Oct. 24
TEXAS:
Experts: Texas Slowly Moving Away From Executions
For years Texas has executed more prison inmates than any other state, but some
believe that trend is coming to an end.
Kristin Houle, executive director of the Texas Coalition to Abolish the Death
Penalty, says Texas is joining the rest of the nation in slowly moving away
from executions.
"One of the main factors driving this movement away from the death penalty, in
Texas and nationally, is the rate or the incidents of wrongful convictions,"
Houle explained.
According to Houle, there has also been an ongoing decline in the number of
people sentenced to death row. In Texas, she says, the number of new death
sentences has dropped about 75 % in the last decade.
So far this year, Texas has carried out nine executions and Miguel Angel
Paredes is scheduled to be put to death on October 28.
Even with the expected death of Paredes, Houle says, "We will have carried out
the fewest executions in Texas, this year, since 1996."
In addition to fewer death sentences, Houle said the lower number of executions
is directly related to recent revelations about wrongful convictions.
Some activists are even taking to the streets to demand the death penalty be
abolished. Rallies are planned across the state before the end of the year, and
kick off this weekend in Houston with the 15th Annual March to Abolish the
Death Penalty.
(source: CBS news)
*************************
After 2 years on the run, Mission capital murder fugitive captured
Police nabbed a 23-year-old man wanted for a 2012 fatal shooting and armed
kidnapping.
Carlos Olvera stood Thursday in Mission Municipal Court to face charges of
capital murder and aggravated kidnapping after more than 2 years on the run.
Police said Olvera was believed to have been hiding in Mexico after Rigoberto
Olivarez's shooting death in December 2012.
U.S. Border Patrol agents caught Olvera, of Diaz Ordaz, Tamps., trying to
illegally enter the U.S. near Sullivan City on Tuesday. A check of Olvera's
fingerprints linked him to the outstanding warrant for the Mission capital
murder case.
Olvera is 1 of 4 suspects investigators say participated in a home invasion and
botched kidnapping in the 1200 block of West 24th Place that left Olivarez
fatally shot.
"I did not shoot," Olvera told Mission Municipal Judge Jonathan Wehrmeister in
Spanish during his arraignment. "I did not have a weapon."
Wehrmeister ordered Olvera, a Mexican national, to be held without bond ahead
of his trial. If convicted of capital murder, he faces life in prison without
parole or the death penalty.
Olvera provided investigators with a statement of accused - considered a form
of a confession - following his arrest, Mission police Det. Eduardo Hernandez
Jr. said. He identified Jorge Ruiz, Eric Gomez Torres, and Ramon Nevarez as
fellow participants in the fatal shooting and kidnapping.
The other suspects may still be in Mexico, where they fled after the 2012
crime, police said.
Investigators believe the 2012 home invasion stemmed from drug trafficking and
that Olivarez knew Olvera and the other suspects.
Police have said Olvera and 2 married couples, including Olivarez and his wife,
were at a small party Dec. 22, 2012.
Ruiz and Torres kicked in the door, ordering the 2 couples to lay down on the
ground, police said following the incident.
Witnesses told investigators that both men wore black masks during the attack.
Ruiz carried a .223-caliber assault rifle later recovered after an 8-hour
manhunt where the suspects escaped a high-speed chase with police. That rifle
was later identified as the one that killed Olivarez, whose body was found in
the kitchen of the house. He suffered 14 gunshot wounds in the attack.
(source: The Monitior)
ALABAMA:
Does the death penalty or life in prison cost more for taxpayers?
Does sentencing someone to death, really cost less? Or is it more cost
effective to keep someone alive in prison?
The whole conversation sparked from a story we posted about a Lauderdale
couple, Patricia and Matthew Ayers, being sentenced to 2,000 years in prison
for sexual abuse of a child.M
Many people took to Facebook to voice their concerns, saying things like:
"Death penalty, cause I don't want my tax dollars feeding them!"
"Electric chair is cheaper, the way it is now, we have to pay for them as long
as they live."
But, is that really the case?
"If you'd asked me, which is cheaper, my answer to you is, for my purposes, it
doesn't matter," Broussard says.
The Vera Institute of Justice estimated in 2010 it cost around $17,000 to house
an inmate for a year.
Assuming Patricia and Matthew Ayers live to 75, the average life expectancy in
Alabama, that's between $570,405 and $708,685 in costs to the taxpayers to keep
them in prison.
That may be a lot, but when you compare it to the costs associated with the
death penalty, we're looking at possibly an even bigger number.
