Dec. 2
NEBRASKA:
Nebraska Gov. Ricketts defends death penalty proposal
Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts defended a proposal Tuesday that would allow the
state to obtain lethal injection drugs without disclosing its supplier, saying
it would provide greater flexibility to move forward with executions after
voters reinstated the death penalty earlier this month.
The administrative proposal announced Monday would let the Nebraska Department
of Correctional Services' director choose which drugs are used in an execution
and withhold the name of the supplier. Ricketts said the current administrative
rules and 3-drug lethal injection protocol were "more restrictive" than what
state law allows.
"We're really not changing anything with regard to confidentiality," Ricketts
said at a news conference on an unrelated subject. "Claims of secrecy really
just aren't founded."
Ricketts argued that the changes are already allowed under a 2009 state law
which changed the protocol from electrocution to lethal injection. That law
allows the identities of "all members of the execution team" to remain
confidential. Ricketts said the proposal would count a pharmacist or a
pharmaceutical chemist as a part of the execution team, and thus exempt from
public disclosure.
The corrections department would also have to notify condemned inmates which
drugs were chosen, the quantities to be used and the order in which they'd be
administered at least 60 days before the Nebraska attorney general's office
requests an execution warrant. Ricketts said the 60-day window gives inmates
"plenty of time" to appeal.
Nebraska's last execution took place in 1997, using the electric chair. The
state switched to lethal injection after the Nebraska Supreme Court declared
the electric chair unconstitutional, but officials have never used the current
3-drug protocol in an execution.
Certain lethal injection drugs have become virtually impossible to obtain in
the United States or Europe because companies, fearing a public backlash, have
refused to sell them.
Ricketts spokesman Taylor Gage said the cost of the drugs would remain a public
record under the new proposed protocol.
Nebraska spent more than $54,000 last year on lethal injection drugs from a
company based in India, but never received them because federal officials
blocked the shipment. Chris Harris, the company's CEO, declined the state's
request for a refund.
Nebraska's death penalty spent more than a year in limbo after lawmakers
abolished the punishment in 2015, overriding Ricketts' veto. Voters reinstated
capital punishment earlier this month through a ballot measure partially
financed by Ricketts.
Death penalty opponents have promised to fight any attempt to shroud the
process in secrecy.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska said the corrections department
should be taking extra steps to maintain transparency and accountability given
its history of high-profile missteps. 2 inmates escaped from a Lincoln prison
earlier this year because staff members failed to follow security procedures.
In 2014, under a previous administration, prison officials acknowledged that
they had miscalculated hundreds of inmate sentences and failed to follow a
Nebraska Supreme Court ruling.
University of Nebraska-Lincoln law professor Eric Berger said the proposed
protocol raises new legal questions that will likely end up in the courts.
"It violates the Nebraska norm of open and transparent government," said
Berger, who worked with death penalty opponents during the recent ballot
campaign. "It also creates the risk of a botched execution. When they have that
secrecy, (state officials) may feel they don't need to be as careful."
Berger said the decision not to stick with one specific protocol suggests that
state officials could try to use different drugs on different inmates,
depending on what's available. Doing so would force them to "reinvent the
wheel" for every execution and relearn the properties of a particular drug, he
said.
Berger said other parts of the proposal are vague. For instance, the drugs
would have to be tested at least 60 days before an execution, but Berger said
it's not clear who would test them. Additionally, Berger said the proposal
could make it impossible to know whether the corrections director is getting
advice from qualified medical experts when selecting the drugs.
(source: Associated Press)
******************
Give state public input on death penalty protocol ---- It's up to the
Legislature to decide whether to accept the governor's proposal through
legislation that would codify it or reject it. For now, the public is left to
weigh the Corrections Department proposal.
Nebraska voters have spoken definitively in favor of the death penalty. Now the
state needs a way to carry it out.
The last Nebraska execution was in 1997, when Robert Williams was electrocuted.
The state hasn't attempted an execution in the 7 years since the method was
switched to lethal injection.
Public opposition to capital punishment has been increasing, both nationwide
and in Nebraska, and lawsuits filed against manufacturers of the drugs used to
carry out the death penalty have made it harder for states to procure them.
Many American and European manufacturers no longer sell the drugs to states for
use in carrying out the death penalty by lethal injection. Nebraska has spent
thousands of dollars to buy the drugs internationally, yet failed to import
them.
Some death penalty states have been able to obtain the needed drugs by passing
laws or adopting procedures shielding the manufacturers' names. The names are
public under the 2009 Nebraska law that changed the state's method of execution
to lethal injection.
