opinion was filed by Justice Flemming L. Norcott, Jr., who
wrote, "The death penalty has no place in the jurisprudence of the state of
Connecticut. [Has] our thirst for this ultimate penalty now been slaked, or do
we, the people of Connecticut, continue down this increasingly lonesome road?”
he asked rhetorically.
In the majority opinion, the death penalty was justified according to
applicable articles of the Connecticut Constitution that authorize the sentence
of death to be passed upon those convicted of listed capital crimes.
The court held:
In article first, § 8, and article first, § 19, our state constitution makes
repeated textual references to capital offenses and thus expressly sustains the
constitutional validity of such a penalty in appropriate circumstances.
In dismissing the challenges made to the state’s laws conforming to the U.S.
Constitution, the majority ruled that the provisions of the state constitution
that correspond to the Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments [text] to the U.S.
Constitution reveal that the death penalty as carried out by the state of
Connecticut neither violates the Constitution’s prohibition against “cruel and
unusual punishment,” nor the requirement that a person be given due process
before being deprived of his life or liberty.
As outlined by The Jurist, the issue of the constitutionality of the death
penalty continues to present itself in courtrooms around the country.
The death penalty continues to arouse legal, political and moral controversy
nationwide. Two weeks ago, the US Supreme Court declined to hear the case of a
Texas death row inmate who was allegedly convicted partially on the basis of
race. Earlier in November, the Ohio Supreme Court announced that it was forming
a committee to ensure that the death penalty was not administered arbitrarily.
In March, Illinois abolished capital punishment, concluding that there was no
way to rid the capital punishment system of its discriminatory flaws. In 2009,
New Mexico repealed its death penalty on similar grounds to Illinois, asserting
that the state could not possibly administer the death penalty impartially. In
2005, the Connecticut House of Representatives voted down legislation that
would have eliminated the state's death penalty.
The decision of the Connecticut Supreme Court was made just in time, as there
is a case pending before a jury in New Haven in which the body is tasked with
deciding whether the death penalty should be imposed on Joshua Komisarjevsky, a
man accused of killing a woman and her two daughters in a 2007 home invasion.
Legal scholars were anxiously awaiting the publication of the court’s decision
in the Rizzo case as they maintain that had the court ruled in favor of the
appellant, the jury in the Komisarjevsky case would have been bound by that
ruling.
The Associated Press also reported,
Rizzo was the 1st person sentenced to death under a 1995 change to state law
that allows jurors in death penalty cases to weigh aggravating factors such as
a crime's brutality against mitigating factors such as childhood abuse suffered
by a defendant. A three-judge panel imposed the death sentence on Rizzo in
2005.
The chief prosecutor in the case was predictably pleased with the outcome of
the appeal. "We're satisfied that the court did a thorough job and the decision
was justified by the record," said Harry Weller. "We will continue to do what
is necessary to ensure the judgments are affirmed."
Although they did not return calls for comment, it is likely that Rizzo's
public defenders will file a writ of certiorari, a petition requesting that the
U.S. Supreme Court hear the case.
In their challenge of the legality of the death penalty, Rizzo's lawyers argued
that capital punishment failed to adequately serve the goals of deterrence,
incapacitation, or rehabilitation. This position has been rejected previously
by the Connecticut Supreme Court.
"As long as there remains powerful evidence of strong public support for the
death penalty ... we will not attempt to discern a contrary view of the public
will, or to answer complex policy questions best answered by the legislative
process," wrote Chief Justice Chase T. Rogers.
Public support for the death penalty seems sufficiently strong as last March, a
Quinnipiac University poll found that 67 percent of Connecticut registered
voters favored the death penalty.
In a poll taken by the Gallup organization, since 1976 over 60 percent of
Americans consistently have expressed their approval for the death penalty in
cases of murder.
The Founding Fathers anticipated that the government would wield such a power
(see, for example, the imposition of the death penalty as punishment for
violating the Coinage Act of 1792). The problem becomes, however, that as
government (federal or state) grows more autocratic, the number of criminals
executed increases proportionally.
Finally, though there are few that would argue that a vile and vicious killer
such as Rizzo doesn't deserve to die for his crimes, there is a growing trend
on the part of the federal government to “legally” kill those never prosecuted
or convicted for any crime, capital or otherwise.
(source: The New American)
PENNSYLVANIA:
Corbett signs death warrant for Garfield man
Gov. Tom Corbett signed a death warrant to execute a 60-year-old Garfield man
convicted of killing his wife and autistic son in 2001.
