Nov. 21
OHIO:
Victim's mother reacts to death sentence in Warrensville barbershop slayings
A jury sentenced convicted murder Douglas Shine Jr. to death for killing 3 men
at a Warrensville Heights barbershop in February of 2015.
All 6 counts were unanimous, death for the 21-year-old. Who did not flinch as
he learned his fate. Shine killed William Gonzalez, Walter Barfield and Brandon
White at Chalk Linez barbershop last year. White's mother Angela Ladson was in
the courtroom.
"I'm satisfied," said Ladson. "It's hard not to have emotions when someone says
death. It's been 3 months it's been hard."
Shine's family members stormed out of the courtroom before the judge finished
reading the verdict on all 6 counts. Prosecutors say Shine was a member of the
Heartless Felons gang and that an argument with a rival gang led to the
shooting that killed 3 men and wounded 3 others.
Ladson says moving on will be difficult. She lost 2 sons to Shine's violence.
"Now we can get a little closure but I have to start all over next year for my
second son," said Ladson. "It's hard emotion right now it really is, it really
is.
Aaron Ladson was a witness who prosecutors say identified Shine as the shooter.
Aaron was shot and killed four months after his brother Brandon, in the
driveway of his grandmother's home. Jurors convicted Shine of organizing the
murder from his cell.
Fox 8 asked Ladson if death for Shine was the punishment she wanted to hear in
the case.
"It didn't matter if it was life or death but I am shocked," said Ladson. "I'm
okay, It doesn't bring my sons back but I'm okay."
A source inside the courtroom says the enormity of the situation weighed
heavily on jurors who all wanted to make sure they did the right thing.
(source: Fox News)
****************
It's time to pay attention to mental illness when it comes to capital
punishment ---- Mentally ill individuals shouldn???t receive the death penalty
according to Senate Bill 162, it is not acceptable
3 people were murdered on Cleveland State University???s campus in February of
1982. Frank Spisak, a proclaimed Nazi supporter, shot the Rev. Horace
Rickerson, CSU employee Timothy Sheehan and CSU student Brian Warford. Spisak
also attempted to kill factory worker John Hardaway and CSU employee Coletta
Dartt. Later, he was apprehended by law enforcement, arrested and convicted.
It took 14 years after Spisak's trial to diagnose him with severe bipolar
disorder and to properly medicate him because there was little awareness about
the disorder before. Dr. Chester Schmidt, an expert in bipolar disorder from
Johns Hopkins University determined that Spisak suffered from Bipolar Disorder
I and leading up to the crime, he said Spisak was intoxicated, manic, mentally
unstable, under psycho-social stress and being manipulated by a man named
Ronald Reddish. Reddish was a member of an organization that supported Nazis
and was the accomplice to Spisak's "hunting parties."
30 years after his conviction, Spisak was executed at the Southern Ohio
Correctional Facility. No court ever considered the severity of his mental
illness, and by the time he was properly diagnosed and medicated by the state
prison system, there was no legal opportunity to argue for it.
This is one of many examples of the government failing to recognize mental
illness in a capital case - violating the Constitution and international law.
What Spisak did was horrible, and there is no way to condone his crime - it was
premeditated on the basis of race and ethnicity. But, at the same time, we
can't take serious mental illness or Spisak's circumstances lightly. This is a
complicated issue, and especially because of my Christian faith, I want to
respond to it in the most compassionate way possible.
Firstly, crimes like Spisak???s needed to be punished for life for the sake of
the victim, their loved ones, and the safety of society as a whole. Even Dr.
Schmidt stated that Spisak was too ill to return to society, so he recommended
a life sentence at the prison's mental health ward for the safety of himself
and others.
On the other hand, the amount of proof that Spisak's mental illness made him
unable to understand his actions is overwhelming. He had never received proper
treatment for his illness, and his "friend" Reddish took advantage of his
mental and emotional situation and manipulated him with Nazi propaganda. Later,
Spisak proclaimed that he wanted his hate crimes to start a "race war" in
Cleveland - an idea utterly ignorant of the true consequences and completely
out of touch with reality.
In our society, we are against an underage person receiving the death penalty,
because a juvenile is more susceptible to manipulation and doesn't have the
same ability to make decisions and understand consequences as an adult. For the
same reasons, mentally ill individuals should be exempt from the death penalty.