Gov. Pete Ricketts, saying he respects the will of the voters, backs an
administrative change in the death-penalty protocol.
Ricketts and the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services propose adding a
pharmacist or pharmaceutical chemist to the state's execution team. Prison
officials say doing so would help the state obtain the drugs to carry out a
death sentence, since the identities of execution team members are kept
confidential under the 2009 state law.
Prison officials say death-row inmates would be notified about the specific
drugs to be used 60 days before a scheduled execution and say that should
provide time for appeals.
Advocates for open government and critics of Nebraska's death penalty question
the need to shield the manufacturer's identity. Some state senators have
discussed clarifying the intent of the 2009 law.
It's up to the Legislature to decide whether to accept the governor's proposal
through legislation that would codify it or reject it.
For now, the public is left to weigh the Corrections Department proposal. The
administration has scheduled a public hearing for Dec. 30 on its policy change.
Nebraskans should take the opportunity to offer comments on the new protocol.
State leaders should receive as much feedback as possible on the protocol for
an issue as difficult and divisive as the death penalty.
Death penalty politics in Nebraska are complex. The Legislature repealed the
death penalty. Then the governor led and helped finance a successful effort to
restore it. He also campaigned against senators running for re-election who
voted to repeal the death penalty or allowed the repeal to advance.
Given the state's difficulties in procuring execution drugs, officials may need
to pursue some sort of protection for the drug manufacturers, whether in policy
or law.
This discussion pits 2 important principles against one another: complying with
the public's expressed will versus government transparency. Let the debate
begin.
(source: Editorial, Omaha World-Herald)
CALIFORNIA:
Scot facing death penalty has murder trial delayed for a year----A Scot who may
face the death penalty after being accused of shooting dead his mother and
stepfather at their home in the United States has had his murder trial delayed
by a year.
The couple, both 48, were found dead at their home in Bakersfield, California,
on April 30 by police.
Connell, 30, originally from Shawlands, Glasgow, said he believed he committed
the killings during a preliminary court hearing in July.
However, his lawyer Paul Cadman said there was no evidence of premeditation or
malice on his part and argued he should be tried for 2nd-degree murder or
voluntary manslaughter.
He was ordered to face 1st degree murder charges and his trial was due to begin
early next year.
However, court officials in the US said it has now been postponed until January
2018.
Judge Thomas C. Clark turned down the request for Connell to face lesser
charges and said his statements showed ???a fair amount??? of thought and
planning after the killings.
Connell has said he used bleach in an effort to clean up blood pooled around
the bodies.
Mr Cadman said after the preliminary hearing that the killings were a result of
post-traumatic stress disorder and drug addiction problems which Connell
suffered after serving with the US army in Iraq and Afghanistan.
He said: "Derek is disappointed by the decision of the magistrate to continue
this case as a death penalty case since the preliminary hearing showed clearly
that he has no recollection of the events and certainly had no premeditation,
deliberation, or malice aforethought regarding the incident.
"He believes he did it but he doesn't know how.
"His heroic yet frightening experiences serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and the
subsequent substance abuse problems due to his horrific experiences remain
directly responsible for the tragedy that has unfolded in this case."
During an interview played to the court, Connell told investigators he believed
he had killed his mother and stepfather.
"I had to have done it," he said. "There was no one else in the house."
Connell said he spent the evening drinking heavily, then returned to his
parents' home. He began living with them after serving a 9-month jail sentence
for drink driving in Colorado.
He told investigators he spoke with his stepfather briefly before going to bed.
They did not argue, and he said he got along well with both his mother and
stepfather.
Connell said the next thing he recalled was finding their bodies. He cried as
he described lying next to his mother's body and telling her he was sorry.
2 shotguns, 5 handguns and 7 rifles were seized from the home. Mr Connell said
the weapons belonged to his stepfather.
Connell served in the US Army from 2005 to 2008, and was discharged due to an
incident involving alcohol, he said in court filings. He went on to work in oil
fields in Colorado and Texas.
Connell was born in Rutherglen Maternity and lived with his mother in Shawlands
on Glasgow's south side as a child.
She met her future husband while he was stationed with the US navy in Scotland
and moved with her son to America more than 20 years ago. Before her death, she
had worked for 16 years as a teacher at an elementary school.
(source: express.co.uk)
********************
Legal experts discuss next steps for California's death penalty system under
Prop 66
Despite showing its true blue color on issues like marijuana and gun control,
California surprised many when voters chose to shoot down a proposition to
abolish the state's long defunct death penalty and passed one that aims to
reform and expedite the appeals process.
