[Deathpenalty] death penalty news----ARK., VER., N.J., CONN., ILL.

[Rick Halperin]

May 17


ARKANSAS:

Did the West Memphis Three work alone?


It was a gruesome discovery 14 years ago, the bodies of 3 boys mutilated
in West Memphis.

Stevie Branch, Michael Moore, and Christopher Byers were murdered while
riding their bikes on May 5th, 1993.

A jury convicted 3 teens in those murders. The teens are now known as the
West Memphis Three.

Now, one of the victim's mothers, Pam Hobbs, says she thinks there could
be another killer still out there.

For years, Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelly, and Jason Baldwin said they
didn't do it.

They say someone else murdered those little boys, and now the mother of
one of the victims says she, too, wonders if someone else may have been
involved.

Stevie Branch was an honor roll student who had an active imagination and
loved to sing.

He wrote a song when he was 8-years-old.

"He was a very intelligent little boy. I could have had the next president
had he not been murdered," says Hobbs.

Hobbs remembers vividly the last time she spoke to her son. She says he
asked if he could ride bikes with his friends on the afternoon of May 5th,
1993.

He left her home and never came back.

Investigators found Stevie's nude body along with the bodies of Michael
Moore and Christopher Byers bound in a shallow creek off I-40 in
Crittenden County.

Hobbs adds, "for the first 5 or 6 years it was hell on earth. If they
could put that into words, if they could describe how I felt.'

After a massive manhunt, police charged Damien Echols, Jessie Miskelley
and Jason Baldwin with killing the boys.

Echols got the death penalty. Miskelley and Baldwin got life in prison.

"I feel like the ones that killed my son, the three that were tried and
convicted they are guilty. But I am like everyone else, was there someone
else out there other than those three," says Hobbs.

For years, investigators have denied the possibility of anyone else being
involved in the murders, while websites devoted to the case poke holes in
the detectives' work.

The HBO documentary "Paradise Lost" also claimed West Memphis police
botched the case.

Action News 5 reporter Janice Broach covered the West Memphis Three case
extensively.

There were questions about other suspects who could have been involved.
But even this week, investigators said they are certain the right people
were convicted of the crime.

They say they can't talk about it on camera, because every time they do,
they receive death threats.

Hobbs says she doesn't mind people supporting the West Memphis Three. She
does think they are guilty. And she just doesn't know if they worked
alone.

"If that's the way he wants to go down in history as a child murderer,
then that's the road he chose to take in this life," adds Hobbs.

Hobbs says she's forgiven Echols and anyone else connected to the murder
of her son and hopes something positive can still come from the killings.

"If God would save their souls then the devil didn't accomplish anything
out of this. He just made my life a little miserable," says Hobbs.

Even though the West Memphis 3 are behind bars, this case is not over.
There are people around the country looking at new DNA evidence.

We've learned that some of those investigators will be looking at new
evidence Thursday.

(source: WMC TV News)






VERMONT:

Executing justice: A murder trial reignites Vermonts death penalty debate


This article was posted on July 15, 2005 in the midst of a high-profile
death penalty case in federal court, where prosecutors were pushing for
the death penalty in a state that has not had the death penalty for more
than 50 years.

It has been almost 50 years since the death penalty was imposed in
Vermont, and that 1957 sentence was commuted. 30 years later, the state
Legislature officially abolished capital punishment. After the murder of a
Vermont woman in 2000, lawmakers seriously considered reinstating it, and
although that effort failed, the crime led to a federal trial in
Burlington over the past month that has made the issue difficult to
ignore.

The victim was Tressa "Terry" King, a 53-year-old grandmother from North
Clarendon who was kidnapped on Nov. 27, 2000, as she arrived for an early
shift at the Rutland Price Chopper. Several hours later, King was beaten
to death over the border in New York. One of her killers, Donald Fell,
came from Pennsylvania, where he was subjected to beatings and sexual
abuse as a child, saw his parents stab each other at age 5, and started
drinking from a basement beer keg before he was 10.

In June, forced to act by former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft, a
Vermont jury convicted Fell, and on July 14, after a day of deliberations,
decided that the 25-year-old murderer deserves death for his crime.

The decision comes as juries across the United States increasingly have
become reluctant to impose capital punishment and surveys indicate that
support is growing for life in prison without parole as an alternative.
Even Texas, which is responsible for a third of all U.S. executions, and
Florida, which once led the nation, have passed laws approving that
option.