My heart goes out to anyone who struggles with bipolar disorder. While it does
not excuse violent crime, it can lead to actions - when manic or depressed -
which invoke embarrassment and shame when in a fit state to reflect on it.
Ohio's legislature is taking an important step in the right direction on this
issue. Senate Bill 162 would prevent the execution of offenders who suffered
from serious mental illness at the time of a crime and instead keep open a
sentence to life in prison.
The legislature will be voting on the bill soon and if it passes, our state
will finally recognize executing mentally ill individuals for what it is:
barbaric.
(source: Marissa Beller, a senior Organizational Leadership major at CSU; The
CSU Cauldron)
***********************
19-year-old sentenced to death in student's murder; 3 co-defendents testified
An Akron man convicted of shooting and killing a Kent State University student
during the robbery of a Kent apartment on Super Bowl Sunday is headed to Ohio's
death row.
Citing the "lack of regard for human life this man has," Portage County Common
Pleas Judge Laurie Pittman on Nov. 16 sentenced Damantae D. Graham, 19, to
death for the Feb. 7 murder of Nicholas W. Massa, 18, of Westlake.
"This was a senseless, senseless act," Pittman told Graham. She said she sought
humanity in his eyes during the trial, but found none.
"I have a clear conscience about what I did," Pittman added.
Graham is believed to be the youngest defendant ever to be sentenced to death
in Portage County history.
Jurors convicted Graham Nov. 3 on 6 felony charges, including aggravated
murder, aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and 3 counts of kidnapping. On
Nov. 8, they recommended Pittman sentence him to death.
Pittman found that the aggravating factors of the case -- that Graham committed
the murder in the process of burglarizing a Ryan Place apartment while armed,
and kidnapped and robbed the residents -- outweighed the mitigating factors
that could have spared his life.
Those included Graham's youth and early life of poverty under "harsh
parenting," a diagnosis of oppositional defiant disorder and his voluntary
abuse of illegal and prescription drugs.
Defense attorney Anthony Koukoutas moved for an acquittal on all charges, which
Pittman denied. Barring that, he asked the judge to sentence Graham to life in
prison. She also declined that request.
Twice during the hearing, Pittman offered Graham a chance to speak.
"You don't want to talk to me, Damantae?" she asked him at one point.
"No," Graham replied, with the same lack of emotion he showed throughout his
week-long trial.
Graham gets an automatic appeal of his death sentence. In the event the death
penalty sentence is reversed, Graham still must serve 61 years on the robbery,
burglary, kidnapping and firearms charges, Pittman ruled, agreeing to a request
by Portage County Prosecutor Victor Vigluicci to make sure Graham never leaves
prison.
Graham's co-defendants -- 18-year-olds Ty A. Kremling, Marquis C.T. Grier and
Anton "AJ" Planicka -- all testified at trial that Graham shot Massa during the
robbery, which had targeted small-time marijuana dealer Connor Haithcock, a
former classmate of Kremling at Stow-Munroe Falls High School.
The 3 remaining co-defendants face identical charges of aggravated murder,
aggravated burglary, aggravated robbery and kidnapping.
VICTIM IMPACT
A friend and 3 of Massa's family members delivered emotional victim impact
statements to the court. They remembered his smile and his laughter, his love
of fishing and his wish to one day own his own fishing charter.
Massa's KSU roommate, Alex Mangels, called his lost friend "a beautiful person"
of character, compassion and a willingness to help others. He said he is now
left to "pick up the pieces of a friendship we will have no more."
Massa's family spoke of their love for their lost brother, son and nephew,
calling out Graham for his "callousness" and cowardice.
"Not one time, not even in a half-hearted attempt to save his own life," did
Graham show regret or remorse for the "senseless, cowardly act" of murder, Nick
Massa's uncle Scott Massa told Pittman. "It was disgusting."
Kelly Massa, Nick's older sister, and his mother, Jackie, both cried as they
spoke of never getting to see their brother and son get married and have
children of his own.
"Nick embodied everything I aspired to be," Kelly Massa said. "What this man
took from us is irreplaceable If I want to hang out with my brother, I have to
go to the cemetery. At his wake, I held his hand and I promised justice would
be served."
"The outcome of this trial will not bring back my son," Jackie Massa said, "but
it will allow my son to finally rest in peace."