Now, groups like the ACLU and others have filed suit to prevent the state from
resuming executions. But proponents of the new appeals system say they believe
the challenges will be dismissed and executions could resume within the next
year.
What are the next steps on both sides of the death penalty fight in California?
What are the factors at play on each side of the legal challenges to the new
system?
Guests:
Laurel Rosenhall, California politics reporter for CALmatters, a nonpartisan
media venture committed to explaining how California's state capital works and
why it matters
Kent Scheidegger, legal director and general counsel for the Criminal Justice
Legal Foundation, an organization advocating reduced rights for accused and
convicted criminals
Nancy Haydt, criminal defense attorney based in Santa Barbara and a member of
the Board of Governors of California Attorneys for Criminal Justice; she
authored an extensive analysis of Prop 66
(source: scpr.org)
****************
Death Penalty Stands for West Hills Woman Who Had Her Husband Murdered ---- The
conviction of a woman who had her husband killed at his West Los Angeles auto
repair shop will stand, the state Supreme Court ruled.
The California Supreme Court Thursday upheld a woman's conviction and death
sentence for arranging her husband's murder inside a West Los Angeles-area auto
repair shop he owned.
The state's highest court unanimously rejected the defense's contention that
there were errors in the Los Angeles Superior Court trial of former West Hills
resident Catherine Thompson, who is on death row for the June 14, 1990 killing
of Melvin "Tom" Thompson in the restroom of his business.
The 49-year-old man, who had been shot, died later at a hospital.
Shortly after the murder, Thompson submitted a claim on 2 life insurance
policies -- 1 issued for $100,000 and a 2nd one issued the year of the murder
for $150,000 that had a clause that made it potentially worth $300,000, the
Supreme Court wrote in a 111-page ruling.
She instructed a friend to collect all of the jewelry from her husband's body
after the funeral and to return the items to her, which she pawned a day later
and used the money to go on a gambling vacation to Laughlin, according to the
ruling.
Thompson was convicted in September 1992 of 1st-degree murder and conspiracy to
murder, with jurors finding true the special circumstance of murder for
financial gain and recommending that she be sentenced to death.
Co-defendant Phillip Sanders, who was tried along with Thompson, was also
convicted of the murder. He was sentenced to life in prison without the
possibility of parole.
The justices rejected the defense's contention that Thompson should have been
tried separately from Sanders.
In the ruling written by Justice Kathryn M. Werdegar, the panel found there was
a "web of evidence demonstrating that defendant participated in a conspiracy"
with Sanders and 2 others to kill the victim for financial gain, including
"defendant's many refinancing and insurance frauds," the evidence of many
telephone calls between her and Sanders in the days leading up to the murder
and her "blurted-out statement upon her arrest that she `'idn't know Phil at
all"' though police had not yet revealed any evidence of Sanders' involvement
in the crime.
The justices also noted that Thompson had a "strong financial incentive to kill
the victim" and quickly used the insurance money after he was killed.
The panel found that the trial court "did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that evidence of defendant's prior financial misdeeds was relevant
to showing her motive for killing, and conspiring to kill, her husband in order
to collect on his life insurance policies."
The justices wrote that jurors could infer from the evidence that "defendant's
financial house of cards was about to collapse, leading her to believe she had
one last option to make a large financial score: killing her husband."
Thompson -- who was sentenced to death in 1993 -- is among 21 women awaiting
execution in California.
(source: patch.com)
***************
Senator urges attorney general to pursue death penalty against Scott Dekraai
State Sen. Janet Nguyen Thursday called on the state attorney general's office
to continue pursuing the death penalty against Scott Evans Dekraai, the worst
mass killer in Orange County history.
The appeal by Nguyen, D-Garden Grove, comes more than a week after a panel of
Fourth District Court of Appeal justices affirmed a lower court's ruling
recusing the Orange County district attorney's office from the case against
Dekraai, who has pleaded guilty to 8 murders and 1 attempted murder in and
around a Seal Beach beauty salon 5 years ago, but is awaiting the punishment
phase of his trial as prosecutors were seeking to have him put to death.
If the attorney general declines to appeal the Nov. 22 ruling, it would have to
decide whether to pursue the death penalty or just let Dekraai default to a
state-mandated life without the possibility of parole sentence.
"We will never be able to replace the loved ones lost, but we do owe it to the
families and friends of Mr. Dekraai's victims to ensure that he is held
accountable, to the fullest extent, for the lives he took," Nguyen said. "For
the anguish he caused and the disregard he displayed for human life, Mr.