U.S. death sentences have declined from 300 in 1998 to 125 in 2004. Last
year, there were 59 executions in the United States, for a total of 944
since the U.S. Supreme Court lifted a moratorium on executions in 1976. As
of June 30, there were 27 executions this year, including 9 in Texas,
according to the Death Penalty Information Center.

As the Fell trial opened, death penalty opponents in Vermont argued that
putting criminals to death is both uncivilized and ineffective as a
deterrent. Joseph Gainza, director of the Vermont chapter of the American
Friends Service Committee, told the press, "Many people are feeling that
this is Vermont, and we made the decision that we dont want to have the
death penalty. Vermonters on the jury should not decide whether or not a
person dies at the hand of the state."

Burlington Mayor Peter Clavelle went even further, claiming that residents
"reject the death penalty." Former Gov. Madeleine Kunin called the trial
"a federal intrusion" and noted that no politician who supports capital
punishment has recently been elected.

Despite such arguments, public opinion across the state has not been
convincingly assessed in years. The most recent published poll, taken by
State Sen. William Doyle on Town Meeting Day 1999, suggested that the
state is divided: 48 % of those who responded said the death penalty
should be restored, with 41 % opposed. Although Doyle's poll reached
thousands of people, it only included the opinions of those who chose to
participate, and the question was posed as neighboring Massachusetts
debated a death penalty bill.

Sensing the absence of a statewide consensus, recent Vermont governors
have straddled the fence. In the midst of the state's 2001 debate on the
issue, then-Gov. Howard Dean said he wouldn't introduce a death penalty
bill, but added that he wouldn't veto one that reached his desk. In 2003,
during his bid for president, Dean told Meet the Press, "The problem with
life without parole is that people get out for reasons that have nothing
to do with justice."

As the penalty phase of the Fell trial began, Gov. Jim Douglas adopted a
similar position. At a June 30 press conference, Douglas said that
although he has no plans to propose capital punishment, he also isnt
"unalterably opposed."

According to Vermont Law School Prof. Michael Mello, a death penalty
expert, once the Fell trial ends, the victims family, whose strong support
for the death penalty is said to have influenced Ashcroft's decision to
reject a life without parole plea agreement for Fell, could turn their
attention to the Legislature. "They may say that what we need to do in
memory of their relative is pass 'Terrys Law,'" Mello noted.

Facts and moral judgments

The defense team did not dispute the grim details of the case during the
guilt phase of the trial. Fell and a friend, Robert Lee, came to Vermont
on Nov. 27, 2000, from Wilkes-Barre, PA. Fell's mother, Debra, had
contacted him after a 7-year separation. On Christmas Day in 1993, she had
left their home, ostensibly to buy a ham, and didn't come back.

On an audiotape played in court, which was recorded during the hunt for
King's body, Fell couldnt explain why things turned bad during the
reunion. But he acknowledged that he killed his mothers boyfriend, Charles
Conway, while Lee stabbed Fell's mother to death. Before he hanged himself
in custody, Lee told a different story, placing most of the responsibility
on Fell, according to an investigation. The 2 had been drinking and using
drugs.

Around 4 a.m. the next morning, they grabbed King, stole her car, and
drove her at gunpoint into New York. Crossing the border made the case a
federal crime. Hours later, they stopped in Dover, NY, where the 2 beat
her to death.

"I was getting nervous," Fell said on the tape, "and wanted to set her
free. But Bobby had a different idea." Whatever the truth, the 2 then
drove south, and were apprehended in Arkansas. Before he was caught, Fell
said, he wanted to kill himself with a heroin overdose.

Since state lines were crossed, federal authorities claimed jurisdiction
and decided to put Fell on trial for kidnapping and carjacking with death
resulting. But when the U.S. attorneys office made a plea agreement to
spare Fell's life, offering a lifetime jail sentence with no chance for
parole, Ashcroft rejected it.

"The charitable explanation is national uniformity," Mello explained.
"Justice shouldn't depend on whether you live in Vermont or Pennsylvania.
The federal government has strong interest in national uniformity." But
there's a less charitable explanation as well. "Bush and Ashcroft are true
believers. They have a missionary evangelical impulse to bring the
benefits of capital punishment to the states that don't have it," Mello
said.