Although the execution is set for Jan. 18, Pennsylvania hasn't executed anyone
since 1999, when Philadelphia mass murderer Gary Heidnik waived his rights to
appeal.
Former Governor Ed Rendell also signed a warrant for Kenneth Hairston and for
more than 100 other death row inmates. None were executed because of what the
governor called a "defacto moratorium" on capital punishment citing
Pennsylvania's extensive appeals process.
The only 3 prisoners executed in Pennsylvania since the death penalty was
reinstated nationally in 1978 had all waived their rights to appeal.
Mr. Hairston was convicted of murdering his wife Catherine, 45, and son, Sean,
14, with a a sledgehammer. He also stabbed himself in the stomach, chest and
throat, and set their house on fire.
This took place two weeks before he was scheduled to be tried for raping his
step-daughter over a seven-year period. He was convicted of rape and sentenced
to up to 122 years in prison.
After his arrest for the murders he told police that he killed his wife and son
because he feared that if he went to prison for rape, they wouldn't be able to
survive without him. He said he planned to kill himself along with them.
(source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette)
GEORGIA:
Ga. death penalty law upheld----Mentally disabled face legal barriers; Supreme
Court appeal expected
A divided federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that death penalty defendants
still must prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are mentally disabled to be
ineligible for execution.
Georgia is the only state in the country that sets that standard — the highest
legal barrier — for such defendants. Dissenting judges on the 11th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals said it will lead to mentally disabled inmates being executed.
But Judge Frank Hull, writing for the majority, said the U.S. Supreme Court
left it up to states to develop their own guidelines when it barred the
execution of the mentally disabled in 2002.
The Georgia Supreme Court recently upheld the state's standard, Hull noted, and
because there is no U.S. Supreme Court precedent to the contrary, federal law
"mandates that this federal court leave the Georgia Supreme Court decision
alone — even if we believe it incorrect or unwise."
The 6-4 ruling will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, a lawyer involved in
the case said.
The U.S. government and 23 states with the death penalty require defendants
claiming mental disability to prove it under the lowest legal threshold — a
preponderance of the evidence, meaning it is more likely true than not. Five
states have adopted a tougher test — clear and convincing evidence.
The court ruled in the case of twice-convicted killer Warren Hill. Brian
Kammer, Hill's lawyer, used the state's unusually tough standard as the basis
of his appeal and vowed to take the case to the nation's highest court.
"I am sickened by the [court's] ruling today, because it effectively allows
Georgia free rein to execute people who, like Mr. Hill, have been found to be
mentally retarded," he said. "This decision is yet another legal and moral
disaster involving Georgia's death penalty jurisprudence."
State Attorney General Sam Olens declined comment, his spokeswoman said.
Hill is on death row for bludgeoning a fellow inmate to death with a
nail-studded board in 1990. At the time, he was serving a life sentence for
killing his girlfriend.
In writing for the majority, Hull also said Georgia's death-penalty process
contains substantial safeguards that help jurors accurately determine whether a
defendant is mentally disabled.
They include the right not to be sentenced to death except by a unanimous
verdict, the right to appeal and the opportunity to present experts,
cross-examine the state's witnesses and question jurors about their biases
regarding mental disability.
Even so, Hull acknowledged, the U.S. Supreme Court "may later announce that
[Georgia's] reasonable doubt standard ... is constitutionally impermissible."
Tuesday's ruling sparked a vigorous dissent from Judge Rosemary Barkett, who
said the beyond reasonable doubt threshold will "inevitably lead . . . to the
frequent execution" of the mentally disabled.
"This utterly one-sided risk of error is all the more intolerable when the
individual right at stake is a question of life or death," Barkett wrote.
While Georgia was the first state to bar the execution of the mentally
disabled, "it is the only one to guarantee precisely the opposite result" with
its tough definition of the condition, she said.
Judge Charles Wilson also dissented. He said the majority's logic would allow
Georgia to require mentally disabled defendants to prove their claims "beyond
any shadow of a doubt — a standard requiring ... that prisoners obtain the
unanimous consent of a 100-member panel of state-appointed psychologists, ten
consecutive IQ tests showing an intelligence quotient of no more than 30 and
supporting affidavits from the victims' families and the governor."
(source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
_______________________________________________
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Search the Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/deathpenalty@lists.washlaw.edu/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A free service of WashLaw
http://washlaw.edu
(785)670.1088
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