Dekraai deserves to receive the death penalty."
Kristin Ford, a spokeswoman for the Attorney General's Office, said, "We are
still reviewing the (justices') ruling."
The Attorney General's Office has until Jan. 3 to decide whether to appeal to
the state Supreme Court.
The appellate justices upheld the recusal of the district attorney's office by
citing "institutional" problems with the handling of jailhouse informants,
particularly in the investigation against Dekraai.
The justices ruled Dekraai could not get a fair trial because prosecutors have
shown a penchant for siding with their law enforcement partners, the Orange
County Sheriff's Department, which the justices faulted for much of the
problems with the handling of "snitches," who have been accused in multiple
cases of violating the constitutional rights of cell mates as they
surreptitiously try to glean helpful information for investigators.
(source: presstelegram.com)
WASHINGTON:
Lawyers: Mass shooting suspect too immature for death penalty
Attorneys for the man charged with the July 30 mass shooting in Mukilteo say
evidence suggests he has been living with untreated neurological problems and
potential mental illness, and that justice demands more study before
prosecutors decide whether to seek his execution.
Preliminary testing also suggests Allen Ivanov, 20, has the brain development
of somebody years younger, defense attorney Walter Peale wrote in court papers.
"Age is not the determiner of immaturity; brain development is," Peale wrote.
"Allen Ivanov's brain development will show he is a 'juvenile' to whom the
death penalty cannot apply."
Peale filed the pleadings Thursday in preparation for a Dec. 14 hearing. He
wants Snohomish County Superior Court Judge Janice Ellis to extend into January
the time prosecutors can be presented information that may help them decide
whether to seek the death penalty for Ivanov.
The Mukilteo man is charged with aggravated murder in the killings of Anna Bui,
Jacob Long and Jordan Ebner, all 19. He's also accused of trying to murder Will
Kramer, who was shot in the back, and allegedly shooting at 2 other young men
as they ran for cover.
Prosecuting Attorney Mark Roe had given the defense team until Friday to
provide him with "mitigation" information to consider before he decides whether
to pursue death for Ivanov. Roe had expected to announce his decision by the
middle of the month.
In Washington, the only punishment for somebody convicted of aggravated murder
is a death sentence or life in prison without the possibility of release.
Although Gov. Jay Inslee has ordered a moratorium on executions, county
prosecutors aren't barred from pursuing the death penalty in aggravated murder
cases.
Snohomish County deputy prosecutor Adam Cornell said Thursday that prosecutors
plan to file a response to the defense's motion ahead of the hearing, but he
declined to say anything more about the request.
Ivanov was 19 when he allegedly opened fire with a military-style rifle at a
house party. Like him, most of the young people there had graduated from Kamiak
High School.
Bui was Ivanov's former girlfriend. He reportedly told detectives that he
killed her and her friends because he was upset over the end of their
relationship. Prior to the gunfire he also wrote a lengthy letter explaining
his motivation and insisting there is nothing wrong with him or the way he
thinks.
"I'm selfish. That's why I did this," Ivanov wrote.
Attorneys Peale and Karen Halverson both were appointed to represent Ivanov
because of their experience representing people in cases where capital
punishment is possible.
In keeping with the state's death penalty law, 1 of the first steps for defense
attorneys is to present prosecutors with information that may merit leniency.
In court papers, Peale recounted meeting with Roe to seek additional time to
present evidence. The prosecutor stood firm on his deadline.
The defense team "has set about to learn as much as possible about who Allen
Ivanov is now, who he was on July 30, who he was before the incident and how he
got to be who he was on that day," the attorney wrote.
They've traveled to the East Coast to meet with Ivanov's business partners in a
computer game business. They've spoken to his family and his friends. Many
others who knew Ivanov and the victims do not want to talk with investigators,
Peale wrote. The defense also learned that the school district will not allow
Ivanov's former teachers to be interviewed. The defense doesn't have time to
issue subpoenas by Roe's deadline, Peale wrote.
Peale and Halverson broached the possibility of speaking with the victims???
families but Roe "rejected all suggestions." He agreed, Peale said, to pass
along their findings and expressions of sorrow.
The defense also has arranged for Ivanov to undergo a battery of tests focusing
on his neurological development and mental health.
"We are still mining information. Allen's life story is complex. It is filled
with subtle clues," Peale wrote.
Among other things, they've learned that both of Ivanov's parents are
immigrants from the former Soviet Union. His father was from Moscow. His mother
lived there, too, as well as in Azerbaijan, before moving to the U.S.