Ruling on a motion in 2002, Federal District Court Judge William K.
Sessions III declared the Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994
unconstitutional. He argued that this Clinton-era law deprives defendants
of their rights under the Fifth and Sixth amendments to the Constitution.
But the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overruled him and sent the case
back, setting the stage for a courtroom drama in which a jury of
Vermonters would have to decide whether Fell should be executed.

The trial was conducted in 2 phases: guilt and penalty. The 1st took only
4 days, and the jury deliberated less than 2 hours before finding Fell
guilty. But the real decision still lay ahead.

As the penalty phase opened, prosecutor William Darrow argued that Fell
had "earned the ultimate punishment" and that mitigating circumstances
such as his troubled childhood were outweighed by the "savagery and
senseless brutality" of the crime. Defense lawyer Gene Primomo responded
by outlining what family members, teachers, and a social worker would
later describe: a childhood rife with exposure to violence, drugs,
alcohol, and abuse.

"Donny Fell is pleading 'don't kill me'," Primomo added, noting that Fell
"offered to plead guilty to these crimes in return for his life. But the
government seeks death. That's why we're here."

Instructing the jury, Sessions said that if they could not agree, life
without parole was the sentence he would impose.

"To the extent that there's a standard playbook, this is it," Mello said.
"The problem is that it also doesn't always work." Criminal trials,
especially capital cases, rest largely on facts, but the decision to
impose a death sentence is a moral question. "Is death the appropriate
punishment? It's a moral and ethical more than legal judgment," Mello
explained. "Has he [the defendant] lost his moral entitlement to live?"

Death penalty opponents also see the issue in moral terms. Catholic Bishop
Kenneth Angell issued a statement in June calling for "solutions that are
not as uncivilized" as putting people to death for crimes, while
Burlington Rabbi Joshua Chasan called capital punishment "ethically
unacceptable."

Supporters of capital punishment dispute such arguments. "Murder and
executions are only the same to those people who see crime and punishments
as moral equivalents," writes Dudley Sharp, a Houston-based activist who
debunks abolitionists in articles and TV appearances. He notes that "81 %
of Americans thought that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh deserved to
be executed. I suspect 99 % of Americans do not equate McVeigh's slaughter
of innocents to his judicially imposed execution."

For the jury, the issue was complicated further by conflicting testimony
about Fell's character and behavior both before and after the murders.
Witnesses, including Fell's sister Teri, described incidents in which
their mother cut and stabbed her husband, and a generally chaotic home
life that involved excessive drinking, frequent and violent family
arguments, and young Donnys sexual abuse by babysitters. Teachers
described the boy as an eager learner who responded well to structure and
encouragement. Nevertheless, Fell became aggressive and violent by the
time he was a teen and was sentenced to 18 months at a school for troubled
youth.

Prosecutors were able to use some of the same witnesses called by the
defense to show that programs and counseling were available, and that
Fells mother made efforts to improve her behavior before she left the
family.

Defense witness James E. Aiken, a prison management consultant with 30
years' experience, put Fell at the "lower range of even being disruptive,
and nowhere near the range of being a predator." But prosecutors used
Aikens appearance as an opportunity to present Fells disciplinary record
in jail, including nearly 20 incidents that ranged from fighting and
spitting at prison guards to drug possession.

"Conventional wisdom holds that you don't make arguments in the penalty
phase that the other side is going to be able to blow apart. It makes you
look dishonest, shifty, Mello observed. "On the atmospheric level,
contradictory evidence says you cant believe anything these guys are
telling you. What's troubling is that the defense did a good job in the
opening argument, going into the penalty phase with a level playing
field."

The politics of death

Although the national mood may be shifting slightly away from capital
punishment, some politicians continue to capitalize on the issue, and
federal pressure is building to speed up the post-conviction appeals
process.

In Massachusetts, Republican Gov. Mitt Romney has introduced a bill aimed
at reinstating the death penalty. The last execution in that state was in
1947, but the topic has been hotly debated since the state Supreme Court
abolished it in 1984.

Romney, who is testing the waters for a 2008 presidential run, has
described his approach as "a model for the nation." If approved, his
so-called "kinder, gentler" version would re-impose capital punishment for
acts of terrorism resulting in death, killing sprees, murdering police,
and murders involving torture. For anyone hoping to head up the national
GOP ticket, endorsing the death penalty is considered a requirement.