A study by the Urban Institute in Maryland found that it cost about $37.2
million for each of Maryland's 5 executions since the state re-enacted the
death penalty in 1978.
"In court-appointed cases, and most capital murder cases are handled by an
attorney who is appointed to represent a client on that case, which means the
state as a practical matter, is going to pay that fee," says attorney Russell
Crumbley.
According to deathpenaltyinfo.org, the average inmate spends a decade on death
row.
"The whole appellate process is exhaustive and it is for the purpose,
ultimately, of making sure that the person really is guilty. That is the
ultimate punishment in our system," says Crumbley.
According to the Alabama Department of Corrections, there are 193 inmates
currently on death row.
Arthur Lee Giles has been on death row for 35 years.
"Probably, in my career, me personally, I've had 6 people on death row, and
I've been here 25 years," says Broussard.
And he says the punishment fits the crime.
"I'm sure there's a lot of debate about what's the cheaper way to go, but of
something of this magnitude, I have no interest in how those numbers fall,"
Broussard says.
Since the death penalty was enacted in 1983, Alabama has executed 56 people.
(source: WAAY TV news)
KANSAS:
Gov. Brownback speaks out against justices who overturned Carr death penalty
The state's high court is getting a lot of attention after Gov. Sam Brownback
came out Thursday against the justices who overturned the death penalty ruling
for the infamous Carr brothers. The move comes after his campaign drew
criticism for releasing an ad linking his Democratic challenger, Paul Davis, to
the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling.
"Remember the Carr brothers? Five savage murders. Caught. Prosecuted. Death
row. Then, liberal judges in Topeka changed that," the ad says. It then goes on
to say Kansans could expect similar rulings because, as governor, Paul Davis
would have the power to appoint justices.
The ad has since been criticized by Davis, the former DA who prosecuted the
Carrs, Nola Foulston, and by the families of the brothers' victims. But Gov.
Brownback defended the ad.
"Paul Davis wants to continue to appoint liberal judges to that court,"
Brownback said in a debate Tuesday in Topeka. "I want to appoint judges who
will interpret the law, not rewrite it as they choose to see it to be."
And on Thursday, Brownback went further and endorsed the removal of 2 state
supreme court justices, Lee Johnson and Eric Rosen, both of whom are up for a
retention vote in November.
But, legal experts say the justices ruled according to the law.
"The trial judge failed to give each Carr brother a separate trial during the
death penalty phase," said Dan Monnat, of Monnat & Spurrier. "Since when is it
only a liberal idea to follow fundamental constitutional principle? Since when
is it only a liberal idea to give an accused person a fair trial?"
Kansans for Justice, an organization comprised of the Carr brothers' victims'
family members and friends shares the governor's view that the justices should
not be retained in November, but say they are not interested in making the
issue about politics.
"We are saddened the case becomes about politics and not about our loved ones
who we've lost," said Amy James, the media spokesperson for Kansans for
Justice.
Jonathan and Reginald Carr killed 5 people and a dog in a gruesome crime spree
in December of 2000.
(sourcde: ksn.com)
COLORADO:
Death penalty in the Colorado gubernatorial race
Over the past few election cycles, Colorado has become an important
"battleground state" and a bellwether for larger electoral trends. Featuring
contested races for both a Senate seat and the Governor's mansion, it is
arguably the most important site of the upcoming midterm elections. The
gubernatorial contest has Bob Beauprez, an established figure in the Colorado
Republican party, attempting to unseat (the previously very popular) Gov.
Hickenlooper.
Social issues have entered the 2 campaigns in some expected ways - abortion,
health care coverage, gun safety laws, and marijuana legalization. But during
these gubernatorial debates, the issue of the death penalty has also briefly
held the spotlight.
Back in May, Beauprez made a campaign promise that surprised many, since he
presents himself as a faithful Roman Catholic. "When I'm governor," he said
during a GOP debate, "Nathan Dunlap will be executed." Or, in a headline
offered by Mother Jones, "Elect Me, and I'll Kill that Guy."
No one would deny that Dunlap, whose death sentence has been stayed by
Hickenlooper, was convicted of absolutely horrific crimes. And supporters of
Hickenlooper also admit that the Governor did not handle his own decision to
stay the execution very well.
But the Catholic Church's position on the death penalty in modern societies is
very well-known, despite these facts. No. 2267 of the Catechism reads: "Today,
in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for
effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense
incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the
possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the
offender is an absolute necessity 'are very rare, if not practically
nonexistent.'"