Ivanov had learning problems and displayed "peculiar behaviors" as a child, the
lawyer wrote. He described him as an "underachiever" in school, except for
math. People have described Ivanov as "consumed with image," compulsive and
controlling.
As a teen he reportedly would "shut down" and make suicidal threats, his family
reported. At his mother's urging he underwent a mental health evaluation in
November 2014, but didn't follow through with suggested therapy. His mental
instability was pronounced enough that those around him, including Bui,
discussed on social media how best to help, Peale wrote.
Preliminary testing also shows that Ivanov's brain has not developed "beyond an
equivalent age of 18," the attorney wrote. That's an issue because the death
penalty can't be sought for juveniles.
The attorney said he knows Roe will give weight to the recommendation of those
who lost loved ones in the gunfire.
"The defense does not lose sight of the loss to the families of the victims and
survivors. The defense job is more specific and isolated. The defense must
focus on Allen," Peale wrote.
(source: The Herald)
USA:
A plea for mercy: Meeropol brothers call on Obama to exonerate their mother,
Ethel Rosenberg, who was executed in 1953 for being a spy
On June 14, 1953, Robert and Michael Meeropol, 6 and 10 at the time, delivered
a letter to a guard at the White House gates asking then-President Dwight D.
Eisenhower to spare their parents, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were
convicted for conspiracy to commit espionage and awaiting execution.
"Please let my mommy and daddy go and not let anything happen to them," Michael
wrote to Eisenhower. "If they come home Robby and I will be very happy, we will
thank you very much."
Michael said he remembers the day clearly, the guard knew he was coming and
smiled when Michael handed him the letter. His grandparents and brother Robert
stood by his side.
That day, approximately 6,800 people marched through Washington to pressure the
president into granting clemency for the convicted spies, according the FBI
website.
Signs read "Show the world America is merciful," "New evidence shows perjury,"
and "Mr. President: 'Please send my mommy and daddy home' Michael Rosenberg."
The pleas did not save their parents. The Rosenbergs were electrocuted 5 days
later.
The Rosenbergs were convicted of passing secrets about the atomic bomb to the
Soviet Union. However, the Meeropol brothers say their mother was not a spy.
The charges against Ethel and the threat of the death penalty, according to
Robert, were meant to intimidate Julius into cooperating.
After their parents' death, Robert and Michael took the adoptive parents'
surname of Meeropol. Robert, 69, now lives in Easthampton and Michael, 73,
lives in New York.
On Thursday, the Meeropol brothers visited the White House gates again, this
time to publicly and symbolically deliver a letter and package of supporting
documents to President Barack Obama, calling on him to issue a proclamation
exonerating their mother.
"What we're asking for is a presidential statement that in effect nullifies the
guilty verdict and states that her execution was wrong," Robert said during a
live Facebook feed from outside the White House.
Together, the brothers re-enacted the visit they made 63 years ago. But this
time, the gates around the White House were more secure and the brothers were
told they could not hand deliver a letter. The Meeropols said the packet has
been sent through mail as well.
"The important thing is we symbolically did this to replicate what was done in
1953," Michael said.
A lifelong mission
The Meeropol brothers spent about 40 years researching their parents' case. In
2008, grand jury documents from the Rosenberg trial were released - excluding
the testimony of a chief prosecution witness, Ethel Rosenberg's brother, David
Greenglass.
Greenglass's testimony was made public in 2015, about a year after his death.
It was key evidence. At the trial, Greenglass contradicted his sworn grand jury
testimony. At the trial, he described Ethel at secret meetings and that he saw
his sister typing up handwritten notes. Greenglass's grand jury testimony,
however, makes no mention of Ethel's presence at secret meetings, according to
the Meeropols.
Decades later, Greenglass admitted that his testimony that led to his sister's
conviction and execution was a lie, according to the Meeropols.
"The evidence about our mother is so clear that there is virtually no argument
about it," Michael said.
But the Meeropol's said, "There is no question that the U.S. government -
fueled by the hysteria of McCarthyism - encouraged false testimony and wrongly
killed our parents."
On Wednesday, Congressman Jim McGovern sent a letter urging Obama to re-examine
the case and determine if the conviction and execution of Ethel was
fundamentally flawed.
"A significant body of evidence - including U.S. government files, grand jury
testimony and other 3rd-party sources - now suggests that Ethel was not a spy,
and that the government knew this at the time of her prosecution," McGovern
wrote. "Moreover, this evidence indicates that Ethel was prosecuted not because
of her own culpability but as a 'lever' to put pressure on her husband, Julius,
to cooperate with the government."