In Congress, Republicans have launched a new effort to speed up executions
by limiting the ability of those sentenced to death to appeal in federal
courts. Introduced in the U.S. House by Rep. Dan Lungren, R-CA, and in the
Senate by Jon Kyl, R-AZ, the Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 would
limit the ability of defendants facing death sentences to have their cases
reviewed in habeas corpus appeals. Opponents see little chance of blocking
the measure in the House. In any case, such efforts have faced only
limited opposition from Democratic officeholders, many of whom have been
hesitant to appear soft on crime.

Habeus corpus (Latin for "you have the body") gives defendants the right
to have their imprisonment reviewed by a court. For defense lawyers, it
has been a vital weapon. A study of 5,826 death sentences imposed in the
United States between 1973 and 1995, spearheaded by Columbia University
political scientist Andrew Gelman, found that 68 percent were reversed on
appeal. The most common reasons were incompetent legal defense,
prosecutorial misconduct, suppression of evidence, poor jury instructions,
and biased judges or jurors.

Mello believes that the current push for streamlined appeals could have
the opposite result. "The last time they did this, in the 1996
Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, everyone predicted the end
of habeus corpus," he noted. "It didn't happen. What did happen was that
the pre-1996 act was just settling down. Things were moving faster.
Everyone had figured out how to get it done. Then Congress changed the
rules, and lower courts are still flummoxed over what the 1996 act means."

Opponents of capital punishment also fear that the Fell case and the May
execution of multiple murderer Michael Ross in Connecticut -- New
England's 1st execution in 45 years  may spark reconsideration of the
death penalty elsewhere in the region. Mello disagreed. "Before New
England will execute you, you must be white, a serial killer, and
volunteer" to die, he claimed.

The federal death penalty was authorized for certain cases in 1988, with
the approval of Justice Department lawyers and the U.S. attorney general.
The Federal Death Penalty Act of 1994, signed by Clinton, added many new
circumstances in which death sentences could be applied, including killing
in the course of another serious offense and non-homicide offenses such as
treason and espionage. There are currently 37 federal death row inmates.

A change in the composition of the U.S. Supreme Court could further
complicate the issue. Although Mello said retiring Justice Sandra Day
OConnor proved to be an unreliable fifth vote in many death penalty cases,
he still views her as preferable to "an ideological hang hard who just
wants to kill your client."

And although U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a possible Bush
nominee to replace O'Connor, has been criticized by death penalty
opponents for his handling of Texas cases as chief counsel to then-Gov.
George W. Bush, Mello sees Gonzales as preferable to another Clarence
Thomas or Antonin Scalia. "On paper he's a nightmare," Mello admits, "but
he's not Ashcroft. I don't think hes an ideologue, and his record as
attorney general hasn't been so bad. He doesn't strike me as the true
believer that Ashcroft was. In testimony before Congress, hes a got a
temperance and open-mindedness that I find guardedly non-pessimistic."

A more serious national conversation about the death penalty has emerged
over the last decade, in part due to the increased use of DNA evidence and
the 118 cases in which factually innocent people have been released from
death row. "That started the conversation," Mello argued. "It would be
deliciously ironic if DNA technology, which allows for a degree of
certainty, did in the death penalty."

Fell's guilt isn't a matter of doubt, however. Instead, what a Vermont
jury has faced over the past month is essentially a matter of moral
judgment, colored by the terrible nature of the crime and the hardships
experienced by a relatively unremorseful perpetrator. To a limited extent,
class also has figured in the equation, since the case has pitted
well-funded federal prosecutors against an indigent defendant who long ago
slipped through societys safety net. "The idea that whether you live or
die depends on your resources resonates with a lot of Americans," Mello
noted. In Fell's case, however, the jury apparently determined that this
did not weigh heavily enough to spare his life.

Like it or not, Vermont has been compelled by Fell's senseless crime to
grapple with an issue that will continue to stimulate heated debates at
dinner tables, in legislative chambers, and perhaps even on the campaign
trail for years to come.

(source: The Vermont Guardian)

*****************

Nobel nominee to speak at Dismas dinner


Guests of the Dismas House dinner and auction will be treated to an
appearance by Nobel Peace Prize nominee Sister Helen Prejean at the 17th
annual event Sunday.