The official document for forming consciences of Catholic voters in the United
States, "Faithful Citizenship," inveighs against the death penalty in 5
different sections, saying "continued reliance on the death penalty cannot be
justified" and "the USCCB supports efforts to end the use of the death
penalty." To these ideas we can add recent realities: the exoneration of North
Carolina's longest-incarcerated member of "death row," or the frightful,
bungled executions that have taken place in recent years.
So how can Beauprez defend his explicit campaign promise to order an execution?
On October 9, during a general election debate, he did so by reference to a
private conversation with former Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput.
Here's the Denver Catholic Register's write-up of the Q & A:
The comment came in response to a question asked by Kyle Clark of 9News who
asked: "Mister Beauprez, you have said that your opposition to abortion is
rooted in your strong Catholic faith. You have called elected pro-choice
Catholic Democrats 'heretics.' I'm curious how you came to decide that your
church is right on sanctity of life for the unborn, but wrong on sanctity of
life as it applies to the death penalty, which you support."
Beauprez responded: "Because I've talked to, let me quote him, Archbishop
Charles Chaput. And people are very confused about this and that's why I went
to him, as, I think, a credible source on what Church doctrine is. Many
Catholic clergy believe, as the governor now says he does, that they're
anti-death penalty. But the archbishop made it very clear to me. He said, 'Bob,
you pray on it, sleep on it, reach the conclusion that is right for your soul
and, he said, I'll back you up, because Church doctrine is not anti-death
penalty.' I want to be very clear about that."
Clark followed up: "Pope Francis recently said that the death penalty should
not be used, even in the case of a terrible crime, but you feel that the
archbishop told you otherwise?"
Beauprez answered: "Yes ... the archbishop was very clear on that. He said
there are many in the clergy that have a policy position and that's the
difference between that and Church doctrine. A policy position that is opposed
to the death penalty. And that's fine. I'll just stipulate: There's moral
reasons to be anti-death penalty."
In terms of rhetoric, Beauprez's defense was sound: when he was running for
office in the past, he consulted with the highest Catholic official in his
jurisdiction, and was told to follow his conscience. But the resurfacing of
this anecdote invited questions about what Archibishop Chaput had actually
said. His new archdiocese has offered a short statement:
The Archdiocese of Philadelphia said through a spokesman that Archbishop Chaput
would be unable to comment on a private conversation between himself and the
gubernatorial candidate.
However, they added that "Scripture and long Church teaching uphold the basic
legitimacy of the death penalty. But, the Church also teaches that in the
developed world, the circumstances requiring the death penalty for the purposes
of justice and public safety rarely exist. Therefore the death penalty should
not be used."
As in the Catechism, the death penalty has a "legitimacy" in theory but "should
not be used." Some have asked whether this statement gives "wiggle room" for
Catholic candidates for office, but Chaput's record elsewhere would seem not to
grant any.
In 2002 Archbishop Chaput criticized Catholic Supreme Court Justice Antonin
Scalia for supporting the death penalty, calling it "cafeteria Catholicism."
Scalia's is only 1 voice - albeit an influential one - without any power to
carry out capital punishment. Beapurez, on the other hand, promises to
disregard church teaching precisely as one who has executive authority - the
power to execute.
We should not miss that peculiar feature of the situation in Colorado: this
Catholic candidate for office has made an explicit campaign promise to
contravene a clear and weighty doctrine of Catholic moral teaching - and to do
it himself. There is hardly a "degree of cooperation" argument in this case, as
we have with other moral reasoning about democratic elections and candidates'
values.
With most other issues, a politician's platform indicates aspirations to
certain goals, which sometimes include indirectly facilitating an immoral
practice, usually one that is already readily available to the electorate. But
in this case, Beauprez promises that his election will directly lead to
Dunlap's execution. The causal link between the stroke of his pen and the sting
of a needle is beyond doubt.
It's a macabre campaign promise for anyone to make, but especially for a
Catholic.
(source: Commonweal)
***********************
Colorado Considered Giving Death Row Inmates More 'Leisure Time' Outside Cells
Colorado's Department of Corrections considered allowing death row inmates, who
are normally confined to their cells, to have 4 hours per day of "leisure time"
in which they can walk around inside and outside the facility.
Details of this idea were spelled out in an internal email in March, which was
recently obtained by the website Complete Colorado.
"We allow offenders with a sentence of life without the possibility of parole
to walk around our medium and close custody facilities, who pose no different
risk than those with sentences of the death penalty," wrote DOC employee Kellie
Wasko. "So are we really managing those offenders whose sentence is different -
however, the same - effectively and equally? We believe that we can do better!"