Within the past year, more than 40,000 people signed the petition to exonerate
Ethel Rosenberg. Among the notable political activists who have signed the
petition are Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore, Angela Davis and Ed Asner.
Michael Moore posted a letter to Obama on his Facebook page. "Mr. President, it
is now time to right this wrong. It is time to exonerate Ethel Rosenberg," he
wrote.
A petition through the White House government website requires 100,000
signatures to be collected within 30 days for a response. Considering the
Rosenberg case was over 6 decades ago, the Meeropol brothers decided to take a
different route and launched a petition on the Rosenberg Fund for Children
website, an Easthampton organization founded by Robert in 1990 to help children
of targeted activists.
Throughout the month of December, the Meeropol brothers plan to continue to
raise questions about their mother's case and gather more signatures.
"Since we can't being her back to life, there could be nothing more satisfying
for us than to have the government acknowledge that this shouldn't have
happened," Robert said in front of the White House during the live Facebook
feed.
(source: Daily Hampshire Gazette)
**************
Why the death penalty is not dead yet
Battered with bad publicity in recent years, the death penalty's public support
has declined. But earlier this month when voters in Nebraska, Oklahoma and
California had their say, they voted to retain and even expand it, making clear
that the controversial punishment is far from finished.
But even while public support for the death penalty remains in place, the
political ground underneath that support has shifted in important ways. In
years past, the issue split clearly along left/right political cleavages, with
conservatives favoring and liberals opposed.
Today, those fault lines are much less clear, and a bit less coherent.
California, for example, a consistently blue state, embraced the death penalty
in 2 November ballot propositions.
The shifting ground is also apparent in deep red Utah, which in 2015 approved a
law bringing back the firing squad. Then a year later, in 2016, a bill that
would have abolished the death penalty altogether passed the Senate and came
within a floor vote in the House of going to the governor's desk.
Had that bill been passed and signed, Utah might have found itself in a
position similar to Nebraska, where heavily Republican voters earlier this
month rebuked a heavily Republican state Legislature by reinstating the death
penalty.
In 2015, the Nebraska Legislature voted to abolish the death penalty and then
overrode the veto of Republican Gov. Pete Ricketts. In Nebraska's single
legislative house, 35 of its 49 members are currently Republican.
In what became an inter-party squabble, Republican Gov. Ricketts became a
driving force in the ballot initiative to overturn the death penalty abolition
in November of this year, donating $300,000 of his own to the cause.
In short, death penalty opponents, though discouraged by election results this
year, may have more growth potential at the political right and center than is
apparent at first glance. Only time will tell if those seeds bear fruit.
Strange alignments
Conservative intramural squabbles on the death penalty reflect growing
skepticism about trust in government power among some conservative thought
leaders, particularly the tea party wing of the party.
No matter how much time passes, certain things about parenting remain the same.
Others, however, don't. Let's explore ways parenting is different today than
half a century ago.
In 2015, conservative columnist George Will, though not a tea partier,
announced his opposition to the death penalty. At the same time, Sen. Rand Paul
(R-Indiana) has been an outspoken opponent of open-ended domestic surveillance
programs, and Utah's Sen. Mike Lee has been been a leading advocate of reducing
mandatory minimum sentences, even partnering with liberal Democrats on this
issue. Both Lee and Paul are considered children of the tea party movement.
Meanwhile, in deep blue California, the voters are not ready to let go. Golden
State voters went 62 % for Hillary Clinton while also voting to legalize
marijuana and regulate gun magazines. But on the same ballot they easily
rejected a measure to eliminate the death penalty, while narrowly endorsing one
that would speed up executions by limiting appeals.
Oklahoma voters also weighed in on Nov. 8, using a constitutional amendment to
remove the death penalty from the judiciary's reach. Oklahoma had been a
flashpoint of controversy in 2014 after a gruesome botched lethal injection.
An unusual spike
Since 2014, anti death-penalty advocates had felt it was only a matter of time
before the opinion and policy shifted in their favor, as they rode a wave of
publicity over exonerations on death row and controversies about humane lethal
injection drugs.
In 2015, the Deseret News noted that "public support for the death penalty has
been on a steady downward curve since it reached a high of nearly 80 % of
Americans supporting it in 1994, according to Pew Research Center data. Today,
55 % support capital punishment, Pew found, with large variations in ethnic
groups. Blacks and Latinos are much more likely to oppose it."