Prejean's mission supporting death row prisoners was made famous when her
book "Dead Man Walking" was made into an award-winning movie. She is the
author of 2 books, has more than 100 speaking engagements a year and
continues to be a scholar and activist against the death penalty and
treatment of prisoners.

"Prisons are abysmal. They're not out to restore life. They're just out to
punish human beings," Prejean said in an April interview from her office
in Louisiana. "The equivalent of the population of Seattle is released
from prison every year and there's nothing for them."

Prejean last spoke at the Rutland Dismas House about 10 years ago and has
spoken at other Dismas Houses around the country. The mission of the
organization begun by the Rev. Jack Hickey in 1974 is to provide
transitional housing and support services for men and women who have
recently been released from prison.

"Dismas House is like a little beacon on the hill. I love their spirit,"
said Prejean, whose spiritual work with prisoners began in 1981 when she
began corresponding with a death row inmate. "I think I've been to almost
every Dismas House in the country. It always gives me a lift every time I
go there."

When asked if her work is making a difference, Prejean said in 2006 the
number of death penalty executions was the lowest in recent history.

"Maybe we're beginning to see that fighting violence with violence is not
helping us," she said. "If we really want to restore human beings,
education and training is the way to do it."

Sen. James Jeffords and his late wife, Liz, are the recipients of the 2007
Jack Hickey OP Award for being models of courage and reconciliation. The
couple married once, divorced and remarried on their 25th anniversary,
showing courage by learning from their mistakes.

The event begins at 3 p.m. Sunday at the Holiday Inn on Route 7 with
registration, live music and a silent auction. A live auction is scheduled
to begin at 5 p.m. and dinner will be served at 6 p.m. Tickets for the
dinner are $50 and can be purchased until 5 p.m. today.

"Why don't we ever ask the 'we' question  what is it that we are doing as
a society?" Prejean asked about the 2.2 million people she says are in
prison. That number continues to grow. "Jesus was involved with the
voiceless ones, the castaways," she said. "They are all poor people. Where
are the houses of healing?"

For more information about the Rutland Dismas House or to purchase a
ticket to this event, call Rita McCaffery at 824-3660.

(source: Rutland Herald)






NEW JERSEY:

Pondering a penalty of death


Response to New Jersey's death penalty controversy is divergent. In
response to last week's State Senate commit tee action to convert the
death penalty to life without parole, one State Senator began, "Only in
New Jersey...."

Yes! Only in New Jersey! The state with the 1st legislative moratorium on
convict-killing. The state that mandated a comprehensive study on the pros
and cons of the death penalty. And now, perhaps the 13th state to abolish
this arbitrary and expensive punishment. Yes! Here's to New Jersey and its
logical journey away from the death penalty.

But, no, as I read further, what Sen. Gerald Cardinale said was, "Only in
New Jersey could the headlines on Wednesday read, 'Terrorist attack on
Fort Dix foiled' and, on Friday read, 'Senate poised to abolish the death
penalty.'" He was disgusted New Jersey would give up the valuable threat
of death for heinous crimes.

That's the point. There are strong opinions on both sides. When I was a
kid, few thought much about it. The electric chair was the sensible
endgame for child molesters, cop-killers, traitors and others who
committed unspeakable crimes. Get rid of them, once and for all.

Since then, the country has waffled. Wrongful convictions, racial
prejudice and unequal justice have thrown the once-satisfying punishment
into question. The Supreme Court outlawed the death penalty in 1972; four
years later, it again legitimized it. New Jersey reinstituted it in 1982.

Now polls indicate New Jerseyans are tilting away from capital punishment.
Why? There are, of course, ethical and social reasons. Killing is immoral.
Revenge doesn't bring back the victim. It shouldn't be part of a civilized
society. (When it comes to this, the United States is part of an axis of
death with Iran, Saudi Arabia and China, the 4 countries responsible for
94 % of the world's executions.)

Pragmatic issues are also moving the death penalty debate for ward. At the
Senate Judiciary Committee meeting last Thursday, I sat in the audience
and heard the surprising words of James Abbott, West Orange police chief,
and Ed DeFazio, Hudson County prosecutor. Each had favored the death
penalty before becoming part of the 13-member New Jersey Death Penalty
Study Commission and had no inclination to change their minds. But, as a
result of the study, they did.