(source: Stow Sentry)
IOWA:
It's time to reconsider death penalty in Iowa
It was only a matter of time before the death penalty in Iowa would be
addressed as a result of the numerous killings of police officers nationwide
[Will Iowa seek stiffer penalties to protect its police? Nov. 13]. I am a
retired public defender investigator, but have always thought that the harshest
of penalties should be available for those who intentionally murder our public
service employees, firemen, police, parole and probation officers, and any
other public servant who exposes themselves to danger inherent in the
performance of their duties.
The death penalty was not meant to be a deterrent, but the ultimate penalty for
heinous crimes such as the murder of a police officer. I believe it is now the
time for our Legislature to reconsider such a drastic step in Iowa.
Stiffening the now existing law is not good enough. Officers Tony Beminio and
Justin Martin and the many others murdered in the line of duty deserve more.
John Fisher, Des Moines
(source: Letter to the Editor, Des Moines Register)
OKLAHOMA:
Botched Oklahoma execution doesn't justify moral equivalency
No one doubts the execution of Clayton Lockett was badly botched. The 10th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has ruled that the execution did not
constitute torture or cruel and inhumane punishment.
That's welcome news. Given the brutality of Lockett's crimes, few may feel
sorry for him. But there's no evidence anyone sought to prolong his execution
or augment his suffering.
To recap, in 1999 Lockett kidnapped and shot 19-year-old Stephanie Neiman with
a shotgun, and then ordered an accomplice to bury her alive. In 2000, he was
convicted of 19 felonies arising from the incident, including murder, rape,
forcible sodomy, kidnapping, and assault and battery. He received the death
penalty.
Lockett was executed in 2014. Due to a shortage of execution drugs, the state
changed the drugs used. During the execution, it was discovered Lockett's vein
had collapsed, preventing some of the drugs from reaching his circulatory
system. No other vein was available. It took Lockett 43 minutes to die.
Lockett's estate sued, alleging torture and other violations of the Eighth
Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The judges on the 10th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected those arguments last week, based on
prior court rulings upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty even
should isolated errors have adverse consequences in its application.
"The Supreme Court's death-penalty opinions recognize that executions can go
awry," the justices wrote.
In rejecting torture claims, the justices noted there was no indication
Oklahoma officials deliberately acted to cause Lockett additional suffering.
"While Lockett's Estate takes issue with the three-drug protocol and the
midazolam amount used in Lockett's execution, everyone agrees that Lockett's
suffering arose from IV infiltration: the drugs leaked into the surrounding
tissue rather than into his bloodstream, keeping Lockett from receiving full
doses of the drugs," the justices wrote. "Nowhere does Lockett's Estate allege
that the execution team placed the IV or covered Lockett's groin area to cause
Lockett pain. Rather, concerns for Lockett's dignity and privacy led to the
covering and to no one in the execution chamber seeing that not all of the
execution drugs had entered Lockett's bloodstream." (Emphasis in original.)
The court concluded that the problem setting the intravenous needle was the
kind of "isolated mishap" allowed for under U.S. Supreme Court rulings, and
"not something designed to cause additional pain." The court also noted
Oklahoma has since changed its execution protocol, so "we likely will never
confront another Oklahoma execution presenting the same circumstances as
Lockett's execution."
Lockett's estate also claimed state officials failed to properly train and
supervise execution personnel. While conceding the state of Oklahoma "did not
employ every safeguard possible," the court noted the state "did employ some"
and that any deficiencies did not rise to the level of "deliberate
indifference."
Whether Oklahoma continues to conduct executions will remain a source of
debate, as will methods of execution. But the 10th Circuit's ruling highlights
again that those debates should be based on morality and pragmatism, not on
arguments implying state officials are morally equivalent to the killers whose
vicious crimes landed them on death row.
(source: The Oklahoman Editorial Board)
OREGON:
Cost to keep death penalty merits debate in Oregon
5 years ago, former Gov. John Kitzhaber made an announcement that was as bold
as it was surprising: His voice shaking with emotion, Kitzhaber declared that
he would not allow any executions to take place as long as he was governor.
The decision immediately halted the impending execution of death-row inmate
Gary Haugen, who had waived his legal appeals to protest the justice system.
But it was also meant to kickstart a statewide conversation about the
legitimacy of the death penalty in Oregon, a punishment so rarely carried out
that only two of 63 people sentenced to die since 1984 have been executed. Both
men, like Haugen, were volunteers.