But looking at the larger picture over time, it seems that choosing 1994 as a
starting point might muddle the picture.
According to Gallup, 60 % of Americans today support the death penalty, the
exact same percentage that supported it in 1937. In between, there have been
ups and downs, ranging from a low of 42 in 1966 to a high of 80 % in 1994.
The year 1994 was also very near the peak of violent crime in America. Violent
crime rates began climbing sharply in the late 1960s and continued to push
upwards, cresting in the mid-1990s before beginning a sharp downward descent
that brought them down today to levels not seen since 1960.
Public opinion polls seem to clearly follow crime over that time period, with
support for the death penalty spiking just after crime rises, then falling
gradually as crime falls.
If this link between violent crime and public opinion on the death penalty is
accurate, then the 60 % level of death penalty support today may not be the
result of a downward slide that is destined to continue. The drop may be,
rather, the ebbing of an unusual dual spike upward and back down to more normal
levels. Confidence that this slide will continue may be misplaced.
Possible openings
Digging a little deeper, the Gallup data yields some interesting insights into
how death penalty opponents might unpack the issue to their advantage.
Since 1985, in addition to asking about support for capital punishment, Gallup
has asked poll takers if they would endorse life in prison with "absolutely no
possibility of parole" as an alternative to the death penalty.
Given that option, respondents in 1997 - near the peak of the crime wave -
chose the death penalty by 61 to 29, compared with 80 % who chose the death
penalty in the question that did not mention other options.
By 2014, a much more narrow 50-45 were in favor of the death penalty when
offered the alternative, compared with 60 % who supported the death penalty
when not offered the alternative. This indicates slippage across the board, but
it also suggests openings to reframe the issue by offering alternatives.
One key question is whether people see the death penalty as a deterrent to
violent crime. The shifts over time on this are quite striking. In 1985, 62 %
said yes, it was a deterrent, but supportive responses dropped steadily and by
2011, the most recent year Gallup asked the question, just 32 % saw the threat
of punishment by death as a deterrent.
In an open-ended question about why voters supported the death penalty, 50 % in
1991 chose some variation of "the punishment fits the crime," but that number
had dropped to 35 % by 2014.
Explanations for supporting the death penalty, which had long focused on
deterrence and retribution, are now much more scattered, with no dominant
answers. These changes suggest the public may have become a little unclear on
its reasoning, and thus more open to persuasion.
Another opening may lie in attitudes toward false convictions. Gallup only
records answers on this in 2003 and 2005. In 2005, 57 % of respondents
estimated false conviction rates at between 1 and 5 %.
No one knows the true number of false murder convictions, as the Deseret News
has noted previously, with estimates varying from a low of .33 % to a high of
between 3 and 5 %, estimates very much in line with public perception.
It is worth noting that the Gallup survey showed few if any respondents
believing that false convictions never happen. That means nearly all death
penalty supporters apparently accept at least some small risk that some people
will be falsely convicted and executed.
The challenge for death penalty opponents is to replace that vague statistical
awareness of possible innocence with real human faces.
In Utah, such an effort is underway. Last week, Utah Conservatives Concerned
about the Death Penalty hosted a forum on the death penalty featuring Ray
Krone, a wrongly convicted Arizona man who sat on death row for 10 years before
being exonerated through DNA evidence.
For now, polls show the traditional American consensus in support of the death
penalty appears to be holding near its historic norms. But openings may exist
to disrupt it from both ends of the political spectrum, and with different
avenues of persuasion.
(source: Deseret News)
****************
Jeff Sessions Didn't Like How The Supreme Court Spared 'Retarded' People From
Execution----Donald Trump's pick for attorney general said in 2002 that federal
judges shouldn't read too much into the Constitution.
This week, the Supreme Court weighed the proper standard states must use to
determine whether a capital defendant has an intellectual disability that would
prevent a death sentence.
In a landmark 2002 case, the court ruled that the Constitution bars the
execution of "mentally retarded offenders," but left open the question of how a
state might assess the disability. The new case, Moore v. Texas, aims to fill
some of that void in the law.
In the days that followed that 2002 ruling, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) - whom
President-elect Donald Trump has picked for attorney general - said the Supreme
Court's death penalty decision left him "very troubled."
"The court seemed to say that they had divined, somehow, that the American
people had evolved in their thinking and, therefore, the laws their
legislatures had passed were not valid anymore," Sessions said during an
unrelated debate on the Senate floor decrying a Pledge of Allegiance ruling.
"That they could not execute people who were retarded."
What the Alabama senator appeared to critique here is an old constitutional
precedent, first announced by Chief Justice Earl Warren in 1958, that the
Constitution's prohibition against "cruel and unusual" punishment should
reflect society's progress. The court's 2002 ruling relied on this precedent.
"The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the
dignity of man," Warren wrote in Trop v. Dulles. "The Amendment must draw its
meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a
maturing society."
To Sessions, this was not a theory that should guide the Supreme Court's
decision-making.
"However you feel about that," he continued in that same Senate session, "that
is a dangerous philosophy, but it is a philosophy afoot in America today. It is
a philosophy, I think, that is dangerous to liberty. If you care about the
Constitution ... you will enforce it, the good and bad parts."
To be sure, the Eighth Amendment says nothing about the death penalty, and
Sessions isn't alone in his view that the amendment shouldn't be interpreted
through the lens of society's evolution. Just last year, in a lethal injection
case, the late Justice Antonin Scalia faulted the 1958 decision and suggested
it should be overruled.
The death penalty itself remains constitutional, and Sessions, if confirmed as
attorney general, won't have much say in what happens to capital punishment in
the courts. His input, like that of Attorney General Loretta Lynch in the case
of accused South Carolina church gunman Dylann Roof, would be limited to
recommending the ultimate punishment in individual federal prosecutions.
Be that as it may, Sessions' remarks in 2002 offer a window into the subject -
if not into how he feels the courts should interpret America's founding
document.
"The way to erode the power of the Constitution to protect our liberties is to
start playing around with the meaning of words, just redefining those words,"
Sessions said. "And they come to mean whatever a judge says they do. That is a
particularly pernicious thing because, you see, judges are not accountable.
Federal judges are not accountable to the public. They are given a lifetime
appointment."
Sessions himself was denied appointment to the federal bench in 1986.
(source: Cristian Farias; Legal Affairs Reporter, The Huffington Post)
************************
Most Favor Death Penalty for Charleston Church Shooter
Jury selection is underway in the federal trial of Dylann Roof who stands
accused of the shooting deaths of a pastor and 8 parishioners in a black
Charleston, South Carolina church last year. Most Americans believe Roof
deserves the death penalty if found guilty.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 57% of
American Adults think the Charleston shooting suspect should be sentenced to
death if convicted. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagree, but another 23% are not
sure.
The national survey of 1,000 American Adults was conducted on November 28-29,
2016 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 % points with
a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is
conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
(source: Rasmussen Reports)
*************************
Accused Charleston church shooter files objection to federal trial
proceedings----Judge calls it 'a tactic for delay'
The man facing 33 charges and a possible death penalty in the shooting deaths
of nine people at a downtown Charleston church filed a legal objection to the
federal case Thursday.
Dylann Storm Roof, 22, is charged in the June 17, 2015 Emanuel AME Church
shooting that claimed the lived of 9 parishioners after a Bible study.
In a filing dated Thursday, Roof, through court-appointed standby counsel,
objected the proceedings as violating his Eighth Amendment right to "a reliable
determination of his culpability and sentence in a capital case," because of
the court's refusal to authorize "reasonable, limited assistance he has
requested from standby counsel."
The filing stated Roof's request to represent himself, granted by U.S. District
Judge Richard Gergel, is not a "tactic" designed to gain any kind of advantage
in the trial and cited Gergel's own judicial opinion filed on Wednesday that
states "no facts suggest Defendant's motion is 'a tactic for delay; for
disruption for distortion of the system; or for manipulation of the trial
process.'"
Roof also argued that in death penalty trials, self-representation is
compounded by both the complexity and the stakes a defendant faces. The vast
majority of lawyers are not qualified to handle death penalty cases, the filing
stated.
For this reason, Roof argued, the Constitution provides "special protections"
in capital cases because of the life-or-death stakes, such as special
accommodations that would include allowing standby counsel to explain voir dire
objections for Roof. Voir dire is a legal term that refers to a preliminary
examination of a witness or juror.
The objection stated that the court must balance Roof's Sixth Amendment right
to represent himself in the trial with his other Constitutional rights.
"The Court's refusal to permit the defendant to call on standby counsel for
assistance works against even that modest aim," the motion stated. "Both the
Constitution and the public interest require reconsideration of the Court's
approach."
Roof filed an objection to the court proceedings Thursday, arguing the court is
not allowing his standby counsel to offer him the level of guidance the
Constitution guarantees. It is not clear when the judge will take up that
objection.
(source: WYFF news)
_______________________________________________
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