"What I learned throughout our six months of study opened my eyes to the
reality of the death penalty," said Police Chief Abbott. "It turned out
that what sounded good in theory was actually a complete failure in
practice."

Here are some of instances of the "failure in practice."

The death penalty applies only to those who are guilty. Wrong. Since 1973,
123 death-row inmates in the United States have been exonerated by DNA and
other evi dence. It's only a matter of time be fore we execute an innocent
person.

The death penalty is a deterrent and reduces crime. Wrong. Studies show
the threat of capital punishment has no effect on crime rates.

The death penalty is cheaper than life in prison. Wrong. With the appeal
system -- a right of all Americans -- the death penalty costs New Jersey
taxpayers $22.8 million each year.

The death penalty is a comfort to victim's families. Wrong. Many family
members say their tragedy is never put to rest because they re live the
crime every time the case comes up for appeal.

Last Thursday, the Senate Committee voted 8 to 2 to pass the
life-without-parole bill, S-171, and propel it into the full Senate for a
vote. Then it's on to the Assembly.

Hey, I think we're going to get out from under the axis-of-death coalition
and join the 118 countries around the world with no capital punishment.
It's the right and practical thing to do.

(source: Opinion, Mea Kaemmerlen, who lives in Plainsboro)

*****************

We're better off without the death penalty


Last Tuesday, surviving family members of murder victims submitted the
letter below to the New Jersey Senate Judiciary Committee as it considered
S-171, legislation that would replace the death penalty with life without
parole.

We are family members and loved ones of murder victims. We desperately
miss the parents, children, siblings and spouses we have lost. We live
with the pain and heartbreak of their absence every day and would do
anything to have them back. We have been touched by the criminal justice
system in ways we never imagined and would never wish on anyone. Our
experience compels us to speak out for change.

Though we share different perspectives on the death penalty, every one of
us agrees that New Jersey's capital punishment system doesn't work and
that our state is better off without it.

To be meaningful, justice should be swift and sure. Life without parole,
which begins immediately, is both of these; the death penalty is neither.
Capital punishment drags victims' loved ones through an agonizing and
lengthy process, holding out the promise of one punishment in the
beginning and often resulting in a life sentence in the end anyway. A
sentence of life without parole for killers right from the start would
keep society safe, hold killers responsible for their brutal and depraved
acts, and would start as soon as we leave the courtroom instead of leaving
us in limbo.

At the same time, a system of life without parole in place of the death
penalty would save scarce funds. As New Jersey taxpayers, we have spent
more than $250 million since capital punishment was reinstated in New
Jersey in 1983. What has it bought us? Not a single execution, years'
worth of appeals and overturned sentences, and a system so broken that
fixing it is probably impossible.

Those dollars could be spent in better ways if death-eligible killers were
sentenced to life without parole. 250 million dollars could put more
police on our streets and provide them with the very best equipment
available. Law enforcement programs that work might have prevented the
tragedies we suffered at only a fraction of the cost. 250 million dollars
could mean more counseling and aid to children orphaned by these horrible
murders, or to other services we so desperately need as we attempt to get
on with our lives. Only a handful of arbitrarily selected murderers are
sentenced to death. Is it worth the price?

It is vitally important that our state address the needs of surviving
family and friends as we struggle to heal. We know that elected officials
who promote the death penalty often do so with the best intentions of
helping family members like us. We are writing to say that there are
better ways to help us. The death penalty is a broken and costly system.
New Jersey doesn't need it, and victims' families like ours don't want it.