She goes on to describe a new policy that would allow death row prisoners to be
allowed out of their cells for 4 hours, together, without staff members present
in a communal area called a "dayhall." Prisoners can also spend time outdoors
or in shower areas, she wrote.
"[W]e decided that while they are out in the dayhalls, and we are assessing how
this will work, we would consider this dayhall a 'NO STAFF ZONE' at this time,"
Wasko wrote. "So that means that while the offenders are out in their dayhall
for their out-of-cell time, staff will not enter into that dayhall for any
reason while we assess how this will work for our organization."
In an article on its website, Complete Colorado wrote that it's unknown whether
the Department of Corrections actually implemented the new policy, but an
unidentified staffer said it's troubling the idea was even proposed.
"Just the mere fact they would even put it out department-wide that they were
looking to implement something like that had so many staff shaking their
heads," the employee told the site, noting the employee does not work on death
row.
The changes were proposed as Colorado began an overhaul of its policies on
solitary confinement, known as administrative segregation. Last year, an inmate
who'd spent much of his time in solitary murdered corrections chief Tom
Clements and a pizza delivery man while on parole. Clements' successor, Rick
Raemisch, spent 20 hours in solitary as an experiment, leaving with what he
described as an "urgency for reform" in an article he wrote about the
experience in the New York Times.
Colorado has three inmates on death row: Richard Ray, convicted of ordering a
hit on witnesses set to testify against him on another murder charge; Sir Mario
Owens, the man who pulled the trigger in the witness killings; and Nathan
Dunlap, who killed 4 people in a holdup at a Chuck E. Cheese restaurant.
Although Wasko said in her email that the inmates have no history of behavioral
problems in their current confinement to solitary, and should therefore be
allowed out of their cells from time to time, District Attorney George
Brauchler, whose office prosecuted Dunlap, said a change in policy makes no
sense.
"The reason for Administrative Segregation is pretty obvious," he told Complete
Colorado, "which is, once you've told someone, 'We're going to leave you in
prison until we have the ability to kill you, until we have the ability to take
your life,' they are a much bigger risk than others."
(source: Daily Caller)
ARIZONA:
2nd Juror Dismissed From Death Penalty Trial After Talking to Reporter
Things aren't looking good in the Jodi Arias sentencing retrial now that 2
jurors have already been dismissed from the case just 2 days into the trial.
The penalty phase of the Jodi Arias retrial started on Tuesday as prosecutors
presented their opening arguments to persuade the jury into sentencing the
convicted boyfriend killer to the death penalty.
However, one of the 12 jurors was let go due to an ongoing family emergency on
the 1st day of the retrial. The next day, a 2nd was let go for talking to a
reporter that she thought was HLN talk show host Nancy Grace.
Altogether 12 jurors and 6 alternates were selected from a pool of hundreds of
people earlier this month. However, there will be a mistrial if there are less
than 12 jurors to serve on the panel.
Juror No. 9 was dismissed Wednesday after she asked a freelance TV journalist
if she was Nancy Grace, a nationally renowned television personality and a
vocal opponent to Arias, reports AZ Central.
The incident took place during a morning break as Beth Karas, a former
on-camera reporter and commentator for HLN, was being interviewed by 12 News
about the case.
Although Karas says she realized that a juror was standing nearby, she assumed
that she couldn't hear the interview. Once she returned inside of the
courthouse, a woman approached asked if she was Nancy Grace. In response, Karas
told her that she used to work with Grace and then reported the incident to the
court.
As a result, Juror No. 9 was dropped from the case and Maricopa County Judge
Sherry Stephens reiterated to the remaining 16 jurors that they are prohibited
from discussing the case, watching TV, consuming news media and using social
media, reports USA Today.
Arias, 34, was convicted of the 1st-degree murder of her ex-boyfriend Travis
Alexander in May 2013. According to medical examiners, Arias stabbed him 27
times, primarily in the back, torso and heart in his Phoenix home in 2008. She
also slit Alexander's throat from ear to ear, nearly decapitating him, and shot
him in the face before she dragged his bloodied corpse to the shower.
Although the aspiring photographer was found guilty in the case, the jurors
failed to reach a unanimous decision on her sentencing. As a result, the
retrial will determine whether she should be sentenced to death, life in prison
or life with a chance of release after serving 25 years.
(source: Latin Post)
_______________________________________________
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
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