But 5 years and a new governor later, the debate Kitzhaber envisioned hasn't
begun. Meanwhile, the death-penalty machinery continues to run, with
prosecutors seeking death sentences, juries granting them and the state
spending millions in legal challenges, fighting for the right to execute
someone who most likely will never be executed. Tuesday's anniversary of the
moratorium will mark yet another year of missed opportunity.
There is, however, no better time than now to start changing that trajectory.
Two studies, one by the Oregon Justice Resource Center and one by Gov. Kate
Brown's general counsel's office, provide some ammunition for doing so.
First is cost: The Oregon Justice Resource Center, an anti-death penalty
legal-services nonprofit funded a study to quantify the cost of the death
penalty to taxpayers, although it captured only some of the expenses. But the
data it gathered showed that aggravated murder cases that resulted in death
sentences cost taxpayers almost $1 million more than those that don't, as The
Oregonian/OregonLive's Tony Hernandez reported. That's not even including the
cost of housing them in separate death-row quarters, a statistic that the
Department of Corrections doesn't split out from the overall prison population.
The second piece comes from a report compiled by Brown's general counsel. The
report, which includes fascinating accounts of the preparations state officials
undertook for Haugen's planned execution, detail significant legal, medical and
logistical issues if Oregon were to resume executions. Among the chief
problems: Manufacturers of drugs used in the lethal injection sequence are no
longer making them or selling them to prisons.
All of this helps bolster the case for having this discussion. And while Brown
has said she opposes the death penalty and will continue the moratorium, she
hasn't signaled that she will drive the debate any further. Her spokesman,
Bryan Hockaday, said her priority now is on the state's budget and that she has
not identified any legislative priorities relating to the death penalty.
Certainly, the $1.7 billion budget shortfall that the state faces is and should
be her primary focus. But the projected deficit also highlights why she and
other leaders must move the death-penalty debate forward. The state's spending
on such prosecutions that seek a theoretical punishment is the definition of
wasting taxpayer money.
A good start would be in getting our arms around what we don't know. For
example, Lewis & Clark Law School professor Aliza Kaplan, who was one of the
authors of the report, notes that prosecutors don't tally the hours they spend
on a case.
The state could direct district attorneys' offices to start tracking their time
per case, just as lawyers in private practice bill clients for their work.
Similarly, the Department of Corrections could break out the portion that it
devotes to death-row operations, which require more intensive management or
special arrangements that aren't in place for the general prison population.
The governor's report, for instance, noted that death-row inmates generally
aren't allowed to leave their cells to seek medical care, requiring that
medical staff visit inmates there each week.
Getting better data is something both supporters and opponents of capital
punishment should get behind. It simply makes no sense to spend millions of
dollars on a system that doesn't do what it says it will do. It's equally
non-sensical to refuse to even talk about it.
(source: The Oregonian/OregonLive Editorial Board)
USA:
Closed Competency Hearing Set For Defendant In Charleston, S.C., Church
Shootings
A closed hearing will be held Monday to determine whether Dylann Roof, who
faces 33 federal hate crime charges for allegedly murdering 9 people in a
Charleston, S.C., church, is mentally competent to stand trial.
Jury selection in the trial has been delayed since the defense filed a motion
questioning Roof's mental competency on Nov. 7, which led U.S. District Judge
Richard Gergel to request a mental evaluation of the defendant.
The competency evaluation was submitted to the parties in the case earlier this
week, reported South Carolina Public Radio, but it has not be released to the
public. The Charleston Post and Courier reported that the evaluation "relied
heavily on interviews" with Roof.
The judge cited the Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial and impartial jury in
his decision to close Monday's hearing, reported Alexandra Olgin of SCPR. If he
rules Roof is not competent to stand trial, the defendant could be sent to a
state mental institution.
At a public hearing on Thursday the judge said, "It is not a normal examiner's
report, I'm telling you that," and called the case "unusual," according the
Post and Courier. He defended his choice to keep the competency hearing closed,
but pledged to release portions of a hearing transcript that don't need to be
kept confidential, the paper reported.
At least seven media organizations, including NPR and the Post and Courier's
parent company, have filed legal objections to the closing of the competency
hearing.
The First Amendment requires criminal proceedings to be open to the public. To
close a hearing, a court must show that there is a compelling interest, such as
protecting a defendant's right to a fair trial, that requires the proceeding to
be closed.
At Thursday's public hearing, some family members of the victims argued they
had a right to observe the proceedings.
"It would be unfair for us not to be there," said Tyrone Sanders, whose
26-year-old son, Tywanza, was killed, and his wife and granddaughter survived
the shooting. "We've lost the greatest portion," Sanders said, according to the
Post and Courier.
The federal government is seeking the death penalty in its case against Roof,
22, who prosecutors say entered Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in
downtown Charleston in June 2015 and sat among people gathered for a Wednesday
evening Bible study before he opened fire.
Emanuel AME is a historically black institution. "The Justice Department says
he selected the [church] and his victims to win notoriety and to try to ignite
a race war," NPR's Carrie Johnson reported.
The federal indictment alleges Roof created a website where he posted a
diatribe against people who are not white, as well as photographs of himself
"wearing a jacket with flags of 2 former apartheid African nations, displaying
his Glock .45 caliber pistol, and holding a confederate flag."
Roof faces separate murder charges brought by the state of South Carolina,
which is seeking the death penalty for Roof's alleged crimes. It is not clear
what, if any, bearing the mental evaluation conducted for the federal trial
could have on the state trial, which is set to begin in January.
(source: npr.org)
*********************
Why CIA Nominee Mike Pompeo Wants to Kill Edward Snowden
Mike Pompeo thinks Edward Snowden should be put to death. When Mike Pompeo was
just a hawkish Republican Congressman from Kansas, that was a relatively
harmless opinion to have, but in a few short months Pompeo might be getting a
promotion. To the director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Which has
drones. And spies. And assassins. And pretty much free reign to do whatever it
wants in almost every country in the world.
On Friday, President-elect Donald Trump announced that he had chosen Republican
Kansas Representative Mike Pompeo as his preferred candidate for CIA director.
In 1986, Pompeo graduated 1st in his class at West Point and went on to serve
as an officer in the Army for 5 years. In 2016, as a member of the House
Intelligence Committee, Pompeo said on C-SPAN that he thought the "traitor"
Edward Snowden should be brought back to the United States and executed.
"He should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the
proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence," Pompeo said
in February.
To be fair to Pompeo, he did say "due process" in there - but since 9/11, due
process has been proven to have been ignored by the CIA. Under the Bush Jr. and
Obama regimes, the CIA has drastically stepped up a battle plan of manhunts,
targeted killings, drone strikes, and even cyber attacks.
Fortunately, Pompeo's coworkers say he's a reasonably receptive dude. House
Intelligence Committee member Adam Schiff (a Democrat, for what it's worth)
told the New York Times that Pompeo was "bright and hard working," and "someone
who is willing to listen and engage, both key qualities in a C.I.A. director,"
which would be reassuring except that hanging out on the House Intelligence
Community is not in any way similar to running the CIA.
By historical standards, Pompeo is certainly qualified for the job, unlike
Trump's openly Islamophobic national security advisor and his attorney general
candidate that was once considered too racist to be a federal judge.
At this point, Snowden's best chance at well, staying alive, is probably to
hope that Pompeo remembers the whole "due process" part of his recommendation
of the death penalty, and doesn't let the whole "unparalleled access to
clandestine operations and methods of extrajudicial murder" thing go to his
head while he leads the CIA.
Pompeo still has to be approved by the Senate, but considering Republicans hold
a 54-44 majority (with 2 Independents usually chilling on the blue side), that
shouldn't be a problem.
Since leaking a massive trove of NSA documents revealing the U.S. Government's
mass surveillance of its own citizens to Wikileaks, Snowden has essentially
been crashing on Vladimir Putin's couch in the Russian Federation (who is also
totally chill with morally questionable intrusions of privacy. He was pretty
safe from extradition there during the Obama Administration, but considering
Trump's cozy relationship with the Russian President, it's not inconceivable
that Putin would sling EddieLeaks back to the U.S. for trial, or just into the
hands of Mike Pompeo's CIA.
(source: inverse.com)
_______________________________________________
A service courtesy of Washburn University School of Law www.washburnlaw.edu
DeathPenalty mailing list
DeathPenalty@lists.washlaw.edu
http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/deathpenalty
Unsubscribe: http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/options/deathpenalty