BANDELE A. AND SAUNDRA ADDISON, Maplewood RAS BARAKA, Newark JOANNE
BARLIEB, Atco EILEEN BENNETT, Mauricetown JANE AND CRAIG BARNABEI, Somers
Point JAMES E. CLARK, Sicklerville VALORIE CAFFEE, Ewing DOROTHY L. CLARK,
Carney's Point KELLY AND CELESTE FITZGERALD, Chatham MICHELE S.
VEDUS-DEENEY AND RAY DEENEY, Monroe EDITH FRANK, Morristown KIM GADDY,
Irvington KATHY GARCIA, Moorestown MIKE AND MARILYN GEIGER, Medford KATHY
GLUCHOSKI, West Milford PAT GOEBEL, Atco KATHY HAINSWORTH, Oaklyn EDDIE
AND KAREN HICKS, Galloway KATHY HILTNER, Mount Laurel MAUREEN KING,
Oceanport PATRICK AND TODD KING, Oceanport SHEILA AND MICHAEL MASSONI,
Hackensack VAL MAZUR, Edgewater Park EILEEN CROKER MCCANN, Wyckoff BRYAN
MILLER, Haddonfield MITZIE MYERS, Chesterfield FR. TOM NEWTON, Cherry Hill
SANDRA NUTBROWN, Burlington MICHAEL PETERSON, Roselle Park BILL PIPER,
Pennington RICHARD POMPELIO, Sparta LORRY W. AND JUNE POST, Mount Laurel
LOIS TEER SEELIGSOHN, Collingswood VIVIAN SANKS-KING, Orange MARY SNYDER,
Cape May RINA TERRY, W. Collingswood ROBERT AND MADELINE UCCIFERRI, Cherry
Hill MOLLY WEIGEL, Pennington JAMES WELLS, Union MARLINDA WILLIAMS,
Trenton ROBIN LINDSEY WHITELY, Short Hills MARTHA YOUNG, Wayne

(source : The Times of Trenton (The signers above are members of the New
Jerseyans for Alternatives to the Death Penalty. They are family members
of murder victims. To learn more about NJDAP, go to www.njdap.org. )






CONNECTICUT:

Lawmakers vote to give Tillman $5M for wrongful imprisonment


An apologetic General Assembly voted unanimously Wednesday to give $5
million to James C. Tillman, an East Hartford man wrongly imprisoned for
more than 18 years for a rape that DNA evidence proved he did not commit.

Moved by Tillman's humbleness and lack of bitterness over his ordeal,
lawmakers said they hoped the money will give him an opportunity to live
the rest of his life with relative comfort. The bill passed 148-0 in the
House and 33-0 in the Senate. It now heads to the governor for her
signature.

"I think we all wonder, could we be so kind and gentle and humble as we
find this person," asked Rep. Kenneth Green, D-Hartford. "He did not
deserve to be incarcerated or 18.5 years -- $5 million is the least that
we can do."

Both chambers gave Tillman a standing ovation after the vote. After the
House vote, his mother, Katherine Martin Tillman, wiped away tears as she
and her son, who walks with a slight limp and wears a cross around his
neck, were led to the House Speaker's dais and waved to the lawmakers.

"We can remove the knife that was placed in James's back and we can begin
the healing process," said Rep. Douglas McCrory, D-Hartford.

The Senate took up the bill shortly after 10 p.m. Tillman and his attorney
sat in the gallery and watched the proceedings. After the vote he shook
hands with the senators.

Tillman, who was 26 when he was arrested, was sentenced to 45 years in
prison after being convicted of raping and beating a woman in downtown
Hartford in 1988. The victim identified him, but Tillman was exonerated
last summer after DNA tests showed he could not have been the attacker.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell, earlier this year, proposed $500,000 in compensation.
And a rival bill, approved Tuesday by the legislature's Finance, Revenue
and Bonding Committee, would have given Tillman $3.5 million paid out over
the rest of his life. But House Speaker James Amann, D-Milford, and a
contingent of Hartford area lawmakers assured Tillman the $5 million sum
would prevail.

Rell said it was up to the legislature to set a dollar amount. She said
she would be honored to sign the bill.

"How do you put a price tag on someone's time in prison for a crime that
he did not commit," asked Rell, who first put forth the idea of
compensating Tillman when she unveiled her budget proposal in February.

Tillman's lawyer, Gerard A. Smyth, said his client believes the $5 million
is fair compensation for what he has endured. It will also help him avoid
any lengthy legal challenges. Tillman had filed legal claims against the
state regarding his wrongful imprisonment and medical malpractice. Those
claims will now be withdrawn.

While Tillman's $5 million will not be subject to Connecticut taxes, it
will be subject to federal taxes, lawmakers said.

Smyth is representing Tillman pro bono. He said similar cases typically
result in settlements of about $1 million for each year of incarceration.

"There's a huge amount of exposure for the state of Connecticut, but we
should not have to go through a legal analysis as if we're claims
adjusters," said Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield. "This is the right thing to
do."

Even though he's been out of a maximum security prison for nearly a year,
Tillman, 45, said he is still awed by his newfound freedom.

"I woke up this morning and heard the birds and it was beautiful," he
said. "It's just a blessing for me to be free."

More than 20 states and the federal government provide compensation to the
wrongfully convicted, according to information provided to a state
Advisory Commission on Wrongful Convictions. There is another bill before
the Connecticut legislature that would create a panel to come up with a
compensation system.

Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, co-chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
said the $5 million compensation to Tillman should not be construed as a
precedent for any future claims from any others who've been wrongfully
convicted.

Rep. William Dyson, D-New Haven, said Tillman's exoneration should also
compel lawmakers to abolish the death penalty this session if they want to
make sure that someone wrongfully convicted is not executed in this state.

Sen. Ed Gomes, D-Bridgeport, said he was amazed by Tillman's forgiving
attitude and lack of bitterness.

"If it had happened to me, I would hate the world for the rest of my
life," he said.

(source: Associated Press)






ILLINOIS:

Death penalty gets no boost from Brown's


The 1993 massacre at a Brown's Chicken restaurant in Palatine is exactly
the sort of crime that reminds many people why we should have the death
penalty.

Seven workers were slaughtered with heartless efficiency by well-armed
robbers. Seven lives were cut tragically, needlessly short in a single act
of depravity unmatched in this area since Richard Speck murdered 8 student
nurses in 1966.

And the guilt of Juan Luna, 33, who was convicted in Cook County Criminal
Court May 10 for his role in the murders, does not appear to be in serious
doubt.

Ordinarily, such circumstances would have prompted foes of capital
punishment to lie low during this week's sentencing hearing and wait for
the emotions to subside before renewing their attack on the systemic flaws
of capital justice.

"The big cases are usually the hardest for us," said Jane Bohman,
executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against the Death Penalty,
reminiscing with me about the wildly popular execution of serial killer
John Wayne Gacy in 1994.

But Luna's sentencing this week is raising an additional set of emotions
-- confusion and uneasiness along with rage -- that may remind people why
we shouldn't have the death penalty.

One difference here is that family members of several victims have
announced their opposition to the effort to have Luna sentenced to death.

"Blood for blood is not the right answer," a sister of victim Michael
Castro told onlookers at an extraordinary joint news conference with
members of Luna's family Tuesday morning outside the courthouse at 26th
Street and California Avenue. "Violence does not end violence.

"In the spirit of the woman who raised us, we have decided not to be
consumed by hate or vengeance," a daughter of victims Lynn and Richard
Ehlenfeldt told jurors Wednesday morning during a brave and angry
victim-impact statement.

I have a warning for those who think these sentiments deserve strong
consideration by prosecutors, the jury or even the public: This
inclination toward mercy is rare. Most family members of murder victims
favor the death penalty and would probably favor years of excruciating
torture leading up to it. Giving them an official say-so about the
appropriate punishment would result in more death sentences, not fewer.

Nevertheless, the split among the survivors reminds us that mercy and a
distaste for blood vengeance are not just intellectual abstractions
promoted by all-purpose hand-wringers.

As the group Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation has long been
telling us, those who have felt the searing pain of losing a loved one to
violence can find peace outside the cycle of death in some cases.

Another difference here is that Luna had a chance -- wholly undeserved
though it was -- to become a respectable adult in the more than nine years
between his crime and his arrest: He was a married father with a full-time
job as an appliance installer by the time police caught up to him 5 years
ago.

Therefore jurors have been able to hear defense evidence this week saying,
in effect, that however monstrously Luna acted at 18 when he and his
alleged partner James Degorski went to that restaurant at closing time, he
didn't grow into a monster and isn't a monster today. The monster he was
is already dead. There's no need to kill it.

One last difference that's causing foes of capital punishment to shine the
light on this case: On paper, it's a slam dunk for death. Such a slam
dunk, in fact, that if somehow the jury spares Luna's life, it will
dramatically underscore the complaint that death sentences are handed out
arbitrarily.

If we don't try to execute someone responsible for seven murders, the
argument will go, how in good conscience and in the name of justice can we
try to execute someone responsible for 1, 2 or 3 murders?

Either way, the answer is we can't. We shouldn't. If the Ehlenfeldts and
Castros can see their way past this wretched, broken system, so can the
rest of us.

(source: Column, Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune)